Education Kinda Sucks, But It Ain't the Agendas, Part 1

One of my favorite blogs to read is Nicholasville resident Douglas Adam's Kentucky Progress. Like I've said before, I don't like to read blogs to have my beliefs affirmed, I would much rather have them challenged. Mr. Adam's is in my opinion fair, conscientious, well reasoned, and even willing to admit when he is wrong. He is usually cordial and willing to discuss an issue with anyone who wants to reasonably discuss it back. Basically, Kentucky Progress is everything I have found lacking in other conservative bloggers.
The message board lurkers run the gambit between the somewhat abused liberals, to the rabid rightists who think the the Republicans are too liberal for them. I like how its very state centric and the issues effecting the commonwealth are highlighted. The other day I was inspired to write a lengthy diatribe against the supposed "social agendas" being pushed in our schools, which seem to be a conservative tenant, but one that I just don't believe in. I thought I would fill one of my posts with what I posted over there.

"Kentucky schools are run by administrators who can choose to focus ... on promoting a social agenda."

Mr. Progress, exactly what is this social agenda that is being promoted? I know that their are some folks who read this blog who think the entire education system is run by Communist holdouts and 'secular fundamentalists' but as the husband of a teacher, I can say that, at least in Western Kentucky, the teachers and administrators are some of the most conservative people I know. Maybe it applies mostly to the "educrats in the union."

I am also aware that there are plenty of conservative writers who like to string every dumb and heavy handed action by school administrators and teachers into some atheist plot to destroy Christianity or at least go to "War ON Christmas", when most of the time it is just fear of ACLU lawsuits or the simple accomadation of people of other faiths.

Sure, you can't have school sponsored prayer, but I've said it before and I will say it again: the people who complain most about this issue are the ones who would scream bloody murder to find out that it was being led by a Catholic, Jew, Mormon, or a Jehovah's Witness.

Maybe the more populous regions of the state are awash with 'social agendas'. But down here in the Jackson Purchase, as one principal told my wife, "We cannot legally ask you this, so it is always a good idea for you to mention the name of your Sunday School if you interview with us".

But then again, we did have the former porn star teaching down this way, and it probably didn't matter what Sunday School she was in.

That being an exception among a few others, I still don't see many 'crazy liberals' pushing 'social agendas' in the halls of my wife's school.

So what are these agenda's that you are most worried about?

Also, if you were one whom the Lord has chosen not to bless with children, in your perfect world what kind of right to "remove their money from the school district they live in", would you enjoy? I believe even childless couples have a responsibility to provide for the educations of future generations, but if I had the choice, I might want my school tax dollars to go to my alma mater back in Carlise County, which the last time I checked was the second smallest county in the state, with an ever shrinking tax base, so they probably could use it. Or is it only parents that get the choice?

The point was about the supposed "social agenda" and would the whole "school choice" idea provide childless people with a right of participation in the whole process of improving schools by making them compete for school dollars. This seems to be a big issue that the school choice crowd tends to ignore, perhaps it might show the movement as either undemocratic at best and absurd at its worst. Not that there isn't room for improvement.