vision2020
No Subject
- To: vision2020@moscow.com
- From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:02:44 -0700
- Cc: nancyann@moscow.com
- Resent-Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <gadV1C.A.w0C.yuk98@whale2.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
Dear visionaries,
I hope that for me to post to this list is not a faux pas akin to
throwing a trout in the punch bowl. But I thought a couple comments might
be worth the time.
In response to Bill London: I agree with his point that "government
schools" has a negative connotative value beyond simple denotative
precision. But the denotative precision is still the central reality. If
we called a "government newspaper" a "public
newspaper" that would be an editorial statement in the other
direction, as is the case with public schools.
But one place where he misunderstood my position is where he says that I
want "a privately-funded school system that is very exclusive,
educating only those who share his specific views . . ." No,
actually I want my children and grandchildren to attend Christian
schools, but would also expect that those with differing worldviews to
establish their own schools as well. We already have a Catholic school,
an evangelical Protestant school, an Adventist school. I have no
objection to secularist parents establishing a secular school.
In response to John Davis: the "fundamental mandate" for any
form of education is to educate. By every indicator we have, the
government schools (there I go again) are failing to fulfill this basic
mandate. And because they are not a market driven operation, they do not
process criticism well at all. I do cheerfully pay for services I do not
use, which is what a society is all about. But what about substandard
services? Why should anyone pay for those? So I am not ignoring
"the mandate" of the governments schools -- but they are.
In response to John Danahy: I believe he is quite correct in pointing out
that we who have left the system are not the destroyers of it. Those who
care most deeply about the education of their own kids are always the
prime candidates for leaving first. They do so because they have
concluded something along the lines of "not with my kid, you
don't." They do not build alternative schools because they are
trying figure out a way to spend all that extra money from their
"lucrative ministries" that Vera White found out
about.
Thanks for hearing me out. Have to get back to my lucrative ministry
now.
- Follow-Ups:
- V2020 postings
- From: bill london <london@moscow.com>
- RE:
- From: "Tim Kinkeade" <kinkeade@moscow.com>
Back to TOC