HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: RSN@NIHCU.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Subject: Re: Clinton and America 2000
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:38:59 GMT
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Regarding AMERICA 2000--

The talk within ED is that AMERICA 2000 is not Clinton's at
all, but almost purely Lamar Alexander.  He worked on it
during the period he was waiting Senate confirmation, after
negotiating with Bush that he would be appointed.  What IS
Clinton's--and the other Governors'--is the set of six
National Education Goals; they have been pretty much endorsed
as a valid target by just about everyone.  AMERICA 2000 was
a set of strategies to achieve the goals, which basically
revolved around community and business involvement in:
improving the current schools, inventing schools of the
future, investing in lifelong learning, and creating
learning communities.  The poison pill which killed
AMERICA 2000 as an authorized piece of legislation was
the insistence that private school choice--and vouchers--
should be part of the program.  Nevertheless, hundreds of
communities have gotten involved in a big way with AMERICA 2000
(though not in the private school choice part), with the
very active involvement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I do not think that Clinton will want to kill AMERICA 2000
entirely, since democrats as well as republicans have committed
their states and localities towards strategies designed to
aachieve the national education goals.  I was in Georgia last
July when Zell Miller, democratic governor of Georgia and
keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention, agreed publicly
with Lamar Alexander that community commitment to school
improvement strategies was bipartisan and may survive a
political transition.  But the program itself will at the
least be tweaked, and may not be talked about very loudly
at all.
Bob Stonehill, U.S. Dept. of Education
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-To: @ccu.UManitoba.CA:EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-Vms-To: IN%"@ccu.UManitoba.CA:EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:09:40 -0600
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Robin Enns <ENNS@BRANDONU.CA>
Subject:      What is "America 2000"?

The subject line says it all.  What IS "America 2000"?  Some sort of
vision statement about ed. policy?  Up here in the frozen wastes, we kinda
wonder what the next atlas shrug will be.  Heaven knows bill 94-142 brought
enough seismological change to education in Canada. Pray enlighten me |-).
Robin Enns, Faculty of Education, Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba,
Canada -- just signed onto this server.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:45:46 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         U56E3@WVNVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: <*** NO SUBJECT ***>

RE:  Bruce Meyer--character education and values clarification

The intriguing thing about prposals for such work in the context of mass
education is how very much at odds they are with the evident means of
accomplishing them.  One doubts very much that character (of all things!)
can be *taught* or that values can be made clear in very many classrooms.
And this would certainly pertain to those classrooms and schooling enter-
prises wherein revealed truth was (and only e.g.) the approach of Luther
to his (personal) god.
A
A
A
A
A

CRAIG HOWLEY, ERIC/CRESS, P.O. BOX 1348, CHARLESTON, WV  25325
1-800/624-9120
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:03:20 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: moral and spiritual values?

Just a small correction: the policy in public schools is that Christianity
cannot be advocated, or taught as true; it can be discussed.  Public education
must be neutral in a plural society, not antagonistic to the values (though
some doctrines of some sects, e.g., creationism, may be presented as
contrary to available evidence).


****************************************************************
*                                                              *
*                    John F. Covaleskie                        *
*      Cultural Foundations of Education and Curriculum        *
*  259 Huntington Hall                                         *
*  Syracuse University                 Maloff Towers, #2       *
*  Syracuse, NY  13244                 Chittenango, NY  13037  *
*  315/443-3343                        315/687-5595            *
*                   JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET                       *
*                                                              *
****************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:58:38 MST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Grace Huerta <AZGCH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Savage Inequalities

Well Bennett, maybe there's hope for you after all. "No unequal schools?" Yes,
this probably would raise the eyebrows of the budgets-makers and never make it
to the bargaining table, even though I wish it were possible.

Boy BSC, you're sounding more "left" these days. Do you believe in a place
called "hope?"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: HM3@PSUVM.BITNET (Harold Mitzel 814/237-0242)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Subject: Re: Clinton and America 2000
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:20:00 GMT
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments:     530 Hillside Ave
Comments:     State College, PA 16803

Gene & others interested in Bob Stout's question.  I agree that the
idea of school reform called America 2000 originated with the work of
the governors (Lamar Alexander was in the group) But, didn't the Bushies
put the private school choice spin on the America 2000 format?
Harold Mitzel
Penn State U.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:10:16 -0500
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         ADM_FDOHERTY@JMUVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Amen to Bruce Meyer

To Bruce I say, "Amen."

Frank Doherty
James Madison University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:02:00 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Comments:     530 Hillside Ave
Comments:     State College, PA 16803
From:         Harold Mitzel 814/237-0242 <HM3@PSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Moral and Spiritual Values

Reply to JF Covaleski:  I concur with your carefully crafted argument
concerning the teaching of moral precepts in public schools, but there
is a problem or dilemma in the preparation of teachers for those schools.
Institutions that prepare teachers as far as I can tell have no way to
separate out those who are morally unfit to teach in the public schools.
The unfit can make good grades in college, satisfactorally complete
student teaching, and even pass tests without revealing their moral
selves.  It suggests the need for more apprentice-type preparation
on the job followed by professional and scientific training.
Harold Mitzel, Penn State U. (HM3@PSUVM)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN%ASUACAD@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"<@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD>"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:27:00 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Jack Letarte <JCLETARTE@TAYLORU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Kozol & Frank Doherty

        I'm sure this is a long way from the starting point of this discussion.
But in a way it is related also.  Anne asks how man can deprive other men of
their liberty or freedom.  That is certainly a good description for what is
happening in our inner city public schools today.
        The answer is that the world as we see it today is not the one
God had planned for us.  Man is "fallen" and his or her actions are not
naturally the right actions.  We've been promised that eventually all those
inequities will be redressed, but we don't know when.  Meanwhile, we should
do all we can to relieve pain and suffering - whatever their cause.  And yes,
as someone pointed out in an earlier posting, sometimes those with the
"right" beliefs still don't follow the right actions.
                Jack Letarte    Taylor University
                BITNET: jcletarte@tayloru
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:01:04 CST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         "Rose Allinder SECD003@UNLVM" <SECD003@UNLVM.BITNET>
Subject:      reply

I second the well-stated reasoning of Frank Doherty.  The emphasis of evangel--
cal Christians (who, by the way, are not the same as fundamentalists) is on the
 personal relationshipwith One who can and does bring about lasting change, and
not on a st of external codes enforced by family, school, church, one's sense o
f guilt or one's preconceived ideas of theology.  While not de-emphasizing the
place and value of social religions in our culture, the fundamental problem is
one of the heart. For that problem there are not multiple possible solutions.
  Well put, Frank.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:39:20 -0500
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         ADM_FDOHERTY@JMUVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Kozol & Frank Doherty

I've got to get back to my work, but this discussion is useful.  I appreciate
Tom Mauhs-Pugh's remarks.  I'm not too full of holes yet!  Anyway, I think we
need to create societies where all positions and values can be discussed in an
open manner.  I am not in favor of a Christian theocracy because it has never
worked.  However, the majority of the founders of this country were theistic
and instituted a government based on the belief in a Creator whose values were
absolute.  Even old Tom Jefferson (I'm a UVA alum), who was not exactly an
evangelical Christian, said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty.  Can the
liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these
liberties are the gift of God?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." (From the walls of
the Jefferson Memorial in D.C.)  I wonder whether we could openly put this
quotation on a public school bulletin board!

I do not believe that we can force people to believe in a God.  I do not
believe, however, that all traditions (Islam, Catholicism, Judais, Buddhism, or
New Age Spirituality) are equally valid, which Tom seems to imply.  In fact, to
say that all these traditions are equally true is to violate the Law of
Noncontradiction.  All value positions cannot be equally true.  I think we do a
great disservice to children when we imply that they must make up their own
value systems because all systems are equally valid.  That leads to nihilism.
We have enough nihilistic behavior in our society right now.

I think we have to get away from the silly idea that all truths are equally
true.  Yes, I agree that people disagree about some of the most important
values, but simply disagreeing does not mean there is no truth.  My kids
sometimes disagree about addition problems, but that doesn't mean there is no
correct idea.  A society based upon the notion that each person makes up his or
her own truth leads to chaos.  And that is exactly what this society to headed
for.  This is going to be a pretty ugly place to live soon if we continue down
the path we are going.

I would prefer to see our country rededicate itself to the notion that there
are absolute values that are important for all people to follow, even if it
means violating someone's supposed "rights."  If we cannot move toward a notion
of there being values that are really true because they come from a Creator who
holds us accountable for our actions, then I, like old Tom Jefferson, tremble
for my country.

Frank Doherty
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: FSMITH@CHARLIE.USD.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Subject: response "how then can man disregard the liberties,
              or rights of some?
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:06:41 GMT
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"edpolyan@asuvm.inre.asu.edu"

Precisely, Anne Pemberton!  It's ironic how our "democratic" system has
 effectively served to put blinders on our incredibly institutionalized society.

Francie Smith
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:51:55 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         BCMEYER@SUVM.BITNET

Re: recent conversations
"Knowledge of God is socially bound."  If knowledge is shared,
it is socially bound.  Someone can have knowledge which she or he
does not share, but if we have *received* knowledge, it is shared
knowledge (regardless of the source--how do we treat computer output?),
and socially bound.  Nevertheless, it may be that every proposition of that
knowledge may be true in truth value.

Question:  Should public shools teach character education or values
clarification and why?  Is there a third choice?  And technical ed. is
not enough for moral ed:  you can be technically competent, feted by
administration and peers and still be a moral wreck.  It is *not* true
that all education is moral education.  That is not what the National
Defense Education Act is (was?) paying for.

Bruce Meyer, Syracuse U.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:27:00 CST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Benjamin Levin U of Manitoba <LEVIN@UOFMCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Morality and efficacy

 Why do we always need a simple solution to complex problems?  Of
course morality is an important component of a decent society; isn't
that what morality means?  Does it follow that everything depends on
the moral beliefs of individuals?  Hardly.
  First, individuals' moral beliefs do not arise in isolation, but
in a social context.  Ideas of what is good and bad, worthwhile and
wrong, are themselves social ideas.  For example, in the U.S. for the
last number of years, the idea that some people have immense wealth
while others have nothing has not been seen as a moral problem, at
least officially.  Governments in many countries have given their
blessing to the idea that inequality is virtuous and necessary.
A result has been that large numbers of people, whose morality may
have been of the purest, have had their lives effectively blighted,
often through no fault of their own at all.
  Second, individuals vary in their ability to give effective
expression to their moral views.  Everyone can do something, I don't
deny that.  But some people have the money, power and influence to
broadcast messages about morality across a country or world, and to
finance elected people to embody those messages.  Others have no such
ability.  We need only look around for a few seconds to see that
political power is highly unequal in its distribution, despite one
person one vote.  Since it is political and economic power which
shapes the effective morality of a society (as distinct from its
officially espoused morality) it is, I would say, naive in the
extreme to think that having thousands, or hundreds of thousands
of people experience religious conversions would have very much
impact on a national existence.  I don't deny that religious
belief might well (I emphasize might; many of the worst atrocities
in the world have been committed in the name of religion) be
beneficial to those poeple, their friends and neighbours.  Its
wider impact is, to my mind, highly doubtful as long as existing
political and economic structures remain substantially the same.
  Our problems as societies are multi-faceted and complex.  They are
the result of decades or centuries of gradual changes in
beliefs and circumstances.  They involve the kind of people we
are, the kind of institutions we have created, the kind of
culture we have built, the beliefs we hold, and our behaviour.
To think that any single factor, including a revival of religion
or official morality will be the solution to our problems seems
very unlikely.
  Certainly each of us needs to work at becoming a better person.
But we also need to work to make a better world out there.  Faith
and works, anyone?
  Benjamin Levin, University of Manitoba
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:57:36 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         BCMEYER@SUVM.BITNET

Re: moral and Christian ed.
Believing Christian parents, and many others, might draw back from public
schools for good reasons.  Any institution that justifies homosexuality,
abortion, euthanasia (argues on their behalf); uses evolution primarily as
myth rather than as an explanatory schema for contemporary technical scientific
problems and understanding; and seems unable to give a simple and persuasive
and coherent story of what it is all about; is prima facie unqualified to
teach, at least to teach "my kids."

These parents turn to home schools, private and parochial schools.  In
some of these setting, they are able to provide unambiguous and coherent
moral guidelines as well as a coherent educational structure and basis for
curriculum, uniting reason and faith.  In addition, democratic pluralism
makes sense here, for it is from such a perspective that the public arguments
for pluralism have always been made, from Roger Williams to Martin Luther
King.  Secular education in contrast seems left with making appeals to
thin air, whether for justification for political practices or epistemologic
issues of education.

Bruce Meyer
Syracuse University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:56:37 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         gallagherj@SATURN.GLASSBORO.EDU
Subject:      Clinton and America 2000

Clinton should trash America 2000. He probably won't but he should.

John V. Gallagher, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Education and Related Professional Studies
Rowan College of New Jeresuy
201 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028-1701

P.S. That should be "Jersey" above.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ReSource - Mac Release: 1.5
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:25:27 PST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Kevin@LEMOORE.ATI.COM
Subject:      Re: morality?

> But what does that have to do with moral questions?  Can we seriously
> entertain the proposition that, because we cannot teach the Bible as revealed
> truth in public schools that we can therefore not tell children "Thou shalt
> not kill"?  Of course not.

An interesting thought. Russia, now that the communist party no longer
is imposing *morals* has been asking this very same question. There
response has been to ask several Christian organizations to develop
a curriculum for the Russian schools that is based on biblical principles
and that teaches morals. Before this curriculum is introduced to the
schools, the teachers are being released to attend conferences on
how to teach this curriculum. Who is leading these conferences? Missionaries.


> Of course, we teach our children moral principles; learning precepts of what
 it
> means to be a good person is what children do placed around adults and each
> other.

The question for me is, why should we be moral? What is it that says
we must be moral? Sure, it may be socially unacceptable, but why is
it so? In my mind, it works its way back to religious principles.
It is wrong because someone higher then man has said so. However,
I very much agree that the following statement you made is right on.
I don't desire to see religion brought into schools as there are too
many moral differences. I don't want to get tied up in having to deal
with all these issues when there is so much more to do. However, there
are some basic moralities (lying, stealing, killing,) that are common
to most religious views and, as you said,


> our students (and each other and ourselves) learn how to think clearly about
> moral issues and the sort of society (and people) we wish to be (and become).

Good point. I agree.

*************************
Kevin Kurtz
Kevin@lemoore.ati.com
Lemoore, CA, USA
fax (209) 924 - 5975
voice (209) 924 - 3479
*************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU