School choice is a big deal with the wingnuts these days, and going many years back. I do not have a problem with it, as long as tax dollars do not go for paying for it. Vouchers, and such.
I DO have a problem with what these "alternate" institutions have to teach. Most of them are rabidly teaching that evolution is incorrect (by the way, this in Dr. Darwin's bicentennial birthday, just like President Lincoln).
Here is a quote from the American Family Association's website about it.
The same day, a counter-celebration -- Academic Freedom Day -- is being observed, encouraging students across the U.S. to defend their right to debate the evidence for and against Darwin's theory of evolution. John West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, explains that the idea for Academic Freedom Day came from evolutionary critics who believe the pros and cons of evolution should be discussed in public school classrooms.
OK, so what are the cons? Crickets now. There are none.
Here is another quote from the article:
"You know, Darwin himself in his own book -- On the Origin of Species -- talks about how the only way his theory can be fairly evaluated is if you balance the facts and arguments on both sides of all the things that he raises," states West. "And so we want to take Darwin at his word and celebrate his theory by promoting an honest and open discussion about the evidence for his theory."
And so it has. Darwin's harshest critic, Sir Herschel, wanted to know the basic mechanism of natural selection. Darwin could not produce that, since biochemistry was not as advanced then as it is now. But, with the cracking of the DNA code, Sir Herschel's question is now answered. There is a simple (well, not that simple, but logical) reason for natural selection. If Sir Herschel had know about that, no question would have been raised.
But the nonsense continues from the ID fanatics, viz.:
But opponents of "academic freedom" claim that debate opens the door for discussion of intelligent design (ID) or creationism -- something they say violates the supposed separation of church and state. West disagrees and says there is a difference between ID and creationism.
"Well, creationism usually is an effort to try to specifically reconcile the Bible with science -- and that's a valuable thing to do," West admits. "But intelligent design sort of starts from the presumption [of] what can we know just by looking at the natural world. [It basically asks] 'Without looking at the Bible or any other sacred writing, what can we know just by looking at the finely tuned complexity that we see throughout nature?'"
He adds that "even the Darwinists like Richard Dawkins admit that nature is just suffused with the appearance of design."
Well, West is of course being the lying person that he normally is. As a matter of fact, all of those "ID" or "creationist" folks are either liars (most likely), self deluded (some are), or politicians looking for support. I thing that most are a meld of the three.
So what do the wingnut want to do? Here is one "solution":
Neal McClusky, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, argues that the problem of academic freedom can be solved by strengthening school choice.
"Ultimately the problem is not that we shouldn't have a debate on evolution," he asserts. "It's that when we have public schools that everyone has to fund, then everyone is paying for a single answer."
Neal McClusky (Cato Institute)He says the solution is to "decouple" school funding and then give the money to parents who can then choose the best school for their children. That way, he explains, if parents want their children to learn about evolution, they can choose a school that teaches evolution -- or if they prefer to send their children to a school that teaches creationism or the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, they can do so instead.
Cool. Let's just fund schools that teach nonsense, and use what essentially is tax money (the shift of funding from proper, public schools into the private ones by vouchers, or other mechanisms amounts to public funding) to fund schools that teach illogic, nonsense, and the antitheses of science.
I could go on, but I think that I have made my point. Do not let those folks get away with it.
Personal observation: I happened to be at a big box store today, getting some coin wrappers for my cents (by the way, I hit the mother lode for Brilliant Uncirculated 2008P ones the past couple of days) when I heard a mother, and this is as closely as I can quote her to say:
"We's here to git yur home schoolin' folders stuff for this yar. You ain't gittin' away without studyin'."
I swear that this is correct, if not verbatim. The little girl was around 5'5", I would guess 11 to 13 years old, and had outgrown her clothes in many ways, if you get my drift. But Mum awanted herin to git herin papers.
I have nothing further to say.
Warmest regards,
Doc