Hahaha. This MF’er is so butthurt! Hahaha. 8 years from 2015…How’s it been working out for you? March on, Hillsdale!
The author of this article clearly does not understand how a charter school operates, even with an additional sponsor (aside from state funding), a charter school can’t be “for-profit” by definition. Also, the sponsor makes NO money from the school. The State’s curriculum and laws govern the charter, not the sponsor, and they’d get shut down REALLY fast if they began acting like a private school.
America was created to allow for any religion, and the dominance of none. It is as simple as that.You can be God fearing or not..this is where right and wrong display sharp irreconcilable distances
If you wish to choose Judeo-Christian values school, it should be available to you.
Undermine public education in this country? They don’t have to, public education has done an excellent job of undermining itself for the last 40 years or so. If you are worried about indoctrination, look no further than the public schools where teaching how to think is not on the agenda, but teaching what to think is job one.
Karl succinctly stated the truth that so frightens unionized and entrenched low quality teachers and their socialistic administrators that have dumbed-down public education and at ever rising costs.
Thomas Jefferson (and others) comments regarding govt. and public funds was that there should never be any government obstacles or influence allowed against any religion; ever. All the rest of your “legal claims” have been made up by socialists over the past century. They have gradually infiltrated our govt, our judgeships; the legal profession; our schools. It is called Fabian Socialism.
Amen!!! The last thing the author and community want is a wholesome, free-thinking environment for the children.
[…] Brew’s replied three times to the article so far. Political Brew’s real name is Bob Brewer of Tyler, Texas. […]
I know I am late to the discussion but I wanted to thank you for giving me some great insight on BCSI both pro and con. I am on the finance committee for our local Barney Classical School. Your blog post helped confirm my decision to enroll my three children there next fall. I just wanted to address the the notion that BSCI schools are for-profit. We are a 5013c nonprofit. None of our board or committee members receive any compensation. As a matter of fact our board president has already donated thousands of dollars toward the opening costs of the school. We must raise all the funds to start the school ourselves. No funds are provided by Hillsdale College. We will not receive a dime of public funding until a few weeks before the first students walk through our doors. Even then it will only be 3/4 of the amount per student that public schools receive. We must make up the remaining 1/4 or find ways to be more efficient than regular public schools which should not be difficult. To address the question of whether or not the school will be Christian. Not once in the planning of this school has a prayer been spoken publicly. Not once has any mention been made of religious curriculum. I personally do not know the religious status of most members of the board and committee. Our charter was approved by a 3/4 vote in April.
This article is a political “hit piece”. Firstly, this author begins with a study of Hillsdale College which outlines the Colleges aims and goals in a fair and true manner. Nothing sinister at this point. The next thought process addresses the Hillsdale Academy. Equally as truthful. The author even conceded that both the College and Academy are private educational institutions operating well within the legal funding frameworks of contemporary society.
This article begins to go off the rails during the authors explaination of modeling regarding educational methods, techniques and precepts. The author seems not to understand the concept of “model” when applied to educational structures. Coupling the Barney project and its educational model to private school precepts as an operable at Hillsdale College and Academy is at best disingenuous and at worst intellectually dishonest. Models are not of necessity replicas of an entity. This is especially true when complex entities are modeled. Educational systems fall squarely into the “complex” arena where modeling consists of various subsystems. With respect to the Barney project, the religious aspect of the private Hillsdale institutions is not included within the charter educational model. This is a distinction not acknowledged by the author of this article and the reason that the argument presented is specious.
You said it quite well. The only thing on display in this article is the author’s lack of education in basic critical thinking skills.
He builds up all kinds of fantastic accusations, but then when it comes time to present evidence, all we see is a cheap, and fairly obvious, sleight of hand. This is a classic example of how people misuse the principles of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom’s Taxonomy is based on the idea that you cannot ethically attempt to categorize, analyze, evaluate or make conclusions until you can clearly define the basis, premises or specifics of what you are talking about. The author of this piece uses all kinds of attention-seeking rhetoric about ‘hypocrisy” and “religion” but his argument boils down to saying that because Hillsdale is ethical enough not to take government funds, it has no right to coordinate and partner with other organizations that do take funding. Its a flimsy argument based on lack of critical thinking.
Many of the respondents to this piece think that you can have education without a fundamental ideology or faith. That is impossible. Up North Progressive clearly preaches and believes in Marxist materialism, while Hillsdale is also clearly based on Judeo-Christian foundations. I for one advocate the latter.
I keep hearing that you object to the Charter schools, that Hillsdale is trying to develop, because you disagree with them politically. You refer to “tea party rhetoric plastered all over social media” but I don’t hear any condemnation of liberal rhetoric pushed by public school districts, teachers unions, and groups that oppose any option, other than public education. The Hillsdale model acknowledges that modern, progressive public education is a failure and advocates for returning to the educational system used by the Western world for hundreds of years prior. Your political objection to conservative, traditional, reasonable political ideas makes your stated objections to this particular school moot. Having read your article and the responses to prior comments, you have clearly advocated for liberal schools in the same way as religious schools. And you are correct that government funding of religion is a problematic idea, as is government funding of schools that are limited to 1 political view.
As a teacher in one of the largest districts in the country I can validate your comments. Teachers who are not Marxists are punished overtly and covertly for encouraging free and open expression in the classroom. The hypocrisy of the radical Left, and its incessant propaganda, is brainwashing our next generation of citizens. I wish that there were many more charter schools being opened using the classical model.
The first universities set up in this country were there to train missionaries and clergy of specific denominations. Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia as the first non-denominational university in the country; not because he abhorred their mission, but because he wanted all citizens to have an opportunity to learn at a higher level. There is no separation of church and state as interpreted by courts today; that’s a misinterprtation of the 1rst Amendment. Funding a school that teaches religion is in no way the “establishment” of a state religion; and that’s what the Founders were guarding against. Teachers are trained at colleges and universities, why should these same institututions not be involved in bettering the educational system as a whole.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” is what the Constitution says. They way it is applied, Congress, or rather the courts, have established Atheism as the official religion of the country. I’m not a fundamentalist but I object to removing all images of religion from the public forum. Atheism IS a religion. Webster defines religion as: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. ie, religion is your understanding and relationship to God. Atheism is he understanding that God doesn’t exist, in the same way that I, as a Catholic, understand that God exists. This is why, with Atheists as delegates to the convention, the 1st amendment was written as shown above. They didn’t want Atheists to impose their beliefs anymore than they wanted Catholics or Jews or C of E to impose theirs.
I agree Patrick. Why should all government schools be run by the “Nones” and none by Nuns?
“No separation of church and state,” are you really trying to sell that? Give us a break! “Marxists! Liberals! Progressives!” Today’s Christians know nothing about “charity” as described in the bible. Psst, it means “love.” It’s all attack, disparage, smear and push your Conservative agenda that is essentially racism in disguise. “Everyone knows Jesus and Santa were white.” -Megyn Kelly
Don’t be so sure Hillsdale college doesn’t take taxpayer money… they take plenty. Just like their charter school initiative, they have their “donors” instead taking MEDC money for college housing.
Maybe the “Uptight Progressive”?
Your poor command of grammar alerted me to your ineptness. Your ensuing arguments confirm.
Bozo…
Did your Marxist-Leninist candidate win the Presidential election?
I didn’t think so…
[…] just as racist and bigoted as he. The school will use Hillsdale College’s politically biased curriculum. According to Hillsdale College’s Barney Charter School […]
[…] Up North Progressive receives comments from readers with both positive and negative feedback. One article that seems to cause the most grief so far is this one, because how dare anyone call out a college […]
It amazes me that money taken from private citizens and private corporations magically becomes PUBLIC funds that only an elite, secular, group of social engineers should be able to spend in any way they see fit. If you had an open mind you would see that our constitution allows religious people to hold public office and allows religious people to run and teach in schools. What is not allowed is to pass a law that establishes a religion. We have taken this to an extreme and tend to fight anything that smells of religion (mostly Christian, that is). A Christian-philosophy based institution like Hillsdale has every right to fund, train and assist in the development of charter schools. Their K-12 guides on their website are reference materials and are actually quite different from the secular curriculum that they suggest for the charters they are affiliated with. And in a free society, with intellectual curiosity and critical thought encouraged, there is no reason that a literature or history class would be barred from reading from the bible, the Koran, the Talmud or any other book. Proselytizing and preaching Jesus or Mohamed would be unacceptable, but our society has gotten a bit out of hand taking money from all citizens and limiting its use to what only a handful of elites agree is proper.
Cooleridge Dollar clearly won this debate by sta
Of course Christian schools shouldn’t be taking taxpayer money. You just reiterated a key reason that charter school operators would want to keep their schools secular; it’s the law and they don’t want to get shut down. Now, no doubt some operators may try to pussyfoot around, but there is no reason to believe that a majority of this or any group in society would try to break laws — and there is no sufficient evidence that Hillsdale College, let alone the whole of the charter school movement, is breaking the law. You are unwilling to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt as you would any normal human being, only because their general politics are perceived to be different from yours (although charter operators in the inner-cities are overwhelmingly Democrats). This is why I said you don’t seem reasonably impartial on this issue. I could be wrong, but I don’t know you personally.
You do well, however, to point out those articles about the frauds. They broke the law and paid the price. Good. As for the rest, like Hillsdale, you keep citing ideological reputations, not actions. That’s not proof; that’s conjecture.
I’ll add lastly, it’s worth considering that many Americans wouldn’t perceive the public secularization efforts to be such a national witch-hunt if the traditional system weren’t still crashing and burning on its own. But it is. Charter schools (which must contend also with other charter schools, I remind) allow parents to “vote with their feet”; if they perceive religious indoctrination, they can remove their child and report the school, problem solved. But secular VS. religious “education” is a completely pointless battle if our country, on the whole, is churning out relative imbeciles. That is what we need to worry about.
I have witnessed the churning out of imbeciles as a teacher whose hands were tied and who was cautioned to avoid presenting any information not aligned with liberal proselytizing.
It seems to me that, like many things, both Hillsdale’s charter school initiative and the charter school movement at large are WAY too big to judge based on one or two of their flawed human components. Extrapolating from your logic, Harvard University — the biggest, most prestigious institution in American history — should have been sanctioned into oblivion the moment it was perceived that president Larry Summers “said” women are inferior at science. (What an evil college!) Likewise, perhaps the American traditional public school system should have folded tenfold by now due to the near-continual instances of official corruption, child molestation, and statutory rape in the news. As usual, such logic is only sufficient for the scores of the falsely indignant. Don’t be one of them.
Secondly, regarding: “the Judeo-Christian faith and Greco-Roman culture, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.” …
You cannot imply that this view is untrue to the spirit of America and the Founders so shouldn’t be taught, and then claim that the Founders were over-privileged and bad and thus shouldn’t be emulated anyway. Choose one or the other; you can’t have both. The socioeconomic history of Latin-learning opportunities is irrelevant to this discussion, and you know it.
More importantly, educational emphasis on both the “Greco-Roman” and “Judeo-Christian” influences is clearly limited to neither “conservative/religious” institutions nor due to some supposed inseparability of the two (you implied they’re not the same, and I agree), but because said influences are considered to be the pillars of the West; one need not (repeat, not) be religious in order to acknowledge Judeo-Christianity’s role in our history — exactly like no one need be Greek or Roman to acknowledge those cultures’ importance as well — and in fact, it is basic knowledge to all credible historians (most of whom are atheists, statistically speaking). This would clear up what you think is secular Hillsdale’s paradox.
By Occam’s razor, in the face of common inference you have no reason to believe in conspiracies originating from a movement (charter schools) flawed but fundamentally intended to create choice for concerned parents and students (you should give “Waiting for Superman” a view), yet you insist on vilifying Hillsdale College and other originators because you’ve gathered a surface impression that their underlying beliefs are evil — or simply don’t resemble yours — and should probably be destroyed. Because you are willing to give the government the power to pick winners and losers, because you feel like a winner today and the possibility of that power coming back to bite you is unthinkable. I highly doubt you would discourse this way in person, so don’t do it on your blog.
And lastly, don’t be dismayed. Personally, I like to disrupt echo chambers of any ideology, be they left-wing, right-wing, or in-between. By checking your statements with mine, I’m just seeking debate, by which you and I ideally are sharpening each other’s “logos” for the real battles of ideas.
And yes, Porter’s the man, although I don’t insist I’m “the top.”
I appreciate your elegant arguments and hope the will serve as examples for your opponents in this debate.
I don’t think you understand Hillsdale College, judging by what you’ve written so briefly about it. Even if you did, the college only advises the curriculum of aforementioned charter schools, the start-up of which is typically handled entirely by some individual or a company. Attacking Hillsdale College itself seems a silly and ineffective way to vent your complaints about the views of scattered, individual charter school proponents and their alleged priorities.