Attention public school teachers: CEAI Offers a Christian Alternative to the NEA

By Finn Laursen

Is there any hope for our public schools?

As the battle for the minds of our children continues in our post-modern, “godless” culture, our schools have become a major battleground. Some in the Christian community, understandably, are even calling for a mass exodus from our “govern-

ment schools.”

Is there any hope for reform or restoration of the nation’s public schools? Is abandoning our public schools the only hope for our youth?

Yes, and no.

Whereas home schooling and private Christian schools are excellent alternatives to public school education for many, for many others these alternatives are not practical or possible. So no, abandoning public schools cannot be the only hope.

And yes, there is hope for reform and restoration within our public schools. “With God, all things are possible.”

That hope is not based on any state or national reform movement. It is not based on No Child Left Behind.

The hope of our public schools is in Jesus Christ, and in professional educators who follow Him, model Him, and live out their faith in the workplace of their classrooms.

Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) exists to help Christian educators understand and carry out their mission. Founded in 1953, CEAI is a membership professional association for Christian educators in both public and private schools, with most of its members serving in public schools. CEAI is the only national association specifically serving Christian educators in public schools. Its focus is to encourage, equip, and empower Christian educators to make a positive impact in the schools where they serve.

Many Christian educators rely on CEAI as their alternative to the National Education Association, the powerful educators’ union that is notorious for its anti-family values.

CEAI provides resources such as magazines, newsletters, daily devotionals, and many other printed and digital resources from a Christian worldview. The association also provides professional liability insurance and legal support — the two services for which many Christian educators feel that they must join the NEA, even though they are opposed to that organization’s philosophy and political agenda.

Precisely because there are so many negative influences bombarding public school students today, CEAI considers our public schools a mission field ripe for harvest. Through public schools we have access to many who will never enter our churches. According to Barna Research, only four to six percent of school-age children self-identify as Christian. Christian educators interacting with young people daily can have a life-changing effect on those not having a personal relationship with our Lord and at the same time can be a powerful role model for Christian students on campus.

CEAI’s vision is straightforward: To demonstrate God’s love and truth to the educational community.

Its Mission is clear: To serve the educational community by encouraging, equipping and empowering Christian educators in public and private education, by:

• Proclaiming God’s word as the source of wisdom and knowledge;

• Portraying teaching as a God given calling and ministry;

• Promoting educational excellence as an expression of Christian commitment;

• Preserving our Judeo-Christian heritage and values through education;

• Providing a forum on educational issues with a Christian worldview; and

• Partnering with churches, parachurch organizations, educational

institutions and parents.

For in-depth information about Christian Educators Association International, visit CEAI.org.

About the author: For the past five years, Finn Laursen has served as Executive Director of CEAI. He came to the position after a 32-year career in Ohio public school education, during which time he served as teacher, counselor, assistant principal, principal and superintendent.

California Teachers Say "no" on 8?

Evidently, since I'm a teacher, this ad says I'm against Proposition 8:



Well, no one consulted me! No one consulted countless other CA teachers too.

Here is a letter to the editor that I wrote in to the LA Times and OC Register on the "no on Proposition 8" campaign:

As a high school teacher, I don't appreciate that the "No on 8" campaign uses my name to advance their cause. In radio and television ads, they state, "teachers say 'no' on proposition 8." Who determined that this supposedly monolithic group is against proposition 8? A great many teachers are for it. CTA and the "no" campaign didn't consult me before lending my name to their cause!

I am also incensed that CTA is using my money to support highly controversial political campaigns. Rather than focusing on the many school funding issues on the ballot, they have contributed over 1 million dollars to the "no on 8" campaign. Can't my hard earned money be used more wisely?

In addition to all this, CTA and "no on 8" are not being wholly honest. Certain groups claim that teaching about gay marriage won't be mandated in CA public schools. When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, these same groups fought to make it mandated there. For instance, in an amicus curiae brief in Parker v. Hurley, The Anti-Defamation League stated: "Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." And later: "In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.”

Both I and many other public school teachers don't appreciate our money and name being used in this way. We will vote yes on Proposition 8.

**I'll tackle this ad in greater depth in the next few days.

Teaching Evolution in Florida

The New York Times recently published a profile of a Florida biology teacher who was involved in developing that state's standards for teaching evolution in high school. It's pretty dismissive of people of faith who believe in creation rather than evolution--and that's why I found it an interesting read. It offers some good insight into the liberal worldview that considers Christians to be backwards, anti-science fundamentalists.

For example, Mr. Campbell (the biology teacher) had this to say about the previous standards, which didn't require teaching evolution as the origin of the human species:

But at the inaugural meeting of the Florida Citizens for Science, which he co-founded in 2005, he vented his frustration. “The kids are getting hurt,” Mr. Campbell told teachers and parents. “We need to do something.”

Get that? He believes kids are hurt when they AREN'T taught hard-core evolution. He went on to say, in response to a question about why intelligent design isn't taught along with evolution:

“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”

Another thread running through the article is the importance of knowing how evolution is taught and preparing Christian kids to protect their faith. I remember reading in one of Lee Strobel's books (either The Case for a Creator or The Case for Faith) that high school biology was a major cause in his loss of his childhood faith. I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to have a perfect answer of how to teach the origins of life in public high schools. But, it seems to me that it's not enough to just tell our kids that our faith is Truth and the stuff they learn in science class is some sort of distraction. True, at the end of the day Christianity does require faith--you can't literally prove every tenet of our faith using scientific methods. But it seems to me that providing scientific arguments against evolution, and pointing out the holes in the theory from a scientific standpoint, are important elements of the discussion.

One last thought--I was encouraged by the Christian students quoted in the article, who were holding to their beliefs even as they sat through the classes on evolution:

When the subject of evolution came up at a recent [Fellowship of Christian Athletes] meeting, several of the students rolled their eyes.

“I think a big reason evolutionists believe what they believe is they don’t want to have to be ruled by God,” said Josh Rou, 17.

Wow, he gets it. Not only does he know evolution is wrong, but he knows how the liberal worldview benefits from replacing God with some confused theory about the origin of life.

We're Not all the Same...no, Really Part II

By Rich Bordner

(continued from the previous post)

Why is it when the pulpiteers in education utter certain broad-brush aphorisms, that hardly anyone sees the humor in it? Why is it that few people in education think to speak truth to THAT power?

Here's another silly moment I witnessed at the staff development conference I attended recently. The presenters were waxing eloquent about the necessity of having ambiguity in your classroom discussions and lessons. That is, in your discussions, you should stress that there is no one right answer that you are looking for. There is "more than one way to skin a cat." When the students see that their thoughts will be validated and not "put down," they will buy into the discussion more.

The problem isn't so much that ambiguity is always a vice. The problem is that the presenters lacked balance. Though it was never said, the unqualified aphorisms the presenters made it seem like ambiguity was almost an unmitigated good. In fact, the video they showed for this segment was of a MATH teacher teaching the kids that "there is more than one way to skin a cat." She said in the lesson, "gee, I see a whole lotta different answers here. Which one is wrong? (students pause, then answer "none of them!") "That's correct!" (To her credit, the problem was not a straightforward algebra equation. The problem did lend itself to more than one answer. The issue I take with her was the unqualified application she had.) One presenter even went so far as to say, "When discussing morals and ethics, you as the teacher should not try to steer the discussion towards your own view. You should not impose your view on them. That is the job of their parents and churches and communities. Your job is to lead them in thinking about their OWN viewpoints."

GAH! Where do I start?

Sometimes teachers need to stress that there are, indeed, a range of interpretations that are valid for a certain work of literature (not that anything goes, though). When the issue really IS grey, ambiguity is a virtue. But when the issue is black and white, ambiguity is a vice.

As I said to my fellow colleagues, if I hire an engineer to build me a house, and he comes to me and says, "Gee, um, well, this is such a sticky issue, you see. There's no one right way to build the foundation. We're gonna get creative and wing it," I would promptly fire him. If someone walks into my classroom and doubts whether rape is ok, we aren't going to ponder that viewpoint tolerantly and let him "clarify" his values. We will refer him to the school psychiatrist.

That thought had not occured to ANY of my colleagues. When I said that, they muttered, "hmm...I wasn't looking at it like that. I guess you're right....that's a very ambiguous point, Bordner!" (laughter)

The trick is having the wisdom to discern when ambiguity is a virtue and when it is a vice.

While I'm at it: I'm fairly sure that the educator presenters would quickly drop their "ambiguity" and "values clarification" stance if a student voiced a point of view that threatened the pillars of a relativisitic, secular worldview. In a discussion on homosexuality, if a student stood up and said, "I used to be homosexual, and I was miserable. With the help of Exodus International, I have left the gay lifestyle and have experienced much healing and repentance from that sin," I'm pretty sure the teacher would not allow that value to be clarified. The teacher would probably step in and announce concern that the student wasn't being "tolerant" of gays.

They are only interested in ambiguity when it suits them. Start threatening the cherished worldview of the establishment, speak truth to THEIR power, and its game o-v-e-r.

We're Not all the Same...no, Really

By Rich Bordner

I just finished my first day back at school. Staff reported today, as we attended a day-long staff development workshop with the whole school district (I'm a public high school teacher, by the way). The day was fraught with joys, from seeing old colleague friends to learning something new about teaching to getting 'pumped up' for the upcoming school year. It was a good day on all three counts.

What struck me, however, was just how incredibly liberal the public education establishment is. I don't know why it hasn't hit me until now...denial, perhaps. Not individual teachers or administrators, mind you (though there are definitely a fair share of liberal teachers and administrators roaming around), but the establishment itself.

Education folk are big on diversity. For the most part, this is a good thing, but it can take an ugly twist. At the one point at which you'd think there'd be the most diversity, there's the least: thought and worldview. Most of the day was focused on good teaching strategies, but throughout the workshop, deeper worldview issues and questions came up, questions and issues that most people there didn't stop to ponder. Most just accepted the left leaning answers without thought, because its what they've been taught to think and believe by institutions of higher learning.

When these deeper worldview issues crept to the surface today, what I heard from the pulpit was incredibly predictable and stereotypical.

An example: we watched a filmed interview of several Latino fifth graders in a local elementary school. Most of the parents of these fifth graders, presumably, had entered into the U.S illegally. The interviewer asked the kids, 'what do you feel when you hear the phrase 'illegal alien'?' The kids responded, 'like everyone hates us, like they think we're dirty and don't want us here.' There was more to the interview, but the view the students communicated was clear: if you are against illegal immigration, you are prejudiced and don't believe in freedom. People have an unmitigated right to come to America.

Next, the film showed these same students 'taking on' an old, old (and I mean old), white male with a thick southern accent on the subject of illegal immigration (This man was actually the librarian of the school). The man went on and on about how illegal immigration needs to be curbed because of the trash and litter they bring: 'when I chew gum, I don't spit it on the floor.'

The students were all over him...when he actually tried to make an economic argument, they interrupted him. Afterwards, the presenters praised the kids for 'speaking truth to power.'

Oy...it's almost like the interviewers went out of their way to find a strawman to oppose the students, as if they said, 'hey, we need someone to represent the conservative viewpoint. Hey, you, you're old, and you're white..reeeeal white...so far so good. Say a few words ('howdy pardner!'). Great..you'll do.'

And about 'speaking truth to power.' Power sometimes corrupts...true. And it sometimes needs to be opposed...true. But I can't help but feel that power gets a bad rap these days. After all, Churchill needed a certain amount of power to bring down the Third Reich. Speaking truth to THAT power would go something like: 'great job..thanks bro...keep it up.'

Anyway, I was amused at the uniformity of worldview the different presenters had.

(Photo courtesy of Pyromaniacs blog at www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm)

Nancy Pelosi on Teen Pregnancy

Teen pregnancy and sex are obviously important issues in our culture. I don't have kids or know a lot of teens, so in that respect I'm not an expert. But, I think all Christians need to be aware of this issue and how it is handled in our culture. And I tend to think that we probably need to have a little more information for teens than "just say no."

Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall is someone who has done a lot of thinking and research on this issue and is a great resource if you are interested. She had some great comments about a recent appearance by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Here is YouTube footage of Nancy Pelosi speaking to the Netroots Nation, impugning the idea of teaching children to abstain from sex as a "radical right wing view."

I've written before about the harmful and false dichotomy that people like Nancy Pelosi try to create between "abstinence education" and "comprehensive sex education." It's perfectly possible to inform young people about how their bodies work, where babies come from, and the existence of contraceptives while still teaching them that sex is something for adults -- for people who are mature enough to cope with the (often unexpected) emotional, psychological and physical ramifications (including the possibility of an STD or unwanted pregnancy) that can accompany sexual activity.

Too often, "comprehensive sex education" becomes a code term for adopting a studiously value-neutral about teen sexual activity. The approach validates, normalizes -- and occasionally even celebrates -- teen sex, which is the last message young people need to be getting. It increases the social pressures on those who want to be responsible, and implicitly ignores the emotional, psychological -- and, for people of faith -- spiritual fallout of giving too much, too soon (especially for girls).

Islam in Public Schools

Britain’s slow decline continues:

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

But that can’t happen here, right? We have freedom of religion, strict separation of church and state, all that good stuff that makes people afraid to have a voluntary Bible study after school? Wrong:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a case involving the indoctrination of public school children into Islam. The decision came on the First Monday of October, the opening day of the 2006 Supreme Court term.

Not surprisingly, the controversial case comes from a ruling made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But what is surprising, is that hardly anyone has heard of the legal battle.

The lawsuit stems from a state mandated course in California public schools that requires seventh grade students to learn about Islam, the teachings of Muhammad, as well as studying scriptures from the Quran.

Though the course is mandated, the Californian Department of Education allows teachers to exercise their own discretion on how the course on Islam is to be
taught.

This discretion encouraged one teacher in the Bryon Union School District to adopt a supplementary “Student Guide” that specifically states:

"From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims."

There's lots more about the specific content of the class at the link, or if you Google "byron school islam." To me, it's pretty appalling that this sort of thing goes on in the name of tolerance. Obviously kids should learn in history class about the impact of Islam on world history, and the same goes for Christianity. But requiring them to act out aspects of any religion for course credit takes multiculturalism WAY too far. And yes, I'd feel the same way about a public school class that required students, in class, to pray to Jesus like an evangelical or cross themselves like a Catholic.

High School Baby Boom

From Carol Platt Liebau over at Townhall:

Time Magazine is running a story out of Gloucester, MA, about a group of teen girls -- none older than 16 -- who made a pact to get pregnant.

Apparently the school noticed an increase in girls visiting the school nurse for pregnancy tests and found out a group of them had decided to get pregnant and raise their children together.

Liebau continues:

Remarkably, the piece goes on:

Even with national data showing a 3% rise in teen pregnancies in 2006--the first increase in 15 years--Gloucester isn't sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control.

Wait just a minute. How, exactly, would "easier access to birth control" have impacted this situation? These girls decided to get pregnant on purpose.

Note the mention in passing that teen pregnancy rates are on the rise, and the implicit assumption that handing out condoms in schools--or giving girls birth control pills without their parents' knowledge, which was proposed at this high school--is the solution.

Liebau has done a lot of thinking on this issue and has even written a book, Prude, about our sex-obssessed culture. She has some more interesting thoughts on the Time article.

The problem underlying teen pregnancy isn't practical (access to or knowledge of contraceptives) or even biological. It's an ethical, moral and spiritual problem. It's a matter of inadequate attention being paid to the formation of young people's character and values.

Apparently the girls wanted to have babies so someone would love them unconditionally. Liebau closes this way:

As for being loved unconditionally -- where are the churches? Isn't
the key part of the good news that Someone already has that covered?