Re: no child left behind

[aburke5054@aol.com]

This has nothing to do with NCLB.

Children already have a right under the First Amendment to express their religion in school and the First Amendment protects them against state-sponsored proselytizing.? Some people on both sides can't seem to accept that.? But that is neither news nor interesting. ? 


? 
Art


 

-----Original Message-----
From: QCao009@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org; fcarforum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 6:07 am
Subject: [arn-l] no child left behind










 
The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading  Public Schools
By Rob Boston, Church and State
Posted on  October 4, 2007, Printed on October 5,  2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/64211/
In mid-August, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed something called the "Religious  
Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" into law. Although the new law has an  
innocuous-sounding title, it's really a ticking time-bomb, opponents say. 
The law requires every public school in the state to adopt a policy  
guaranteeing students' right to religious expression. It mandates that schools  
create 
"limited public forums" for religious and other types of speech. A  student 
could, for example, read the morning announcements over a loudspeaker  and then 
lapse into a prayer or mini-sermon. 
Many people think the law is yet another effort to get around the Supreme  
Court's rulings on separation of church and state in public schools -- and  
they're expecting a torrent of litigation to result. 
"This law is fundamentally at odds with the principle of religious freedom,"  
said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based 
group  that opposes the machinations of the Religious Right. "It will force 
public  school students to participate in public events that promote religious 
views --  through prayer or even proselytizing -- that they and their families 
may not  share or may even find deeply offensive. So rather than protecting 
religious  freedom, this law represents a grave threat to it. 
"Rather than providing schools with training and appropriate guidelines for  
protecting First Amendment freedoms," Miller said, "legislators decided to 
play  politics with our children's faith. So now they have recklessly put local  

schools and their taxpayers at risk of expensive lawsuits." 
The law is of dubious constitutionality, and some school officials in the  
state are exasperated. Charles Perkins, Abilene Independent School District's  
assistant superintendent, told the Abilene Reporter-News, "I really do feel 
like  the state law has been very confusing. It's opened some doors that no one  

thought to go through." 
Perkins added, "Really and truly, we're just trying to have school, and I  
think this is a complicating factor." 
The Texas law, which was drafted and promoted by a Religious Right group  
called the Liberty Legal Institute, is yet another salvo in a long-running  
battle in America over the proper place of religion in public schools. 
The Supreme Court ruled 45 years ago that public schools may not sponsor  
prayer, Bible reading and other forms of religious worship. Rulings since then  
have generally extended that principle, while protecting truly voluntary  
religious activity in the schools. 
But some people have never made their peace with the school prayer rulings.  
After the decisions were handed down in 1962 and '63, numerous constitutional  
amendments were introduced in Congress to "restore" prayer to schools. They 
have  been a permanent fixture on the political scene since then, although none 
has  passed. 
Frustrated, Religious Right advocates are adopting new strategies to bring  
state-sanctioned fundamentalist outreach into the schools. The Texas law,  
critics say, is merely a new twist on an old fight. 
It's not the only one. As another school year got under way last month,  
public schools around the nation found themselves under siege by groups obsessed  

with using the schools as instruments of evangelism. 
The Texas law reflects the Religious Right's latest ploy: drafting students  
as evangelists to preach to a captive audience of their peers. The groups hope 
 that the courts will consider the prayers and sermons offered during the  
"limited public forum" as a form of free speech that is, technically, not  
sponsored by the school. 
One of the drafters of the law, a Houston attorney named Kelly J. Coghlan,  
urges students to lead their peers in prayer before the beginning of the school 
 day as well as before football games, graduation ceremonies and other school 
 events. 
"For many years, students have been reluctant to stand up and express their  
faith in public schools for fear of being disciplined," Coghlan writes on his  
Web site. "Students should no longer have such fear. Schools are not  
religion-free zones; school officials are not prayer police; and students of  
faith 
are not enemies of the state. The new law makes this clear." 
Coghlan fails to point out that his gambit is legally suspect. After the high 
 court's school prayer rulings were handed down, some school districts tried 
to  save school prayer by shifting the practice from school officials to 
student  volunteers. One New Jersey school district even convened a daily 
five-minute  assembly during which a student read the daily chaplain's prayer 
from the  
Congressional Record. Courts saw through these ruses and struck them  down. 
Nevertheless, some students seem eager to take matters into their own hands.  
Graduation ceremonies are sometimes marked by speakers who veer off into  
fundamentalist tangents. ABC News reported that in Duval County, Fla., earlier  
this year, valedictorian Shannon Spaulding of Wolfson High School "quoted the  
Bible and spoke about Jesus Christ, suggesting that those who didn't believe  
would go to hell." 
Spaulding told the crowd, "I want to tell you that Jesus Christ can give you  
eternal life in heaven. If we die with that sin on our souls, we will  
immediately be pulled down to hell to pay the eternal price for our sins  
ourselves." 
Some attendees were predictably displeased with the sermon, and school  
officials apologized. 
In Monument, Colo., a disgruntled valedictorian who misled school officials  
about the content of her speech is going to court. Erica Corder was one of  
several speakers during graduation ceremonies at Lewis-Palmer High School in May 

 2006. Students were required to clear their speeches with the principal 
first.  Corder did so, but then added sermonizing later. 
"We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is 
 why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever  
imagine," Corder said. "He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet 
was  resurrected and is living today in heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If 
you  don't already know him personally, I encourage you to find out more about 
the  sacrifice he made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in 
 eternity with him." 
School officials threatened to withhold Corder's diploma until she  
apologized. She is now in court, arguing that school officials violated her  
rights. 
Other issues public schools face include: 
Creationism/Intelligent Design 
The courtroom defeat of "intelligent design" (ID) in Dover, Pa., two years  
ago left creationists reeling -- but not for long. To no one's surprise, groups 
 that promote elevating theology over science have re-tooled for the 
umpteenth  time and are again shopping their wares to the public schools. 
The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that promotes ID, has  
just published Explore Evolution, a textbook it is promoting to biology  
teachers nationwide. Despite its title, the book does not so much explore  
evolution as try to debunk it, relying, critics say, on the same old  
pseudo-scientific arguments that are stock in trade among the creationists. 
Opponents of evolution have tried these tactics before. After the Supreme  
Court struck down a Louisiana law mandating "balanced treatment" between  
evolution and creationism, creationists began advocating the instruction of  
"evidence against evolution." This was simply young-Earth creationism with a new  

name. 
The Discovery Institute's tactics are more sophisticated. The group does not  
endorse young-Earth creationism, for example. But critics say the 
organization's  new book is yet another attempt to slip ID, a religiously 
grounded 
concept, into  the schools. 
"Explore Evolution is a real piece of work," Joshua Rosenau, public  
information project director for the National Center for Science Education  
(NCSE), 
said. "Everything from the author list to the content reveals the book's  deep 
links with earlier generations of creationism, however hard they try to  
obscure that heritage." 
The NCSE, based in Oakland, Calif., defends the teaching of evolution in  
public schools, and Rosenau recently reviewed for the  group. He added, "Like 
previous creationist works, it attacks evolution with  misrepresentations and 
misunderstandings, but where previous generations of  textbooks claimed this as 
evidence of divine intervention, Explore  Evolution leaves that leap to 
students and teachers. Needless to say, we  have yet to identify any criticisms 
of 
evolution in the book which do not have a  long history in the creationist 
literature." 
Advocates of sound science education are also watching Texas warily. Gov.  
Perry has appointed Don McLeroy, a dentist from Bryan, as head of the State  
Board of Education. McLeroy, who was first elected to the board in 1998, has  
regularly voted to water down instruction about evolution. 
The Texas Freedom Network noted that McLeroy promoted ID during a 2005 speech 
 delivered to his fundamentalist church. According to a report on the blog of 
 The Texas Observer, McLeroy told the congregation that intelligent design  
is a "big tent" that represents religious conservatives' best shot at  
undermining evolution. 
"Why is Intelligent Design the big tent?" asked McLeroy. "Because we're all  
lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. 
Whether  you're a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young Earth, old 
Earth,  it's all in the tent of Intelligent Design." 
Pointing out that as chairman, McLeroy will oversee the first overhaul of  
Texas' science curriculum standards since 2003, the Observer remarked,  "Get 
ready to redo the Scopes Trial, folks." 
Teaching 'About' The Bible 
Across the country, public schools are being pressured to adopt classes that  
teach "about" the Bible. Three states -- Texas, Georgia and South Carolina -- 
 have adopted legislation authorizing such classes. Other states are 
considering  similar laws. 
The concept sounds non-controversial on its face. The Supreme Court, in fact, 
 has stated that objective classes about religion do not violate the First  
Amendment. 
The problem comes with implementation. There is a dearth of material  
available, and what is out there tends to skew toward conservative, evangelical  

interpretations of the Bible. 
A curriculum created by the Bible Literacy Project (BLP), for example, is  
being heavily promoted as a middle-of-the-road approach that is appropriate for  

use in public schools. But Americans United has pointed out that the BLP's  
textbook, The Bible and Its Influence, hews to a generally evangelical  
interpretation, contains errors and has recently undergone several changes at  
the 
behest of fundamentalist critics. Other analysts have scored the book for  
failing to include serious biblical scholarship. 
The BLP is run by a wealthy Religious Right activist named Charles Stetson, a 
 graduate of Charles W. Colson's Wilberforce Centurion training program. 
Colson,  who embraced evangelical Christianity while serving time in prison for  

Watergate-era offenses, has become increasingly strident and theocratic in his  
outlook. 
Unfortunately, the main alternative to the BLP's curriculum is even worse.  
Curriculum materials produced by the North Carolina-based National Council on  
Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) overtly reflect fundamentalist  
views. Portions of the group's curriculum have already been declared  
unconstitutional. 
Nevertheless, education officials nationwide are being pressured to introduce 
 Bible classes. Earlier this year, Americans United wrote to officials with 
the  South Carolina Department of Education, which, under a new state law, has 
been  charged with adopting academic standards and appropriate instructional 
materials  for two optional courses on the Bible: History and Literature of the 
Old  Testament and History and Literature of the New Testament. 
In a letter to State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex and other officials, 
 Americans United advised South Carolina educators to follow specific steps 
to  assure that the classes remain focused on objective education, not 
religious  indoctrination. To survive a legal challenge, the courses must 
present the 
Bible  in a secular, objective and academic manner, AU asserted. AU also said 
the  classes must expose students to critical perspectives on the Bible and a  
diversity of biblical interpretations; refrain from portraying the Bible as  
literal, religious truth; and not present a particular sectarian point of 
view.  Several court cases are cited to back up these assertions. 
A district in Dorchester County is apparently the first to approve a Bible  
class under the new law. The instructor, Laura Knotts, has promised to focus on 
 the Bible's influence on culture, art and literature, but some parents in 
the  community charge that Knotts lacks the academic qualifications to teach the 

 class. Knotts has said she will use the BLP's textbook but add in material 
from  the National Council. 
Some members of the community are concerned. On an Internet bulletin board  
that is used by some church-state activists in the area, one woman charged that 
 at a candidates' forum earlier this year, some candidates who now sit on the 
 board advocated teaching creationism alongside of or in place of evolution. 
"The rush, the secrecy, and the prior comments give me the feeling an agenda  
is being pushed instead of real interest in our children's education," she  
wrote. "Is that what we should expect for the future?" 
On Sept. 7, AU attorneys wrote to officials at the Dorchester schools, urging 
 them to drop the class as it is currently constituted. The lawyers pointed 
out  that use of the NCBCPS's materials is especially problematic, as the 
group's  mission is clearly evangelistic. 
Based on what has happened elsewhere, critics of these classes have good  
cause to be concerned. In Texas, for example, courses that purport to teach  
"about" the Bible have been popular in several districts. But a study last year  

by the Texas Freedom Network found that most of the courses came up short. 
Mark Chancey, a biblical scholar at Southern Methodist University who  
authored the study, found that many "teach about the Bible" courses fail to meet  

minimal academic standards and that many teachers are not qualified. 
Chancey found that many districts present the Protestant version of the Bible 
 as true and make other sectarian assumptions. The Bible, he said, is often  
presented as literal truth and the stories in it as factual. Judaism is  
portrayed with a Christian bias, sometimes as a faith that was "completed" by  
Christianity. Other courses have been used to prop up creationism and bogus  
"Christian nation" historical views. 
Many districts in Texas rely on the NCBCPS's flawed curriculum. That may soon 
 change. In May, eight parents challenged the use of the National Council's  
material in Odessa. The Moreno v. Ector County Independent School  District 
lawsuit alleges that the National Council's curriculum is designed  to promote 
fundamentalist Christianity, not objective instruction about  religion. 
Religion-Themed Charter/Public Schools 
Recently, disputes erupted in New York and Florida over publicly funded  
schools that have been accused of having a religious focus. 
In Florida, controversy erupted over a decision to open Ben Gamla Charter  
School in Hollywood. Charter schools are publicly funded but are free of some of 

 the regulations imposed on other public schools. They are often run by 
community  groups, non-profits or business leaders. Despite the looser 
regulations, 
 charters must still abide by constitutional requirements. 
The spat in New York centers on the Khalil Gibran International Academy in  
Brooklyn, part of a group of small public schools in the city that focuses on  
foreign languages. Critics allege the school, which offers an Arabic language  
course, will promote fundamentalist Islam, but they have provided no evidence 
to  back up the claim. 
Neither the New York nor the Florida cases involved a school with a  
fundamentalist Christian approach, but Religious Right groups are certain to  
adopt 
the tactic if it survives constitutional scrutiny. 
Americans United is monitoring both situations. 
On Aug. 7, AU lawyers sent a letter to officials with the Broward County  
Public Schools, expressing concern about Ben Gamla's curriculum. The school's  
backers have proposed using a Hebrew-language textbook that contains religious  
content. AU urged officials to withdraw the book. 
"Federal courts across the country have also made clear that the prohibition  
against public-school religious instruction extends to the use of teaching  
materials that present the Bible or religious doctrine as truth, or that  
otherwise endorse religious views," AU's letter asserted. 
The Associated Press reported last month that officials in Broward County  
will "create training programs for teachers and board members to ensure the  
separation of church and state" and that "lesson plans will be submitted monthly  

for district review." 
The situation in New York is murkier, as no proof has been offered that the  
Khalil Gibran International Academy is teaching religion. It is run in  
conjunction with the Arab American Family Support Center, an organization the  
New 
York City Department of Education refers to as a "secular social service  
agency." Its backers insist the school will focus on the Arab language, but not  

Islam. The school's Muslim principal was recently replaced with a Jewish  
principal. 
"Religion plays absolutely no part in the school," an education official in  
New York City vowed. "This is a public school; it wouldn't play a part in any 
of  our schools." 
In Washington, D.C., Americans United has also been responding to complaints  
of inappropriate religious activity at a public charter school. Parents have  
complained that the headmaster of Washington Latin School, T. Robinson 
Ahlstrom,  leads students in prayer during daily assemblies. 
The school is currently housed at Christ Church, and the meetings are held in 
 the sanctuary, which is festooned with religious iconography. 
Americans United attorneys have written to Ahlstrom and charter school  
officials in Washington, telling them to immediately cease the school-sponsored  

religious activities. 
Right on the heels of that controversy, the Catholic Archdiocese of  
Washington, D.C., announced it would seek to convert eight inner-city parochial  

schools into public charters. Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said the church can no  

longer afford to keep the schools open and insisted that as charters, the  
institutions will be secular. 
The Washington Post reported that "the schools would still have strong  
values, but the schools' names would change and specific religious references  
would be stripped from the curriculum." 
Arne Duncan, head of the Chicago public school system, told The Post  such 
conversions are possible. That city, he said, has two charters that spun  off 
from a Catholic school. 
"There are some church-state issues," Duncan said. "But if you're really  
trying to innovate and think outside the box, they are absolutely surmountable."  

Rob Boston is the associate editor for _Church and State_ 
(http://www.au.org/site/PageServer)  magazine.  

Quan





************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com



 


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com