I like the idea of little English-speakers (K~4) becoming bilingual in the normal course of going to school. Why not? And since Spanish is the predominant language in this hemisphere it is a logical choice. I'm also a proponent for making English the official language of the US and restricting all federal documents/Websites to English, teaching logic and critical thinking to elementary and high school children—such as is part of the ciriculum of Sandhills Classical Christian School, and teaching them solid, market-based, basic economics.
So I like the foreign language immersion idea, but "intelligence guided by experience" with the U.S. education system has generated two questions:
—What does this program cost relative to the rest of the county? There is something inherently wrong about demanding that citizens with no children pay (or lose their property) to educate the children the rest of us made. That is a debate for another time but the moral obligation of the school board and the county commissioners to exercise severe frugality with the taxpayers' property is most certainly germane to this discussion.
—Who are the "native Spanish speaking teachers" and from whence did they come to West End Elementary? That is, do they come with a political message? Are they part of an organization with a much larger, anti-American agenda (ex., La Raza)? I'm not suggesting or implying they are because I have no information one way or the other. I'm simply very familiar with the tactics of the Left and am firmly asserting that we must examine cost and agenda before we leap on the Good Idea Fairy's train.
What if the program is not more expensive and the teachers are great, America-loving immigrants? Then I ask, why not make this an option for parents? What do you think? What do you know about this West End Elementary's program?
Read The Pilot's article: Elementary to End Spanish Immersion Program
Submitted by Skeptical Thinker
What are you thoughts? From the story:
Depending on the specific needs of qualifying members, in most cases children, families are classified from Level 1 to Level 4. The lower end of the spectrum covers behavior concerns while families at Levels 3 and 4 require specific medical services.
This isn't a rhetorical question. This a real (non-theoretical) dilemma currently facing our Board of Commissioners that gives us the opportunity to have a philosophical discussion about the role the local government, then to act on our individual decisions by contacting the commissioners.
Read the story: Nonprofit Makes Case to County for Continued Assistance
There is no question that Friend to Friend does truly great things in Moore Co. Many of us have donated to it, personally, but does that mean we can obligate our neighbors to (partially) fund it? Well, it may! They have to pay for law enforcement, roads, etc. Are the services offered by F2F those that are proper functions of government?
Point: This expenditure is a rightful public safety role of the county and F2F is a more efficient way of providing it than county bureaucracy would be.
Counter Point: I don't have the right to obligate my neighbors—who may have serious financial challenges (sick child, disability, caring for a parent, leaky roof, etc.) and can barely pay the property taxes on to the house they outright own—to pay for part of Friend to Friend's operating costs.
What do you think?