IF GRAMMAR WON'T STICK, WHY PATRIOTISM?

Our state constitution provides that ""Neither the general assembly nor the
state board of education shall have the power to prescribe textbooks to be
used in the public schools," but that doesn't stop certain legislators from
trying to bypass elected local school boards by imposing a curriculum from
Denver.

Five years ago, State Sen. Charles Duke introduced a bill that would have
required our public schools to teach the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration
of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Antifederalist Papers, the
Emancipation Proclamation and Washington's Farewell Address and to present
""each writing in the light most favorable to the author."

That would have been tricky, since we don't always know the author. For
instance, the Federalist Papers were published under pen names and their
authorship is still a subject of scholarly debate.

Perhaps that explains why Duke's bill died. This time around, another
Republican in the state Senate, John Andrews of Centennial, has introduced
a similar proposal.

According to its summary, SB 136 "'requires each public school in the state
to teach, in each grade level offered in the school, an age- appropriate
unit on patriotism, including but not limited to a discussion of the
rights, privileges, and responsibilities involved with United States
citizenship and a historical review of what it means to be an American.'"

State action is required, Andrews said, because, ""It's too important to
leave up to the local option."

So much for the oft-stated Republican preference for local control. They
really favor it only when they "control the locals."

Just why is this so important? Maybe I've missed it in all the coverage of
the Olympic-medal controversies, but I honestly believe that I'd have heard
about it if Colorado teenagers were running off to enlist with the Taliban.

Nor have I noticed any outbreak of flag-burning among schoolchildren, and
the local paper has yet to run a story about any youngster who refuses to
stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem or the like.

The children who walk by my house every weekday morning and afternoon, on
their way to and from the nearby middle school or high school, can be
overheard chatting about musical preferences, weekend binge drinking and
their romantic adventures; I've never heard them chant ""Death to the Great
Satan" or "Smash the Police State."

Military recruiters appear to be filling their enlistment quotas. American
flags continue to sprout on the antennas of cars driven by teenagers. The
most subversive bumper sticker I've seen in the school parking lot is a
fading remnant of the 2000 presidential election: ""George and Al make me
want to Ralph."

In short, there's no evidence of an outbreak of anti-patriotic sentiments
among Colorado schoolchildren, so the Andrews bill is a solution in search
of a problem. Granted, children can develop improper attitudes. Our older
daughter, Columbine, spent the 1993-94 school year in Iceland as an
exchange student.

Upon her return, she reported that ""it's really hard on your patriotism to
live in another country, one where there aren't any beggars on the street
because everyone has a job and a place to live. And kids there can go to
any college they're qualified for at state expense, so they aren't
thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate. You can drink safely from
any river or creek anywhere in the country. Plus, families don't have to
worry about medical bills or losing their health insurance, and it's a good
system because they've got the longest life-expectancy in the world."

As good American parents, we explained that Iceland was an evil socialist
state and therefore an enemy of liberty and freedom. She pointed out that
Iceland had been a faithful NATO ally, and that it held free elections, had
an uncensored press, offered religious liberty and so forth.

We were tempted to blame the sponsor of her trip, that well-known
subversive global enterprise, Rotary International, for the terrible
attitudes she developed.

But this sort of thing could have happened even if Andrews's scheme had
been in effect for the past century. And his proposal illustrates one of
the major contradictions among our right-thinkers.

They complain (and they're often right) that our public schools aren't
teaching basic skills. Kids graduate from high school unable to read their
diplomas, they have trouble even counting change, etc.

So you'd think they'd want schools to focus on that. But you'd be wrong. If
it isn't patriotic indoctrination, it's school prayer, or abstinence
promotion, or creation science, or drug education - adding material to the
school curriculum is promoted by the same right- thinkers who complain that
the schools aren't teaching anyway.

In other words, why would a patriotism class work better than a grammar
class? Maybe Sen. Andrews can answer that question; I know I can't.