Addressing the school social worker’s rant
This weekend my grandson came over to the house to play. Almost two years old, little Isaiah has a firmly set mission in life: To find whatever trouble he can, and thoroughly get into it. In our yard, he made a bee-line for the leaky water hose.
“You see what he’s doing?” I asked my daughter.
Moriah shrugged. “It’s just water . . . and mud. He’ll come clean.”
Isaiah picked up the hose and leaned over for a better look, inadvertently squirting himself in the face. He looked up at us, streams of water pouring from his fine blond hair. We were smiling, so he smiled back. He stared at the stream for a moment, and then started lapping at it like a puppy. We laughed while he drenched himself, eventually muddy up to his knees.
According to Catoosa County school social worker Sue Mason, we laughed because we are homeschoolers. We don’t know that children are not supposed to play in the dirt. In her scathing two-part article “My thoughts on homeschooling” and “Homeschooling: the dark side,” Mason presents an alternate reality in which parents homeschool their children just to sleep late and avoid responsibility while their children play in the dirt. I suppose she has never seen all those children on the school playground at recess, playing in the dirt.
I was reluctant to leave the county paper lying around, with columns like these. My teens were really miffed to discover that other homeschooled kids are allowed to sleep late and play in the dirt all day. They had some hard questions about why I made them come to history class at 7:00 a.m. for so many years.
Mason attempts to deflect any objections to her column with the caveat that there are some good homeschool families, and she is not talking about them. Yet, for the length of two articles she goes on about homeschool families who live in trailers, are unemployed, and allow their children to play in the dirt all day long.
In seventeen years of homeschooling, I have never met the homeschool families Mason describes. In fact, Mason’s first homeschool column does not feature a single homeschool family. Instead, she writes about public school parents who cannot make it to school on time, who pay the cable bill but neglect the power bill, and who buy tattoos instead of shoes. If these accusations are drawn from actual cases in our county, Mason should be under fire for printing them in the county paper rather than adhering to confidentiality. If they are not actual scenarios, then they are just lies.
If the stories are true, they are stories of public school parents. When these parents are threatened with court action for their children’s tardies, they remind the county social worker that public education is not mandatory; they can always homeschool their children if they so choose. Mason thinks it is terrible that parents have this freedom and “there is nothing I can do.”
Is it really a bad thing that parents have a way to push back? They are our children, after all. The public school system sometimes behaves like a bureaucratic bully, running over individuals. I have a daughter in public school this year. She's a straight-A high school student working a year ahead of others her age. I still have to stand up for her to get her needs met. I am nice about it, but it goes without saying that if the school system does not offer this brilliant student the opportunities she deserves, they will lose her back to homeschooling.
Homeschooling is not a privilege. Rather, the public school is the one enjoying the privilege of having my talented daughter among their students. Granted, it is not too much to ask that she be to school on time! And she is. But the principle is the same: Families who do not get what they need and want from the public school system have the right to use private or homeschooling instead.
If a particular family needs a different schedule than the public school offers, homeschooling is one way to do that. So long as the child is learning, why should it matter whether classes are held during the morning, afternoon or evening? Learning is organic, and is not really confined to hours or classrooms.What we sometimes forget in this whole discussion is that homeschooling isn't some novel idea. As in the breastfeeding/formula debate, homeschooling IS normal and has been practiced for thousands of years. Sending your kids off to school is the novel idea.
Even today, every parent on the planet homeschools for the first weeks, months or years of the child’s life. We teach our children to walk and talk, processes far more complex than anything learned in grades K-12, and no one suggests that ordinary parents are incapable of teaching their own children to do these things.
The school social worker does not like that public education is not mandatory. Education is mandatory, but not public education. Before homeschooling became popular again, parents did not know they had that option. Parents like the ones she describes (that is, poor) could not afford private education, so they were at the mercy of the public school system. Now, suddenly, parents who are pushed around are pushing back. They are saying, "No, you can't bully me, because the truth is my child doesn't have to be in your school in the first place." And on that score, they are correct.
#
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Obama inauguration offers living history lesson
Many Georgia educators let the opportunity slide
On a Sunday afternoon, I watched via Internet as Barack Obama roared toward Washington, D.C. to the take the oath of office. Styling himself as a modern Abraham Lincoln, our new president retraced the pre-inauguration train journey traveled in 1861. At every stop, huge crowds braved sub-zero temperatures to catch a glimpse of the new leader of the free world, or to shout “Yes, We Can!” as the train rolls by.
As I watched that train roll toward the capitol, I thought of my friend Martha Archie. At birth she was named Martha Moss, and she grew up here in Ringgold, where her family is well-known and well-respected in the community. She graduated in 1964, the same year as both my parents. Yet even in this small town, my parents never met Martha Moss when they were teens. As an African-American, Martha Moss could not attend Ringgold High School.
Wilson High School was the school designated for students with darker skin. Situated down the hill from Ringgold High School (now the Middle School), Wilson offered education that was supposed to be “separate but equal.”
We were decorating a float for the Christmas parade the first time I heard of Wilson High School. Martha pointed out where Wilson High was housed, in what is now the ROTC building. Standing in the frigid wind with balloons in both hands, I cast my gaze from one school toward the other, and tried to imagine how two worlds could be so close and yet so segregated.
I should have realized there would have been two schools in my hometown, just as there were all across the South. I knew my parents lived through segregation and desegregation. My mother had told me about the separate drinking fountains in public places. As a child too young to understand, my mother had begged to drink from the fountain labeled “COLORED.” She thought the water would be tinted all the colors of the rainbow.
It is easier to imagine those things happened in Chattanooga, or down in Atlanta, or somewhere off in Alabama or Mississippi. We tend to downplay the history of racial tensions in our own hometowns. Certainly we would rather focus on the positive, like the gymnasium at Ringgold High School which is named after a black athlete. Neither do we like to remember that the KKK marched these streets not so long ago, and that black families in Ringgold were threatened in the 1960’s and even subjected to domestic terrorism that killed a mother in her bed.
We thirty-somethings do not go back that far. It’s difficult for us to comprehend how bad things really were. Today students of every skin tone mingle in the school yards. We have a city council that cares about all citizens, enough to remove a symbol that offends the black community. Then we see Barack Obama waving from the train car, and placing his hand on Lincoln’s inaugural Bible.
“Young people don’t understand how significant this is,” Martha told me the night of the parade. “They don’t remember what it was like, when you couldn’t even walk into a place and eat dinner.”
One reason young people don’t remember is because we, as a society, do not teach them. During all my years in Ringgold High School, no one ever spoke of Wilson High School. It was as if the black school had never existed, never left any imprint on this community, and did not even deserve acknowledgement.
No wonder American education lacks relevancy. We focus on the distant past that can be sanitized and analyzed, while ignoring the messy situations and overlapping voices that form real human history.
Students learn about Columbus every single year, but rarely are they taught about Clinton or Bush. Other powerful political figures like Nancy Pelosi, Karl Rove, Jesse Jackson and Dick Cheney hardly enter the classroom conversation, even though they have an enormous impact on our society and our world. Students learn how to calculate the height of a flag pole by measuring its shadow, but not how the World Trade Towers could have been protected from terrorism. They learn that the Civil War was about states’ rights and not just slavery, but they do not learn how to articulate both sides of the Iraq controversy.
Individual teachers cannot be blamed for a problem that is systematic. Georgia public education requires that every student in Georgia pass the same end-of-course tests. The advantage of the testing is that it standardizes Georgia education so that a diploma from one school is roughly equal to a diploma from another. The disadvantage is that it pressures teachers to neglect creativity and relevancy in favor of homogeny and “teaching to the test.” Standardization seeks to make all students the same, not better.
Students need to learn what is going on in the world right now. They need to read newspapers in the classroom. They need to have sources like National Geographic at their disposal –not just buried in the library, but open on their desks. NPR and CNN should be played in the classroom from time to time.
The inauguration of Barack Obama was a watershed moment in American history. Whether you love him or hate him, he has changed the face of American politics forever. In Washington, millions gathered to experience it.
Around the country, many homeschool parents seized the opportunity to teach their children about the political process all year long. They printed maps for their children to color as the state-by-state election results came in. They took their children on the campaign trail for one of the candidates. Not constrained by having to board a school bus at dawn, many homeschooled students stayed up to watch the election results rolling in at midnight. On January 20th, most of those families turned on the TV to witness America once again transfer power without violence.
Likewise, in a few public and private school classrooms, resourceful teachers do make a point of teaching students about politics without indoctrinating them. On Tuesday, some of those teachers recognized the importance of the moment, and turned on the TV. Sadly, others did not. In fact, some Georgia schools were forced by parents to offer an alternative activity, because parents protested that the inauguration was not educational. Other schools just failed to see the significance of the event and did not plan accordingly.
Nothing else that happened on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, held more educational significance than the inauguration of a new American President. How could printed words in a textbook compare to watching history unfold before us? The speeches delivered at the inauguration contained compelling history lessons, even as they became part of that recorded history. Art, music, poetry, prose and architecture were on display. Most of the important political figures whose names are not being taught at these schools were standing in the audience with their families. The event presented a massive array of teaching opportunities on politics, history, culture, literature, science and math.
Of my six children, only one attends public school. She is the only one who was prevented from watching the inauguration. Next election, I will be keeping my children home so they can learn.
#
On a Sunday afternoon, I watched via Internet as Barack Obama roared toward Washington, D.C. to the take the oath of office. Styling himself as a modern Abraham Lincoln, our new president retraced the pre-inauguration train journey traveled in 1861. At every stop, huge crowds braved sub-zero temperatures to catch a glimpse of the new leader of the free world, or to shout “Yes, We Can!” as the train rolls by.
As I watched that train roll toward the capitol, I thought of my friend Martha Archie. At birth she was named Martha Moss, and she grew up here in Ringgold, where her family is well-known and well-respected in the community. She graduated in 1964, the same year as both my parents. Yet even in this small town, my parents never met Martha Moss when they were teens. As an African-American, Martha Moss could not attend Ringgold High School.
Wilson High School was the school designated for students with darker skin. Situated down the hill from Ringgold High School (now the Middle School), Wilson offered education that was supposed to be “separate but equal.”
We were decorating a float for the Christmas parade the first time I heard of Wilson High School. Martha pointed out where Wilson High was housed, in what is now the ROTC building. Standing in the frigid wind with balloons in both hands, I cast my gaze from one school toward the other, and tried to imagine how two worlds could be so close and yet so segregated.
I should have realized there would have been two schools in my hometown, just as there were all across the South. I knew my parents lived through segregation and desegregation. My mother had told me about the separate drinking fountains in public places. As a child too young to understand, my mother had begged to drink from the fountain labeled “COLORED.” She thought the water would be tinted all the colors of the rainbow.
It is easier to imagine those things happened in Chattanooga, or down in Atlanta, or somewhere off in Alabama or Mississippi. We tend to downplay the history of racial tensions in our own hometowns. Certainly we would rather focus on the positive, like the gymnasium at Ringgold High School which is named after a black athlete. Neither do we like to remember that the KKK marched these streets not so long ago, and that black families in Ringgold were threatened in the 1960’s and even subjected to domestic terrorism that killed a mother in her bed.
We thirty-somethings do not go back that far. It’s difficult for us to comprehend how bad things really were. Today students of every skin tone mingle in the school yards. We have a city council that cares about all citizens, enough to remove a symbol that offends the black community. Then we see Barack Obama waving from the train car, and placing his hand on Lincoln’s inaugural Bible.
“Young people don’t understand how significant this is,” Martha told me the night of the parade. “They don’t remember what it was like, when you couldn’t even walk into a place and eat dinner.”
One reason young people don’t remember is because we, as a society, do not teach them. During all my years in Ringgold High School, no one ever spoke of Wilson High School. It was as if the black school had never existed, never left any imprint on this community, and did not even deserve acknowledgement.
No wonder American education lacks relevancy. We focus on the distant past that can be sanitized and analyzed, while ignoring the messy situations and overlapping voices that form real human history.
Students learn about Columbus every single year, but rarely are they taught about Clinton or Bush. Other powerful political figures like Nancy Pelosi, Karl Rove, Jesse Jackson and Dick Cheney hardly enter the classroom conversation, even though they have an enormous impact on our society and our world. Students learn how to calculate the height of a flag pole by measuring its shadow, but not how the World Trade Towers could have been protected from terrorism. They learn that the Civil War was about states’ rights and not just slavery, but they do not learn how to articulate both sides of the Iraq controversy.
Individual teachers cannot be blamed for a problem that is systematic. Georgia public education requires that every student in Georgia pass the same end-of-course tests. The advantage of the testing is that it standardizes Georgia education so that a diploma from one school is roughly equal to a diploma from another. The disadvantage is that it pressures teachers to neglect creativity and relevancy in favor of homogeny and “teaching to the test.” Standardization seeks to make all students the same, not better.
Students need to learn what is going on in the world right now. They need to read newspapers in the classroom. They need to have sources like National Geographic at their disposal –not just buried in the library, but open on their desks. NPR and CNN should be played in the classroom from time to time.
The inauguration of Barack Obama was a watershed moment in American history. Whether you love him or hate him, he has changed the face of American politics forever. In Washington, millions gathered to experience it.
Around the country, many homeschool parents seized the opportunity to teach their children about the political process all year long. They printed maps for their children to color as the state-by-state election results came in. They took their children on the campaign trail for one of the candidates. Not constrained by having to board a school bus at dawn, many homeschooled students stayed up to watch the election results rolling in at midnight. On January 20th, most of those families turned on the TV to witness America once again transfer power without violence.
Likewise, in a few public and private school classrooms, resourceful teachers do make a point of teaching students about politics without indoctrinating them. On Tuesday, some of those teachers recognized the importance of the moment, and turned on the TV. Sadly, others did not. In fact, some Georgia schools were forced by parents to offer an alternative activity, because parents protested that the inauguration was not educational. Other schools just failed to see the significance of the event and did not plan accordingly.
Nothing else that happened on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, held more educational significance than the inauguration of a new American President. How could printed words in a textbook compare to watching history unfold before us? The speeches delivered at the inauguration contained compelling history lessons, even as they became part of that recorded history. Art, music, poetry, prose and architecture were on display. Most of the important political figures whose names are not being taught at these schools were standing in the audience with their families. The event presented a massive array of teaching opportunities on politics, history, culture, literature, science and math.
Of my six children, only one attends public school. She is the only one who was prevented from watching the inauguration. Next election, I will be keeping my children home so they can learn.
#
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Homeschooling grows up
Self-educated families enjoy more options than ever before
If the term “homeschool” conjures images of identically-dressed elementary students filling out workbooks around the kitchen table and later winning the state spelling bee, your ideas about the practice are outdated. That’s not to say there are no kitchen tables or spelling bees involved, but there are as many ways to homeschool as there are families who fill out the Declaration of Intent each fall.
In some families, homeschool literally means school at home. You’ll find the walls lined with shelved textbooks and dry-erase boards. Carefully designed curriculums and meticulous schedules guide the students from one grade to the next, following a scope-and-sequence much like that found in public schools. A transcript is steadily assembled which looks very much like a public school transcript, with standard classes listed, a GPA calculated, and extra-curricular activities noted to the side.
In other homes, learning is far more organic. The textbooks are still around, but are currently being used for reference guides, booster seats, or anatomical models for a budding artist. Students may be found lying on the floor playing with a scientific calculator, hunched over a laptop writing a novel, or out in the driveway on rollerblades. More likely, the students won’t be home at all. The parents have become facilitators, relinquishing their teaching roles to spend their time obtaining requested materials or driving their students around town. These kids direct their own education without regard for whether it can be articulated in the common language of transcripts and GPA’s.
While some homeschool families are learning outside the box, others are finding innovative ways to recreate the box. The array of classes, co-ops and alternative learning groups continues to grow. Students can take classes ranging from core subjects like Algebra to extra-curriculars like fencing or writing fantasy literature. They can dress up for the homeschool prom and even participate in a graduation exercise.
Many of the efforts are student initiatives. Consider the Homeschool Shakespeare Troupe, for example. Originally launched by parents, the eight-month-long endeavor is now led mostly by homeschool graduates. They conduct auditions in February so the actors will have months to learn their lines. During the summer, organizers host a week-long Shakespeare camp where students learn stage terms and participate in drama workshops. The actors sew their own costumes and speak to each other in Elizabethan English, creating their own Shakespearean culture. The week culminates with dress rehearsal and then a very professional performance in a packed theatre. The troupe is growing so rapidly, organizers have decided to schedule two shows this year.
In every sizable town, classes and tutoring are offered by homeschool parents who are especially proficient in a specific area such as foreign language. Sometimes the tutoring becomes a lucrative business or even a small school with multiple teachers offering weekly classes to area students.
Other times it happens the other way around: The parents join together to form a cooperative and bring in a teacher. One of the most successful area co-ops is right here in Catoosa County.
On Friday mornings, students from all over the tri-state area converge on Poplar Springs Baptist Church in Ringgold. The parking lot is filled with mini-vans. Teenagers mill around the yard with backpacks slung over their shoulders, greeting each other and talking to the younger children who stream past. Some of the students carry musical instruments. Another has a basketball tucked under his arm.
The range of electives offered by the co-op continues to grow, including foreign language and upper math classes at the request of parents, and a journalism class at the request of students. The kids at the co-op form their own coalitions, organizing pickup basketball games and Friday night bowling plans.
One day a girl brought her fiddle to the co-op. The next week, a viola and a harp appeared on campus. Soon the students had formed their own Celtic ensemble called The Revelations.
Today’s homeschooling families are less rigid than in the past. Some make occasional use of public and private schools, as well as participating in the aforementioned co-ops and classes. Many families have some children in school and others learning at home.
As the homeschool population has grown, expanded, and become more mainstream, colleges have become more accepting of students educated at home. Some colleges actively recruit them. Covenant College, for example, boasts that 17% of new admissions are homeschooled students.
Homeschoolers are not so different from other kids. They grow through the same ages and stages, finding their identity and ferreting out their interests like anyone else. Some of them are brilliant, and others struggle with basic math.
Still, these students are growing up in a different paradigm. Their world is structured to meet their needs and help them grow. Public and private schools attempt much the same thing, but with the necessary assumption that most kids need the same things at the same times. The homeschool world is far more individualized.
Homeschooling is not new. Throughout history, families have educated their own children for numerous reasons. Pioneers taught their own children when schools were not available. Author Louisa May Alcott recounts in the autobiographal “Little Women” how her mother pulled her little sister out of school in response to a teacher’s cruelty. Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Virginia Woolf and other well-known geniuses received their educations at home. Figure-skaters, child actors and other prodigies have often been tutored privately.
Ansel Adams, arguably the greatest photographer of the twentieth century, was educated at home. In his autobiography, Adams wrote, “I often wonder at the strength and courage my father had in taking me out of the traditional school situation and providing me with these extraordinary learning experiences. I am certain he established the positive direction of my life that otherwise, given my native hyperactivity, could have been confused and catastrophic. I trace who I am and the direction of my development to those years of growing up in our house on the dunes, propelled especially by an internal spark tenderly kept alive and glowing by my father.”
Nurturing the internal spark inside each student is the true goal of home education. It is a goal shared by quality educators everywhere, whether they teach students in a two-story public school house, around a kitchen table, or in the church gymnasium.
If the term “homeschool” conjures images of identically-dressed elementary students filling out workbooks around the kitchen table and later winning the state spelling bee, your ideas about the practice are outdated. That’s not to say there are no kitchen tables or spelling bees involved, but there are as many ways to homeschool as there are families who fill out the Declaration of Intent each fall.
In some families, homeschool literally means school at home. You’ll find the walls lined with shelved textbooks and dry-erase boards. Carefully designed curriculums and meticulous schedules guide the students from one grade to the next, following a scope-and-sequence much like that found in public schools. A transcript is steadily assembled which looks very much like a public school transcript, with standard classes listed, a GPA calculated, and extra-curricular activities noted to the side.
In other homes, learning is far more organic. The textbooks are still around, but are currently being used for reference guides, booster seats, or anatomical models for a budding artist. Students may be found lying on the floor playing with a scientific calculator, hunched over a laptop writing a novel, or out in the driveway on rollerblades. More likely, the students won’t be home at all. The parents have become facilitators, relinquishing their teaching roles to spend their time obtaining requested materials or driving their students around town. These kids direct their own education without regard for whether it can be articulated in the common language of transcripts and GPA’s.
While some homeschool families are learning outside the box, others are finding innovative ways to recreate the box. The array of classes, co-ops and alternative learning groups continues to grow. Students can take classes ranging from core subjects like Algebra to extra-curriculars like fencing or writing fantasy literature. They can dress up for the homeschool prom and even participate in a graduation exercise.
Many of the efforts are student initiatives. Consider the Homeschool Shakespeare Troupe, for example. Originally launched by parents, the eight-month-long endeavor is now led mostly by homeschool graduates. They conduct auditions in February so the actors will have months to learn their lines. During the summer, organizers host a week-long Shakespeare camp where students learn stage terms and participate in drama workshops. The actors sew their own costumes and speak to each other in Elizabethan English, creating their own Shakespearean culture. The week culminates with dress rehearsal and then a very professional performance in a packed theatre. The troupe is growing so rapidly, organizers have decided to schedule two shows this year.
In every sizable town, classes and tutoring are offered by homeschool parents who are especially proficient in a specific area such as foreign language. Sometimes the tutoring becomes a lucrative business or even a small school with multiple teachers offering weekly classes to area students.
Other times it happens the other way around: The parents join together to form a cooperative and bring in a teacher. One of the most successful area co-ops is right here in Catoosa County.
On Friday mornings, students from all over the tri-state area converge on Poplar Springs Baptist Church in Ringgold. The parking lot is filled with mini-vans. Teenagers mill around the yard with backpacks slung over their shoulders, greeting each other and talking to the younger children who stream past. Some of the students carry musical instruments. Another has a basketball tucked under his arm.
The range of electives offered by the co-op continues to grow, including foreign language and upper math classes at the request of parents, and a journalism class at the request of students. The kids at the co-op form their own coalitions, organizing pickup basketball games and Friday night bowling plans.
One day a girl brought her fiddle to the co-op. The next week, a viola and a harp appeared on campus. Soon the students had formed their own Celtic ensemble called The Revelations.
Today’s homeschooling families are less rigid than in the past. Some make occasional use of public and private schools, as well as participating in the aforementioned co-ops and classes. Many families have some children in school and others learning at home.
As the homeschool population has grown, expanded, and become more mainstream, colleges have become more accepting of students educated at home. Some colleges actively recruit them. Covenant College, for example, boasts that 17% of new admissions are homeschooled students.
Homeschoolers are not so different from other kids. They grow through the same ages and stages, finding their identity and ferreting out their interests like anyone else. Some of them are brilliant, and others struggle with basic math.
Still, these students are growing up in a different paradigm. Their world is structured to meet their needs and help them grow. Public and private schools attempt much the same thing, but with the necessary assumption that most kids need the same things at the same times. The homeschool world is far more individualized.
Homeschooling is not new. Throughout history, families have educated their own children for numerous reasons. Pioneers taught their own children when schools were not available. Author Louisa May Alcott recounts in the autobiographal “Little Women” how her mother pulled her little sister out of school in response to a teacher’s cruelty. Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Virginia Woolf and other well-known geniuses received their educations at home. Figure-skaters, child actors and other prodigies have often been tutored privately.
Ansel Adams, arguably the greatest photographer of the twentieth century, was educated at home. In his autobiography, Adams wrote, “I often wonder at the strength and courage my father had in taking me out of the traditional school situation and providing me with these extraordinary learning experiences. I am certain he established the positive direction of my life that otherwise, given my native hyperactivity, could have been confused and catastrophic. I trace who I am and the direction of my development to those years of growing up in our house on the dunes, propelled especially by an internal spark tenderly kept alive and glowing by my father.”
Nurturing the internal spark inside each student is the true goal of home education. It is a goal shared by quality educators everywhere, whether they teach students in a two-story public school house, around a kitchen table, or in the church gymnasium.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Racism, sexism and representation
Primary picks to make your vote count in 2008
Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.
If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.
If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”
If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.
If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.
If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.
If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.
Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.
I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.
The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.
The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.
On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.
Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.
Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”
Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.
Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”
Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.
Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”
We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.
Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.
What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.
If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.
If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”
If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.
If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.
If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.
If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.
Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.
I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.
The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.
The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.
On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.
Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.
Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”
Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.
Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”
Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.
Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”
We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.
Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.
What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Govenor's Cup inhibits SAT participation
The Governor’s Cup is empty. In 2003, newly elected Governor Sonny Perdue instituted the “Governor’s Cup Challenge” to reward schools for bringing up the average senior SAT score. He was trying to fulfill a campaign promise to bring Georgia’s average SAT up from “dead last.”
What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.
Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.
In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.
Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.
In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.
The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.
Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.
A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”
Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.
One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.
In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.
The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.
So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.
The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.
This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.
Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.
A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.
What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.
Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.
In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.
Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.
In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.
The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.
Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.
A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”
Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.
One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.
In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.
The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.
So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.
The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.
This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.
Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.
A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
An open letter to Christian pastors
Pastors, have you ever preached a sermon against domestic violence? Odds are, you haven’t. I’ve listened to approximately 4,000 sermons and have yet to hear a pastor condemn domestic violence from the pulpit.
Southern preachers prefer to pontificate on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Sometimes they rail against feminism. On occasion they preach against pornography, using the occasion to slam churchwomen over immodest attire. In every denomination, pastors preach often enough on tithing, and never fail to pass the plate. Yet they fail at addressing an issue faced by approximately one fourth of their congregation.
Recently a wildly popular pastor shoved the problem of Christian violence into the spotlight when he choked, kicked and stomped his wife in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel. In the South, beating your wife may or may not be a crime. Records show that the most common law enforcement response to domestic violence is “separating the parties.” Victims rarely press charges because they fear reprisal. Law enforcement rarely presses their own charges (though they could and should), essentially treating wife-beating as a “victimless crime.”
Bishop Thomas W. Weeks, III crossed the line that even Georgia will not tolerate: He was wearing shoes when he kicked his wife. That’s a felony. Besides that, he committed the acts publicly and on video surveillance tape. He also threatened to kill her, which is another Georgia felony.
The abused wife, Prophetess Juanita Bynum, is an internationally acclaimed televangelist and best-selling author who empowers Christian women with her preaching. Church members say that couple of weeks before the attack, Weeks announced that Bynum would no longer be preaching at the church they founded.
Bynum is pressing charges against Weeks and seeking to end the marriage. Attorneys for Weeks say he will contest the divorce on the grounds that she was cruel. The strangest part of this story is not that the man who kicked and stomped his wife is contesting the divorce or fighting the charges; that happens all the time. What is so bizarre is where this man was just a few days after the beating: He was behind his pulpit telling his congregation that the devil made him do it.
Finally, a preacher is talking about domestic violence! If only his congregation had responded with a resounding movement down the aisle – and right out the church door. No one should sit under the teaching of a wife-beater. The elders should have stripped this man of his title and never let him behind the pulpit again.
T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist who helped bring Bynum to power, condemned violence against women in a written statement two weeks after the attack. He pointed out that every day, four American men murder their wives or girlfriends, resulting in 1,400 deaths per year. That’s an FBI statistic. He also mentioned that over half a million cases of intimate assault are reported each year. Most cases go unreported. According to the most conservative estimates, between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 women are battered each year. In 1990, the U.S. had 3,800 shelters for animals, and only 1,500 shelters for battered women.
Other Christian leaders even try to blame the victims. Christian author Gillis Triplett claims that there are thirteen traits common to abused wives, including “THEY LOVE THE DRAMA!” (Emphasis his.) Evangelical leaders John MacArthur and James Dobson have both gone on record stating that women must be careful not to “provoke” abuse. In the 1996 printing of “Love Must Be Tough,” Dobson told a story about a woman who was physically beaten by her husband. Dobson concluded that the woman “baited” her husband to hit her so that she could show off her black eye, which he calls her “prize.”
Following the advice and example of such leaders, thousands of pastors regularly dismiss domestic violence and send women back into dangerous situations. With “saving the marriage” as the highest aim, these pastors seek to prevent divorce at all costs. Women receive the subtle message that their pain – or even their lives -- are not as important as keeping the marriage intact.
One woman told a victims’ support group how she took her children and fled the state in fear of her life. Her church responded by sending her a letter of ex-communication.
In the introduction to her new book "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence,” Jocylen Andersen states that "The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower." The Christian wife abuse cover-up is every bit as evil as the Catholic sex abuse cover-up.
Christian leaders set the stage for domestic violence by perpetuating pop-culture stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. T. D. Jakes claims in his book “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that all women were created to fulfill the vision of some man. Jakes bases his gender theology solely on the physical characteristics of male and female genitalia, insisting that all women are “receivers” and all men are “givers.” This false dichotomy breaks down quickly when one considers that female sexuality includes giving birth and giving milk. More importantly, Jakes deviates from Scripture in claiming that women and men must operate like their genitalia in every facet of life.
John MacArthur also does his part to set the stage for female subjugation. He calls the women’s movement “Satanic.” In a sermon called “God’s Design for a Successful Marriage: The Role of the Wife” MacArthur blames working women for everything from smog to prison overcrowding. As an antidote, he offers this quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the disposition of a godly wife toward her husband: “He is her little world, her paradise, her choice treasure. She is glad to sink her individuality in him.”
Finally, consider Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patterson recently dismissed Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda, simply because she was female. He claims the Bible does not allow women to instruct men. Patterson then launched a new major at the seminary: Homemaking. Only women are allowed to take these courses, which focus on childcare, cooking and sewing -- as well as a woman’s role in marriage. The courses are taught by Patterson’s wife, who is the only surviving female in the school’s 42-person theology faculty.
Considering Patterson’s view of women, we should not be surprised at his response to domestic violence. Participating in a panel on “How Submission Works in Practice,” Patterson tells abused wives to do three things: Pray for their husbands, submit to them, and “elevate” them. He admits that this advice sometimes leads to beatings, but also claims that the men eventually get saved. Apparently, it’s only the men that matter.
Pastors who truly want to help people and save marriages should stop attacking feminism. Instead, teach couples never to hit, choke, kick, threaten or verbally batter their spouse. Preach against domestic violence from your pulpit. Help abuse victims to escape their batterers – permanently. Encourage them to press charges so that justice can be served.
Pastors, if you want to defend marriage, set an example of a loving relationship. Instruct couples to live in a way that makes their spouse want to stay with them. It really does not take a six-tape series to teach the number one tool of a successful marriage: the golden rule.
Southern preachers prefer to pontificate on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Sometimes they rail against feminism. On occasion they preach against pornography, using the occasion to slam churchwomen over immodest attire. In every denomination, pastors preach often enough on tithing, and never fail to pass the plate. Yet they fail at addressing an issue faced by approximately one fourth of their congregation.
Recently a wildly popular pastor shoved the problem of Christian violence into the spotlight when he choked, kicked and stomped his wife in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel. In the South, beating your wife may or may not be a crime. Records show that the most common law enforcement response to domestic violence is “separating the parties.” Victims rarely press charges because they fear reprisal. Law enforcement rarely presses their own charges (though they could and should), essentially treating wife-beating as a “victimless crime.”
Bishop Thomas W. Weeks, III crossed the line that even Georgia will not tolerate: He was wearing shoes when he kicked his wife. That’s a felony. Besides that, he committed the acts publicly and on video surveillance tape. He also threatened to kill her, which is another Georgia felony.
The abused wife, Prophetess Juanita Bynum, is an internationally acclaimed televangelist and best-selling author who empowers Christian women with her preaching. Church members say that couple of weeks before the attack, Weeks announced that Bynum would no longer be preaching at the church they founded.
Bynum is pressing charges against Weeks and seeking to end the marriage. Attorneys for Weeks say he will contest the divorce on the grounds that she was cruel. The strangest part of this story is not that the man who kicked and stomped his wife is contesting the divorce or fighting the charges; that happens all the time. What is so bizarre is where this man was just a few days after the beating: He was behind his pulpit telling his congregation that the devil made him do it.
Finally, a preacher is talking about domestic violence! If only his congregation had responded with a resounding movement down the aisle – and right out the church door. No one should sit under the teaching of a wife-beater. The elders should have stripped this man of his title and never let him behind the pulpit again.
T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist who helped bring Bynum to power, condemned violence against women in a written statement two weeks after the attack. He pointed out that every day, four American men murder their wives or girlfriends, resulting in 1,400 deaths per year. That’s an FBI statistic. He also mentioned that over half a million cases of intimate assault are reported each year. Most cases go unreported. According to the most conservative estimates, between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 women are battered each year. In 1990, the U.S. had 3,800 shelters for animals, and only 1,500 shelters for battered women.
Other Christian leaders even try to blame the victims. Christian author Gillis Triplett claims that there are thirteen traits common to abused wives, including “THEY LOVE THE DRAMA!” (Emphasis his.) Evangelical leaders John MacArthur and James Dobson have both gone on record stating that women must be careful not to “provoke” abuse. In the 1996 printing of “Love Must Be Tough,” Dobson told a story about a woman who was physically beaten by her husband. Dobson concluded that the woman “baited” her husband to hit her so that she could show off her black eye, which he calls her “prize.”
Following the advice and example of such leaders, thousands of pastors regularly dismiss domestic violence and send women back into dangerous situations. With “saving the marriage” as the highest aim, these pastors seek to prevent divorce at all costs. Women receive the subtle message that their pain – or even their lives -- are not as important as keeping the marriage intact.
One woman told a victims’ support group how she took her children and fled the state in fear of her life. Her church responded by sending her a letter of ex-communication.
In the introduction to her new book "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence,” Jocylen Andersen states that "The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower." The Christian wife abuse cover-up is every bit as evil as the Catholic sex abuse cover-up.
Christian leaders set the stage for domestic violence by perpetuating pop-culture stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. T. D. Jakes claims in his book “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that all women were created to fulfill the vision of some man. Jakes bases his gender theology solely on the physical characteristics of male and female genitalia, insisting that all women are “receivers” and all men are “givers.” This false dichotomy breaks down quickly when one considers that female sexuality includes giving birth and giving milk. More importantly, Jakes deviates from Scripture in claiming that women and men must operate like their genitalia in every facet of life.
John MacArthur also does his part to set the stage for female subjugation. He calls the women’s movement “Satanic.” In a sermon called “God’s Design for a Successful Marriage: The Role of the Wife” MacArthur blames working women for everything from smog to prison overcrowding. As an antidote, he offers this quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the disposition of a godly wife toward her husband: “He is her little world, her paradise, her choice treasure. She is glad to sink her individuality in him.”
Finally, consider Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patterson recently dismissed Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda, simply because she was female. He claims the Bible does not allow women to instruct men. Patterson then launched a new major at the seminary: Homemaking. Only women are allowed to take these courses, which focus on childcare, cooking and sewing -- as well as a woman’s role in marriage. The courses are taught by Patterson’s wife, who is the only surviving female in the school’s 42-person theology faculty.
Considering Patterson’s view of women, we should not be surprised at his response to domestic violence. Participating in a panel on “How Submission Works in Practice,” Patterson tells abused wives to do three things: Pray for their husbands, submit to them, and “elevate” them. He admits that this advice sometimes leads to beatings, but also claims that the men eventually get saved. Apparently, it’s only the men that matter.
Pastors who truly want to help people and save marriages should stop attacking feminism. Instead, teach couples never to hit, choke, kick, threaten or verbally batter their spouse. Preach against domestic violence from your pulpit. Help abuse victims to escape their batterers – permanently. Encourage them to press charges so that justice can be served.
Pastors, if you want to defend marriage, set an example of a loving relationship. Instruct couples to live in a way that makes their spouse want to stay with them. It really does not take a six-tape series to teach the number one tool of a successful marriage: the golden rule.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Are we there yet?
All the way from north Georgia to Boston, my four-year-old Christianna punctuated the hours with, “Are we there yet?”
“No, baby,” we’d answer, “we’re not there yet.” Then we’d pull out the map to offer the children another geography lesson. As we sailed up I-81, I began to consider the philosophical implications of my little girl’s question, “Are we there yet?”
It has never occurred to Christianna that she lives in a world where being female will often count against her. She hasn’t yet learned about women like Susan B. Anthony who had to fight the male establishment for decades so that someday women would be able to vote. She does not know that voting is still the only right constitutionally guaranteed to women today.
Christianna sees Mommy excel in the business world and bring home a good paycheck. She doesn’t know that in America, the average woman earns only 70 cents on the dollar compared to men with the same qualifications. She does not know the top three questions women are asked in job interviews: Are you married? Do you have children? Who’s going to take care of your children while you work? She doesn’t know that answering these questions “wrong” means a lower paycheck, or none at all.
When Mommy ran for office, it did not strike Christianna as unusual. She has not yet noticed that the government is owned by men, with less than 20% representation by women. She does not understand what people mean when they dismiss Hillary Clinton with “America is not ready for a woman.” (I’m not sure I understand the meaning of that comment myself.)
Christianna sees her home-educated sisters play soccer and hockey along with the boys. She doesn’t know that around the country, schools give much greater emphasis and funding to boys’ sports than girls’. She doesn’t have a clue what Title IX is, or just how many loopholes allow schools and communities to keep funneling most of the dollars and scholarship opportunities to the boys. She hasn’t heard that Georgia public schools now have the legal option to simply close their doors to female students – making Title IX a moot point.
Christianna is growing up in a home where Mommy and Daddy treat each other with respect and make decisions jointly. She hasn’t yet learned that many women in America face sexism in their own homes. She doesn’t know that women are more likely to be physically attacked or murdered by husbands than by strangers. She doesn’t know that women who report domestic violence often receive no help at all.
At church, Christianna receives most of her spiritual instruction from female teachers. She doesn’t know that radio preachers and best-selling authors claim women dishonor God when they teach the Bible. She hasn’t heard of “complementarians” like Wayne Grudum and John MacArthur who say that men and women are not equal before God. She hasn’t heard them dismiss her favorite Bible heroines Deborah and Miriam as aberrations used to shame men.
Christianna isn’t aware that many church denominations are shoving women backward to the days before the light of Christian feminism. She hasn’t heard of Baptist chaplains stripped of their endorsement just for being female. She doesn’t know about the missionaries who lost their funding because they refused to sign a statement of belief that men are above their wives.
Christianna lives in a safe haven where women are respected, honored and given opportunity to succeed. Soon enough she will discover the hazards of being female. She’ll find out that she has to work longer and harder to succeed – and that people of both sexes will despise her when she does.
“Are we there yet?”
“No, baby, we’re not there yet . . .”
“No, baby,” we’d answer, “we’re not there yet.” Then we’d pull out the map to offer the children another geography lesson. As we sailed up I-81, I began to consider the philosophical implications of my little girl’s question, “Are we there yet?”
It has never occurred to Christianna that she lives in a world where being female will often count against her. She hasn’t yet learned about women like Susan B. Anthony who had to fight the male establishment for decades so that someday women would be able to vote. She does not know that voting is still the only right constitutionally guaranteed to women today.
Christianna sees Mommy excel in the business world and bring home a good paycheck. She doesn’t know that in America, the average woman earns only 70 cents on the dollar compared to men with the same qualifications. She does not know the top three questions women are asked in job interviews: Are you married? Do you have children? Who’s going to take care of your children while you work? She doesn’t know that answering these questions “wrong” means a lower paycheck, or none at all.
When Mommy ran for office, it did not strike Christianna as unusual. She has not yet noticed that the government is owned by men, with less than 20% representation by women. She does not understand what people mean when they dismiss Hillary Clinton with “America is not ready for a woman.” (I’m not sure I understand the meaning of that comment myself.)
Christianna sees her home-educated sisters play soccer and hockey along with the boys. She doesn’t know that around the country, schools give much greater emphasis and funding to boys’ sports than girls’. She doesn’t have a clue what Title IX is, or just how many loopholes allow schools and communities to keep funneling most of the dollars and scholarship opportunities to the boys. She hasn’t heard that Georgia public schools now have the legal option to simply close their doors to female students – making Title IX a moot point.
Christianna is growing up in a home where Mommy and Daddy treat each other with respect and make decisions jointly. She hasn’t yet learned that many women in America face sexism in their own homes. She doesn’t know that women are more likely to be physically attacked or murdered by husbands than by strangers. She doesn’t know that women who report domestic violence often receive no help at all.
At church, Christianna receives most of her spiritual instruction from female teachers. She doesn’t know that radio preachers and best-selling authors claim women dishonor God when they teach the Bible. She hasn’t heard of “complementarians” like Wayne Grudum and John MacArthur who say that men and women are not equal before God. She hasn’t heard them dismiss her favorite Bible heroines Deborah and Miriam as aberrations used to shame men.
Christianna isn’t aware that many church denominations are shoving women backward to the days before the light of Christian feminism. She hasn’t heard of Baptist chaplains stripped of their endorsement just for being female. She doesn’t know about the missionaries who lost their funding because they refused to sign a statement of belief that men are above their wives.
Christianna lives in a safe haven where women are respected, honored and given opportunity to succeed. Soon enough she will discover the hazards of being female. She’ll find out that she has to work longer and harder to succeed – and that people of both sexes will despise her when she does.
“Are we there yet?”
“No, baby, we’re not there yet . . .”
Friday, July 27, 2007
No Baptist left behind
A year ago, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution urging churches and parents “to investigate their public schools to determine, among other things, whether they are endangering children in their care by collaboration with homosexual advocates.” The resolution stopped short of demanding that all Southern Baptists pull their children out of public school. This year, “exit strategy” advocates are pushing for a mass pull-out. Their ultimate desire is to end public education in America.
Those promoting the exit strategy include Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler, who claims that “atrocities” occur non-stop in public schools. World Net Daily, Jonah Goldberg, Dr. Laura Schlessinger and conservative pundits across the nation have also joined the posse, demonstrating that the idea is more GOP than Baptist.
Dr. Bruce Shortt, who helped draft the resolution, claims the idea is to start “a new public school system.” Yet there is nothing public about the system they propose. Americans are supposed to trust individual churches to create private Christian schools that anyone and everyone can afford. “Public” in this sense only means that the schools would be open to students who do not attend church there.
Not all Southern Baptists agree with the exit strategy; after all, plurality of opinion is a hallmark of the Baptist faith. Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics says, “The anti-public education agenda fits nicely with the anti-women, anti-science, anti-Disney, anti-everything ideology within the SBC. That agenda runs counter to the best of the goodwill tradition with Baptist life that seeks the welfare of the public square.”
I have no argument with people who want to remove their children from the public school system. My own children have been educated outside the public system for many years. We are not running from evolution, homosexuality or even drugs in the schools. Rather, education is a matter of personal freedom in our family. My children love the opportunities they have to learn “outside the box.” They have taken charge of their own education, seeking new opportunities to learn and grow. They have learned in private schools, at home, on the road, in student-lead collaboratives, at the library, through tutors and over the Internet. In America, parents already have the freedom to teach and train their children however they see fit.
That’s not the problem. The problem is that for some fundamentalists, focusing on their own children is not enough. They want to remove the right of all American children to receive a free local education.
As exit strategy advocate Voddie Baucham recently wrote in his blog, “I want to bankrupt the American educational establishment one student at a time.”
Baucham and his ilk claim that the public school system cannot be reformed. “We cannot mend it; we must end it. If the system loses enough money it will have to be scrapped.”
Their hope is to strip away enough per-student funding that the public school system will collapse. They pretend to be concerned for the children, painting a picture of public schools so toxic that registering a child there is tantamount to child abuse. Exit strategy advocates use phrases like “Pharaoh’s school system,” and “children rendered unto Caesar” to evoke strong emotions.
Baptist parents are encouraged to place their children in private Baptists schools if they can afford it, and if not – then homeschool. No one mentions the cost of homeschooling. Even if you dig most of your curriculum from the free bin at McKay’s Used Books, the cost of having at least one parent at home full time is tremendous.
If the souls of children were number one on the Baptist agenda, the churches would be focused on adding more educational options, not sabotaging the options we have now. Just imagine if church activists took the millions spent opposing abortion, homosexuality and public school, and simply funneled it into free Christian schools. Imagine if any child who wanted a Christian education could walk into the church and – at no cost – receive twelve years in math, history, science, language studies and Bible. Provide a superior education at no cost, and students will flock to the church in droves.
In fact, the church could reach children even earlier by offering free daycare to the community’s children. With free Christian daycare available to all, the majority of area children would learn to pray before they learned to ride a bicycle. They would grow up believing in God. They would be far more likely to attend church and identify with Christ as adults. A recent study by the Barna Group indicates that children under 14 are three times more likely to accept Christ than adults. If the church really wanted to bring people to Christ, free daycares and free schools are the surest path to achieve that goal.
“We can’t do that,” some are already grumbling. “It might encourage women to join the work force!” In fact, churches around the country have shut down existing daycare programs for just this reason. They do not want to be responsible for encouraging the “selfishness” of women. Isn’t it interesting how women are characterized as selfish for obtaining honest employment – while men are considered selfish when they don’t?
As for the Baptist/GOP hope that pulling out kids will bankrupt the system, their logic is flawed. Although Southern Baptist wealth is growing, many members will find themselves unable to afford private schools. It is doubtful that all Southern Baptist mothers will drop their careers to homeschool.
We can expect to see a continued trend of homeschool growth, but it will be offset by the continuing trend of public school growth. Just consider how many public schools are filled to capacity and overflowing into trailers and temporary buildings. Only a mass exodus of Baptist children would register on the radar – and in that case schools would downsize, not close. Fewer students require fewer teachers, fewer administrators, fewer buildings, fewer textbooks, and so on. In fact, if student numbers fall while tax revenue remains the same, it could actually help the public school system. More dollars per student would be available to educate those who remain.
The late Rev. Jerry Falwell once said, "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools.” He did not live to see such a day. The public school system outlived Falwell, and it will outlive this plot as well.
Those promoting the exit strategy include Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler, who claims that “atrocities” occur non-stop in public schools. World Net Daily, Jonah Goldberg, Dr. Laura Schlessinger and conservative pundits across the nation have also joined the posse, demonstrating that the idea is more GOP than Baptist.
Dr. Bruce Shortt, who helped draft the resolution, claims the idea is to start “a new public school system.” Yet there is nothing public about the system they propose. Americans are supposed to trust individual churches to create private Christian schools that anyone and everyone can afford. “Public” in this sense only means that the schools would be open to students who do not attend church there.
Not all Southern Baptists agree with the exit strategy; after all, plurality of opinion is a hallmark of the Baptist faith. Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics says, “The anti-public education agenda fits nicely with the anti-women, anti-science, anti-Disney, anti-everything ideology within the SBC. That agenda runs counter to the best of the goodwill tradition with Baptist life that seeks the welfare of the public square.”
I have no argument with people who want to remove their children from the public school system. My own children have been educated outside the public system for many years. We are not running from evolution, homosexuality or even drugs in the schools. Rather, education is a matter of personal freedom in our family. My children love the opportunities they have to learn “outside the box.” They have taken charge of their own education, seeking new opportunities to learn and grow. They have learned in private schools, at home, on the road, in student-lead collaboratives, at the library, through tutors and over the Internet. In America, parents already have the freedom to teach and train their children however they see fit.
That’s not the problem. The problem is that for some fundamentalists, focusing on their own children is not enough. They want to remove the right of all American children to receive a free local education.
As exit strategy advocate Voddie Baucham recently wrote in his blog, “I want to bankrupt the American educational establishment one student at a time.”
Baucham and his ilk claim that the public school system cannot be reformed. “We cannot mend it; we must end it. If the system loses enough money it will have to be scrapped.”
Their hope is to strip away enough per-student funding that the public school system will collapse. They pretend to be concerned for the children, painting a picture of public schools so toxic that registering a child there is tantamount to child abuse. Exit strategy advocates use phrases like “Pharaoh’s school system,” and “children rendered unto Caesar” to evoke strong emotions.
Baptist parents are encouraged to place their children in private Baptists schools if they can afford it, and if not – then homeschool. No one mentions the cost of homeschooling. Even if you dig most of your curriculum from the free bin at McKay’s Used Books, the cost of having at least one parent at home full time is tremendous.
If the souls of children were number one on the Baptist agenda, the churches would be focused on adding more educational options, not sabotaging the options we have now. Just imagine if church activists took the millions spent opposing abortion, homosexuality and public school, and simply funneled it into free Christian schools. Imagine if any child who wanted a Christian education could walk into the church and – at no cost – receive twelve years in math, history, science, language studies and Bible. Provide a superior education at no cost, and students will flock to the church in droves.
In fact, the church could reach children even earlier by offering free daycare to the community’s children. With free Christian daycare available to all, the majority of area children would learn to pray before they learned to ride a bicycle. They would grow up believing in God. They would be far more likely to attend church and identify with Christ as adults. A recent study by the Barna Group indicates that children under 14 are three times more likely to accept Christ than adults. If the church really wanted to bring people to Christ, free daycares and free schools are the surest path to achieve that goal.
“We can’t do that,” some are already grumbling. “It might encourage women to join the work force!” In fact, churches around the country have shut down existing daycare programs for just this reason. They do not want to be responsible for encouraging the “selfishness” of women. Isn’t it interesting how women are characterized as selfish for obtaining honest employment – while men are considered selfish when they don’t?
As for the Baptist/GOP hope that pulling out kids will bankrupt the system, their logic is flawed. Although Southern Baptist wealth is growing, many members will find themselves unable to afford private schools. It is doubtful that all Southern Baptist mothers will drop their careers to homeschool.
We can expect to see a continued trend of homeschool growth, but it will be offset by the continuing trend of public school growth. Just consider how many public schools are filled to capacity and overflowing into trailers and temporary buildings. Only a mass exodus of Baptist children would register on the radar – and in that case schools would downsize, not close. Fewer students require fewer teachers, fewer administrators, fewer buildings, fewer textbooks, and so on. In fact, if student numbers fall while tax revenue remains the same, it could actually help the public school system. More dollars per student would be available to educate those who remain.
The late Rev. Jerry Falwell once said, "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools.” He did not live to see such a day. The public school system outlived Falwell, and it will outlive this plot as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
