Quote:
Originally Posted by Ma'ake
Hi DJ,
Doesn't this model essentially move society toward (more) self-segregation? Public schools used to be the glue where people of different faiths & political philosophies (or at least their families) came together & learned to interact & respect each other / opinions, etc. Opening up education to wider educational philosophy choice works against this, by nature, it seems to me. In Utah I could see multitudes of Suburbans driving kids past their neighborhood schools to their preferred educational provider, increasing the pollution problem, diminishing neighborhood cohesiveness (at least the non-church part).
Then again, I can understand the common LDS view of seeking refuge from all bad things secular - teacher unions being a current enemy - and given the opportunity to join others who are like-minded, why not? It could become like a ward school.
(I live in a high % LDS area & acutely feel the natural tendency for LDS to unintentially exclude others. In truth LDS are far from unique in this regard. Maybe I just need to move to more of a like-minded community... but that doesn't help society, IMO. But maybe we're more like the Balkans than we realize or would like to think. It might be that genuine social diversity is a facade, to a considerable extent. It certainly feels that way from a non-LDS perspective surrounded by highly social - and harried - LDS families. I live in a ward, though I'm not of it. LOL )
|
Integration for integrations sake is IMO not the ideal. Look at the gospel doctrine. While each soul has the same worth in the eyes of the Lord, we will all be eventually segregated into various kingdoms and even levels within these kingdoms. Why? Because (for us believers) we are all at different levels in our understanding and our willingness to comply with Gods plan.
So is it any harsher to see a segregation of schools in terms of not race or gender, but of ability. We have that at the collegiate level, so why not at the grade school level. This system breeds competition which invariably raises the quality of education. Bad schools will eventually be phased out and good schools will continue to improve.
Everyone has a right to pursue an education, but what they do with that is strictly up to them, not the state. My sister is an educator in the California Education system. She works in places where the substitutes can't even speak english even though the latino population of the school is about 30%.
And regards to your argument of like-mindedness, It is interesting that private universities have been able to exist for over a century and still seek to climb towards exclusivity. The difference in what I am saying is that corporations through tax incentives are able to swallow a state mandate of sponsorship to carry the burden of education vs for profit systems that garner the campus of Ivy league Universities.
Think about it. Come to Utah and set up your business. You will have to support the schools if you do, however because you have to, your tax burden will be substantially minimized. It may only add up to a shift in revenues, but even a small differential would have corporations scrambling to build along the Wasatch Front. You would have schools that would begin to beat the national averages by greater margins. You will have schools that would be bringing in some of the best minds across the globe to educate the future of these corporations intellectual capital.
The so called inner city school where the poor kids go would not exist since the mandate is for the entire state. Not for specified districts. This would be the only area in which a government control would exist. Preferably through an independent third party trust. Corporations if they wish could adopt schools in specific areas, but only a larger percentage of their funds would be allocated to the schools in question. The rest would be funneled into schools that may not currently enjoy an "adoption" situation. The rates could be adjusted to ensure a stable balance across the state.