This week we learned that Julie Quist of Edwatch will be joining the Bachmann team here in the 6th District. As an educator, I could not be any more disappointed in this decision. Public educators throughout the district should take this as a signal that the work they do is neither supported nor welcomed by the person who represents them in Washington.
What is Edwatch?
This organization is among the most extremist groups you can find in the field of education research and policy. Their mission is a wholesale destruction of the public education system in the United States.
Parents are the primary authority in the education and rearing of children.
Accessible, nonpublic education without government interference is essential to a healthy education system.
For Edwatch, it is not enough to simply improve public education through more local control or fewer unfunded mandates. They would like to see the entire system of public schools demolished. It is one thing to make this statement, as Bachmann has on her website:
For that reason, I'm a strong supporter of local control for our schools to ensure the most important decisions are made by parents, classroom teachers, and members of the local community where our children live and attend school.
It is quite another to take that one step further and denounce a system that has been in operation for over 100 years in various parts of this country. People need to understand that Michele Bachmann, in hiring the likes of Julie Quist, has gone beyond the above statement and a vote for her does not mean a vote for a fighter in local control of public education but rather an assault on public education itself. Conservative educators throughout the 6th District need to take a good long look at what message Bachmann is sending by connecting herself so directly to someone who is vehemently anti-public education.
A Theocratic Agenda
Edwatch claims to support the Constitution and its principles:
Good education in the United States promotes the American Creed (Principles of Liberty) as defined by the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, including national sovereignty, natural law, self-evident truth, equality, God-given inalienable rights of all people, the right to life, liberty and private property, the consent of the governed, and the primary purpose of government being the protection of citizen's inalienable rights. The American Creed creates "e pluribus unum" (out of many, one), i.e. people from many nations gathered under one American Creed.
Good education accurately teaches the political heritage of western civilization, including the Judeo-Christian worldview, as America's historical foundation.
The American Creed?
Yet, a knowledge of history escapes their grasp!I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.
If edwatch would abide by the American Creed they would realize that Americans have, for 100 years and more in places, given their consent to a public education system. If they truly understood the concept of "consent of the governed", they would understand that there never would have been a public education system without the "consent of the governed" and it would not have lasted this long without that same "consent of the governed". The people of the United States have spoken and although they would like to see changes or improvements made to public education, it is clear they continue to consent to public education.
Incidentally, someone really ought to let the people at edwatch know that the Declaration of Independence does NOT say life, liberty, property (let alone PRIVATE property). If edwatch cannot even be honest about the wording of the founding document of this country, how can one possibly take this organization at its word. Even John Locke, who first described the concept incorporated into the Declaration, didn't use the phrase "private" property. Rather, he used the phrase "life, liberty, & property". The question is, then, why would an organization Also interesting, is that those unalienable (not inalienable), were described by a man who also advocated the separation of church and state.
Incidentally, someone really ought to let the people at edwatch know that the Declaration of Independence does NOT say life, liberty, property (let alone PRIVATE property). If edwatch cannot even be honest about the wording of the founding document of this country, how can one possibly take this organization at its word. Even John Locke, who first described the concept incorporated into the Declaration, didn't use the phrase "private" property. Rather, he used the phrase "life, liberty, & property". The question is, then, why would an organization Also interesting, is that those unalienable (not inalienable), were described by a man who also advocated the separation of church and state.
So, despite wanting an "accurate" portrayal of western heritage, they themselves choose to misinterpret the very document they accuse others of misinterpreting.
Another item of contention is this:
Good education teaches a thorough understanding of the world in which we live, but also reinforces the sovereignty of the United States and American exceptionalism.
Good education understands that truth exists, and that it can be discovered, understood, and taught.
On the one hand edwatch advocates teaching the "true" heritage of the United States. Yet, on the other hand, they would like us as educators to "teach the controversy" in respect to intelligent design vs. evolution.
So, which is it?
If, as they claim, we should be teaching of the debate between intelligent design and evolution, then we should also be teaching of the various historical interpretations with concern to the founding of the United States. Unfortunately, they want it both ways. They want to insert their version of the truth into one debate but demand only one version in the other debate. Or, even more insidious, they want to chip away at the teaching of evolution until they can completely usurp it with the teaching of religious doctrine.
Also, this idea that we ought to teach of American "exceptionalism" is both disingenuous and a great disservice to our ancestors. Teaching about the warts in American history does not amount to hating America nor does it "blame" America first. It amounts to a nation that has not necessarily lived up to its billing as a shining city on a hill but one that has tried its very best to reach that goal.
Our ancestors fought with one another, oppressed one another, made mistakes together, and even killed one another and we still survived. To simply look past the bad times as if they never happened or even to gloss over them out of some sense of guilt is to spit on the strides this country has made to live up to its founding documents. I refuse to allow our history to be revised because some group wants their child to only learn of American greatness and not American faults. It is our faults and the pains we have suffered to solve those faults which make us great!
Also, this idea that we ought to teach of American "exceptionalism" is both disingenuous and a great disservice to our ancestors. Teaching about the warts in American history does not amount to hating America nor does it "blame" America first. It amounts to a nation that has not necessarily lived up to its billing as a shining city on a hill but one that has tried its very best to reach that goal.
Our ancestors fought with one another, oppressed one another, made mistakes together, and even killed one another and we still survived. To simply look past the bad times as if they never happened or even to gloss over them out of some sense of guilt is to spit on the strides this country has made to live up to its founding documents. I refuse to allow our history to be revised because some group wants their child to only learn of American greatness and not American faults. It is our faults and the pains we have suffered to solve those faults which make us great!
What is the point of this diatribe?
If Michele Bachmann wants to tie herself to an organization whose goal is the destruction of public education, revisionist history, and questionable research with regards to mental health issues, then she has every right to do so. However, she needs to be honest about what that agenda is so that the people of the 6th District can see what sort of extremism they have aloud to walk the halls of Congress. I encourage everyone to contact Michele Bachmann, write letters to the editor, and call her local offices to see if she is going to continue to soften her views on public education for the sake of winning elections or if she is truly honest enough to stand by the views of edwatch and her new employee, Julie Quist.
Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
