Let’s be crystal clear on this issue. American children should have to say the pledge. There should be certain obligations to being a citizen. I feel it is a person’s civic duty to be proud of one’s country. It is too bad that there could not be a special fund for people who protest saying the pledge of allegiance. I would like this fund to pay for them to stand on the field of Gettysburg or Normandy. They would feel the spirits of those brave men who gave their lives for the unification and survival of this great nation. Having to make a pledge to one’s country is no great sacrifice. Many countries require mandatory military service. The least one can do is say the pledge.
As I indicated, I am a great believer in the seperation of church and state. It is one of our strengths. It allows us to be relatively free of the religious persecutions that occur throughout the world. We are not told which religion to believe. This is crucial to our status as the world’s “melting pot.”
You speak of protests. That is also our right as citizens. However, just don’t say “under God.” I do not feel that that would be a disruptive “protest.” I have absolutely no sympathy for people who refuse to say the pledge. I feel the same way about people who burn our flag. These two actions disgust me. I don’t have any problem going back to the original pledge. Take the “under God” out or refuse to say those two words. But, I feel strongly that we should keep the pledge in our classrooms. I would also encourage elementary teachers to explain what the pledge means. Use it as a informational device for kids to learn about civic responsibilities.
Funny, I thought I did a decade on warships to make sure that my kids and I could say or not say whatever we wished.
I was not advocating the total removal of the pledge. I was just pointing out that religious rhetoric has no place in the pledge. That’s all. I think that people should be patriotic, but I don’t think that there should be a “requirement” of blind obedience. If the country is called to war, you have an obligation. You do not have a obligation to mouth words.
Hey, Huck did you happen to read my post. I am Mr. Freedom. However, I didn’t spend 12 years in the mud for people to tell me they won’t say the pledge of allegiance or burn MY FLAG. Tell your kids from me, say the pledge and be a good citizen.
These are the same people on the Golden Gate protesting the “inhumane” treatment of terrorists in Cuba. Damned tree hugg’n hippies! Yea, I spent TOO many years in the godforsaken Mojave for this shit! Oh btw, we should burn all our flags), not profile for terrorist(not PC), and tell our kids they owe NOTHING to the country and people that have fought and sacrificed to preserve their “rights”. They wonder whats wrong with todays youth,…their parents.
Wait! I almost forgot, ladies feel free to burn your bras as well 
Of course my kids said the pledge. My problem is with being required to say it. See my point? And anyway, my 10 years at sea beats your 12 in the mud, because mud tastes better than the crap they fed us. Also, our women were uglier.
Points taken. However, I am glad to hear that your children say the pledge. I understand your point about the right not to say the pledge. I do hope they continue to say the pledge, however.
if employees in the public school system actually had to produce a better product (i.e., better educated students) or lose their jobs to private schools that do produce results, (just like the rest of us in the real world) i think you would see an increase in the quality of public schools. or maybe all public schools will just fold and private schools will take over.
just like all things the government gets involved in, the free market can do a better job for less money.
Well said, Pete.
You really think private schools are that much better? And how do you test if a teacher’s “product” is quality? I’ve taught at a North Carolina State University for the past three years, and I have a few thoughts on the subject.
Now, NC has about a zillion tests to see if students are getting “what they’re supposed to” out of education. However, my freshmen, straight out of these well-assessed NC institutions, know only about exactly what they needed to know to pass those tests. So many students come to me afraid to step out on their own and think for themselves, and many spend their first year of college searching for any desire to truly learn anything for their own edification.
What is the purpose of education? One answer could be “to build a stronger individual and therefore a stronger society.” How will we do that when society is so confused and conflicted about education? It seems like people want to put less and less into education. Lowering the taxes that fund education? Are you serious? Why wouldn’t you want to pay for something so incredibly important to the future of your kids, mankind, our nation?
Our society is in grave danger of going the way of every other great fallen society in history because we are placing too little emphasis on taking care of our youth, our seniors; even art, which demonstrates our spirit and lifeforce, is completely undervalued.
By the way, the NC budget is now so low that even those assessment tests have taken a drastic cut. So how can you know if your children’s teachers are quality? Keep on talking to your kids. Your kids learn more from you than they’ll learn from any teacher anyway. Good parents, as I’m sure you know, your children have already have formed a majority of their personalities before even entering school.
One more thing. There’s no easy solution to any of this, and I don’t even know where I stand on the corporate/voucher issue. But don’t you dare say that a teacher doesn’t live in the “real world.” We see more of the real world in a day than some people who sit in cubicles may see all year. And, speaking for a large percentage of us that I know of, we sure as hell care about our students.
Fuck the urban districts and the disadvantaged kids. There schools will still suck as bad as they do now.
There is definitely NOT a cause-and-effect relationship between greater spending on education and better results. It can be argued, and is argued by some of the voucher proponents, that there isn’t even a correlation between the two. The school districts in this country with the highest per pupil expenditures, which run upwards of $8000 per pupil per year in D.C., are abyssmal. Simply raising taxes and throwing more money at the bureaucratic morass that is the public school system is decidely not the answer in terms of improving education in this country.
Vouchers are one possible solution, and they seem to be working in areas where they are being used. As Huck said above, the federal government really shouldn’t be involved at any rate. If you have a new and different solution, more power to you, but simply adding more funding to a failed model to fund ever more bureaucrats and administrators (thats where the funding drain occurs anyway) to interfere with hard-working teachers and add ever more requirements totally unrelated to an academic education would only make a bad situation worse.
Now, as to the Constitutionality of the ruling, it seems to me that the Supreme Court got it right on the money w/r/t the voucher programs. It’s not the government supporting religion if the government gives money to citizens who then themselves choose to give the money to educate their children at religious schools. As long as the parents have a non-religious option, it should be obvious that their decision is not the governments.
Take the ridiculous argument of the NEA and the other anti-voucher people and apply it in other contexts and you will see how woeful is its logic. If the government gives someone a tax rebate, say for the child-tax credit, and that person chooses to consider that part of his income and tithe 10% of it to his church, is that the government supporting religion? Of course not? What if the government just reduces the tax rate, and someone decides to donate all that extra income to a religious charity – is that the government supporting religions? These preposterous ideas follow the exact same logic as does the anti-voucher movement’s supposed Constitutional argument.
If you prefer another example of a program that works almost precisely as does the voucher program and has been around since the 50s, look to the GI Bill, by which the goverment gives veterans money to spend on their educations at any colleges they choose, religious or private. This is obviously not the government supporting religion, because the individual citizens are deciding where the money goes, not the government.
Basically, the whole church/state thing was a smokescreen because the NEA is scared of losing power as students desert failing public schools for non-unionized private schools.
“Tell your kids from me, say the pledge and be a good citizen.” Tsk tsk. You made an error in agreement. As “kids” is plural, your subclause, which, coincidentally, should have been set off with quotes, should have read: “say the pledge and be good citizens.”
Normally, this would drop you to a B, but given your good work and crusading for proper grammar and spelling, I’m willing to keep you at an A-. Be eternally vigilant.
i’ve spent 13 years in public schools and i know i have had several teachers who should be fired because they were useless. i took a calculas class my last year in high school and i learned next to nothing. i had one of the highest scores in the class and got awards in high school and college. i took a calc class at the u of mich and got my only c in college because students who went to other schools actually had teachers who taught them something. he should have been fired but the teacher’ union would not allow it. in the real world, someone that incompetent would have been fired. he was not the only one.
Ok, I think I went off a little in my last post. It’s not the money. Most good teachers are good teachers with or without money. And like BB said, most the money is lost in the Administration (at the district, not the school level). I just don’t think that someone who is a teacher and is fighting for the sake of their student’s education can explain what it is like. 99% of teachers WANT to be there. They wouldn’t last more than a year otherwise. But the problems that exist are sometimes too much even for the most dedicated. Principal in Atlanta last year blew her head off after a board meeting and her school’s test scores were revealed. You think there is a little pressure there?
Some of you will think “Well, pressure is good. Competition is good. Guess she couldn’t handle it.” Problem, you are using tests that are inaccurate and sometimes contain questions that don’t even deal with the subject. Is this a good measure of that principal, teacher, or student’s work? Most people would have a difficult time with a 9th grade Eco/Law/Pol exam. One reason is that it contains questions on acid rain. What the hell??? The 8th grade test has questions about info that can’t even be found in their current text book. Hello. Is anyone in the “real world” aware of this?
No. They just want to know what is up with all those whiny teachers.
Oh, sure Pete. I’ve never seen an incompetent employee anywhere but in the public school system (sarcasm). Underqualified, incompetent people are ALWAYS fired from their jobs (Arthur Anderson).
How are they going to fire incompetent people when they don’t have any money to woo new people? No correlation between $$ and quality? Really? Good people may want to teach simply because they love it, but some people can only handle working their butts off for beans for so long.
from my limited experience, the public teachers’ unions do not sit idle and allow one of theirs to get fired for incompetence. The private schools i am familiar with are not unionized and can therefore terminate incompetent teachers with the hassle and threats of union walkouts and other tactics.