Eat a Meanwich, Michelle Obama

Kids don’t eat their vegetables.  No news there.  But new rules about school lunches have got some students and their parents up in arms against an overreaching federal government.

As described by the LA Times, the new rules mandate more fruits and vegetables for school lunches.  This seems like a good thing.  But as the LA Times editors argued recently,

the program is afflicted by rigid, overreaching regulations that defy common sense. Schools must provide items from five food groups, including a fruit and a vegetable, every day. Students must choose three items, even if they’re not hungry enough for all of them, and at least one must be produce. But fruits and vegetables rank as the least popular items, so requiring schools to offer one of each for each student practically guarantees that an enormous amount of fruits and vegetables will go to waste.

More colorfully, the editors at Twitchy compiled a series of student tweets about the new lunch rules. Be warned: these tweets include some harsh language, most of it directed at First Lady Michelle Obama. Obama, of course, has made healthy food one of her signature programs. One student memorably complained, “Sorry michelle obama but i dont wanna eat crusty ass broccoli for lunch at school.”

One mom complained, "This is sad!"

One mom complained, “This is sad!”

As historian Susan Levine demonstrated, the history of school lunch is fraught with the politics of poverty, influence, and agriculture. In their early days, powerful US Senators such as Richard Russell of Georgia promoted school lunches as a guaranteed market for struggling farmers. In the 1960s, federal policy-makers began to see school food as a way to address economic inequality in society. By guaranteeing meals for low-income students, it was hoped, school food could even the playing field somewhat.

So there’s nothing new about school lunch as a tool of social engineering. And there’s also nothing new about conservative outraged reactions. As Baylen Linnekin insisted in the pages of Reason recently,

The government’s efforts to pad school lunch enrollment numbers by expanding the program should be seen as what it is: a cynical attempt to avoid admitting failure. There’s nothing palatable about that.

Even here, though, it seems libertarian and/or conservative pundits will be on tricky terrain. Perhaps the new lunch program is unpopular. And perhaps the government has assumed an enormous role in the feeding of America’s children.  But who wants to be on the side of nixing fruits and vegetables?

Building the Machine: Conservatives Debate the Common Core

She’s in a hurry.

Balancing a crate of oranges in one hand, a purse and bag of groceries in the other, a stylish, affluent, and beautiful mom hustles to answer a call on her iPhone from a friend. “Calling to see if you’re going to the special PTA meeting,” the friend asks as creepy music deedles in the background, “the school is changing the tests next Spring . . . something about the Common Core Standards?”

That’s the opening of a new short film about the Common Core Standards produced by the Home School Legal Defense Association. The forty-minute film, Building the Machine, examines conservative arguments for and against the new standards. As we’ve noted in these pages [check out ILYBYGTH coverage here, here, or here, for instance], conservatives have wondered about the implications of these new standards. I’m told by watchful members of the ILYBYGTH community that the film has made a big splash among conservative homeschoolers. What are conservatives supposed to think about the new standards? What do they need to know about them?

The conservative HSLDA certainly wants to portray the CCSS in a negative light. As HSLDA leader Michael Farris makes clear in the documentary, he feels the standards make a fetish of centralization, systematization, and data collection. But the film gives ample time for pro-CCSS conservative intellectuals to make their cases.

Most prominently, Michael Petrilli of the conservative-leaning Fordham Institute tries to allay conservative worries. The standards, Petrilli argues, resulted from an open and public process. They were not imposed top-down by grasping central elites. Best of all, they will improve education. They will hold teachers, unions, administrators, and students to higher standards. Are they perfect? Not according to Petrilli. But they are the nation’s best shot at renewing academic rigor in public education.

Petrilli is joined by conservative standards-boosters such as Mike Huckabee and Chester Finn. But most of the screen time is devoted to CCSS dissidents Sandra Stotsky and Jim Milgram. Both were part of the original validation committee in charge of the standards, and both refused to sign off on the final product. Why? Both Stotsky and Milgram assert that the new standards are not offering the rigorous academic benchmark that they claim to be. And both insist that their dissent was swept under the rug.

The HSLDA documentary also features conservative critics from the Heartland Institute and Pioneer Institute. The new standards, conservative intellectuals complain, were crafted in a secretive manner, rammed through by the federal government, and do not make academic sense. By aiming at the broad middle, by promising to make all students “college and career ready,” these standards fail to prepare students for either college or careers. More troubling, the standards represent a dictatorial overreach by central government. Mega-rich donors such as Bill Gates greased the slide and snuck this project past the complacent American public.

Perhaps more than the messages delivered by the talking heads, the film’s fast-cut montages and sinister musical background send a clear message: Take your kids and run for the hills. We can’t all be as hip, rich, and beautiful as the mom in the opening montage. But the film makes it clear. All of us—beautiful moms and the rest of us alike—need to wake up and smell the Common Core.

 

Astorino Blasts the Common Core: “Our Children Are Not Guinea Pigs!”

Should conservatives embrace the Common Core? As we’ve seen [check out ILYBYGTH coverage here, here, or here, for instance], conservative intellectuals have disagreed about the new standards. New York gubernatorial hopeful and staunch conservative Rob Astorino offered a stinging attack on the new standards last week. His analysis of the good and the bad might give us some insight into the ways conservatives view these new standards. Indeed, Astorino’s comments might offer insight into conservative attitudes about education as a whole.

Astorino is leading the conservative charge against sitting New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Astorino, a County executive from affluent Westchester County, just north of New York City, has pledged to take the Great State of New York in a more conservative direction. As part of that campaign, Astorino issued a blistering attack on the Common Core Standards.

http://vimeo.com/90498744

Flanked not only by the US flag, the New York flag, and a copy of the US Constitution, but also by a few cheerful children’s drawings, Astorino blasted the CCSS as an “untested experiment” that would lead America in dangerous directions. Indeed, Astorino repeated the word “experiment” or “experimental” a total of four times in the four-minute announcement. He also repeated the phrase “Andrew Cuomo’s Common Core exam” four times. Clearly, Mr. Astorino hopes to label the CCSS as both experimental and part of Governor Cuomo’s program.

Most compelling, Astorino announced last week that his own children will be opting out of the exams. The Opt-Out movement has attracted support from all across the political and ideological spectrum.

For Astorino, opting out is the right choice for conservatives. Why? He offered a laundry list of problems with the standards and with the associated exams.

First, with common standards and exams, Astorino warned, local schools will become “centralized organs of the Federal government.”

Second, these exams and standards will raise property taxes “through the roof.”

Third, these exams are not tested, but are simply the misbegotten brainchildren of people such as Bill Gates. According to Astorino, the exams came from the same political greenhorns who cobbled together the disastrous “Obamacare.” Worst of all, Astorino asserts, these standards and exams represent just the latest effort by distant educational elites to exert their unwanted and poorly conceived influence over all the nation’s schools. As he put it, “We’re risking our children’s futures for a few scraps from Washington.”

As I argue in my upcoming book about conservatism and American education, the notion that a scheming group of educational usurpers has taken—or is taking—control of our nation’s schools has a long and potent history. Astorino appeals to this tradition by taking a firm stand on what he calls this “expensive, experimental, Federal curriculum.”

So what’s a conservative to do? According to presumptive GOP gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino, conservative parents should run for the hills.

 

 

ILYBYGTH in EdWeek: Progressive Education and the Conservatives Who Love It Too Much

Why do so many conservatives and creationists insist that they want more “critical thinking” in public schools?  In a recent commentary in Education Week, I argue that this trend is part of a longer tradition of anti-authoritarian education.

In the pages of EdWeek, I examine some of the new laws that have rightly been called “anti-evolution” efforts.  They usually are that.  They hope to introduce wiggle room in public-school science classes for creationist students and anti-evolution teaching.  A Virginia bill that recently died a lonely death in committee, for instance, would have insisted that students “develop critical-thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific controversies in science classes.”

I think, however, that the conservative impulse to encourage critical thinking among students goes even deeper than the evolution issue.  As I argue in the EdWeek commentary, several other legislative efforts in recent years have allowed students to opt out of school assignments that seem ideologically outrageous to students and parents.

Are these opt-out efforts “progressive?”  After all, they embody the anti-authoritarian ethos at the heart of progressive education.  But they do so for demonstrably conservative purposes.  Has the ideology of school dissent come full circle?

“The Long Game” Is Coming to Binghamton

What do schools teach?  What SHOULD schools teach?  The problem is not that we don’t have an answer to this question.  The problem is that can’t agree on which answer is the right one.

Tomorrow night award-winning documentarian Trey Kay is bringing his latest radio documentary to the scenic campus of Binghamton University in sunny Binghamton, New York.  This work, “The Long Game: Texas’ Ongoing Battle for the Direction of the Classroom,” explores school politics in the Lone Star State.  As ILYBYGTH readers know well, those Texas politics tend to be more exciting versions of the sorts of school fights we hear all over the country: Can cheerleaders use the Bible at public-school football games?  Can textbooks preach a neo-Confederate vision of US History?  Can creationism and evolution jostle along side-by-side in public-school science classes?

long gameThe battles in Texas schools reflect our cultural disagreements over the proper form of public schooling.

Tomorrow evening, Trey will share an excerpt from his earlier documentary, “The Great Textbook War.”  Then we’ll listen to “The Long Game.”  Afterwards, we’ll benefit from Trey’s commentary, as well as that of world-renowned historian Jonathan Zimmerman of New York University.  Binghamton’s own Matt McConn, a recent émigré from Houston public schools, will also join the panel.

Unfortunately, we won’t be web-streaming the event.  But for all those who can make it to the Binghamton area, you are most welcome to attend.  The fun will begin at 6 PM, Thursday, February 27, in University Union room 120, on the campus of Binghamton University.  The event is free and open to the public.  Pre-registration has closed, but everyone is still welcome to come by without registration.

Creationist Kids Subvert the Bible

The kids are alright.  That’s the conclusion, anyway, of the Happy Atheist PZ Myers.

Myers took a tour of a recent creationist science fair.  What did he find?  Creationist kids seem to be using the tools of creationist parents against them.

Myers went to the smallish Twin Cities creationist science fair.  Most of the student presentations, he found, seemed like regular science with just a required Bible verse appended.  And that combination, Myers argued, undercut the intended creationist brain-washing of these young Minnesotans.

One student seemed to be comparing the absorbency of diapers to the spiritual absorbency of Jesus.  Another seemed to disprove her Bible verse by feeding a wild bird out of her hand.

Myers’ conclusion:

Whether they like it or not, these kids are being given the tools to kick their tired Christian ideology to the curb.

 

What Does Your Kid Sing in the Bathroom?

In the pages of Christianity Today, Andrea Palpant Dilley makes the case for private Christian schooling.  Her best argument?  Thanks to her new Christian school, Dilley’s daughter now sings “Holy, Holy, Holy” while going to the bathroom.

Dilley’s being humorous, of course, but her main point is this: despite legitimate arguments among evangelical Christians over the proper type of schooling, a good Christian school can push young people in healthy Christian directions.  A good school can help turn their souls and minds to the beauties and challenges of living a faith-filled life.  Does a Christian school guarantee that each kid will grow up to be a good Christian?  No.  But it gives young people a different set of mental furniture with which to fill their young heads.  Instead of singing the Ninja Turtles theme song, Dilley’s daughter sings “Holy, Holy, Holy.”

As I’ve reviewed in some of my academic publications, the decision to send children to private Christian schools is not a simple one.  Many Christian schools have been accused of being nothing more than “segregation academies.”  In practice, though, the racial politics of private schooling includes complicated decisions about where to send our children.

We have a few academic studies of these sorts of schooling decisions.  One 1991 study from Stanford wondered why parents chose Christian schools.[1]  Not surprisingly, the question turns out to be remarkably complex.  School founders and parents offered a mélange of explanations for their choice of a private Christian school, from bad discipline at public schools to creationist belief.  Similarly, a 1984 study from Philadelphia found that parents had many reasons for choosing private Christian schools.[2]  Again, parents listed public-school factors ranging from “secular humanism” to drug use and poor discipline.

Moreover, as Dilley notes, some Christian parents insist their children should remain in public schools in order to provide needed moral backbone in struggling schools.  Fair enough, Dilley acknowledges.  But for her daughter, the “Christian-school bubble” was the right choice.  Though the family had to scrape together money for tuition, Dilley’s daughter is able to attend a school that includes authentic diversity.  More important to Dilley, a Christian school also lets Dilley’s daughter learn the rich heritage and faith of evangelical Christianity.

 


[1] Peter Stephen Lewis, “Private Education and the Subcultures of Dissent: Alternative/Free Schools (1965-1975) and Christian Fundamentalist Schools (1965-1990),” PhD dissertation, Stanford University, 1991.

[2] Martha E. MacCullough, “Factors Which Led Christian School Parents to LeavePublic   School,” Ed.D. dissertation, TempleUniversity, 1984.

Conservatives: Shut Up and Love the Common Core

What are conservatives to make of the Common Core State Standards?  As we’ve seen, some conservatives hate them.  Some don’t mind them.  Today we see a plea for conservatives to embrace the new standards as the best hope to fulfill long-held conservative school dreams.

In the Burkean pages of The Imaginative Conservative, Kevin T. Brady and Stephen M. Klugewicz argue that the new standards hold promise.   Forget threats that the new standards are a new federal power grab.  Forget worries that the new standards will water down our cultural heritage.  Forget predictions that school children will be forced to memorize Maoist proverbs.

Take a closer look, Brady and Klugewicz write, and conservatives will see plenty to like about the new standards.  The suggested readings include conservative favorites such as TS Eliot, Patrick Henry, GK Chesterton, and none other than Ronald Reagan.

Though some on the political Right have created a “straw man” out of the new standards, Brady and Klugewicz argue that the standards will actually serve to weaken the power of the political Left.  After all, the authors say, “teachers and educational bureaucracies already tend to lean Left.”  Too many teachers are woefully ignorant of true history and traditional literature.  The new standards will force such ideologically slanted teachers to explore the real cultural heritage of Euro-American civilization.

For instance, in order for a teacher to teach students Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” teachers will need to connect with their heritage.  “In order for [teachers] to understand what King is writing about,” the authors contend,

teachers need to know who the 8thcentury B.C. Hebrew prophets were. They need to know a little about Paul of Tarsus, the Macedonian call, Socrates, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Roman persecutions, the Boston Tea Party, Hungarian freedom fighters, Jesus, Elijah Muhammad, Amos, Martin Luther, John Bunyan, Lincoln, Jefferson, and T.S. Eliot to understand King’s meaning. King spoke to an audience of clergymen and to many others who shared a common educated culture. If teachers do not know these references, they cannot teach this landmark document accurately. Moreover, teachers in Catholic schools are free to ignore the exemplars entirely and use Christian/Catholic texts: Thomas á Kempis, Thomas More, even papal encyclicals. Such a text-based approach ought to please conservatives, who have complained about the trend of “deconstructing” texts and promoting the idea that it is how the student “feels” about a text that is important, not what the text actually says.

We must note that one of the authors seems to have more than academic interest in the success of the new standards.  Kevin Brady owns a company that sells Common-Core aligned materials to schools.  The success of the Common Core will help his own wallet.  That said, the notion that all of America’s schoolchildren should learn a common core of knowledge does have long roots among American conservative educational thinkers.  Long before ED Hirsch, prominent conservative reformers such as Max Rafferty insisted that the way to fix American education is to give every student and every teacher a healthy dose of a common core of cultural knowledge.  And a generation before Rafferty’s leadership, curmudgeonly conservative Albert Jay Nock insisted that real learning should include the “Great Tradition” of learning first and foremost.

For almost a century, then, conservative thinkers and activists have yearned for a common core for America’s school children.  Is the Common Core the fulfillment of these conservative dreams?

 

Registration Is Open!

You are invited.

In a few weeks, Binghamton University’s Graduate School of Education will be hosting a terrific event.  Documentarian Trey Kay will be sharing his new radio documentary, “The Long Game: Texas’ Ongoing Battle for the Direction of the Classroom.”  You probably remember Trey from his award-winning documentary about the textbook battle in West Virginia, 1974-1975.  In his new work, Trey explores the themes so close to the hearts of ILYBYGTH.  Should schools teach creationism?  Should they teach sex?  If so, how?  And what sorts of history should public-school students learn?  Should students be taught that America is awesome?  Or that the United States has some skeletons in its closet?  There has been no place more interesting than Texas to see these politics in action.

long game

After the listening session, Trey will offer a few comments.  He’ll be joined by the world-famous historian Jonathan Zimmerman of NYU.  ILYBYGTH readers will likely know about Zimmerman’s books, including especially his seminal work Whose America.  In addition, BU faculty member Matt McConn will say a few words.  McConn is new to New York, fresh from a long career as a teacher and school administrator in Houston.

There will even be cookies.

So please come on down if you’re in the Upstate area.  It will take place on Thursday, February 27, at 6 PM, in room G-008 in Academic Building A, on the beautiful main campus of Binghamton University.

We’d love to have you.  The event is free and open to all, but registration is required.  To register, please go to the BU registration site.

Faith & Physics, Part III

ILYBYGTH is happy to continue our series of guest posts from Anna.  In her first post, Anna described her shift from creation science to mainstream science.  In her second, she described her early education in the world of conservative Christian fundamentalism.  Anna blogs about her experiences leaving the fundamentalist subculture at Signs You Are a Sheltered Evangelical.  She holds an M.Sc. degree in Astroparticle Physics and currently lives in Virginia with her fiance Chelsey and a cat named Cat.  Good news: She has recently been accepted into a PhD program in physics at a top research university in the United States. 

Why is Creationism so appealing?

Last installment, I spent some time discussing my Creationist curriculum.  Through five years, I learned science alongside Young Earth Creation apologetics.  No small amount of time was spent on discussing the evidence for young earth, explaining the Grand Canyon as a result of a global flood, reinterpreting the geological record, and more.  Over and over, it was repeated and reassured that Creationism was a viable theory based on the evidence alone.  Yes, the Bible made assertions regarding the origin of the world, but all of the text books and apologists emphasized that the theory could stand on its own merits and that even atheists should be able to see the evidence and agree to it.

And yet, when it came down to it, the evidence was truly secondary.  On some level, I think that the most devoted creation “experts” still realize that Young Earth might not stand up to honest scrutiny.  This is why almost the entire YEC battle is fought for children.  Creationists have already lost in the arena of mainstream science.  They can’t influence people there.  But children are easy to influence.  Children are much more trusting.  And if they start kids with these theories early, perhaps they can build walls around them that will keep them there.

And they did.  There were walls built around our minds to ensure that we never wandered too far from the correct doctrine.  Creation apologists were very clear: even if you find yourself doubting the evidence for 6-day creation… even if you realize that secular science has the more compelling arguments… you CAN’T change your beliefs.  You can’t, because the creation story in the Bible is the Word of God, while evolutionary science is the word of men.  To question a literal interpretation of Genesis is to question God himself.

For a young conservative Christian homeschooler, this is the ultimate threat.  While most YEC advocates do not claim that salvation is dependent on disregarding modern science, this is hardly much better.  Conservative Christian culture can be surprisingly cut-throat, and demonstrating a lack of faith in God can be paramount to social and spiritual suicide.  Such people were a by-word among my creationist peers… the “lesser” Christians that would probably lose their faith if they were allowed to go to college.

Indeed, this argument was ultimately more compelling to me than all the evidence that was offered for a global flood, the evidence for “design”, or the convoluted explanations of how the universe could have been created 6000 years ago despite the fact that distant galaxies are visible from earth.  Sure, I absorbed all that information and I believed it.  But I quickly realized that my evidence probably looked puny compared to the vast amounts of data and research in evolutionary biology and cosmology.  But I refused to back down, because I was a Good Christian.  I would not trust flawed humans over God.  I would not cave in to scientific “persecution.”  I would not believe, no matter how much evidence I was given, because to do so, would be to spit in the face of my savior.  The guilt and the fear kept me securely in the Creationist’s camp.

Now, being sheltered and homeschooled probably made me especially susceptible to this sort of fear and guilt.  But I am certain that I am not alone in my experiences.  The fact that YEC apologists place so much evidence on this argument leads me to believe that this fear and guilt is quite intentional.  It is the surest way to make sure that their school of thought survives the opposing evidence.  If you can’t make your case with facts, make it with fear.

To be fair, I’ve seen a little bit of these sorts of tactics used against Creationists in mainstream science communities.  For example, I can’t agree with the claim that “a Creationist cannot contribute to science” and the shame and guilt tactics that this statement employs makes me very uncomfortable.  It echoes a lot of the indoctrination I received from Creationists.  I do think that being a young earth believer limits the contributions that you can make to science, but there are many, many fields of research that do not require a background in evolutionary biology and as such, these sorts of blanket statements are deceptive at best.

All the same, I cannot fault scientists for being openly frustrated with science deniers.  No theory should have to be shored up with threats of spiritual damage and guilt over betraying a deity.  The thought is almost laughable.  However, until secular scientists begin to appreciate how influential these arguments can be, they cannot fully understand why young earth creation has such appeal to many… and why it can control even very intelligent and learned people.  Many people do not deny science because they are ignorant or stupid, but because they feel like they have no other choice.

But there’s an up-side to this.  We can change.  And those who accept science can help.  Unfortunately, the attitudes that many people display towards science deniers is not helpful.  In the next installment, I’ll try to delve a little into some of my interactions with some of my secular peers and explain which ones helped me on my journey and which ones set me back.