An Unconstitutional Sentiment
A group of ministers, who are members of the Interdenominational Ministers Action Council, want to make unannounced visits to Wilmington’s public schools to make sure students are getting the education they need to avoid lives of crime. They want the schools to give them access to the classrooms so they can monitor teachers, administrators and overall school performance.
What the frack?
As my former professor at Widener Law, Alan Garfield, says, “the mere presence of ministers in public schools would give the appearance the state is surrendering its authority to the church.”
Indeed, if the schools (which are a state actor) allow the visits, not only is the appearance made, but they would be directly entangling the state with the church. It matters not that these ministers are interdenominational (which, by the way, usually refers only to the various denominations of the Christian faith). It matters not that their intentions seem to be in the right place.
“It doesn’t sound like the best way to go about it,” Garfield said. Failing schools is a genuine problem that needs to be fixed, he said. But if they form collaborations with churches and have church members monitor teachers to report on how well they are doing, it could be seen as though government is endorsing religion.
“That sounds like a very dangerous message to be saying,” he said. “It’s as if saying the school answers to the church.”
Precisely. Now, I know the delusional nuts like David Anderson believe we all must answer to the Church, including the state; that’s not the way our Founding Fathers set up our Constitution. Because they knew religious freedom is impossible in a country where the state answers to the Church.
Why don’t they just sign up to mentor in these schools? Or join together and set up after school sports, academic, art clubs?
Yeah. There are ways to do this that don’t facilitate delusional nuts popping anti-constitutional boners.
Those alternatives were mentioned in the article, and they should do those things. I guess it was not enough to suit their vanity.
I can see arguments for both sides of this.
Just based on a quick search, it appears Rev. Johnson (of the “Interdenominational Ministers Action Counsel”) has been doing good work on policy issues for years, which appears to be sincere and not aimed at proselytizing or disruption.
What concerns me is the ministers have not provided their criteria for their “evaluation” of teachers. By agreeing to this, the schools could be setting themselves up for some James O’Keefe style of sensational exposés using cherry-picked evidence.
If they want to do some monitoring in the classroom, let them monitor the students, not the teachers. That’s not a bad idea – ministers have a lot more latitude in dealing with parents and students than teachers do. A minister could go to the home and follow up with the parents on a child’s learning difficulties or misbehavior in a way a teacher never could.
It is obvious that schools are dealing with social problems in the community that schools were never intended to deal with. So ministers could be the link with the home that exposes and helps mitigate the social deficiencies that prevent children from learning in school. If that is their goal, more power to them. But let them put their goals in writing first.
There are plenty of existing avenues to get involved with the schools, in and out of the classroom.
Sounds very Taliban.
O08, I said it was a good sentiment, with good intentions. It is just unconstitutional, plain and simple.
I guess you are right; it is an Establishment clause violation.
I wonder though – would it also be unconstitutional to allow the ministers to become involved with the PTA or existing policy committees at the school and district level?
If letting them sit in the classroom is a violation, would it also be a violation to let them sit on a state or district committee that seeks policy input from the community? Or to be mentors working directly in the schools?
It is a tough question. The community is pretty desperate on this issue, and at this point may feel the Constitution is a suicide pact, at least where they are concerned.
I think the whole idea is weird and creepy.
I think it is weird and creepy too, but I am invoking my white liberal guilt and trying not to judge.
These students are sitting in a sea of homicides, drugs, and educational failure, while I am not. When a community-based effort to deal with it emerges, I am uncomfortable crying “Constitution.”
I know intellectually the Constitution is more important, but I am not satisfied with simply saying “No” without offering a solid alternative plan to solve the problem.
When ministers in white wealthy areas think the public schools are not doing a good job, they build their own schools. This group of ministers does not have that option.
Eff that. If this was Indian River School District and the clergy was from some the Laurel First Snake Handler and Tongue Speakers Chapel of the True Cross, you’d be judging.
You are right. We’d be wrong to let this happen. But we’d also be wrong not to take it as a wake-up call. I don’t think this year’s budget is offering any help. Nor are Republicans.
This group of ministers does not have that option.
Oh yes they do. If you hang out in front of these churches on Sunday and checkout the vehicles driven by some of these pastors, you will know that the choice to build their own schools is a question of priorities.
The last time these pastors roused themselves over Wilmington’s violence problem, the Hope Commission was eventually born. With alot of posturing and crazy BS along the way. Which is to say, that I think that this is more posturing by Wilmington’s clergy.
I really wonder why they don’t reorder their own ministries to monitor the homelife of these kids? That — to me, at least — is genuine ministry. Help these families get some skills to cope with the world abit better, help them learn to support themselves and their kids better (financially, spiritually, educationally, mentally) so that their kids might be ready to take advantage of an educational experience and their parents might be ready to demand better for their kids.
Oh yes they do. If you hang out in front of these churches on Sunday and checkout the vehicles driven by some of these pastors, you will know that the choice to build their own schools is a question of priorities.
Nice debating point, but the math is off. The price of a new car, or even a grandiose minister’s entire salary, is not enough to establish and operate a school that is better than a public school, let alone an entire school system. The community simply does not have the resources, ministers or not.
If anyone really thinks that these ministers and laity wouldn’t let their theological hocus pocus views influence their assessments of teachers, they are living in lala land. Yes, our schools need improvement, but the models for that improvement should stem from best practices and the findings of educational and social sciences, not on the basis of some antiquated creed and metaphysics.
Actually, this stunt has more to do with focusing on the ministers, than the kids they purport to help.
Stunt, probably. But if they were white we would be calling it “activism” or “street theater” to draw attention to the cause.
Notice we are now talking about crime in Wilmington and the effect it has on school children. Looks like the stunt worked, for a little while at least.
But if they were white we would be calling it “activism” or “street theater”
Actually I probably should have checked before making assumptions… 🙂
It would seem that churches in general would want to steer clear of association with young school children in light of the recent suits about churches and illegal touching.
Cassandra is exactly right — their ministry should begin where the schools let off, in the students’ homes. Making their churches places of refuge for children who find little or none at home would be a good place to start, and wouldn’t take nearly the funding of starting schools.
Nice debating point, but the math is off.
Neither the math nor the massive extraction of resources from their communities is off. I was actually present (temporarily) in a local church where a pastor’s sermon was all about the Lord telling him to get 140K that day. And not only was he doing this in a church full of poor and working class (and some middle class) people, he was also raising funds on his TV show. This man drove a Rolls Royce to West Center City (and other cars) from his huge house in DelCo. Certainly *very* little of that money went into either the building or into the neighborhood. Ask for 140K often enough and you have startup funds for a school. This city is full of churches — it isn't as though they couldn't band together to create their own schools. Or — even better — as Pandora and Geezer suggest, building the kind of family-based supports that the schools can't offer.
“A group of ministers wants to make unannounced visits to Wilmington’s public schools to make sure students are getting the education they need to avoid lives of crime.”
No one can take a group seriously, that proposes they? make unannounced? visits to classrooms? “to make sure (how?) that students are getting the education? they need to – ‘avoid lives of crime.’ ??
“At the pastor’s discretion, at least three (people) would be sent to monitor the school and its progress, including state evaluation test results. The ministers don’t see anything wrong with that? There’s a problem.
Even if ‘avoiding lives of crime” were a subject taught in public school, it still wouldn’t involve a group (of people) arriving at schools, willy nilly. The ministers don’t see anything wrong with that? There’s a problem.
Evaluations conducted, by these (people?) while in public school? The ministers don’t see anything wrong with that? There’s a problem.
These (people) are to walk in when they choose, and they would ‘know’ what ‘should’ be going on in the classroom? The ministers don’t see anything wrong with that. There’s a problem.
Disrupting learning time to cater to the (people) who wish to overtake the school premises, school time, with or without permission of parents ? The ministers don’t see anything wrong with that? There’s another problem.
The ministers could contact the parents directly, if all parties so choose, to see that the parents and children are living the good life.
If the parents would agree to have their children see these particular ministers (or people,) they could meet at their church or hall, the parents’ homes or ministers’ homes. The ministers see something wrong with that? There’s a problem.
Even though their intentions may be good, the ministers may be considering going outside of legal bounds. That’s the problem, that is similar to the problem they say they would hope to eliminate. The ministers don’t see that? That’s a problem.
“When the people are informed, the people tend to be more cognizant of what they are doing,” Curry (Rev. Christopher T. Curry, chair of the council’s education unit) said, “The biggest issue is not the guns … the biggest issue is the lack of education.” End quote.
“The biggest issue is not the guns..” Children with guns? The ministers don’t see something wrong with that? Time for the schools to lockdown.
Observing the classroom, ignoring the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI
“delusional nuts” like Davide Anderson???? Nice. If you can’t win an argument on the merits, resort to insults and name-calling.
I suppose that if this was not a group of ministers (oh my, they’re, gasp, religous), but a group of concerned citizens or some coalition that called itself “secularists monitors of education” you’d be okay with it, but ministers are barred from being able to take an interest because they’re ministers. Religous groups should, in fact, be treated no differently than other groups. If schools are going to allow groups in to monitor (a questionable policy that I would not allow for anyone), than religous groups should be given the same right of access. It is not the “establishment” of religion, nor does it unduly entangle schools with religion, to afford ministers the same right of access as other groups. It’s only monitoring that’s being contemplated here, not preaching. All concerned citizens should have the same ability to monitor, regardless of religion.
Way to argue against your own strawman. But we never have to wait long for you guys to show up to get your delusional tickets punched.
This is really outrageous. I know that many black ministers actually believe there is no separation of church and state. When they run for office they do politics inside the church from the pulpit on a regular basis. Lets face the music. These politicans in Wilmington are lame with no solutions. Thats the only reason they would consider bringing in the National Guard or the vigilante group of Curtis Sliwa. The question that none are prepared to address is, poverty! 70% unemployment among blacks and hispanics in the city, young people with no hope for college or trade schools,no opportunity for those wanting to start a business. This is another “take back our streets bunch of bullshit, this time “do it through the schools”. Its opportunistic at best, its a violation of church and state most definately.