Tag Archives: Voucher

Podcasts

Wayne Grudem explains what the Bible says about parents and schools

14 Comments

This is a must-listen, especially for any single Christian woman who would like to get married and have children. If you want to marry a Christian man, you should listen to this lecture and also the Dr. Morse lecture on marriage Every Day.

In fact, the only reason why single men play video games and don’t want to marry is because women don’t know how to talk about education policy. We try to talk to you about school choice and you can’t, so we play video games instead. Your fault. Not our fault. We also like talking about tax policy and foreign policy, but education policy first. If a woman doesn’t know what a voucher is, then she might as well be a giant lobster. And men don’t like to talk to lobstrosities.

(I am totally kidding in that last paragraph)

With that introduction, here is the MP3 file on education policy.

And there is a PDF outline for all that.

Note: public schools = government-run schools.

Topics:

  • Does God care whether we people marry and have children?
  • Does God care whether Christian parents raise their children to know him?
  • Should government promote bearing children?
  • What are some effects of declining birth rates in other countries?
  • What are the economic effects of declining birth rates?
  • Who has the right to decide how children are trained: government or parents?
  • What does the Bible say about parents having to raise children to know him?
  • Does the government have the responsibility for training children?
  • What do educational bureaucrats think of parents training children?
  • What do school boards think of parents training children?
  • Should school boards be elected by local, state or federal government?
  • Should Christians be opposed to government-run education? (public schools)
  • How should schools be viewed by parents? As a replacement or as a helper?
  • How are schools viewed by those on the left and in communist countries?
  • How can you measure how supporting a government is of parental rights?
  • How is parental authority viewed in left-wing EU countries like Germany?
  • How is parental authority respected in the United States?
  • Should parents have a choice of where their children go to school?
  • What is a voucher program? How is it related to parental autonomy?
  • How does competition (school choice) in education serve parental needs?
  • Why do public school teachers, unions and educrats oppose competitition?
  • How well do public schools do in educating children to achieve?
  • Does the government-run monopoly of public schools produce results?
  • Does paying more and more money to public schools make them perform?
  • How do teacher unions feel about having to compete in a voucher system?
  • Does the public school monopoly penalize the poorest students?
  • Does the public school monopoly penalize children of certain races?
  • Does the public school monopoly cause racial predujice?
  • What else should parents demand on education policy?
  • Is it good for parents when schools refuse to fire underperforming teachers?

This podcast is just amazing! This is what we need to be teaching in church. Church should be the place where you go to learn and reflect about how to tailor your life plan based on what the Bible says. And I think that this whole notion of free market – of choice and competition benefiting the consumer (parents) – applies to everything that government does, especially education and health care. Go Capitalism!

(Note: I am not a Calvinist! But Grudem is the best theologian!)

Related posts

Humor

Friday night funny: clothes, nobel prize, school choice

2 Comments

Clothes make the man?

From IMAO.us:

At a recent speech, Obama handed out white lab coats to his audience to make them look smarter. That’s a good idea. Only smart people wear white lab coats as dumb people would just stain them with neon orange powdered cheese. Maybe Obama shouldn’t have stopped there, though. Maybe he should also have had them all wear mortar boards and have diplomas to hold in their hands so we would look at them and say, “Wow! These are smart people! If they agree with the president, then I should agree too so I will be smart!”

Actually, the president himself could use some smartening; maybe he should wear a mortar board and a lab coat at all times. Then if someone disagree with him, he could say, “Don’t you disagree with me! I’m very smart! Look at my hat! LOOK AT MY HAT! Now don’t bother me; I’m off to do Science!” He’d be impressive then; I bet everyone would stop making fun of him.

The Nobel Booby Prize

From Scrappleface.com:

An unnamed member of the Nobel committee this morning explained the shocking decision to give the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, who had served only 11 days as president when nominated, by noting that the gold medal would go a long way toward boosting Mr. Obama’s self-esteem.

“We used to give the award to persons who had actual accomplishments,” the anonymous source said. “But that’s so reactionary, and almost nostalgic. By giving the peace prize to Obama, we’re recognizing his potential, and applauding his intentions in a way that we hope will result in future actions.”

The committee members reportedly wanted to encourage Mr. Obama with something tangible because “his speeches make world peace seem almost possible.”

“It’s like putting a gold star on a student’s paper, or giving him the ‘most improved’ trophy when he makes a good effort,” the source said. “We don’t want the president to get discouraged, or to give up just because the overwhelming evidence of history and of human nature flies in the face of everything he has proposed.”

(Note: a booby prize is a joke prize that you win for getting last place in the rankings)

Latest Steven Crowder: (H/T Imao.us)

Happy Friday!

Commentary

NEA General Counsel explains the real goals of teacher unions: MONEY and POWER

3 Comments

Story here at the Heritage Foundation.

NEA General Counsel Bob Chanin tells the world the top priority of the largest teacher union in the USA.

Are they concerned with providing a quality education for our children?

Here is the video:

And the transcript:

Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.

The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing drop rate rates, improving teacher quality, and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary these are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights, or collective bargaining.

That is simply too high a price to pay.

The Heritage Foundation notes that union dues are not voluntarily in many parts of the USA.

First of all, there is little that is voluntary about the millions in dues paid to the NEA every year. The NEA is strongest in states without right to work laws, and if you want to teach in a public school that is under an NEA contract in those jurisdictions (like California and New York), you must pay dues to the NEA. It is the law. There is nothing voluntary about it. Second, that is tax payer money he’s talking about, which is exactly what is so corrupting about public sector unions: the government is lobbying itself for its own expansion.

And what happens when you value the rights of incompetent teachers ahead of the rights of parents and children?

And what are “employee rights” and “due process,” you might ask? Well, those are what require New York City to pay 700 union teachers $65 million a year to do nothing. Same thing in Los Angeles, where 165 union teachers collect a total of $10 million a year from tax payers for doing nothing.

It is very important to note that he gets a standing ovation from the teachers present at the convention. These are the people who teach your children. Or rather, these are the people who want to indoctrinate your children to accept their values, and to be paid by you for doing it.

ECM also sent me this article from Betsy’s Page via Granite Grok.

Excerpt:

Sometime last year, while negotiating a teacher contract for the KIPP Ujima Village charter middle school in Baltimore, founder Jason Botel pointed out that his students, mostly from low-income families, had earned the city’s highest public school test scores three years in a row. If the union insisted on increasing overtime pay, he said, the school could not afford the extra instruction time that was a key to its success, and student achievement would suffer.

Botel says a union official replied: “That’s not our problem.”

Such stories heat the blood of union critics. It is, they contend, a sign of how unions dumb down public education by focusing on salaries, not learning.

They don’t care about your children’s education or career.