Can You Teach Us?

May 14, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Public education has been overlooking – or worse, neglecting – a golden opportunity to improve. It’s not only been right in front of us all along, it’s been kicking us and taking our lunch money! And yet, somehow, where we should have recognized an opportunity, all we’ve seen is a competitor. In some cases, maybe even a threat.

It’s like we don’t actually WANT to teach gooder. I assume this is largely due to the various teachers’ unions and Hillary Clinton’s personal email server.

We’ve been told for several decades now that “school choice,” vouchers, educational “savings” accounts, etc., are essential for students to have access to a truly quality education, and that a little healthy competition will make us all better. I, for one, have been guilty of pushing back against this rhetoric. I’ve even been so cynical as to suggest ulterior motives by many of those involved (for which I assure you I now have all sorts of lingering guilt). But as Indiana dramatically expands their various “choice” initiatives and other red states do the same, I believe it’s time to change our approach.

It’s time to seek the guidance of the masters. It’s time to admit our own shortcomings and failures and learn from those who’ve accomplished so much. It’s not selling out, kids – it’s buying in. Besides, there’s nothing for me here now. I want to learn the ways of the Choice and become highly qualified like you. There’s still good in me. Surely you can sense it.

Teach us.

Learning The Ways Of The Choice

The primary argument for “school choice” is that the quality of the education is just plain better. The teachers are better. The administration is better. The system is organized more efficiently. The curriculum is more coherent and whole. The atmosphere simply reeks of excellence.

It’s easy to lose sight of this because those of us on the pro-“destroying the future” side of things have been too long distracted by this crazy idea that private schools achieve their goals primarily by picking and choosing which students they want on their rosters and turning away the rest. We’ve quibbled over many institutions’ focus on religious dogma, questionable science, distorted or overly selective history, and a tendency to blame everything from poverty to skin tone on some combination of personal failure and the sins of Cain. We’ve let ourselves become overly focused on the relative lack of improvement demonstrated year after year in “educational outputs” instead of zeroing in on the handful of truly impressive outliers here and there who get cited in all the brochures.

In short, we’ve been too cynical. Let’s try assuming the best about our cohorts in the world of private religious schooling, shall we?

I’m Here To Rescue You

If it’s about better teaching, then please – come train us. Show us your ways. It has to be better than most of the “professional development” to which we’re usually subjected. I’ll even pay attention and do the activities – I promise!

If it’s about better school administration, then come run a building or two for us. The pay has to be better, and if there’s such a thing as “doing the Lord’s work,” then surely this qualifies. Come show us how to reduce waste and establish that culture of excellence or whatever. We even promise not to pull the “union won’t let you” card out for the first year or two.

If it’s about better policies, then that’s easy. Just email us a PDF and we’ll gladly give it a go. Anything conflicting with state requirements should be simple enough to fix. If all of these legislators are as committed to educational excellence as they keep insisting (particularly when it involves more “freedom” and greater “choice”), surely they’d be willing to waive a statute or two. Or 3,497.

If it’s about curriculum, we’ll gladly pay for a copy. We’re apparently flush with wasted cash here in the world of public education. It would no doubt be an improvement, I assure you. Our administration buys some weird stuff already and your standards can’t be any worse than “Teach Like A Mongol Barbarian” or “Writing Through Excellence In Compassionate Modal Communication Across The Curriculum For Everyone!”

If it’s about facilities, well… I guess that depends on what we’re missing. Apparently we waste all kinds of resources on overstaffing and glossy copy paper and what not – maybe cutting back a little on the bad stuff would free up some funds. If not, there’s always another fundraiser pushing overpriced M&Ms on kids. Or Kickstarter.

In short, we’re ready. Come show us how to teach our students as effectively as you teach yours. Come show us how to be more committed, less wasteful, and become overall better people both personally and professionally. You win. We’re mediocre and whiney. You’re talented and full of passion. Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi – you’re our only hope.

The Terminally Exhausted Part

There is one tiny little downside to this plan: it will never happen. And even if it did, it would never work.

Maybe that’s two tiny little downsides.

The problem isn’t that private school teachers aren’t any good at what they do. Many of them are amazing. The problem is that so are many public school educators. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, that’s not really the issue. Nor is it about curriculum or facilities or administration.

When private schools have superior outcomes, you’ll generally find they started with very different students than the public school they’re supposed to be “inspiring” down the road. That’s not even necessarily a bad thing. The best and brightest need good teachers just like everyone else. They’re not always easier to teach or intrinsically motivated to learn. As any teacher of advanced students (public or private) can assure you, “top” kids are just as much work as “bottom” kids – just in different ways.

But let’s stop pretending it’s an accomplishment to inherit upper middle class white kids from two-parent families whose lives have been full of travel and books and engaging conversation and art and expectations and consistency. Let’s stop pretending that’s somehow not one of the biggest draws of private schooling – the chance to have your elite little darling surrounded by and shaped by other folks’ elite darlings. We see it in AP or IB classes in public schools. We see it in neighborhoods in different parts of town. We see it in the churches we choose to attend and the stores in which we choose to shop. We can debate whether it’s ethically “right” or “wrong,” but only if we start by being honest about this very human tendency we’re indulging.

Let’s stop pretending that “choice” is about improving “educational outcomes” for everyone. Sure, that fits a certain school of capitalistic thought – but after decades of spouting the admittedly catchy rhetoric that goes along with it, it turns out it simply doesn’t work in any sort of predictable or consistent way. The vast majority of the time, “school choice” is about getting US away from THEM, whether the distinction is racial, economic, or religious. (That’s also why it’s usually the schools that have their choice of students; not students who have a true choice of schools.) Personally, I think it undercuts one of the primary functions of public education if we allow large segments of the community to pull their children into little enclaves and teach them stuff that runs against the goals and success of the larger society. But we can’t even have that argument unless we start being honest with each other (and ourselves) about what we want and why we make the choices we do.

The X-Files Problem

One of the most frustrating premises of the classic “X-Files” series was that not only was the truth “out there,” but there were numerous individuals fully aware of it who simply wouldn’t tell the rest of us. Scully and Muldar were working not only against aliens, freaks, and the elusive nature of reality – they were being taunted by their own government who could have saved all sorts of time and money if they’d simply sent them a few PDF summaries of how things really worked.

It’s foolish to pretend that the secret to education is out there – the unified learning theory that reaches all students in all situations and imparts all the knowledge and skills we’d like if only we were willing to push the “GO” button. There are good ideas and bad, stuff that works in many situations with many different types of kids and stuff that’s pretty stupid no matter where it’s tried. There are teachers working wonders in impossible situations and entire districts coasting along mired in mediocrity and bureaucracy. And yes, there are private schools doing a much better job with challenging populations than their public counterpart down the street.

There are legit arguments to be had about “school choice” when it comes to private schools willing to teach a largely secular curriculum to students very much like those attending the local public schools and take responsibility for both the results and how they treat their students in order to make it happen. We pretend we’re having them all the time.

Usually we’re not.

If “school choice” is of genuine benefit to all students, it should be easy to both document and replicate – neither of which seems to be happening much. If it’s not, the conversation should be about whether or not there are other good reasons to keep doing it. We can’t have that discussion, however, until all parties are willing to get a little more honest with themselves about what they’re actually doing and why they’re doing it.

RELATED POST: 5 Bad Assumptions Behind Education Reform

RELATED POST: Welcome To Atheist School!

RELATED POST: To Sleep, Perchance To Sue…

To Sleep, Perchance To Sue…

January 23, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

I’m working on a follow-up to “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases which focuses on cases related to church-state issues in education. Unlike this blog, the book is intended to be a relatively neutral resource, focused on breaking down cases into plain, simple English with a little historical context and references to related cases rather than a parade of snark and hyperbole designed to throw blue meat to the liberal masses.

I mean, I’m keeping a pithy comment here and there just to give it some color, but I’m hoping for something damn near professional by the time it’s done. As I get to cases decided in this century, however, things get increasingly poignant and at times potentially pungent. Many of the justices writing these opinions are still on the bench, and it becomes increasingly difficult to frame the issues as foundational for current jurisprudence – because they ARE current jurisprudence.

This particular case involves the hiring and firing of private school teachers in religious schools. What I’m currently wrestling with is an apparent contradiction between how the Court treats private religious schools when it comes to school choice (“hey, these are just schools doing school things for valid school reasons like any other schools, except they happen to have a religious point of view… give them all the tax money or it’s religious discrimination”) and how it treats the same religious schools when they’re firing teachers for being old or getting sick (“hey, these are religious institutions whose whole function is spreading their faith… you can’t hold them accountable for anything they do or else it’s religious discrimination”). Now, let me be clear – I realize it’s certainly not that simple. The devil is in the–

Actually, that’s probably not an appropriate idiom with this specific topic. Sorry about that.

The point is, despite what my Twitter feed and periodic ranting might suggest, I doubt it’s as black and white as my summary above. What I’m not yet certain of is exactly how not black and white it is. That will require a little more reading of people smarter than me and – realistically – some waiting to see what the courts do going forward. What is clear is that relgious schools occupy something of a paradoxical zone in which they’re being granted increasing benefits at the expense of public education while being held to fewer standards or expectations. They’re benefitting from both the “valid, secular” function they claim to serve and from their religious status and mission, which is generally proclaimed as their top priority. Those two things needn’t always be in conflict, but let’s be honest – in the 21st century, they very often are.

In any case, let’s get to it. Here’s my current draft of “Worth A Look: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012).” Could there be a catchier title?

Perich’s job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission. Hosanna-Tabor expressly charged her with “lead[ing] others toward Christian maturity” and “teach[ing] faithfully the Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures, in its truth and purity and as set forth in all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.” In fulfilling these responsibilities, Perich taught her students religion four days a week, and led them in prayer three times a day. Once a week, she took her students to a school-wide chapel service, and—about twice a year—she took her turn leading it, choosing the liturgy, selecting the hymns, and delivering a short message based on verses from the Bible. During her last year of teaching, Perich also led her fourth graders in a brief devotional exercise each morning. As a source of religious instruction, Perich performed an important role in transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation.
In light of these considerations—the formal title given Perich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church—we conclude that Perich was a minister covered by the ministerial exception…
It is true that her religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday, and that the rest of her day was devoted to teaching secular subjects… The heads of congregations themselves often have a mix of duties, including secular ones such as helping to manage the congregation’s finances, supervising purely secular personnel, and overseeing the upkeep of facilities…
Because Perich was a minister within the meaning of the exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this employment discrimination suit against her religious employer…
The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission… [T]he First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.
(from the Court’s Majority Opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts)

Cheryl Perich was a teacher at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School. Hosanna-Tabor classified its teachers as either “called” or “lay” instructors, preferring those “called” but accepting “lay” when necessary to fill positions with qualified candidates. Perich began as a “lay” instructor, but was asked to consider becoming “called,” which she did. The process required several theology courses, extra religious training, and approval by the larger church body. Her daily duties didn’t noticeably change, but she was at that point considered a “commissioned minister” of the church.

Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and missed part of the 2004-2005 school year. After extended sick leave and approval from her doctor, she notified Hosanna-Tabor that she was ready to return in February. By that time, the school had hired a long-term sub and suggested maybe she wasn’t as ready as she thought. They offered to pay part of her ongoing health insurance premiums if she’d retire without making a fuss, and her principal hinted she was probably going to be fired anyway so why not take the deal – and her narcolepsy – and make things easy for everyone, K?

She didn’t.

Perich informed Hosanna-Tabor that she’d spoken to an attorney and that according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Americans with Disabilities Act, they couldn’t fire her for having narcolepsy. Hosanna-Tabor replied that shut-up-yes-we-can, and besides, we’re not firing you for having narcolepsy – we’re firing you for talking to a lawyer about us firing you for having narcolepsy. That was, they explained, very hurtful to their working relationship and thus against church policy.

Unlike, for example, firing someone for having narcolepsy.

As the case moved through the court system, the central question wasn’t so much whether Perich had been fired for having narcolepsy or for not wanting to be fired for having narcolepsy. It was instead the question of whether or not she qualified as a “minister” in the eyes of the law. The First Amendment’s religion clauses (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”) are traditionally understood to prevent government from getting involved in almost any issue related to church leadership or internal decisions regarding ministerial personnel. The history behind the First Amendment is simply too steeped in state control of or interference with official church leadership back in the proverbial day.

If Perich qualified as a “minister,” then Hosanna-Tabor didn’t have to prove they had just cause for terminating her; they merely had to prove that it wasn’t the court’s business what their reasons were – insubordination, violation of church policy, or simply that Jesus doesn’t like narcoleptics, it was a church matter. Period.

The Sixth Circuit Court which heard the case before it was appealed to the Supreme Court focused on Perich’s actual daily duties. Most of her time and energy seemed to be spent on teaching, with only a small portion of each day devoted to, well… devotion. In this sense, her job was very much like most teachers, including the “lay” teachers not labeled “ministers” by the church. The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, insisting they must instead defer to the church in matters related to ministry – whatever the math might suggest. Perich had accepted a specific pathway to become “called” and taken on the title of “minister.” She filed as a minister on her taxes and spoke as someone commissioned by the church prior to being fired.

If it looks like a minister, walks like a minister, and talks like a minister…

The Supremes ruled for Hosanna-Tabor and tried to keep its decision narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances before it. Eight short years later, in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020), the Court would cast such subtleties to the waves and rule that pretty much anyone a religious organization wanted to label a “minister” – even teachers in their private schools who had no other ministerial role or title – could be hired, fired, or otherwise handled at the discretion of the church without recourse to legal protections. The specific fallout from this has yet to be seen.

The Blaine Game (Updated)

February 6, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Way back in 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant called for a Constitutional amendment that would mandate free public schools and prohibit the use of public money for “sectarian” purposes.

The idea of free public schools wasn’t new, but neither was it universal. And it wasn’t unheard of for various state governments to support education provided through religious institutions. It was working, and seemed practical at one time, so why not?

Republican Congressman James G. Blaine was happy to comply and proposed such an amendment. It came close to passage, but fell just short and never became law.

Over time, however, various Supreme Court rulings essentially codified the same principle. It’s a tricky balance sometimes (should states help Catholic schools buy Algebra textbooks?), but generally the separation between church and state is assumed in most circumstances – including school funding.

Most states – including Oklahoma – were less ambivalent, and have language similar to Blaine’s original proposal in their state constitutions, often informally referenced as ‘the Blaine Amendment’. For example, Article 2, Section 5 of Oklahoma’s constitution says this:

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

That language, along with Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment over the years, is why we can’t have a 10 Commandments monument on capitol grounds. It’s also why ESAs/vouchers are unconstitutional– even those currently hidden behind the shield of ‘special needs’.

The courts haven’t agreed with me on that one yet, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

Religious diversity in the United States has expanded considerably since 1875, making the distinction between faith and politics even more appropriate. Disputes which used to involve whether or not copper buttons on your coat would cost you your eternal soul now seem quaint compared to disagreements over which god is the “real” one, or what caliber Jesus would use to eliminate children of other faiths.

It can get personal.

For people of relatively orthodox faith in Oklahoma, this increasing diversity looks and feels very much like their fundamental beliefs and lifestyles are under some sort of attack. What used to be assumed is now suddenly controversial, and traditions which used to bind communities together are now accused of being dangerous and wrong-headed.

Take a moment and appreciate how disturbing this is to someone not quite so detached and smugly intellectual as those on the opposite extreme. These aren’t bad people, for the most part – they’re just a little freaked out and worried about the world in which their kids are growing up.

Unfortunately, politics and pragmatism rarely allow for such reflection. Decisions must be made and funds allocated. “Blaine Amendment” or not, there are currently two pathways by which Oklahoma parents can procure state support to send their child to a private school – even a “sectarian” one.

The first is the “Oklahoma Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship.” This was authored by Senator Dan Newberry (R) and signed into law by Governor Fallin in 2011.

The OEOES gives individuals and businesses a 50% tax credit for contributions made to nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships to students whose parents want them in private schools. Students must live in a district labeled ‘Yucky Doo-Doo Heads’ or worse by the state’s A-F School Shaming System (even if they’ve never actually attended public school in that district) OR live in a household “in which the total annual income during the preceding tax year does not exceed an amount equal to three hundred percent (300%) of the income standard used to qualify for a free or reduced school lunch… “

Threefold the reduced lunch threshold isn’t hardcore poverty by any stretch. This means the parents of little Theodore, who’s always gone to Word of Faith of Hope of Grace anyway, can receive financial aid from wealthy donors who will then be significantly reimbursed by taxpayer dollars.

It’s just indirect enough to pass constitutional muster, and we could quibble over whether or not tax breaks are the same as public support. Right now, however, this is the law.

The second is the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship for Students with Disabilities, which seems to be better-known and more widely-utilized. This bill, passed in 2010, allows students who can secure the label “special needs” to take their portion of state funding and attend a private school of their parents’ choice.

Any student with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) who’s gone to public school in Oklahoma for at least a year OR whose parent is an active-duty member of the armed forces (often moving regularly) is eligible. Once approved, the voucher option continues through high school.

Despite pro-voucher visuals featuring a touching variety of multi-cultural children in wheelchairs and competing in the Special Olympics, it takes much less to qualify for an IEP. Any teacher can tell you the vast majority of mandated modifications are things like “allowed to use a calculator” or “sits near teacher and requires periodic redirection.”

I’m not trivializing the role of educational modification, but we should be honest about the range of students covered by this language.

If little Brittany’s parents can convince that 3rd Grade team that she simply MUST be given extra time on her spelling practice, or if Chauncy’s parents secure the tiniest diagnosis from their family doctor regarding his adorable 2nd Grade lisp (the kind assertively featured any time a child under the age of 20 appears in a TV commercial), they then qualify for these ‘special needs’ vouchers all the way up until their admittance letters from Stanford (Daddy’s alma mater!)

The use of this particular ‘scholarship’ in religious schools has been validated by the courts. Several districts challenged this legislation when it first passed, and were demonized for “suing parents of handicapped kids.” The courts determined the schools lacked standing, so other approaches were tried. So far, they’ve failed.

I’m happy enough for the parents making good use of this to get a better education for their kids. I really am.

Of greater significance, however, is the logistical reality of special needs children in MOST private schools. One of the many freedoms granted non-public institutions of learning is that they don’t have to follow IEPs or accommodations or anything else required of public schools. Ironically, an IEP may be required to GET that funding, but as soon as you’re admitted, it ceases to exist.

While there are a handful of schools committed to better educating certain types of high-needs children – some of whom do amazing work – the vast majority are rather selective about who they do and don’t accept. Whatever their good intentions, most private schools simply lack the resources to make sure little Gertrude gets specialized attention. If she can’t step up and fit in without disrupting the flow, she’s out.

Chances are she’ll never be in to begin with.

Few parents of a child with substantial needs are likely to have the resources to independently fund that full-time aide to follow them from class to class, or the tutoring they’ll need to master basic math. Public schools can’t afford to do it either, but we do – because it’s the law.

Public school educators arguing against vouchers (or ESAs) aren’t doing so out of some twisted venom towards religious instruction (well, some of them might be – but not the rational majority). We’re kicking and screaming because the powers-that-be are manipulating your collective sympathy and desire to do right by kids in order to redirect public funds into the pockets of their chosen favorites – many of whom are perfectly capable of funding their children’s education on their own.

We’re fussing because those who inherited the nicest treehouse keep trying to pull up the ladder so no one else can play, despite the welcome mat hanging from the highest branches and their wailing laments over the ‘choices’ of those still on the ground.

I’m not done with this issue.

RELATED POST: Jonah’s Education