A lady came up to one of my volunteers one day and said, "You have more witch books in this library than in any other library in the county!" (She was not pleased.) The volunteer, who is an old library hand and has 30- and 40-year-old children, replied, "Ma'am, it could be that you see more witch books in this library because you come to this library looking for witch books."

Similarly, I sometimes wonder what you look for when you read my posts.

If someone wants to run a religious school, or a Waldorf school (which doesn't allow children to use computers and are generally technology-hostile in their curriculum), or a Montessori school, or any one of a number of variations, there's no law against it. They can do that. But to get public money, I believe they must teach certain curriculum that makes a common culture possible. If they wish to add things, or to use different methods, that's not a problem, as long as the minimum standards are met for curricular content. While I am concerned that we should continue to offer foreign languages and computer instruction and evolutionary theory in all schools supported by public monies, I'm equally interested that we should be able to insist on the inclusion of Plato, Shakespeare, and the Bible as literature in our curricula, because without these common touchstones and others like them, we will not be able to have meaningful public discourse. "Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra".

Concerning the failure of public schools, it would be well to consider the amount of parent and community input into the schools' missions and operations. Successful schools have a lot of community support, even when their budgets are small. When schools are not only purveyors of academic knowledge, but also vocational guidance centers, enforcers of the law, counsellors for the troubled, diagnosticians and treatment centers for the ill and the disabled, charm schools, after-school activity providers, and the source of not just lunch but in some cases breakfast, one might expect that they may feel the strain and fall short in some areas.

Your "one-size-doesn't-fit-all" observation dovetails quite nicely with the public schools' role as "Jack of all trades and master of none". But who places these additional burdens on the schools? You could say "liberals do", and perhaps you will. I say, "Parents do, and communities do, when they fail to provide for the children." Schools are assigned as a stop-gap to try and remediate a little of this need.

Anyone who is concerned about the content of curriculum at their local public school can check their local newspaper to see when the school board meetings are for their district, and then attend them. Chances are the curriculum committee, which discusses curriculum issues and textbook review and purchase, would also be open to public attendence, if not input, and a faithful citizen attendee can become a de facto, if non-voting, member of the committee. Believe me: I've done it.

Anyone who is interested in curricular standards on their state level needs to contact their state's Department of Education and get involved there.

If a school district doesn't offer citizens the option of getting involved, that needs to be changed, and it can be done through community action.

If the citizens are not interested in working at the education of the children, and think that the community will be better served by separating children into more homogenous groups, they should not be surprised if, after these children are grown, they don't know how to live and work together in our heterogeneous nation. After all, they never had to spend any time together while they were growing up.

Too many times, I've seen people solve the problems they have with the community by withdrawing from the community. It's so easy to just move away, rather than work with other people to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Then they wonder why society is so splintered.

Regards--
Mary Anne