Interview with Dr. R. Gleason: Education Hysteria

The Polemics of Public Education and Privatized Home Schools & Private Institutions: An Interview with Dr. Ronald Gleason, Ph.D.

By Julio Martinez, Jr.

Question 1a: Professor Gleason, tell me about your history as it pertains to your education? Where you educated, and do you feel that you had a substantial and qualitative education?

(I want to first deal with the public schools and the system by which they function. I then want to discuss the private institutions of education, and ultimately compare the two forms of educating pre-collegiate students.)

Question 1b: Do you know of other professors and educators that are concerned about the education system, and if so, who?

Question 2: Upon my readings of the public school system, I learned that a recent measure was passed to boost graduation rates, otherwise known as the "No Child Left Behind" measure. Tell me your thoughts on this piece of legislation.

Question 3: What do you think the public school system can do to improve this measure, NCLB?

Question 4: Do you think that the national drop-out rate can be reduced by either reforming the NCLB measure, or scrapping it altogether?

Question 5: Can you tell me what you're thoughts are collectively about the public education system of state-run schools?

Question 6: What needs do you believe that the state does not meet with each student?

Question 7: According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, there are five basic goals the body politic believes can improve the state-run schools. They include: an academic push, early attention to low performing students, more personalized schools, a greater range of options, and parental involvement. Do you believe that these are theoretically palpable goals for the state-run schools?

Question 9: Do you believe some of these goals are conspicuous to the private school system?

Question 10: Again, the Legislative Analyst Office claims that if certain of these measurable goals are procured, they can hold students accountable which stipulate "consequences for failing to complete required work and strong attendance and truancy programs" (23). Do you agree? And if not, why?

Question 11: Lastly, what do you think will help the conspicuous problem of state-run schools?

Question 12: Private schools: your thoughts?

Question 13: Can you give me three general reasons why anyone—religious and non-religious— should pull their children from the public school system, which is free, to educate them privately?

Question 14: It has been maintained that the student who is taught at home lacks the social skills of those students who are in the public school system. Do you find this claim to be true?

Question 15: Do you have any reason to believe that students who are taught privately do procure a healthy social life?

Question 16: The quality of education is obviously important for students. Do you believe that the privatized system of education bequeaths this sort of education, a qualitative sort? Do you have any statistics that might support your belief?

(Finally, two basic questions which hint at a comparison of the two systems.)

Question 17: Cumulatively speaking, do you find that socialization is important for the student as he learns in the classroom/home? Can you compare the two scenarios in each system? Which system best socializes the student?

Question 18: Finally, if confronted with a parent with no religious background, what would you offer her in terms of educating her child? But before you answer, here's the scenario: She is ready to send her child to 1^st grade, and she wants the best education possible. What would you say?

Schriener: Theologian in Compromise with the New Perspective?

Thomas Schriener, adjunct professor at Bethel Theological Seminary of New Testament, wrote an essay on Luther. And in this essay—however, I only read a good majority of it—he writes that J. Dunn and the New Perspective (N.T. Wright) have raised awareness of the way modern Christians read the bible, i.e., Reformation spectacles. He concedes that Christians should not appear disingenuous when they approach the Scriptures with dogmatism. However "honest" his plight might seem, Luther still remains a champion in theology, even among Calvinists like myself. One would question Schriener's proclivity, even as a doctor of New Testament, when inundated by seemingly theological giants like Dunn and Wright. Here's the outline:

 

WAS LUTHER RIGHT?

By Tom Schreiner

(Professor of New Testament, Bethel Theological Seminary)

I. The impact of Luther

A. His understanding of God's righteousness

B. The danger of legalism (Roman Catholicism and Judaism)

C. The Bondage of the Will and human boasting

II. The consensus and Rudolf Bultmann

III. The consensus shattered: E. P. Sanders and Paul and Palestinian Judaism

A. Reading the NT through Reformation spectacles

B. Soteriology of Judaism: covenantal nomism

C. Why Sanders has persuaded many

D. The role of sola scriptura

IV. A reappraisal of Paul's criticism of Judaism

A. E. P. Sanders

1. Solution to plight

2. Salvation History

B. Heikki Räisänen: Contradictory Paul

1. Law fulfilled and abolished

2. Impossible to keep and yet kept by Christians

3. Purpose and origin of the law

4. Romans 2:12 and 5:13

C. James Dunn: Inclusivism

1. Weakness of Sanders and Räisänen

2. Meaning of "Works of Law"

3. Ethnocentricism not Legalism

V. An Evaluation of the new perspective

A. Legalism

B. Contradictions

C. Ethnocentricism vs. Legalism