Charles Foster Johnson, founder of Pastors for Texas Children, barnstormed across Tennessee, Meeting with like-minded ministers who believe in separation of church and state.
Rev. Johnson organized 2,000 ministers in Texas, and PTC played a significant role in forging an alliance between rural Republicans and urban Democrats to stop vouchers.
“Johnson’s mission is starkly different from church leaders who want public funding available for religious and private schools. He is a fierce advocate of separation of church and state, as well as local control of schools and education funding.
“We want full funding of our public schools, and we are against privatization that diverts God’s common good money to underwrite private schools,” he said. “The public should stay public, and the private should stay private.”
“His advocacy model is being replicated in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, and now Tennessee, where Johnson is rallying local pastors this week during stops in Knoxville, Nashville, and Pleasant Hill. He’ll close out his tour on Friday at First Baptist Church of Memphis, the city where some Tennessee lawmakers sought last year to create a pilot voucher program. That effort failed, but groups on both sides expect some type of voucher legislation will be introduced next January, when a newly elected General Assembly convenes under a new administration replacing outgoing Republican Gov. Bill Haslam.”
Pastors for Tennessee Children will be ready to fight against vouchers.
The support for vouchers comes from the American Federation for Children, an organization funded and founded by Betsy DeVos to promote vouchers. AFC spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in Tennessee at every election, to support voucher-friendly candidates.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Many thanks to Rev. Johnson for his message and hard work promoting the preservation of the common good. I wish he would bring his campaign and message to North Florida where there are many evangelical Christians. Unlike South Florida the north of Florida has a lot fewer charters so there is a real opportunity to make a difference in the northern counties and cities of the state. Florida continues to write laws that show partiality to charters and vouchers.
LikeLike
Charters = Jim Crow
LikeLike
I love reading ed reform documents because you really can’t comprehend how biased they are towards charter schools unless you do:
“Six cities have currently implemented unified enrollment systems. At the time
of implementation, Denver and Washington D.C. were the largest districts, with
more than 80,000 students, and Camden was the smallest district, with under
15,000 students. All of these districts had at least a 10 percent charter school
enrollment share at full implementation. In 2016-17, 208 districts had at least a 10
percent charter school enrollment share and at least 10,000 total public school
students. If many large urban districts with a significant charter school enrollment
share consider or eventually implement unified enrollment systems, their reach
could potentially impact millions of students.”
They design “unified enrollment systems” exclusively for the benefit of charter schools.
Public schools aren’t even mentioned as a factor. The working assumption among all these people is every single family would immediately leave a public school and transfer to a charter, as soon as charter supporters inform them of the superiority of charter schools.
This is the environment public schools operate in in this country now- they are assumed to be “last choice” schools –
is it any wonder existing public schools have fared so poorly under ed reform government? That 85% of schools have been neglected? The whole “movement” is predicated on the belief that public schools are inferior.
LikeLike
Corroborating your point- the Center for American Progress singles out privatized education for praise (Sarah Shapiro, 2/21/2018, “The State of Civics Education…bright spots in civics education”). Shapiro specified, “Public charter schools encourage experiential learning”, which embodies the falsehood that charter schools are public.
Public schools are hamstrung with the rules of the state legislatures while charters play by different rules. Then, the mandated difference is used to disparage public schools.
Shapiro who co-wrote the Sept., 2018 CAP paper, “…Disinvestment…” cited three Matthew Chingos’ papers. Chingos is an executive editor for Education Next, his cv shows $500,000 from Arnold and, he is an employee of the Urban Institute which is funded by Pete Peterson, Arnold and Gates. In the CAP “…Disinvestment…” paper, Shapiro resurrected a 2012 Whitehurst paper based on a 2009 paper, which IMO, is highly flawed in drawing a conclusion that., “Research shows instructional materials can have an impact equal to or greater than the impact of teacher quality.”
The Gates/Zuckerberg schools-in-a-box market instructional materials. Paint me surprised.
LikeLike
“Public charter schools encourage experiential learning”
Two lies in just six words. Is that the tRump speaking?
LikeLike
The Center for American Progress is repeating the lies from the charter lobby echo chamber. Most charters offer less innovative and research informed instruction than many public schools. Many charters are like public schools from the 1940s. Even those with glossy technology are getting abysmal results. “Personalized learning” and the like are really just old fashioned behaviorist stimulus-response learning, (remember Pavlovian conditioning), that is inadequate for today’s young people.
LikeLike
“Hundreds of teacher candidates shake up mid-term elections” (TPM)
LikeLike
Ed reformers in state legislatures worked very hard last year to expand vouchers- yet another year they got absolutely nothing accomplished for public school students, but they did manage to jam through many voucher programs.
Here’s how that’s working out:
“Two years ago, the Beta Preparatory school in Orlando was being run — with your tax dollars — inside a commercial complex on South Orange Blossom Trail, alongside eight bail-bonds businesses and a drug-testing company.
With no outdoor space for recess — and fellow tenants such as “Drug Tests R Us” — it wasn’t most parents’ vision of an ideal learning environment.
Apparently Beta wasn’t an ideal tenant either. The private school that takes state vouchers was evicted for not paying its rent.
Yes, the entire taxpayer-subsidized school. (Class, the words of the day are: “Final notice.”)
So last year, Beta moved to a new locale — a church campus in Orlando, where it continued to take more of your tax dollars … until things went south there, too.
Teachers filed formal complaints about a “lack of basic school supplies,” academic “irregularities,” student safety, inadequate staffing and a “lack of professionalism.” Multiple teachers said the school stiffed them on salary. The church said the school stiffed it on rent.”
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/taking-names-scott-maxwell/os-florida-voucher-schools-deland-prep-scott-maxwell-20181001-story.html
It’ll be the same next year- unless we vote to bust up this echo chamber and hire some public employees who support public education.
LikeLike
“We want full funding of our public schools, and we are against privatization that diverts God’s common good money to underwrite private schools,”
Ay ay ay. More god crap. It’s his god’s money. NO IT’S NOT! Those monies have nothing to do with his god and since that god doesn’t exist, it can’t have anything to do with those monies. But, I’m sure the reverend likes his tax-exempt status, eh!
LikeLike
I agree with almost everything you write, Duane. I believe that this man is clearly crossing the line between religion and government. The money in the federal/state treasury, belongs to the American people, and not to some non-existent Deity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By saying that he “is clearly crossing the line. . . ” are you saying that because he is a pastor/preacher/reverend/whatever he should not be getting involved with political speech/actions*? I’m not sure if that is what you mean or something else. Please explain. Gracias.
*not that I necessarily disagree. Hey, you, because of religious leanings, are exempt from most taxes but your out preaching about what to do with tax monies? Well, preachers back in the early 1800s were for the most part against any kind of entanglement. Read Susan Jacoby’s various historical writings on American religionistas (almost always xtian) to get a good idea on how the modern xtian fundie regressive reactionary right has things quite backwards from their religionista brethren of the past.
LikeLike
I love Charlie Johnson. He is making the case that no religion should be subsidized by the government. I don’t have a problem with that, especially at a time when many religious types are begging to be funded by taxpayers.
LikeLike
And I agree with him on that aspect. What I find disturbing is his references to his god as part and parcel of his speech/writing. Yes, he’s a preacher, I understand that, but at the same time as one who doesn’t believe in his or any one’s god (other than FSM-LOL) I find those references to be quite tedious and less than inclusive in thought. But hey, we aren’t supposed to question religious authorities because they have received their word from their god–NOT! I believe that he would be more effective with all, not just faith believers, were he to eliminate that nonsense.
LikeLike
Duane, its a free country. You have your views. He has his. He doesn’t disapprove of your views. Why shower contempt on a good man trying to preserve separation of church and state? Don’t attack your allies. We can’t prevail in a circular firing squad
LikeLike
Yes, tis supposedly a free (originally typed fee, hmm) country. And that is why I question those things that I know to be false, in this case god talk. I don’t doubt that Mr. Johnson is a good person and certainly deserves accolades for sticking his neck out in challenging those many “religious” people who wish to at the minimum use state funds for their own religious benefit. Fortunately, as shown by Johnson, religious beliefs are not totally monolithic as to be overwhelming to every other belief system. We know what happens when a religion enjoys that monolithic privilege. . . it ain’t pretty for many (usually but not only women and non cis-gendered individuals).
I did not “shower contempt” on C. Johnson, I question his bringing in his god into almost everything I have read of his, the comment in question is just the most recent I’ve seen.
A bringing in that doesn’t need to be there to make the point. I also find using his god in such a fashion serves to alienate some of us “allies”. I succumb to no party/religious line in not accepting faith belief worldviews. I am glad that he understands the need for the separation of church from the state, many faith believers do without bringing in their supposed god into the discussion of very human concerns.
Why is it seemingly always incumbent of non-believers to kowtow to, to accept without question the beliefs of those faith beliefs? I don’t and will continue to do that questioning when I believe it needs to be pointed out.
LikeLike
He is a man of God. He refers to God because he is a Baptist minister. You are an atheist. He is more tolerant than you.
LikeLike
Perhaps he is, or perhaps I am more tolerant, you’ve decided for yourself and that is fine.
Yes, I don’t accept god talk as legitimate for political discourse due to the unverifiable nature of the concept of god and the many versions of that concept which was correctly understood by those who founded this country as not conducive to having a civil society and who attempted to put up that “wall of separation.”
If that is intolerant, then I am rightly accused by you. If not, and I don’t believe it is, well. . . . Why is it incumbent upon non-believers to have to tolerate nonsensical thought? That any idiotic concept is acceptable for public discourse? Why is questioning such nonsense considered to be intolerant?
I don’t buy that privileged position of not being questioned that religious believers demand. Hey, believe what you (general) will, that doesn’t mean I have to tolerate your bringing in those beliefs as part of legitimate political dialogue.
An example: Were I to believe in a god as most do, one that is omniscient, omni-present, and is everywhere and everything, then I am a part of that god, therefore I should consider myself God. And since I’m God what I have to say must hold true. I say I will be the next president of this country. Well. . .
More likely than not you’d reject that line of faith belief thinking, eh. But what makes it any less suspect than any other faith belief? Nothing, nothing at all. Any faith belief is just that, a faith belief and not verifiable in the common everyday meaning of that word. But I’m supposed to not challenge those other faith belief statements???
LikeLike
Duane,
When it comes to religion, you are intolerant. I am a secular Jew. I say live and let live. Religious wars start from intolerance.
LikeLike
Duane,
I don’t care what you think of my religious beliefs. I only ask that you not ridicule them, as you ridicule those who are sincere believers in their religion.
LikeLike
And, obviously, I don’t disagree with your characterization of what can be the effect of intolerance. The vast majority of the people I know and interact with daily have religious beliefs. I’ve always gotten along with those who even believe some of what I consider to be outrageous beliefs, even within the xtian faiths.
You confuse my objection to those who characterize human affairs with god-talk with intolerance. Perhaps I have not explained the difference in a clear fashion.
No, I don’t automatically respect religious beliefs. If that makes me intolerant in your mind, well, so be it. Hey, I thought all beliefs were tolerated, but I guess some beliefs are more tolerated than others, kind of like “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
LikeLike
Duane,
I don’t think you hear yourself. You ridicule people with strong religious beliefs. I say, live and let live as long as others don’t mess with your life and your beliefs.
LikeLike
And they ridicule us and/or condescend to us by talking their god talk when not appropriate. I call them out on that. Nothing more.
LikeLike
Would you like to be ridiculed because of your lack of faith?
Live and let live.
Charles Foster Johnson never ridiculed you. Enough. He is my friend. I admire him. Your scorn makes me admire him more, and I am not a Christian.
LikeLike
All community denominational churches should recognize their congregations will dry up, if the megachurches get tax money for schools. People who want jobs related to the schools will become members of the megachurch. The megachurch will replace the community. Members of smaller churches will abandon them to be in the activity hub of the megachurch.
LikeLike
Thanks, Charles!!!!
LikeLike
I am not sure why I deserve this gratitude. I try to tell the truth as I see it.
LikeLike