Earlier this month, I had read an article that said Nebraska schools would be required to daily say the Pledge of Allegiance or the school would risk losing accreditation and be shut down.
The Pledge
Thanks to Wiki, I am able to see the development of a pledge first written by a "Christian socialist" in 1892.Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[7]Also of note:
- I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge of Allegiance... [was] formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942.[1] The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.For those of you who need a brush-up, the current accepted Pledge is as such:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Constitutional Rights
As a result of much legislation and many battles "the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, or punished for not doing so." The ACLU has reminded administrators that this Constitutional Right to refrain without punishment also extends to teachers.ACLU Call to Action
This morning I received an email from the ACLU (sent yesterday) that requested I sent a message to Dr. Roger Breed, the Education Commissioner and implore him to "Defend the religious & speech rights of teachers".My message to Dr. Roger Breed
Note: The first paragraph is automatically included by the ACLU.Roger Breed:
Teachers shouldn't have to fear their jobs are in jeopardy if they are true to their religious and political conscience. Students shouldn't fear harassment as part of their school day. The new Pledge regulations may not compel participation, but the new mandatory Pledge may put pressure on those who cannot participate.
The recitation of the Pledge is not necessary to the education of children and it should not be a key component in the retention of school funding.
One must consider the effects of requiring people, (students and teachers) who come from many backgrounds and religions, to either recite or stand by as a pledge is said to a flag and a specific God.
If funding should rely on anything, it should not be the inclusion of words recited daily, but on the basis of the quality of education.
I strongly urge you to focus in the future on passing regulations that improve educating our youth rather than indoctrinating them. If you want students and teachers to be proud of their country, well, it takes a lot more than reciting words that can be hollow to those who are forced to listen to it daily.
As a young person who has traveled to and spent time in six other countries, I find blind indoctrination and the 'love your country'
mentality detrimental to proper international relations. I would be much more proud of my state and my country if the emphasis for school funding was put, not on a pledge forced into classrooms, but on the improved quality of education. I urge you to withdraw the non-education based funding requirement so that the focus is, not on who did not recite the pledge every day, but on the subjects being taught in schools.
Response of Dr. Roger Breed (which includes the Proposed Requirement)
Thank you for your email concerning the proposed pledge recitation requirement in Rule 10. Please know that the proposed requirement states:
003.12 Each public school district shall require each such district's schools
to establish a period of time during the school day, when a majority of pupils is scheduled to be present, during which pupils will be led in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the presence of the flag of the United States of America, in grades Kindergarten through twelve.
Pupil participation in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance shall be voluntary. Pupils not participating in the recitation of the Pledge shall be permitted to silently stand or remain seated but shall be required to respect the rights of those pupils electing to participate.
The proposed requirement has been approved by the State Board of Education and sent to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General approves the proposed rule and if the Governor signs the proposed rule, then the recitation requirement will become effective for Nebraska's accredited public schools.
We will forward your comments to State Board of Education. Again, thank you for your comments.
Roger Breed
Commissioner of Education
Proposed Requirement in Correlation to Rule 10 Accreditation
If you will notice, the proposed requirement is listed as 3.12. The most recent Rule 10 pdf (of 177 pages in length) has yet to include this rule, as it needs to be signed into law by the Nebraska Attorney General. Requirement 003.12 would be subject to Clause 003:"Mandatory Requirements for Legal Operation. To be eligible for accreditation or to continue as an accredited school system, the following requirements shall be met when applicable. Failure to comply with Sections 003.01 through 003.11 shall be just cause for the Commissioner to initiate proceedings before the Board to terminate accreditation and end legal operation during the school year.The clauses 003.01-003.11 seem legitimate to the facilitation of schools, as they regulate subject matter, teacher and administer certification, class credits, length of school year, reports etc.
Why is the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance so Important that it's worth shutting down schools?
That's kind of a rhetorical question. NOT saying the pledge does not mean the students are lacking in a well-rounded education. What does the requirement hope to accomplish? Patriotism? I know that when people tell me I am required to do something, I do it likely out of obligation, not choice. Wouldn't it be more of a learning opportunity if it was built into lesson planning?I know I have a different outlook at patriotism than many other people and of course I object to the inclusion of 'under God' as part of a Government Pledge. Wiki says: "Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, and meetings held by many private organizations." Maybe 58 years of saying 'Under God' has misled our politicians into believing Religion and State ARE intertwined, which would shed light as to why Republicans are the Religious Party, creating platforms based on a Christian teaching of abortion, instead of seeing reality (see my previous rant).
But the most important thing to this requirement is not about my belief about an added clause, nor the educational inspiration of patriotism among students: I do not believe that the daily recitation of the pledge is of enough importance to education that failure to do so is cause to terminate school accreditation and operation.
Call to Action
If you take issue with this proposed requirement:1) fill out this ACLU plea that goes to Commissioner of Education, Dr. Roger Breed, who will send your comments along.
2) Most Importantly: Contact Jon Bruning, the Nebraska Attorney General, since he is the last step in turning down a frivolous requirement for school accreditation.
3) Share this post.
ADDITION: MY COMMENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JON BRUNING:
Greetings,
I'm aware that the Attorney General will be asked to approve a proposal that requires public schools to provide daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or lose accreditation and be forced to end school operation. I implore you to turn down this proposed requirement.
The other requirements in Section 3 of Rule 10 regarding accreditation are things such as the regulation of subject matter, teacher and administer certification, class credits, length of school year, reports etc. Those things are legitimate to proper operation of schools and I can see how failure to meet those requirements could be detrimental to standards of promoting education.
However, I do not believe that the daily recitation of the pledge is of enough importance to education that failure to do so is cause to terminate school accreditation and operation.
I understand there is a desire to promote patriotism and pride in one's country, but I think to install a requirement that endangers school operations is not the proper method to inspire our youth.
As I'm sure you are aware, the ACLU insists that teachers, as well as the students, are allowed the Constitutional right to abstain from participation in the Pledge of Allegiance without punishment. However, because this requirement would only be in effect in public schools, the number of students and teachers that may refrain from recitation due to any number of reasons, be it religion or national heritage, is worth considering.
Is this short recitation of a Pledge worth the daily awareness that some people are refraining from participation? Is not providing this opportunity worth shutting down educational institutions? I think not.
I would very much like to see the requirement turned down mostly because it should not carry enough weight to shut down schools. If the aim of this requirement is more patriotism, I think there are plenty of interactive educational opportunities that can provide more insight for students.
I do hope my comment is well received and that a more appropriate means of inspiring patriotism is developed instead of a requirement that threatens school accreditation.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment