Get Schooled

By OhMy

February 5, 2007 08:33 AM | Link to this

Sonny Perdue is an idiot!!!!!

By Jim in Marietta

February 5, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

Let me tell you where they will come from in three words…MY TAX DOLLARS. By the way regardless of demand, four year olds belong at home being taken care of by the very people that brought them into this world.

By KA

February 5, 2007 08:47 AM | Link to this

The pre-K program should serve the kids that are not receiving the preparation from their parents before kindergarten. A lot of daycare facilities offer pre-K programs, and I think that is where it belongs, where parents are paying for their children’s daycare, not the school systems.

By mmm

February 5, 2007 09:48 AM | Link to this

Obvious answer is any private program that wishes to deal with the headache of the government red tape and requirements to get the money.

When it is in the public school buildings, it is too easy for it to become an extra year of early kindergarten done in a developmentally inappropriate way because it is an afterthought. There are plenty of small businesses that are willing to provide and manage the services—and to some extent doing it privately means that the facilities that are located in high poverty areas will be willing to deal with the red tape because there is a large client pool that can’t afford the service without the subsidy. In affluent areas, the day-care centers’s won’t bother with lottery pre-k because they will have plenty of two-wage families happy to pay for quality care directly.

This dynamic will serve to concentrate the government program slots in the same areas where the most lottery tickets per capita are being sold—-which seems perfectly fair to me.

By teach overseas

February 5, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

KA-

The pre-k program is just housed in the day care center. The state pays the center for the kids. The parents pay for before and after school care- not the pre-k program itself. So really, it’s tax payer funded day care- no wonder so many people line up for it!

By SET

February 5, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

I suppose the people who want to turn their children over to the state at age 4 have to work and need the daycare.

And make no mistake, the governemnt is in the process of raising taxes on the working class tremendously. The plan to income tax job provided health insurance is an abomination. Just like the AMT, the current sceme being proposed declares all such benefits taxable income over a premium of $15,000. I’ve been told to budget $20K/year for (employer rates) health insurance premiums in the forseeable future.

And inflation is an invisible income tax. The government is really busy with that one and many believe the government is lying about the inflation rates.

None of this bodes well for the children, for society or for the USA in general. So I’m not “happy” about the prospect of more public schools for 4 year olds.

I want elimination of compulsary education at 15, and reorientation of public school education to basic and vocational ed. The brights to a large degree take care of themselves. Public school is all about the education of the proletariat. We should openly say so, and prepare the proles to survive in society - stay out of prison and off welfare - teach them how to support themselves in an honest fashion above all else.

And yes, that means they will be taught to address their superiors as “Sir” and “Ma’am” - remember that debate we once had on this blog??

By KA

February 5, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

teach overseas. Yes, I know that the pre-K program is just “housed” in the facility. However the program is not taxpayer supported, it’s supported by lottery funds. Perhaps I was unclear, because I meant that it was better to have the pre-K program located WHERE the parents are paying for the daycare, i.e. the before and after care.

By waterbug24

February 5, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

I want to address some of the comments already this morning. (FYI-I’m a Pre-K teacher).
Pre-K is funded by the lottery. The lottery money pays my state salary (my county is nice enough to kick in the county supplement) and the money used for materials. I am in a public school building, and we have the same curriculum choices and requirements for developmentally appropriate practices as the classes in daycares. I am in a rural county in a Title 1 school. Most of the students who are in Pre-K in our county NEED this year to perform in Kindergarten to the state’s standards.
If you want more information on the Pre-K guidelines, go to:

http://www.decal.state.ga.us/PreK/PreKMain.aspx

Look under the teachers area for the Content Standards and the PQA. These documents tell what standards are taught, and what teachers are required to do in Pre-K. Again, all this is standard for every state of Georgia Pre-K classroom, and a state consultant evaluates each site twice a year.

By MsMaiden

February 5, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

I recently relocated here from Louisiana where the Pre-K system is also housed in the public school system. My daughter has been in Pre-K3 since she turned three. I paid for it and the price was comparable to day care. She went to the same school as my son.though in a different building.

We moved here in the middle of her 4 year old Pre-K year and she is having a hard time adjusting to going back into a day care environment in order to get her studies. She is very smart and has been writing her name since she was two and recognizes almost all of the sight words needed for kindergarden. I did not and still do not view Pre-K as free daycare and in my humble opinion helped her to make that transition into school. My nephew had a hard time transitioning from a daycare environment because he was coddled a little more and while the Pre-K teachers that I have encountered are sweet and loving they can not give all of their attention to that one child while 19 others are in the room.

By Lisa B.

February 5, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Has Pre-K fulfilled its original promise? Has it made a huge difference? I’ve often read that children from poor Socio-economic backgrounds often enter kindergarten 2-3 year behind their middle class counterparts in terms of “readiness.” Pre-K was supposed to close or at least lessen that gap.

I’ve been teaching only 10 years, and have no pre 4-K experience to make comparisons.

By KA

February 5, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Our children are small for such a short period of time. With the exception of single parent households I think most families could and should do whatever it takes to have a parent home with the children at least until they start kindergarten. I stayed home for ten years and we made big financial sacrifices so that I could teach our children their basic academics and everything else. It worked for us, and I know that it would not work for many of you, so don’t get testy! I just wonder why, if you choose to have children, then why not put your time into their development, instead of expecting daycare or the State to do your parenting?

By jim d

February 5, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Com’on folks.

JUST HOUSED IN A CHURCH?

You gotta be kidding me! Y’all can’t be that niave or blind.

Have any of you visited these classrooms to see the “writting on the walls”? These are the very rooms being used to teach sunday school classes.

Take a good hard look at the pictures on the walls and story books laying around, then ask yourself what indoctrination your tax dollars are paying for.

I have no problem with a pre-school being run by a church. I do question the leagllity of using tax dollars to fund it though due to the religious story lines used to teach the kids.

By KA

February 5, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

jim, The pre-K curriculum is not religious based, have you seen it? If parents choose to send their children to a chruch sponsored daycare, then they know that there will be religious influences, and guess what? They are OK with that, and they choose it as a part of their children’s before and after care.

By JustMe

February 5, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

First, these are not tax dollars, these are lottery dollars.

Second, IMHO, if parents did their job, there would be little need for any type of “pre-K” program. In my day, parents read to their children, taught them their A,B,Cs, taught them how to write their name (and sometimes their home address), taught them their home phone number, and taught them to count to 100 before 1st grade. Today, most parents do none of these.

IMHO, this pre-K program is another example of our society putting more of child-rearing on the government. A good idea? I don’t think so.

By waterbug24

February 5, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

jim d

The state can close down a Pre-K site if religious materials are displayed. Religious books are allowed in all classrooms as “literature”.

By jim d

February 5, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Just me, I conceed on the not tax dollars. They are however state controlled funds that I would think should still be goverened in how they are spent.

KA, I’m not questioning the state funding education in pre-k classes that use programs like the Bank street ot the Bright Start curriculum.

However, many of the more conservative institutions have books from the Wee Learn or other curriculums laying around from their summer programs, that children can use. I find the use of this curriculum questionable at best when funded with public funds.

And just for the record, the fact that parents understand there may be religious overtones doesn’t make it ok to fund it with public funds.

Waterbug, according to that, you’re ok with displaying the 10 commandments on the walls of a school because it too is literature although most courts have held that they should not be displayed in Government buildings because it appears as an endorsement?

By waterbug24

February 5, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

There is a huge difference between displaying a plaque (as an endorsement, so to say), and having a well-rounded collection of literature, including multicultural, religious, fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and class-made books.

By erica

February 5, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

You can’t fix stupid, even in Pre-K. I say scrap pre-K and use it for college scholarships and tie the latter to GPA and SAT scores. Also, make it a reimbursement plan and have it apply to any Georgia college or university, public or private.

By SET

February 5, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

I meant to say that just like AMT, the proposal to income tax employer provided health insurance is not indexed for inflation. It is just another massive payroll tax which will impoverish the people and discourage childbearing by the middle class.

JustMe: Lottery Dollars are tax dollars by another name. If the government sold candy bars and collected profits from that those funds are just as much taxpayer dollars and any other money the government vacumns up from the people.

I do agree with you that government is putting more child rearing into government hands. I agree that this is not a good thing - but it can easily be sold as a good thing since the government is arranging things so that the worst people procreate the most while the most dilligent have very few children. After creating that situation the government then says they have to raise the kids because the proletariat (who have so many kids) just aren’t up to it.

This country is beginning to remind me of the Soviets… We saw what happened to them.

As far as daycare in church or wherever - the larger federal and state government should have little to say on what families and the local governments do with childcare and education. Local control is the correct control.

By jim d

February 5, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

SET,

Are you serious? Do you really believe.

“larger federal and state government should have little to say on what families and the local governments do with childcare and education. Local control is the correct control.”

Even though the highest percentage of school funding is raised by local taxes their is no way I’d want to hand over the religious instruction of my child to the local government no matter what percentage of the locals felt they knew what was best.

Once I cede my parental rights to teach my child about god to any authority, I cede tham the right to teach even against my own beliefs. I’m not prepared to do that, nor do I believe most people are. They just don’t think about it as long as the majority subscribes to a given train of thought.

I can’t help but wonder just how loud all these folks would scream should the community change to a majority population that subscribed to a non-christian religion they wanted taught in the public schools?

By JustMe

February 5, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

jimd-

To the point about religon in public schools….

It is my understanding that religon can be taught in the context of literature. Most teachers that I know that do this are very careful to have a variety of religons represented such as not to slant towards or away from any one in particular.

I also thought that the State of GA passed a law last year that allowed for an elective religon course to be taught in high school. This course was again to represent all religons and not be slanted towards or away from any particular one(s). I am unaware of any school currently teaching this course.

Jim, I am curious on your stance on an African-American history course?

By JustMe

February 5, 2007 01:04 PM | Link to this

SET -

I completely disagree that lottery and tax dollars are the same. One is mandatory and the other is not. Some call it a “voluntary” tax, but it is still not the same at all as the IRS tax.

Lottery money is allocated (spent) for a specific purpose, and usually by the vote of the people. Tax money is allocated (spent) by elected officials however they see fit.

By Jeff

February 5, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

JustMe:

Not sure how Jim feels about it, but to me it is COMPLETE crap (was going to put a couple of initials, but decided to keep it completely family-friendly!)

History is history, and from what I’ve seen teachers do a good job of being race-blind in history classes (as far as the subject matter goes). African-American history month (itself a misnomer - you’re either African or American) is a COMPLETE waste.

By jim d

February 5, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Just me,

A/A history?

Just my opinon but I believe it should be included in history and not separated. This country was pretty much built on the backs of our brothers and sisters of a darker complexion. Their contributions have been largely ignored by the history books, but I don’t see a need for it be taught as a separate subject since this would only serve to divide further. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, and I truly hope that I might live to see the day that MLK’s dream is realized. Unfortunately, I doubt I’ll live so long.

By jim d

February 5, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

Just me,

I don’t care to go there but Bible taught as history in our public schools? I take serious issue with this. I also took issue when our local schools started early release to allow students to be transported to local churches for bible classes and recieving elective credits for attending them.

I want Government to totally leave my religion alone. Does that answer your question?

By jim d

February 5, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

Totally off topic.

I’d like to send out kudo’s to one of Gwinnetts great young educators who handed out an ISS to a black studnet for calling another black student the “N” word.

This is truly justice!

By Jeff

February 5, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

jimd:

There are more reliable copies of the New Testament than there are of Homer’s poems. Much of the Bible actually coincides (and agrees with, as far as events are concerned) with much of the other information we have about the periods in question, and offers a different view. Why SHOULDN’T it be used as history? It is quite possibly the single most accurate and most reliable text we have on VAST eras of recorded history, particularly as far as the middle east area is concerned. (I will grant that when trying to study Chinese, North American, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc history it isn’t that great.)

By jim d

February 5, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this

There are many religious books that could be used then to teach history Jeff.

But the firm foundation of religious freedom is rooted in the requisite distinction between spiritual and civil affairs. Regarding civil liberty, Baptist servants of church and state across time have fondly quoted Thomas Jefferson to clearly say that no person harms anyone else in choosing and practicing a religion, or no religion. It does me no injury, Jefferson said, for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

As long as the separation of church and state is defended, government cannot sanction any official religion no matter who is in power. Keeping church and state separate preserves the integrity of religious practices while protecting the rights of all. So Jeff, what problem do you have with keeping it that way?

By Ernest

February 5, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

JustMe:

That sounds like a GREAT topic for a blog! Bridgett, are you taking notes?

By jim d

February 5, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Just me,

Teaching “unslanted religion”?

How nice in a perfect world. It just isn’t that way though. Many states, including our neighbor to the south have already run into problems. Seems most of the materials teachers use were provided by, and heavily slanted toward, sectarian organizations; 83 percent of the books and articles recommended had strong ties to sectarian organizations, 60 percent had ties to Protestant organizations, and 53 percent had ties to conservative Protestant organizations.

You know, I just would prefer to teach my child or to select who I want to teach my child about religion and the one place I choose NOT is a public school.

By JustMe

February 5, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

Guys -

Where did I ever say that the Bible was to be taught as history?

What I said was that the State of GA (as I recall) gave permission for religon to be offered as an elective class.

Do I agree with this? I did not say, so please don’t beat ME up on it!!!

Do I feel that a given teacher would be able to teach a religon class even-handidly? Not sure.

Would I want my child to take such a class? Possibly. IMHO, I see nothing wrong with my child being exposed to various religous beliefs. I feel that for my child to grow up with worldly understanding it is important to at least understand where the other person is coming from - and this includes different religous perspectives. This said class should not be used to “teach” a religon, but rather to describe the different religons - there is much difference here!

By jim d

February 5, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this

just me,

What the legislation that passed here in Ga. said was an “elective to teach a bible history course.”

As for schools teaching anything in regards to the bible? well to be honest, after seeing the way they mucked up education in general, i wouldn’t give em the chance to do that to my childs religious instruction. :-)

By HB

February 5, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this

JustMe, you also pointed out that religious texts can be as literature. That’s certainly not the same as teaching it as history. Personally, I think certain Bible stories should be taught to all students as literature (much as Greek mythology is taught) because knowledge of those stories is necessary when studying western literature. How can you study East of Eden without knowing the story of Cain and Abel? Allusions to the creation, Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, and many other Bible stories are found in countless novels.

It is important, however, to be sure that the Bible is taught as literature and not as historic fact. Some history can be gleaned from the Bible, but it is a mix of historic accounts, poetry, and perhaps ancient fables, depending on your beliefs. Example: one person may believe the creation story is recorded fact, while another could believe it is a story created by ancient Hebrews to explain the origin of man. Was Lot’s wife really turned into a pillar of salt, or was that an ancient cautionary tale, a fable? In a public high school, I think it’s best not to get into these issues, but I do think it should be possible to expose students to the stories as written without teaching them as historic fact.

By Jeff

February 5, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

HB:

But in other accounts (Xerxes, Esther, and the near genocide of the Jews, for example) it can also be the ONLY source we have.

As far as more relatively modern times goes, did you know that there are more numerous (and therefore more reliable) copies of the New Testament than of the writings of Josephus and Tacitus? (The two men we get MUCH of our knowledge of grecco-roman society from.)

By jim d

February 5, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

You know what. I hope never to see another blog post about personal responsibility. Some of you may be ok with appointing others to do what God commanded you to do, but I’m not.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 reveals Gods plan and it darn sure doesn’t say to send your sons to school to learn about him and his plan. To the contrary, it is relegated to you. Please take the time this evening to review these verses.

And hagd.

By Jeff

February 5, 2007 05:34 PM | Link to this

jim:

My main argument is NOT that schools should be indoctrinating students (not that schools don’t already indoctrinate with PC crap anyway, but that is a side issue). My point is that to be a truly “neutral” entity, one must allow ANYONE a seat at the discussion. Since we already read the Koran, greek mythology, and other religious texts in schools, why the hostility towards the Bible?

A government where secular humanism is condoned while christianity is shunned is NOT a neutral goverment in terms of “separation of church and state”.

By jim d

February 5, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this

Jeff my friend.

I fear you’ve mistaken obeying Gods word for hostility towards the bible. You may wish to rethink your position.

There is no doubt that the Scriptures themselves assign specifically to fathers the vital role of instructing their children in the Holy Scriptures and the great doctrines of the Christian faith.

The bible clearly tells us who is responsible for teaching our children about god. The prophet Isaiah tells us that parents are to tell their children about God’s faithfulness (Isaiah 38:19). In the New Testament, we discover that the young pastor Timothy, had known the Holy Scriptures from infancy (2 Timothy 3:16). Paul recounted how important his own religious instruction had been to him, even before he became a believer (Acts 22:3). It is Paul who instructs fathers not to exasperate their children, but to “bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4).

By KA

February 6, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

Religious history, literature, and customs intertwine all of mankind’s experieinces. The fear that some of you have is that your children will be preached to at school. The greater fear that you should have is that the history of man will not be fully presented and understood by your children, and that they will grow up with a narrow view of the world. IMO a Survey of Religions should be taught, with focuses on their influences on govenrments, effects on history, contributions to literature and art, and the social customs and practices that influenced eating, sleeping, travel, education, work, and worship. In other words you can present a course about religions without preaching. Frankly, I think it is needed, given the misnformation that people have about relgions other than their own.

By JustMe

February 6, 2007 08:46 AM | Link to this

I think that the Bible can be taught 2 was as “history.” One way is that it is a history text - as if what it says is literally historical events. The other is the actual history of the world during the time the Bible was written - what was going on in world events during that time that caused such a book to be written (famine, wars, etc.).

I don’t know which approach the State of GA meant when they said “Bible history”. I guess it is left up to interpretation.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 08:55 AM | Link to this

KA:

I completely agree. For example, while I know much about the Abramic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), even I can honestly admit I know next to NOTHING about Far Eastern religions (Shinto, Buddhism, Hindu, etc)…. and I’m a guy that LIKES to study history!

I think that Americans of BOTH extremes are afraid of religion in the public arena because they feel it will “promote an establishment” of religion. What NEITHER seems to realize is that by default Secular Humanism IS left in the public arena, and since it is the ONLY one left in the public arena, you ARE in fact establishing a religion by NOT talking about religion!!!!

By jim d

February 6, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

Just me,

According to the copy of the legislation I saw, it would appear the actual curiculum will be left up to the local schools, should they elect to provide Bible classes.

KA, They have been teaching religious history, as you mention, in Gwinnett County for many yeaars without the bible and without a teachers slant on anything other than the history of different religions and how they have impacted history. I have no problem with that. My concerns are more of when they start slanting spirituality. Which was what happened in Florida a few years ago and why they got in trouble.

Human nature my friend. It is difficult at best to not allow ones owns thoughts and beliefs to enter the picture when reading and studying the bible. The line is crossed when the one that allows that to happen is an employee of government. THAT becomes my issue. Florida was using materials provided by certain churches that did infact slant more than a tad to the right.

By jim d

February 6, 2007 09:08 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

The absence of religion is in fact religion? That maybe stretching a bit my friend.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 09:12 AM | Link to this

jimd:

It is called Secular Humanism (a “non-religious” form of atheism that has been listed as a religion in a Supreme Court case)

By Alecia

February 6, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this

Did we get off the subject? I thought this blog was about Pre K. Anyway, I have a question concerning Pre K. Does anyone know if priority is given to the welfare kids (kids on Peach Care or “disadvantaged”)? Is Georgia Pre K better or worse than private Pre K in a NAYC program 5 days a week 4 hrs day? Can any kindergarten teacher tell me which was better prepared?

By KA

February 6, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

jim, The GCPS history classes my kids had may have mentioned different religions, but it was not what I am talking about. As our world becomes smaller our kids need a comparative and comprehensive study of religions and their influences on individuals and societies. BTW what is slanted sprirituality?

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this

BTW: Citation of the Supreme Court Case:

Torcaso v Watkins, 1961. 367 US 488

“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to “profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11”

Footnote 11 continues:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

By KA

February 6, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

Jeff, Thanks, I agree. IMO they ignore the elephant in the room. Religious practices were the first social order established in primitive tribes, and shaped laws, diets, commerce, farming, government, literature, art, music, in short EVERYTHING! I am not advocating talking about GOD, and advocating religious truths, but of looking at the development and influences of the institutions of religions. Jim, can you see the difference?

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

KA,

You and I see eye to eye here. What I find interesting is how people expect to be able to fully comprehend the writings and speeches of Washington and Lincoln, much less the actual WRITERS of their eras, without understanding religion. Heck, Lincoln’s whole “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (was it Gettysburg or one of the Inaugurals?)is almost a direct quote of Matthew 12:25

By KA

February 6, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

Jeff, Exactly! I just read a great article in US News & World Report, 12/06 p. 56 on Lincoln’s Gettysburg address that presented the religious background and inferences. Linclon’s address was a verbally neutral speech that was woven through and through with scripture. It’s a fascinating and insightful look into who Lincoln was and how he led the nation out of war and into healing.

By HB

February 6, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

KA, the difference you are pointing out is clear, and I believe the state legislature has approved two elective classes — a class in religion like you have described (a few years back) and a class on the Bible (last year). I personally think the first is a great idea and can probably be taught in an objective manner. Some teachers may cross a line, but hey, that can happen anyway in any class — I had a math teacher who from time to time shared her beliefs in class.

While I am in favor of parts of the Bible being taught as literature, I am wary of the Bible class proposed last year. An entire semester for the Old Testament and another for the New would have to cover more than just the basics. It should cover history of the Bible, including its different translations, a look at who scholars think may have written the different books, which books are considered canon by which religions, careful anaylsis and interpretation of passages, etc. In other words, a carefully researched, planned curriculum taught by qualified teachers (who would that be, by the way? Social Studies Ed majors? English Ed? would any current teachers have training in teaching this type of course?). At the high school level, I think the public schools should stick to teaching a few basic stories as a short unit in English class, much like Greek mythology is taught.

By KA

February 6, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

HB, Thanks, and I agree that teachers often inject their political leanings into classes, and that HS Bible classes could certainly be subject to personal commentary by devout teachers. I like your layout of a 2 semester course. However, rather than just focus on the Bible, I would rather see a year of comparative religion study, western and eastern.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

HB:

I could teach such a class. What you DON’T want in that type of class is someone who is a specialist in any particular subject, but IS highly knowledgeable in MANY areas.

While an English major could teach the lit aspects and a history teacher could teach the history aspects, wouldn’t you prefer a person who took courses in BOTH Middle Eastern history AND Scriptural Literature? (BTW: As someone who did both at Kennesaw, I can honestly say that you generally DON’T find the same people in both classes.)

A high-level ELECTIVE class such as this, assuming I had the power to kick disruptive students out,….. yeah, I could almost go back into teaching for that!

By KA

February 6, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

IMO the teacher of a comparative religion class should be a social studies teacher who has a background in religious studies; one who is a scholar, not a zealot.

By HB

February 6, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

KA, just to clarify, the 2-semester Bible course is not my idea, and I don’t think it’s a good one. I believe it’s what the state legislature approved last year (the Bible course they proposed is actually two courses), and I agree with you that time would be better spent on a comparative course — a comparative religion class was also approved as a 1-semester course several years ago, and I assume it’s being taught somewhere.

Jeff, I certainly do want a specialist teaching an in-depth course. My point was that neither a Social Studies Ed nor an English Ed major would qualify. It should be someone like my college roomate, who majored in Religion (comparative religion, required study of all major religions) and took courses that included such topics as religious history, the Bible as literatureand how it’s viewed by different religions and denominations, comparisons of different religous texts, etc. I don’t believe such teachers can be easily found, and we’ll end up with just anybody teaching from a textbook that may or not be good because the people choosing the books aren’t experts either (jim d described problems that other states have had in selecting texts upthread).

Besides all this, I really don’t think most high school students are ready academically for a complex course on the Bible, and any class taking a full year to teach the Bible alone should take a complex approach. If a student wants a good, in-depth course in the Bible taught by a qualified professor, most colleges will offer one. If she wants one from the viewpoint of her own religion, I’m sure her church offers Bible study. In public high schools, though, I strongly feel that only a few basic stories should be incorporated into English classes and taught as literature.

By HB

February 6, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

KA, I agree that for a comparative religion class, not a Bible class, a social studies teacher would qualify.

By jim d

February 6, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

If we get a Babtist minister to teach it would y’all be happy?