Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: EN4CER on March 08, 2006, 05:57:13 AM
-
High School student Sean Allen tapes his geography teacher Jay Bennish wondering way off topic in my opinion ….
Link (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004689.htm)
Needless to say it makes national news (Funny, I didn’t see it on any of the Main Stream Media stations though).
Bennish goes on the Today Show and is interviewed by Matt Lauer. He dances like Fred Astaire through all the leading questions thrown softly by Lauer.
Link (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/rockytalklive/archives/2006/03/jay_bennish_on_today.html#more)
Taking aside Mr. Bennish’s points (I personally think he’s insane) this incident makes for great debate regarding “Freedom of Speech” and “Academic Freedom.” Was Mr. Bennish acting within his scope of employment as a teacher or was he way out of line?
-
Lets see, the teacher got caught pushing an political left-wing agenda to students on the public dime. The teacher later claims he is looking to provoke a debate with his students and did not have a preconceived notion he wished to expose his student to.
The student tapes the teacher in an obvious agenda to attack his character from behind the scenes, which gets picked up by a lot of right-wing radio and TV personalities amazingly quick. The student claims he taped his teacher to help him study, even tho (according to the student) only 20% of the class was actual Geography (he needs a tape recorder for 20% of a class only?).
I think both sides are full of sh**, in regards to their public statements.
-
Public school is an evil that we are forced to pay for.
lazs
-
"I think both sides are full of sh**, in regards to their public statements."
Most definitley. The teacher absolutely chose the wrong forum to whip up a "debate" on politics.
And it's a sure bet sure the kid will win some type of Bushler Youth award at the next party convention.
-
It would simply be better if all parents had a choice on where to send their kids to school with all the extorted money big brother gives to the public school.
lazs
-
yawn, just another "boosh is hitler" neo-lib.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Bushler Youth award
:lol
-
Isn't Massachusetts where Kerry and Kennedy the leaders of honesty and fairness keep getting elected?
One of the few states that says child molesters shouldn't go to jail because they can't get treatment while in prison even though it's been proven treatment doesn't work. They don't like to punish them because it wasn't their fault.
Just curious because it points out the great wisdom and morality that comes from there.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"I think both sides are full of sh**, in regards to their public statements."
Most definitley. The teacher absolutely chose the wrong forum to whip up a "debate" on politics.
And it's a sure bet sure the kid will win some type of Bushler Youth award at the next party convention.
:aok
-
yup.. same place. Also the place where standing on the spot where the 'shot heard round the world' was fired while wearing a coonskin cap and carrying an inert replica revolutionary war musket will getcha 10-20 in the slammer.
-
Bushler
====
ahh yes, the inevitable comparrison: Bush is Hilter
-
Sorry to pop your balloon Mighty1 but while I've never voted for Kerry or Kennedy I don't see them as any different than the idiots you put up on a pedestal.
And that was one case of a Vermont judge who felt that a child molester shouldn't have gone to prison as he wouldn't have gotten his treatment. Course you can try to paint that one case as a general rule of thumb for Massachussets but neocon rants aren't typically accurate nor factual these days are they?
"while wearing a coonskin cap and carrying an inert replica revolutionary war musket will getcha 10-20 in the slammer."
Really? Never heard of thatbut I would like more info as it sounds hokey.
-
Kennedy does not get elected. I think it is written in Mass. law that he will be senator until he feels to retire.
-
It's unbelievable how he stays in office. IMO there are just too many senior citizens and other folks who still believe in the Camelot myth and they vote him in each time.
-
Yup, the dick is unaware that the state continues past Brookline.
-
Ted "Chapequidick - Hiccup" Kennedy is up for reelection this year.
-
Originally posted by Westy
And that was one case of a Vermont judge who felt that a child molester shouldn't have gone to prison as he wouldn't have gotten his treatment.
Vermont Judge Edward Cashman sentences Mark Hulett to 60 days in Jail after being convicted of raping a young girl for 4 years (Age 6 to 10). Whatever happened to “Let the punishment fit the crime?” Cashman eventually changed his sentence to 3 to 10 years which is still a joke for this piece of garbage. Interesting thing here is that Cashman is known as a “Hang-em” judge why did he go light on this guy. Maybe because Hulett’s brother-in-law is the Governor’s right hand man? Shame on both parties on this one. The Democrats who are supposed to be looking out for victim’s rights did nothing and the Republicans sat around for awhile on this one.
En4cer says – “No Maple Syrup for you! Next!”
-
If it looks like a commie, smells like a commie, and sounds like a commie.......
The New Socialist order thinks it has already taken over. So they can be as loud as they want to.
Michael Moore and other anti-Americans are way more popular than they should be.
-
He's good. His interview was flawless, the guy should work for the whitehouse. The kid that turn him in is a little s***.:o
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
He's good. His interview was flawless, the guy should work for the whitehouse. The kid that turn him in is a little s***.:o
if he did nothing wrong, how can you "turn him in"?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
He's good. His interview was flawless, the guy should work for the whitehouse. The kid that turn him in is a little s***.:o
Heck I could even sound good if I had Matt Lauer pitching me softballs like he did that teacher.
Why was the kid wrong for pointing out his teacher was trying to spread his Liberal views?
I have a problem with teachers who spread their political views (left or right) in classes that have nothing to do with politics.
-
Face ir, if he would have preached AVE AMERICA, nobody would have tried to crucify him like that. It's a double standard.
A teacher can't discuss politic, but u can freely express his religious belief. There again i'm sure there would be a double standard. The teacher that refers to Jesus would have student not pay attention, but the teacher that refers to Mohamed and Halla is sure to be recorded and in trouble.
You want to give a medal to the kid for what he did? He's not a clueless 10 year old, he's probably already mature enought to drive a car. get your head out of your butt America, it's time for our kids to debate so they stop being a flock of sheep going to the voting booth to vote has mom and dad told them to... that's off course, when they bother to leave their Xbox.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
it's time for our kids to debate so they stop being a flock of sheep going to the voting booth to vote has mom and dad told them to... .
flock of sheep=neo-libs relecting ted kennedy over & over & over & over..........
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Bushler
====
ahh yes, the inevitable comparrison: Bush is Hilter
Better yet Kuntsler: Hillary Clinton is Hitler :D
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
it's time for our kids to debate so they stop being a flock of sheep going to the voting booth to vote has mom and dad told them to... that's off course, when they bother to leave their Xbox.
There is a time and place for a political debate and that is not in a geography class.
AND there was no "debate" to it the teacher told his opinion an never gave the glass time to tell him he was an idiot.
-
Ahem ... "This is 20 minutes out of a 50-minute class. The rest of the class provides the balance," he said.
And ... he's a social study teacher.
-
Perhaps the class was full of a bunch of complacent kids who sit all class and never pipe up to say anything, thus the child had a tape recorder so he could sleep through class. Like has been said before, there is a time for the political debates and it's not in a geography class.
Oh and all you Bush supporters that wouldn't question him for 1 second, it's your lack of 2 sided thinking that is what leads to these kinds of problems. You preach one sided libewral or conservative to your kids, yet you never give the opposing viewpoint. Are you angry because he thinks different then you? Is that why he's a "neo con liberal"? There are 2 sides to every story and 1 side is never always correct.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
There are 2 sides to every story and 1 side is never always correct.
Very good point - quite close. Understanding is a three edge sword - One Side, the other side, and the Truth. I believe Westy summed up the truth here.
-
He's a geography teacher,
The students are captive.
It is not a tv show you can turn the channel.
He's holding the gradebook. Try and argue? try and pass.
He just got caught and is trying to weasel his way out.
-
Originally posted by john9001
yawn, just another "boosh is hitler" neo-lib.
What is a neo-lib?
Teacher was wasting his time. I suspect that 90+% of high-schoolers don't give a rat's bellybutton about politics.
-
This teacher was wrong to belittle his country in front of students. There's no place for it in any academic forum.
Les
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What is a neo-lib?
Teacher was wasting his time. I suspect that 90+% of high-schoolers don't give a rat's bellybutton about politics.
A neo-lib is republican speak for Democrat.
Adding the "neo" makes it sound more sinister to them.
-
The teacher did have many good points, even though it was in the wrong place to express them. Highschool kids cannot grasp the complexity of that particular political area.
Even most adults in this country do not understand. That is why it is so easy for the government to minipulate the populace. Which is what this administration takes full advantage of.
-
Originally posted by Swager
The teacher did have many good points, even though it was in the wrong place to express them. Highschool kids cannot grasp the complexity of that particular political area.
Even most adults in this country do not understand. That is why it is so easy for the government to minipulate the populace. Which is what this administration takes full advantage of.
I call libruhl on you !!
-
Originally posted by tapakeg
He's a geography teacher,
The students are captive.
It is not a tv show you can turn the channel.
He's holding the gradebook. Try and argue? try and pass.
He just got caught and is trying to weasel his way out.
I don't agree. In France I had many teachers in highscool showing their political opinions, especially since I'm the son of one of those political figure. It made for some prety cool debates. The class always loved it, and I extremely enjoyed it as it gave me the opportunity to be "eye level" with my teacher. I never ever feared to be descriminated and failed by ditto teachers, as test results fail you, not teachers.
I still think that those discussions open the eyes/mind of the students more than brain waching them. It gives them an opening on "not everything is pink, I'll get my free car when I'm 16, and party out my way thru college". Those kind of discussions develop critical thinking and tease curiosity, two major aces for grown up life preparation.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
An there you go: "when the brain stops, the insults start":o I hope you are not old enought to vote, that would be scary.
-
For starters this is not France. Second if it is not a political class then the teacher should do what he is paid to do. In this case teach geography.
Once again the teacher was not having a debate he was stating his point of view that had nothing to do with the class.
Try not to even think of this in terms of politics left or right think of it as what he was supposed to teach.
I would say the same thing if he was up there talking about cars. What do cars have to do with geography? Nothing so why waste class time with it?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
An there you go: "when the brain stops, the insults start":o I hope you are not old enought to vote, that would be scary.
I would agree with you somewhat SFRT if student’s could get up and leave if the don’t like what they are hearing in a classroom but they can’t (Spoken like a true politician tho). They don’t have that freedom or right to do so. And let’s face it 99.99% of all 16 year olds trying to match wits with a 30 year old teacher is like David vs. Goliath for the most part. Plus the Teacher dangles a big “I’ll give you a bad grade” carrot. Therefore the playing field has to be evened and the Teacher doesn’t have the right to go way off topic and spew his invective political rant. Your statement sounds nice in a theoretical world but lacks some substance in the real world imho. All seriousness – I would not want to be taught by this man – his lecture is more of indoctrination, not encouraging debate. I’m glad to hear everything is no nice and free and open in your country but then again – how many times was your country invaded?
-
When I was in Intel officer we had a department that dealt with what we called Geo-politic. Geography, and politics, and economy are linked together. Putting a country on a map is cute, but you still don't know anything. The physical bondaries of a country are linked to its history, and history is made by the succession of governments, and economical assets.
In Geography class in France, you learn about the today's bondary of the country, his goverment type, it's economy, and a brief history that explains what made the country what it is right now. It was mainly during those classes that political speech bursted out.
If a math teacher starts to speack about politics in a middle of a math class, I'll wonder "where did that come from?". But a Geo teacher? I am not surprised.
Hey ... to each his opinion. I personaly would make this guy teacher of the year.
I’m glad to hear everything is no nice and free and open in your country but then again – how many times was your country invaded?
I fail to see why you persist with those "bordeline personal attacks" as I do not see the relevance with our current discussion. If you would have paid attention to your own geography teacher, you would know the answer.
Here's a quicky. The conflict of interest, the geographic position of France, the jam packed borders, as well as the balance of power ratio of European nations, can in no way be compared to USA/Mexico/Canada's.
-
Again that is were the problem is. This is not France nor are these kids Intel officers.
Here we do not teach politics in a high school geography class. We save that discussion for our classes on Govt and Econ.
Not saying your wrong in how you guys do it but just pointing out that WE don't teach the same way.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I personaly would make this guy teacher of the year.
The key word here is Debate – Two sides arguing over an issue. Jay Bennish was not encouraging his students to debate him – It was a one sided “Trash Bush” moonbat far left side venomous rant. There was no debate there nor was it offered. If this was a serious debate where both Democratic and Republican view points were offered and argued I probably would not object. If you read the entire transcript from Mr. Bennish’s lecture (First Link I provided) your above statement basically allows him to be a Political Activist in the classroom. On a side note – I’ll give this one to France – Even though it has more borders to protect I’m sure they are far more secure than ours. Mexico and Canada are wide open flood gates. The Terrorists will come through Canada (Mexico does not have welfare system for them to exploit) and the Illegal Immigrants will continue to filter through from the south slowly depleting our welfare and health benefit systems. Neither Political party will touch this issue with a 20 foot pole. The Democrats want to maintain a stable group of dependents on the old welfare “Entitlement” systems and the Republicans love the cheap labor. What's it going to take to wake both sides up? Certainly not the likes of Jay Bennish teaching our most valuable resource.
-
Do you have high school age children, Mighty? If i think back, my world geography teacher brought up politics quite a bit, rise of Communism in Russia, Cold War, WW2 and concentration camps, Nazis, stuff like that. He wasn't spouting off about how Bush is equal to Hitler, but damn, there are always politics with geography. Hell, you could say the middle east is a big political screw up from WW1. But I digress...
So you're angry at him for wasting time, sure, think a little deeper and how much hatred you feel towards him for calling Dubya a mini Hitler. Besides, Bennish was wrong at any rate, Bush isn't smart enough to be Hitler.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Hell, you could say the middle east is a big political screw up from WW1. But I digress...
:aok
-
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
16- All posts, in public forums, should be made in the English language.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
I’m glad to hear everything is no nice and free and open in your country but then again – how many times was your country invaded?
Did the US ever Had Germany on it's border ?
-
#7 and #16
-
Originally posted by straffo
Did the US ever Had Germany on it's border ?
No but we still pushed em back for you - 2 Times! ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Did the US ever Had Germany on it's border ?
Yep.. lots of wreckage from 'Torpedo Alley' on the Eastern shore, Cape Hatteras in particular.
-
Well I was more thinking of the border you can walk over
(nice twist anyway :))
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Do you have high school age children, Mighty? If i think back, my world geography teacher brought up politics quite a bit, rise of Communism in Russia, Cold War, WW2 and concentration camps, Nazis, stuff like that. He wasn't spouting off about how Bush is equal to Hitler, but damn, there are always politics with geography. Hell, you could say the middle east is a big political screw up from WW1. But I digress...
So you're angry at him for wasting time, sure, think a little deeper and how much hatred you feel towards him for calling Dubya a mini Hitler. Besides, Bennish was wrong at any rate, Bush isn't smart enough to be Hitler.
I have a son who is a junior in HS and a daughter who is a senior in college.
I never said I was angry at him I said I think he was wrong in how he was treating his class.
As for your YOUR little rant about Bush......that is your opinion of him and I don't agree with it.
-
The teacher in question was SUPPOSED to be teaching GEOGRAPHY.
Not debate tactics. Not political science. Not history. GEOGRAPHY.
However, since the first day of school, he has spent AT LEAST 30 minutes of a 50 minute class every other day ranting about Bush and daring students to contradict him. AT LEAST 30% of the time, he is NOT DOING HIS JOB.
Rather than EDUCATE his students on the subject he is tasked with teaching, he is attempting to INDOCTRINATE his students.
No, his 1st Amendment rights are NOT being violated, either.
He should either do his job and educate the students on the subject he is being paid to teach, or he should be FIRED. That's what happens to people who do not do their job. If he wants to indoctrinate people, he needs a different job.
Yes, I have two children (one is techincally an adult now) and yes, it pisses me off to no end to have some pompous ******* teacher decide to indoctrinate students to his or her political inclinations rather than teach them the subject he or she is supposed to be teaching. I pay a large percentage of my earnings in taxes for education, and I'd like my children to get an education at school, as opposed to an indoctrination.
-
Ahem... World Geography is by definition, political.
-
Bull. Geography is geography. Politics is politics. Just because it is "world" geography doesn't make it political. It makes it global, as opposed to regional.
The ******* is spending 30% of the class bashing the current administration of the country. Of course, that would be bad if he did it during the Klinton administration. He is promoting his agenda and his political beliefs, not teaching. He is supposed to be teaching. Spin it all you want, he's wrong. Period. Yes, it really is that simple.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Bull. Geography is geography. Politics is politics. Just because it is "world" geography doesn't make it political. It makes it global, as opposed to regional.
If you study geography you're going to study countries and the people and politics that shape them.
-
See my post earlier. If the guy teaches Geography by only teaching "borders and maps", then he's NOT doing his job either.
Althrough it is hard not get involved in personal political belief when you are talking about countries political climates, I do agree that the teacher pushed the matter a bit too far. Yet, I fail to see the need for a "public crucifixion".
As far as the hate generated on the topic, I would quote the proverb : "It's the one that knows the least that has the strongest opinion".:p
-
I read that the kid and the teacher are both receiving death threats?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Bull. Geography is geography. Politics is politics. Just because it is "world" geography doesn't make it political. It makes it global, as opposed to regional.
Well,without politic how do you explain how the border are placed ?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
See my post earlier. If the guy teaches Geography by only teaching "borders and maps", then he's NOT doing his job either.
As I've said before here Geography IS borders and maps.
I agree I don't think this is news(been going on for years) and it should never have made it to the MSM.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If you study geography you're going to study countries and the people and politics that shape them.
You have geography confused with social studies.
Nevermind the fact that if you spend THIRTY PERCENT OF CLASS TIME on an anti Bush rant, you aren't teaching anything. Except maybe your own arrogance and obsession.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
See my post earlier. If the guy teaches Geography by only teaching "borders and maps", then he's NOT doing his job either.
Althrough it is hard not get involved in personal political belief when you are talking about countries political climates, I do agree that the teacher pushed the matter a bit too far. Yet, I fail to see the need for a "public crucifixion".
As far as the hate generated on the topic, I would quote the proverb : "It's the one that knows the least that has the strongest opinion".:p
Depends on whether you are wanting him to teach geography or social studies. And I fail to see where the current administration has moved any borders. Changed two regimes? Yes. Moved borders? No. So, once again, even by your loose definition of geography, the guy is WAY out of line.
No one is trying to publicly crucify him. However, bringing his antics to the attention of the authorities in the school system was NOT getting him back in line. Besides, it is long past the time that this sort of thing is made public as being common practice. Not only is it true that what was taped was not a rare occurence in THAT class, but it is also true that it is not a rare occurence PERIOD. My daguhter has complained bitterly for YEARS about it going on. The entire time she was in high school she complained about it. She says the same thing about college now.
There's "hate" on both sides. Most of it is "the ravings of a mad man, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Which, by the way, describes the teacher's constant rants. Sadly, he was being paid to do that in front of a class of high school students, with their parents money.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Well,without politic how do you explain how the border are placed ?
Show me which borders the current U.S. administration (G.W. Bush) has moved. Do they constitute THIRTY PERCENT of the worlds borders? As my reply to Frenchy stated, even by the loose definition you use for geography, this clown is completely out of line with regards to the subject he is being paid to teach, and for the most part, totally out of control.
-
public schools spend most of their time teaching nothing... what else is new.
vouchers would fix it.
lazs
-
Virgil, I understand your comments, but I still share an another opinion.
It's like cars. Would you consider someone than can make the difference between a 69, 73, 76, 81 vette bobies really knowlegeable about Corvettes? Surely not, the shape changed accross the years, but you need to know about Engines sizes, Cams, Carbs, tranies, suspensions, Gvt regulations to fully know/understand about Corvettes physical changes along the years.
Physical boundaries of countries are molded along the years by their governement policies, neighboring countries policies, economical assets and physical characteristics such as seas & montain ranges.
I'm sorry that your daughter was anoyed by such "teachers", but I personaly had no issues with them. Yet, I was at the epicenter of such debates as my dad was a political figure. One of my geography teacher was a communist party leader frequently opposing my dad at meetings. His classes were targeted at me with a lot of Communist ideologies. I was on the front row aguing the validity of his endoctrinement. Soon I was join by a couple others in the class. It made for great non-borring teaching.
It taught me a lot, I had to learn making intelligent remarks/counter-remarks to equaly stand up and be credible. I had to hit the books and learn about said "countries administrations", so I could put bullets in my gun.
In college, same thing happen with a Economics teacher, that was a leader of my dad's political opposing party. It started all over again, and this guy was also the dean of the college. Yet, I graduated 2nd overall.
I understand it can be a pain when you just seat there. But that's what teenagers do. They seat there, and complain about little stuff, because by definition, a teenage has to complain so he can make his life exciting. To me, those teachers made a difference by indirectly teaching me a lot.
Seems like this bord is divided on the matter:):furious , if we were part of a jury, the guy would fail do be convicted.
-
(http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.03.09.ThreeTs-X.gif)
-
Frenchy, I understand your point. The problem is, the subject that is supposed to be taught is being entirely neglected in many cases. The students are getting out of class having learned little or nothing about the subject, regardless of how much "less boring" the class was. If the school system was turning out very well educated students as a rule, rather than barely educated semi literate "graduates" then there'd be room for the somewhat extracurricular diversions. But sadly, that isn't the case.
The system needs to be turning out students with a full knowledge of English, including grammar and spelling, a full knowledge of math, at least up to algebra and geometry, a sound understanding of basic economics, a good foundation of science, including biology, chemistry, and physics, and a good grasp of geography and history. They aren't getting all of that before the graduate high school. that being the case, the esoterics of debate and politics are more than superfluous, they are in fact a detriment and a hindrance. The current system does not have the time or resources to squander on the foolishness of that clowns ravings. Not considering the current level of education high school graduates possess when they get that sheepskin.
-
There is a difference between guiding young minds and being an intellectual bully.
Context is everything. If the teacher in question was merely trying to stimulate a healthy debate then there is no problem. Respecting the views of one's students while presenting an opposing viewpoint is never a problem in a classroom.
Conversely, if the teacher was brow-beating his students, belittling their opinions, and trying to manipulate the formation of their political beliefs then there is most definitely a problem. Evidently, some of his students were sufficiently incensed at his methods to complain.
If a review board finds that the latter example is the case he should be summarily fired.
Sadly, he is typical of all too many in our "modern" society who feel no reluctance whatsoever to show open contempt and derision for the opinions of others.
Manners are rapidly becoming passe.
-
Good point Virgil
-
Jay Bennish has been reinstated. He was disciplined, but did not lose any salary or tenure. Bennish says he'll continue much along the lines as he did before.
I'll state right here and right now that unless another student steps up and tapes the guy, he'll be doing EXACTLY the same thing within a few weeks.
-
Don't think she should be preaching to kids like that .
-
frenchy... it would be more like a teacher who was teaching auto shop but all he did for half an hour every day was screech about how the CEO and staff of GM screwed up the '73 vette... Or... How unions were the salvation of the American auto industy or what the CEO and execs of the jap auto industry made for salaries.
I would rather that my kid were taught how cars worked and how to work on em.
lazs
-
Good example.
-
If we had vouchers you could send your kid to a school that just taught him the facts of the thing.
We would not be more concerned with indoctrinating than learning or being PC over fact.
Our lazy and bloated monopolies of bureocratic socialist school systems would not be a free ride for commie teachers. They could be as commie as they liked so far as I am concerned.... just so long as they had to compete.
lazs
-
I think that teacher's salaries should be directly linked to their class average grade from a semestrial national exam.
No teachers screaming in this BBS? I'm surprised.
-
I'm a teacher Frenchy,
As I stated earlier, he should be fired.
I also support school vouchers and smaller schools. Merit pay has my support, but I feel it may be difficult for teachers in districts heavy with populations of low socio-economic patrons to compete for the bonuses.
Arkansas' consolidation minded governor, who is a Democrat masquerading as a Republican, has left me bitter about many things related to education. He's about to make a run for the presidency. Don't be fooled by his rhetoric. The Huckster loves wielding the power of office to push his pet social engineering programs.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
As I've said before here Geography IS borders and maps.
so poly-ticks created the rocky mountains, gulf of Mexico, Ohio river?
i'm sorry, but your poly-lib teachers have brainwashed you.
-
You are rigth John but poly-ticks are also the ones that created the border between Nevada & Arizona, which is also geography.
Who's brainwashed now?:t
-
lets add Utah to the mix, tell me that the borders between Nevada & Utah and between Utah & Arizona are geographical and not political. And only half the border between Nevada & Arizona is the Colorado river, the rest is a straight line.
I just looked outside to see if my state was colored red or blue, it's not.
-
?:confused:?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I think that teacher's salaries should be directly linked to their class average grade from a semestrial national exam.
No teachers screaming in this BBS? I'm surprised.
If you take outstanding teachers and put them in schools in the ghetto, and take inferior teachers and put them in schools in the affluent suburbs, which schools do you think will have the higher test scores?
eskimo
-
shukins... it is my opinion that if the big districts of public schools had to compete with private schools (vouchers) that they (the public schools) would have to dump a lot of the BS and adopt better teaching methods in order to compete...
New guidlines and laws for public schools would insue and it would have a hugely benifical effect on the smaller districts and their public schools who would then be freed from some of the red tape.
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
so poly-ticks created the rocky mountains, gulf of Mexico, Ohio river?
i'm sorry, but your poly-lib teachers have brainwashed you.
What?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I think that teacher's salaries should be directly linked to their class average grade from a semestrial national exam.
No teachers screaming in this BBS? I'm surprised.
The problem with linking teachers salaries to the kids perfomance is that for the most part teachers don't have a say in what the kids learn.
Around here at least.
We have administrators who micro manage everything. Special Ed people who send special needs kids into normal class rooms and threaten the teachers if they try to make the kids do normal work. Parents who threaten to sue everytime little Timmy fails even though little Timmy never did any work and the Administration rarely supports the teacher.
I walk around the HS and see strict teachers that I had when I was a kid trying to teach with kids telling her to shut the **** up and her not being able to do a thing about it.
The funny thing is that the Admin people wonder why we have a hard time getting good teachers.
-
mighty.... vouchers would end all that... public schools would not be able to afford 67% administrative staff and the teachers would have more freedom to teach and to control the classroom.
If there were vouchers a public school could simply throw out students who refused to learn or were disruptive. How can that be worse than what we have?
How can we possibly do worse than what we have now?
lazs
-
Looking back, the only thing school taught was indoctrinization into a society that has nothing to do with the society you walk into after you graduate.
The smart kids, the ones that got the good grades in the difficult subjects did most of their learning by themselves and amongst themselves in libraries, in labs, in basements and garages and away from school. School was just their job.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mighty.... vouchers would end all that... public schools would not be able to afford 67% administrative staff and the teachers would have more freedom to teach and to control the classroom.
If there were vouchers a public school could simply throw out students who refused to learn or were disruptive. How can that be worse than what we have?
How can we possibly do worse than what we have now?
lazs
I wish that was true but the state mandates that these kids MUST be allowed in school regardless of their behavior. They could move them to a special class but that is where special ed gets involved and says no.
Not sure how other systems handle it but our's is screwed!
-
perhaps I am not being clear.. if we had vouchers then no one school would be responsible to take disruptive or unteachable kids. The parents would have the option to send them to another school...
The reason there are so many stupid rules in public schools is because they are the only publicly funded source of schooling.
lazs
-
Left wing? Sounds more like socialism to me. It it's left wing, it's way, way out there.
Schools are not to teach political or religeous idealism. They are to teach facts. This man should be terminated.
-
It is not "schools" it is "school"... the socialists have a monopoly on the funding for teaching our kids.... they can do whatever they want as there is not competition and they can extort as much money as they need from each of us with very little effort.
They get worse and have worse results every year but get angry when anyone points it out.
They have the kids for most of the kids waking hours and then blame the parents for the kid not learning anything.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is not "schools" it is "school"... the socialists have a monopoly on the funding for teaching our kids.... they can do whatever they want as there is not competition and they can extort as much money as they need from each of us with very little effort.
They get worse and have worse results every year but get angry when anyone points it out.
They have the kids for most of the kids waking hours and then blame the parents for the kid not learning anything.
Calling liberals socialists is a bit of a stretch unless you're talking about most extreme leftists as this "teacher" seems to be. Aside from that, you seem to have some issues with schools in general.
I'm pleased you agree with me in that this man was out of line. Again, I say he should be terminated.
-
I don't have an issue with schools in genreal... I have an issue with public schools having a monopoly on our money. private schools and home schools are very good and I have no issue with them other than they cost money. I believe that the more money we give public schools the worse off we are. The more of a monopoly they become the worse job they do.
In order to have a good education you have to pay once to fund public schools and then again to get into a real school or... stay home and school the children yourself.
yes.. the teacher should be fired. His boss should be fired too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't have an issue with schools in genreal... I have an issue with public schools having a monopoly on our money. private schools and home schools are very good and I have no issue with them other than they cost money. I believe that the more money we give public schools the worse off we are. The more of a monopoly they become the worse job they do.
In order to have a good education you have to pay once to fund public schools and then again to get into a real school or... stay home and school the children yourself.
yes.. the teacher should be fired. His boss should be fired too.
Until there is an acceptable alternative to public schools I don't really see any way around that issue. It is the public's responsibility to ensure the education of our children. In that sense they are all our children. There is a return on the investment we make in this process. An overall elevation in the level of educated people and that elevates the quality of living for all of us. Unfortunately, perhaps, public schools are the current best vector for the majority of our children. Without it, many could not afford the most basic of educations and without that we'd never see what might become of them with an advanced one. Some of the most brilliant people come from the humblest of beginnings.
As to firing the mans boss…….I think that might a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I haven't seen any evidence of the boss's culpability. If the boss supported the activity through action or inaction, then yes, In that case there would be some justice in reviewing his employment.
-
I don't think anyone should be fired.
I think the teacher was wrong but I don't think anything stronger than a warning is called for.
Review what he is supposed to teach ..tell him what will happen next time he goes into a political rant and move on.
-
chopsaw... how is a voucher system not a viable alternative? private schools consitently outperform public schools in performance and for less money.
Unless.... academic performance is not the goal for schooling then the obvious way to go is to allow for vouchers.
lazs
-
those who have been educated in private schools for say their first 3-8 years and then have to go to public school for some reason allways feel the same way...
They feel like sober vette drivers at an autocross where all the competion is drunk and driving early model SUV's.
What do private school children miss out on? all the violence and shouting and getting to wear pants that have the waist at the crotch and worrying that someone will steal their goofy looking untied tennis shoes.
oh... and the joy of supporting a teachers union that hates kids.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I don't think anyone should be fired.
I think the teacher was wrong but I don't think anything stronger than a warning is called for.
Review what he is supposed to teach ..tell him what will happen next time he goes into a political rant and move on.
Your view is more relaxed than mine. I have a tendency to be more coldly black and white about such things. My feeling is he already had been informed and knew what he was supposed to teach. He also knew or should have known that he was out of line. I will, however, concede that he may not have been informed of the possibility of termination consequences for his actions. Unfortunately, I believe this is because he had good reason to think he would not face such a penalty.
I fear you're correct. He'll get a talking to at best and no further action will be taken against him. I still feel he knew what he was doing and that it was out of line and he should be fired.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
those who have been educated in private schools for say their first 3-8 years and then have to go to public school for some reason allways feel the same way...
They feel like sober vette drivers at an autocross where all the competion is drunk and driving early model SUV's.
What do private school children miss out on? all the violence and shouting and getting to wear pants that have the waist at the crotch and worrying that someone will steal their goofy looking untied tennis shoes.
oh... and the joy of supporting a teachers union that hates kids.
lazs
I had my son in a private christian school for three years (6-8th grades). In 8th grade, one of the teachers had him in a room alone and was touching him inappropriately. I went to the police and after a four or five month investigation, that teacher plead no contest.
In other words... private schools aren't necessarily safe either.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chopsaw... how is a voucher system not a viable alternative? private schools consitently outperform public schools in performance and for less money.
Unless.... academic performance is not the goal for schooling then the obvious way to go is to allow for vouchers.
Currently a voucher system is not available in all areas and thus I do not see it as an alternative. There is also the case against voucher's being used for parochial schools. That would place the public in the position of funding a school controlled by a church and in which religion is one of the dishes served in the school experience. Additionally, there is not enough room in private schools, especially the good ones, for all the children currently enrolled in public schools.
I'm personally opposed to any environment which places young people in uniforms. It grinds down on their personal expression of individuality. I firmly believe young people need to express themselves. Teenagers especially strive and need to find who they are and how they can fit into society. The cloths they choose to wear is a relatively harmless vector by which they can achieve this. I look back on the way my hair looked and the way I dressed in high school and I laugh. It didn't subvert me, but it was an expression of individuality that I'm glad I had.
Theft and violence is not found in private schools? That seems to belie human nature. Admittedly the violence in some public schools needs to be better addressed and is probably worse than most private schools, but you're never going to going to get away from it completely. Particularly if you find a way to put all those kids currently in public school into private school.
Though I've run into teachers who obviously have a problem with kids, I was not aware that the teachers union hated kids.
There is the right to education in our society. This right has made our society one of the strongest in the world. Public schools give access to that right. That means it is the publics responsibility to support those public schools with taxes.
You may argue that there is much to repair in public schools but that is hardly an argument for their elimination.
-
sandie... so there is never a case of children being molested in public schools? you did not argue my point too I noticed.. would you say that you had learned more in the private school than your peers in public school?
chopsaw... I don't understand what you are saying. If we as a people feel that education is a benifiet to society then we are doing a disservice to ourselves (as society) by allowing public schools to be a monopoly in something so important.
I am saying that vouchers are the only way that public schools can be fixed... the current thinking is to throw more money at public schools... this kind of thinking has made things worse every year.
As for uniforms? reall, that is debateable... the "individuality" that you speak of is, in terms of young children often a way to make those who can't afford the current fad clothing an object of ridicule.... the "individuality" you speak of is non existent... the "uniform" of these so called individuals is every bit as strict in public school..... it just costs more... a kid dressed in K mart clothes in public school is not praised for his "individuality" he is ridiculed because he is not wearing $80 pants which are..... the defacto "uniform" of these mush brains.
public schools do a crappy job of educating... time to go to something else that we know works.... then public school can either catch up or die a merciful and much needed death.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... so there is never a case of children being molested in public schools? you did not argue my point too I noticed.. would you say that you had learned more in the private school than your peers in public school?
My... aren't we defensive.
I was making another point. Private schools aren't necessarily better than public schools. I can't speak to the differences as a student. I went to public schools.
While I think vouchers would be nice, I don't think they're the panacea to all that ills public schools.
I think all federal funds allocated to education should end. Education is a state issue.
-
any time you destroy a monopoly... especialy a government one... you improve the product and the cost.
In some cases... the government monopoly survives like in the case of the postal service and package USPS.... but.. It evolves and becomes better..
Think of public schools in the same way....
lazs
-
lazs2: What I'm saying isn't too difficult to understand. I'm a taxpayer. Vouchers are use of tax money to fund the education of a child in the school of the parents choice. Some parents choose to send their children to parochial schools. These are schools which teach religion as well as the usual subjects. I object to any plan which has my money going towards support of the teaching of religious dogma.
As far as the uniform issue? We're really just going to disagree on that. I'm sure you're wrong and you're sure I am.
What makes you think we'll have more control of what our children are taught by a particular teacher in a private school? Recall the tirade of the socialist teacher which started this thread. My experience with private schools indicates they teach what they want and if you don't like it, you take your business elsewhere. At least with public schools we have strong vectors of input.
Sandman: I have to disagree with your proposal to withdraw federal funds from schools and leave funding up to states. We have states in the Union which could not support the same degree of education that the richer ones could. It would lead to, if I may, an un-American inequality in access to quality education. I'm not saying this doesn't already exist, but it would be enhanced if federal funding were withdrawn.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Sandman: I have to disagree with your proposal to withdraw federal funds from schools and leave funding up to states. We have states in the Union which could not support the same degree of education that the richer ones could. It would lead to, if I may, an un-American inequality in access to quality education. I'm not saying this doesn't already exist, but it would be enhanced if federal funding were withdrawn.
They can move to more competitive states. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They can move to more competitive states. ;)
Get that tongue out of your cheek. You don't know where it's been.;)
-
If competition is good for the marketplace, why can't it be so for education as well?
States should compete.
-
chopsaw...you object to children being well educated if they also are recieving religious education from the school that their parents choose? I can only think that it is because as a taxpayer you want to take all religion out of anything the government pays for with your money? Religions get money all the time from you in the form of taxes by simply.... not paying any and increasing your burden... you support all churches and charities (regardless of denomination) with your taxes.
Same for school... there would be no restriction on type of religion... all would be eligable. you have no problem with religious schools now...you claim it is only that you don't want to support them with tax money.... You allready do and..
You allow only one type of school to monopolize now... whatever that schools current policy is makes up the indoctrinization of the children... You seem to have no problem with that.
As for uniforms? I think studies show that you are wrong... I think that the pressure of the real uniform...the one that is acceptable to public school children is the real problem... the pressure on kids and parents to have the right "individualistic" uniform or be laughed off the schoolyard.
Kids do not want to stand out except in very rare cases... they want to fit in... Uniforms remove a burden and a distraction and a possible source of violence.
But... I am interested in what you think.. You have your public school monopoly... no religion... no uniforms... no competition... they are consitently outperformed by private and home schooling... More is spent every year and the results get worse and worse every year..
What would you suggest being as how you feel that education is so important that each of us should pay for it? Is it results you want or just a perception of doing something?
if you never have vouchers then you will never have any private schools other than religious or home schooling and.... public school will only get worse.
lazs
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
lazs2: What I'm saying isn't too difficult to understand. I'm a taxpayer. Vouchers are use of tax money to fund the education of a child in the school of the parents choice. Some parents choose to send their children to parochial schools. These are schools which teach religion as well as the usual subjects. I object to any plan which has my money going towards support of the teaching of religious dogma.
Look at it this way:
Your money is not going towards support of teaching religious dogma. Your money is going to the Gov. which in turn gives it to a family that makes a decision as to how to use that money pertaining to their child's education. The Gov. is helping out the family by giving them the voucher. The family makes the decision how to use the voucher. In no way is the Gov. supproting teaching religion dogma.
Would it be right to say that I was opposed to food stamps because the people using them could use them for purchasing junk food that is bad for their health?
-
or... that your tax money is being spent to teach in other languages? or that it is being spent to feed some but not others or bus some and not others or... it goes on and on...
Better to simply give the money to the parents and make the only stipulation an academic achievement one.
The public school kids are being indocrtinated and treated unfairly and they don't even have results to show for it.
The food stamp example is a good one... you let the parents decide what the kids eat on your dime with the only stipulation.... results.... the food has to keep em alive. You can lose food stamps if it can be proven you aren't feeding your kids.... why not lose a school that isn't teaching?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chopsaw...you object to children being well educated if they also are recieving religious education from the school that their parents choose? I can only think that it is because as a taxpayer you want to take all religion out of anything the government pays for with your money? Religions get money all the time from you in the form of taxes by simply.... not paying any and increasing your burden... you support all churches and charities (regardless of denomination) with your taxes.
Same for school... there would be no restriction on type of religion... all would be eligable. you have no problem with religious schools now...you claim it is only that you don't want to support them with tax money.... You allready do and..
You allow only one type of school to monopolize now... whatever that schools current policy is makes up the indoctrinization of the children... You seem to have no problem with that.
As for uniforms? I think studies show that you are wrong... I think that the pressure of the real uniform...the one that is acceptable to public school children is the real problem... the pressure on kids and parents to have the right "individualistic" uniform or be laughed off the schoolyard.
Kids do not want to stand out except in very rare cases... they want to fit in... Uniforms remove a burden and a distraction and a possible source of violence.
But... I am interested in what you think.. You have your public school monopoly... no religion... no uniforms... no competition... they are consitently outperformed by private and home schooling... More is spent every year and the results get worse and worse every year..
What would you suggest being as how you feel that education is so important that each of us should pay for it? Is it results you want or just a perception of doing something?
if you never have vouchers then you will never have any private schools other than religious or home schooling and.... public school will only get worse.
Yes. I object to my taxes being spent on religious education. I thought I was clear on that. Since there are a good many private schools other than religious ones, I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
Religions get a tax free status in this country. They also, until recently, stay out of politics, at least in an overt manner, and that to me is a good trade off. Recently religions have been poking their snoots into politics and I believe their tax free status could stand some review. Regardless, throwing good money after bad has never been a policy I endorse. There's no reason to give religions more just because we give them some through tax exempt status.
I think where I grew up and now live must be very different from your neck of the woods. Where I went to school, I wasn't aware of anyone laughing at the way I dressed and I did enjoy having my own look. My parents weren't rich and we didn't spend large sums of money trying to keep up with any particular look. The same is true for my son. While kids do want to fit in, they also want to express themselves and the most basic way they can do it is through personal grooming and clothing. While they do want to fit in, they also want to stand out. I strongly resist the notion of children being placed in uniforms like good little soldiers.
As far as your studies go? I've seen them. They are based upon fallacious and self interested ideas and manufactured "facts". Statistics will say whatever you want them to. It just depends upon who commissions the study.
Yes, I want results in public education. This is why I believe the teacher whose rant started this thread should be terminated. In my area of the country public schooling is starting to increase its effectiveness. Pressure has been applied by interested citizens, both parents and others. People could further affect this by taking an active interest in school affairs. If necessary, parents should be getting in the face of the school and asking what the heck is going on in a particular situation. I've done this and I can assure you, it is very effective. School boards are political entities and politicians of any kind respond to scrutiny and comment. As an example; recently in this country a school board voted in a pro intelligent design (creationism) fashion. Next election every one of them was removed from their position and their decision reversed.
Where would you put all the children that don't get into private schools? There isn't enough room for all of them in private schools. Do you think just because they have vouchers they would be admitted? Some would get into good private schools, some would get into not so good private schools, some would get into parochial schools and some would be left in public schools. The public schools would be poorer than they were because of the outflow of money in the form of vouchers.
Public schools become better when people put them under a magnifying glass and start watching. If people don't like what they see and they start kicking about it, the school changes in response. Private schools, especially parochial ones, have a much reduced vector in this sense. If you don't like what's going on, you're expected to button it or go elsewhere. This becomes exacerbated in schools difficult to get into.
In summary. Yes, I want results. I want to see the public schools continue to change for the better. I do not want the results your proposal would bring. If parents wish to put their children in parochial schools and/or stick them in uniform, let them do it on their own dime. Not mine.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Look at it this way:
Your money is not going towards support of teaching religious dogma. Your money is going to the Gov. which in turn gives it to a family that makes a decision as to how to use that money pertaining to their child's education. The Gov. is helping out the family by giving them the voucher. The family makes the decision how to use the voucher. In no way is the Gov. supproting teaching religion dogma.
Would it be right to say that I was opposed to food stamps because the people using them could use them for purchasing junk food that is bad for their health?
If my money goes to taxes, then to the government, then to vouchers given to the parents and then to a parochial school which teaches religious dogma, my money would be going towards the support of teaching religious dogma. It doesn't really matter how many offices it passed through on the way there. It would go from my pocket to the parochial school and the teaching of religious dogma.
Interesting point. I've never been on food stamps so I don't know about whatever restrictions or lack thereof might be associated with them. While I don't oppose food stamps, I also don't think it would be out of line to restrict their use to healthy foods and beverages. I'd object to food stamps being used to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. Wouldn't you?
Exempting parochial schools from a voucher plan would go a long way towards my acceptance of such a plan. There are other aspects which would have to be addressed, but that would take care of one of the prominent ones.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Exempting parochial schools from a voucher plan would go a long way towards my acceptance of such a plan.
So in other words, discriminating against those families who want to send their kids to parochial schools is okay with you?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
So in other words, discriminating against those families who want to send their kids to parochial schools is okay with you?
You're confused over the term discrimination. I do not discriminate against families who wish to send their children to a parochial school. It's their privilege and right to do so. Religions by their very nature are discriminatory. Witness how the majority of religions state unequivocally theirs is the only "true" religion. Others will tell you everyone who doesn't believe as they do will go to hell. Geez, wars are fought over nothing more than a difference of opinion in religious belief. Sometimes between sects that have split from a common church. That's discrimination. I choose not to contribute to it.
Children should not be brain washed by any one belief system. I do not believe I should have to pay to have children sent to a parochial school which teaches them a belief system I find objectionable in religion anymore than I believe I should have to pay the salary of the socialist teacher whose rant started this thread. It is not the business of teachers to shape beliefs. It is the business of teachers to teach facts and methods of reasoning. Essentially it is the business of teachers to give our children the tools they need to shape their own beliefs, not force upon them the finished belief. If parents wish to send their children into such a situation, their business. If they want to use my dime to do it, my business.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chopsaw... how is a voucher system not a viable alternative? private schools consitently outperform public schools in performance and for less money.
Unless.... academic performance is not the goal for schooling then the obvious way to go is to allow for vouchers.
lazs
Not true...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0510/p11s01-legn.html
You can find all the studies by simply using google.
-
silat... the study said that private schools (christian/catholic) outperformed public schools... they had to cook the books to get even close.. they took the grades of certain "socio economic" groups (and this is not clear) and tried to compare. It is not that simple and raw results are what I am interested in.
I had seen a New York test (hopefully someone can find it) that took the students that were unteachable or very low performers and put them in a catholic school and all of them dramaticaly improved.
chopsaw.... Soo.... what you are most against is that tax money may be used to support a christian school even if it is the best thing for the children and it is a case where there is choice... This is dogma at it's worst to me.... I believe that the type of society that you want is a bad one... with no differences in how children are raised... no variety..
I think that public schools now teach in a very offensive way to a lot of parents... why not let those parents decide?
Why not at least let them have their portion of the taxes to spend on any school they want?
I am saying that the best schools will come out on top with a voucher system and parents will have more control over what their children are taught and will be able to put their kids in schools that get good results. I think that the competition would force public schools to have to focus on...
on frigging educating instead of inductrinating and.... getting more and more money for doing a worse and worse job.
Your fear of religion seems silly and harmful to me... but maybe you have a good reason... I am willing to hear it. How would it harm the kids?
How would it harm us?
lazs
-
here are test results... the public school advocates like to blow off the testing as "somewhat better" for private schools
http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm
but the reality is that private schools perform allmost twice as well and for half the money in a lot of cases..
Michigan for instance it costs $5800 per public school student while private schools in the area run about $2500
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chopsaw.... Soo.... what you are most against is that tax money may be used to support a christian school even if it is the best thing for the children and it is a case where there is choice... This is dogma at it's worst to me.... I believe that the type of society that you want is a bad one... with no differences in how children are raised... no variety..
I think that public schools now teach in a very offensive way to a lot of parents... why not let those parents decide?
Why not at least let them have their portion of the taxes to spend on any school they want?
I am saying that the best schools will come out on top with a voucher system and parents will have more control over what their children are taught and will be able to put their kids in schools that get good results. I think that the competition would force public schools to have to focus on...
on frigging educating instead of inductrinating and.... getting more and more money for doing a worse and worse job.
Your fear of religion seems silly and harmful to me... but maybe you have a good reason... I am willing to hear it. How would it harm the kids?
How would it harm us?
I doubt very much you're the least bit interested in what I have to say on the subject. I've stated my position clearly, yet you seem determined to misunderstand. I do not fear religion though I'm convinced religion has done more to harm humanity than help it. I will not have religion rammed down my throat nor will I willingly support it being rammed down the throat of others. Despite this I support religious freedom as one of the unalterable foundations of this country. One of the key freedoms that make us great.
Your position is equally clear and I make it a habit to never discuss religion with a religious zealot. It's pointless.
-
chopsaw... I am not religious in the least. I belong to no church so... you need to read what I say instead of simply getting all self rightious and fearful... your statement about all the harm religion has done tells us plenty tho..
But say we take religious schools out of it or... say that the religious part is an extra and can be opted out of by the students... What say you then?
Even in a strict catholic or christian school or home schooling.... shouldn't the parents at least recieve the money that the state has extorted out of them and be able to use that for schooling?
Vouchers will happen... people like you will help it happen... with your stuborn biggoted ways and refusal to accept blame for socialisms failings.... soon, everyone but you die hard anti religion socialists will see that you have been bilking us for years..
It will be like the fake hold the post office and ma bell had on us... the socialists fought like wolverines but in the end....
even public school educated kids will wise up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Even in a strict catholic or christian school or home schooling.... shouldn't the parents at least recieve the money that the state has extorted out of them and be able to use that for schooling?
Excellent question :aok
(eagerly awaits chopsaw's reply)
-
I would like to meet him. Just want a couple minutes alone with him. To talk.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chopsaw... I am not religious in the least. I belong to no church so... you need to read what I say instead of simply getting all self rightious and fearful... your statement about all the harm religion has done tells us plenty tho..
But say we take religious schools out of it or... say that the religious part is an extra and can be opted out of by the students... What say you then?
Even in a strict catholic or christian school or home schooling.... shouldn't the parents at least recieve the money that the state has extorted out of them and be able to use that for schooling?
Vouchers will happen... people like you will help it happen... with your stuborn biggoted ways and refusal to accept blame for socialisms failings.... soon, everyone but you die hard anti religion socialists will see that you have been bilking us for years..
It will be like the fake hold the post office and ma bell had on us... the socialists fought like wolverines but in the end....
even public school educated kids will wise up.
If indeed you are not a proponent of a voucher system for the sole purpose of funding parochial schools, my apologies. It certainly seemed you were. You seem to have your needle stuck on fear as the driving emotion responsible for my reaction to parochial schools and religion in general. I'm not fearful and I've told you so, but you seem happy with that, so I'll let it alone.
If you'll read my post of 3/17/06 6:35 PM (third paragraph), you'll see I've already addressed the situation regarding exempting parochial schools from a proposed voucher plan.
Vouchers will not happen. People capable of thought and interested in the equality this nation guarantees will prevent it. You're right. I am stubborn, but to call me bigoted is to ignore everything I've written. Particularly the bit about discrimination as exercised by religions in general. It is the act of a small and ignorant mind to call someone a bigot without clear proof.
I'm stubborn, bigoted, anti-religious AND a socialist? That's rather a lot, isn't it? You sure there's nothing else you want to call me? The first two I've addressed in the paragraph above. Anti-religious……well I suppose I am. However, I will fight to the death for peoples right to practice religion of their choice or not. That is one of the founding principles of this country. A country I deeply believe in. Socialist…lol….haven't you read anything I've written? I refer you to my comments regarding the socialist rant of the teacher which started this thread. Believing in equality is not socialist.
Socialists fought to protect the Post Office? I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I know the Post Office still exists in the same form it always has. Of course we now have e-mail and that's put a dent in business for the post office. I like e-mail. UPS and FedEx have really hammered the Post Office in package delivery. I like UPS. So where do socialists come into this?
Socialists fought to protect Ma Bell? Really. You've gone round the bend on this one. The only entity('s) which fought to protect Ma Bell from break up were big business oriented. I may be wrong, but that doesn't sound very socialist to me. In fact I would have thought socialists would be for the break up of Ma Bell. An interesting note on that story is that Ma Bell in the end wanted to "break up" to re-position themselves for a nice chunk of the upcoming data transmission business. They just transmuted, they didn't really give anything up.
I believe the public schools should be fixed rather than thrown away. I do not believe a voucher system will do anything other than hinder the process.
Tell you what I could support. Take parents who wish to send their children to a private school, parochial or otherwise. Calculate the amount of money they contribute through taxes to public schools. Refund them that money and let them do as they will with it as long as their children do get an education and don't go to public school. How's that sound?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Excellent question :aok
(eagerly awaits chopsaw's reply)
:) Sorry to disappoint you, Donzo. I happen to think this is acceptable. Read the last paragraph of my post on 3/18/06 11:45 AM.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
I would like to meet him. Just want a couple minutes alone with him. To talk.
I hope you're talking about the teacher who was recorded.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Tell you what I could support. Take parents who wish to send their children to a private school, parochial or otherwise. Calculate the amount of money they contribute through taxes to public schools. Refund them that money and let them do as they will with it as long as their children do get an education and don't go to public school. How's that sound?
LOL. Wouldn't a voucher achieve the same thing????
How would you calculate what you are proposing?
I pay taxes (I have kids), some of my taxes go to public education.
My neighbor pays taxes (He has no kids), some of his taxes go to public education as well.
Given this, the percentage of what I contribute through taxes to public education is small since everyone contributes. The amount of money I would get refunded would be nowhere near the cost per student that is received by public education from taxes.
Eveyone pays taxes.
Some of that money goes to public education.
People who want vouchers get them and do what they want with them provided that it goes toward their kids getting an education.
What is so wrong with that?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Eveyone pays taxes.
Some of that money goes to public education.
People who want vouchers get them and do what they want with them provided that it goes toward their kids getting an education.
What is so wrong with that?
They might get "wrong" kind of education. That's the reason they oppose it.
-
Originally posted by mora
They might get "wrong" kind of education. That's the reason they oppose it.
And the people wanting to use vouchers may think that send their kids to a public school would result in them getting the "wrong" kind of education. So what then? They foot the bill to send their kids where they want them to go. Shouldn't they get the same benefits as those that do not think twice as to where their kids go to get an education?
Majority rules. Let the people vote on the issue and we'll see what happens. I say let there be vouchers and let the parents decide how to use the vouchers (provided, of course, that they are used to send the kids to an accredited school).
Those opposed make it sound as if a kid is sent to a parochial school it's a bad thing. Maybe to the person opposed, but the family is doing what they think is right for their kids.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
I hope you're talking about the teacher who was recorded.
:aok :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Donzo
LOL. Wouldn't a voucher achieve the same thing????
How would you calculate what you are proposing?
I pay taxes (I have kids), some of my taxes go to public education.
My neighbor pays taxes (He has no kids), some of his taxes go to public education as well.
Given this, the percentage of what I contribute through taxes to public education is small since everyone contributes. The amount of money I would get refunded would be nowhere near the cost per student that is received by public education from taxes.
Eveyone pays taxes.
Some of that money goes to public education.
People who want vouchers get them and do what they want with them provided that it goes toward their kids getting an education.
What is so wrong with that?
A voucher would not achieve the same thing. You've concluded that for yourself at the end of your first paragraph. The calculations can be done. It isn't that difficult. They wouldn't get as much money as is spent per student in public schools. That is not my problem. On the other hand they would not be contributing to what they don't want to do with their children. When people start using my money for things I don't care to contribute to, it becomes my problem. While it is the responsibility of every citizen of this country to contribute to the education of the nations children, that does not mean we must contribute to a religious education we may find offensive. Nor does it mean we must contribute funds to other private schools thereby taking money away from the public schools. Public schools may not offer the best education possible, but they do offer the best chance for all the children to receive a basic education. There simply is not enough room in private schools for all the children now attending public schools. Even if there were you would still find many family's without the funds to send their children there even if they had a voucher. If you have a problem with the quality of public schools, do something to fix it rather than try to cripple it.
In response to your second paragraph; if they're sending their kids to a parochial school, they can do so on their own dime. Not mine. For reasons, read the other posts I've made to this thread.
What's so wrong? The attempt to force people to support religion is what's wrong. We should be free to support the religion of our choice or not. Attempting to deprive the poorest of the nation is what's wrong. Not being willing to fix public schools if you see a problem is what's wrong. Attempting to use taxes to aid a select group of people is what's wrong. Taxes are collected from all of us by government to ideally assist all of us. This is America.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
And the people wanting to use vouchers may think that send their kids to a public school would result in them getting the "wrong" kind of education. So what then? They foot the bill to send their kids where they want them to go. Shouldn't they get the same benefits as those that do not think twice as to where their kids go to get an education?
Majority rules. Let the people vote on the issue and we'll see what happens. I say let there be vouchers and let the parents decide how to use the vouchers (provided, of course, that they are used to send the kids to an accredited school).
Those opposed make it sound as if a kid is sent to a parochial school it's a bad thing. Maybe to the person opposed, but the family is doing what they think is right for their kids.
But they don't foot the bill. A voucher isn't just the money they put into taxes to send their children to school. A voucher is, as you've concluded yourself above, more money than that. A voucher would contain not only the money they put into the system but a portion of the money everyone puts into the system.
I don't know about where you live, but in my neck of the woods we have voted. The proposal for vouchers was resoundingly defeated. Not so oddly, for exactly the reasons I've been describing.
Let me be very, very clear on this. I do not consider sending children to a parochial skill to be a bad thing. I consider asking me to contribute to it to be a bad thing. I consider attempting to cripple the public schools to be a bad thing.
-
Ok.. so, you are Ok with vouchers if the schools do not teach any religion. Or... are you? You go on to say that vouchers would destroy public schools...
How is that possible? if public schools do a good job and have a good agenda for raising kids then parents will continue to use their money to support the public schools. They also have a huge inventory of infrastructure that utilized properly (competitively) would give them a huge advantage... all they would have to do is dump all the agenda and replace it with teaching for result... unless you feel that is either unworthy of impossible?
This is the fearful part. just as it was fearful to think that the post office or phone service would be destroyed if it no longer had a monopoly.
I call you a socialist because you seem to feel that giving everyone a bad education so long as it is government controled is better than letting schools compete for tax dollars and getting some schools doing better than others and.... as in the case of the post office... all the schools getting better results till all come up with about the same results.
I am not in the least religious but unlike you.... I don't see the christian teachings as a problem.... most are common sense moral guidelines that would not harm any child... that should be up to the individual parent in any case. If you believe that parents should raise children and you also believe that all of us should pay for childrens schooling in the form of taxes then it is only logical (all heated and bunko rhetoric asside) that the parents should decide what kind of school their children attend so long as test scores are within parameters.
Lastly... while giving the parents (and grandparents and uncles and ?) the money socialism extorted from them personaly would be a step in the right direction.... it would fall short.
You are assuming that every other tax payer in the land is OK with the public school system. That only a small amount of malcontents want kids to achieve higher learning than the public school mill.
Ultimately, it would have to go to a vote. I have no children at this time and pay a lot of taxes. My interest is in a strong America and that means the best teaching for children possible and..... best teaching means best results on test scores.
It has been shown that your way is failing and that the more money you throw at public schools the worse they do. You have no solution for this problem yet you wish to throw out any real solution based simply on your hate of religion and fear of taking away socialism. That is the only way I can read what you write.
lazs
-
and... redmund wa is not the rest of the country by any means.. vouchers are defeated by the huge war chest that the extremely powerful teachers union has and uses on fear adds and you know it. Redmund is a very rich area and probly has better public schools than most with a lot more money thrown at em... they probly spend 5 times what michigan private school tuition of $2500 a year is. And... I bet the results are still worse.
If even a portion of a parents taxes were refunded to him to go to private school then more private schools would open and.... even more people would see the example. The teachers union war fund won't last forever.
I will probly help to pay for my grand daughters private school education when she is old enough... she will get the kind of advantage that a lot of kids won't.... that is your "fairness" because... we will pay for it...
In my area right now... that means that I will also support... through my taxes... the worst school system in a state with a laughable system.
That is the kind of fairness you advocate.
And... yes I do think you are a socialist. Am I wrong?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat... the study said that private schools (christian/catholic) outperformed public schools... they had to cook the books to get even close.. they took the grades of certain "socio economic" groups (and this is not clear) and tried to compare. It is not that simple and raw results are what I am interested in.
I had seen a New York test (hopefully someone can find it) that took the students that were unteachable or very low performers and put them in a catholic school and all of them dramaticaly improved.
chopsaw.... Soo.... what you are most against is that tax money may be used to support a christian school even if it is the best thing for the children and it is a case where there is choice... This is dogma at it's worst to me.... I believe that the type of society that you want is a bad one... with no differences in how children are raised... no variety..
I think that public schools now teach in a very offensive way to a lot of parents... why not let those parents decide?
Why not at least let them have their portion of the taxes to spend on any school they want?
I am saying that the best schools will come out on top with a voucher system and parents will have more control over what their children are taught and will be able to put their kids in schools that get good results. I think that the competition would force public schools to have to focus on...
on frigging educating instead of inductrinating and.... getting more and more money for doing a worse and worse job.
Your fear of religion seems silly and harmful to me... but maybe you have a good reason... I am willing to hear it. How would it harm the kids?
How would it harm us?
lazs
There are many studies disputing your assessment.
I as a citizen do not want to pay for others to get the CULT based education of their choice. A strong public education system benefits the USA.
-
Those that graduate school with a diploma, not a drop out G.E.D. should be guaranteed a job before those with G.E.D.s even if it is at a place like McDonalds. Why? Well it's guaranteed employment, a benefit of education. If you couldn't get it through your head that it would be a good idea to finish school, why should you get paid while someone who did their fair share get laid off for a year?
-
lazs2,
You've obviously become cranky over this issue and I'm finding the bulk of your comments to be silly. As far as accusing me of being a socialist? Well that's in a class of absurdity all its own. This has gone far off thread topic and I really don't care to spend the time on you any longer.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
But they don't foot the bill.
"They", being the parents wanting to send their kids somewhere other than public schools do foot the bill for their child's education. All I am saying is that they should receive some compensation for this.
Family A pays taxes and send their kids to public schools.
Family B also pays taxes and pays to send their kids to private school.
Okay Family B, you can be equal with Family A if you abandon your desires to have your child educated in the manner you see fit. Otherwise you can pay for it yourself but we are going to take some of your tax dollars and pay for other kids to go to school.
Fair?
Using your arguments, I am opposed to my tax dollars going to fund public education that does not work.
Why not give all vouchers and let them put it toward the education they want their child to receive?
-
God should be acknowledged in public schools. How can there be a good solid education while denying that fact?
I attended a parochial school from 7th to 9th grades. It was non-denominational, but based on Baptist. The school was strict, but fun because there were good teachers there, and they mostly weren't authoritarian. In the whole school, the authoritarians were the principals.
But one thing about that school, and some may argue with me here, I learned a lot of things that I wouldn't have learned at public school. I did go to public school 10th through 12th because I wanted to join a HS fraternity. Fraternities weren't allowed at the private school. They almost gave it some thought, but frats didn't fit in with learning to live as we learn, and they would not allow it.
Public school was for me a choice because of the fraternity. It was fun for a change. Dancing wasn't allowed at the private school. Everything that had anything to do with hippies was frowned upon, including underground newspapers from California. And rock music? Thing about it is, the majority of the teachers were pretty liberal and didn't preach. Chapel was required, but most of the students enjoyed that, as it was a chance to get out of class where serious education was taking place. The classes were not easy.
Les
-
Originally posted by Donzo
"They", being the parents wanting to send their kids somewhere other than public schools do foot the bill for their child's education. All I am saying is that they should receive some compensation for this.
Family A pays taxes and send their kids to public schools.
Family B also pays taxes and pays to send their kids to private school.
Okay Family B, you can be equal with Family A if you abandon your desires to have your child educated in the manner you see fit. Otherwise you can pay for it yourself but we are going to take some of your tax dollars and pay for other kids to go to school.
Fair?
Using your arguments, I am opposed to my tax dollars going to fund public education that does not work.
Why not give all vouchers and let them put it toward the education they want their child to receive?
Of course that scenario isn't fair. Why do you suppose I suggested family B be refunded the money from their taxes which would otherwise go to public schools? That's not a voucher. A voucher for family B would contain more money than family B puts into education through their taxes.
Public schools are the best bet for all the children. Not just the relatively few individuals who could get into a private school. Vouchers would cripple the public schools while at the same time leaving children in them who would not be able to be admitted to a private school. If for no other reason than there is simply not enough room in private schools. Additionally, not all private schools are equal and if you increased the number of them it would be inevitable that some of them would fall below the standard of public schools. Still further, you have more input into public school policy than you would if you were trying to deal with private schools.
As I stated before, it is the duty of all Americans to contribute to the education of those who follow after us. If you feel something is wrong with public schools, get involved. Help fix them. It works. I know. I've done it.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Those that graduate school with a diploma, not a drop out G.E.D. should be guaranteed a job before those with G.E.D.s even if it is at a place like McDonalds. Why? Well it's guaranteed employment, a benefit of education. If you couldn't get it through your head that it would be a good idea to finish school, why should you get paid while someone who did their fair share get laid off for a year?
A diploma or degree isn't proof that someone "paid their dues" and now is entitled to gainful employment. Schools exist to give people the tools necessary to compete or continue with more education.
Beyond that, it's meaningless paper.
-
chopsaw you make no sense... their are a lot of provate schools right now... If we had vouchers then there would be a lot more. Why wouldn't their be? supply and demand...
Your fears that some would fall under standards is also absurd since..... your beloved public schools are falling under standards by the thousands as we speak... if vouchers were allowed then standards would be part of it.
Instead of the scenario that you describe, the oppossite would be far more likely... the really bad public schools that we have now would lose their charter... the really bad private school ones would too... standards would simply have to be part of a voucher system...
Standards are what the teachers union fights so hard against right now.
silat... and chopsaw... are you saying that you feel that religious schools are "cults"? In what respect? what harm do you see in more parents being able to send their children to these "cult" schools?
perhaps you are noticeing that most (or a very large amount of) parents would send their children to said "cult" schools and you, being much smarter than said parents know much better what is good for their children? Who are you to decide other than setting standards?
You want to pay for education.... fine... but the parents should be able to choose any school that meets results standards... You claim that you think that education is so important that we all need to pay for it...
I gotta ask.... what the hell do you think education is? Is it not learning and passing testing? If edcucation really was as important to you as you say then obviously... you would want the best results... unless...
you have some other agenda besides results?
your whole arguement boils down to.... you hate religion and you think that kids and parents are not smart enough to take what they want of it and leave the rest behind. You think that only liberal socialist views are worth teaching and everything else is dangerous. You care not what the actual results are so long as the hated religion is not mentioned....
silly and dangerous stuff...
lazs
-
:cool: Rant on, man. You have my response.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
God should be acknowledged in public schools. How can there be a good solid education while denying that fact?
The existence of God will always be a matter of belief and faith-- not objective knowledge. Americans have many different faiths. The teaching of faith therefore does not belong in *public* schools. Private schools are another matter, of course.
But..."good, solid education"? Yeah, you can get that without religion. Where I went to school, the non-parochial private schools were considered academically better than the Catholic schools.
BTW, one thing to keep in mind is that the main reason private schools are generally better is that they get to choose which kids to accept.
-
Originally posted by phookat
The existence of God will always be a matter of belief and faith-- not objective knowledge. Americans have many different faiths. The teaching of faith therefore does not belong in *public* schools. Private schools are another matter, of course.
But..."good, solid education"? Yeah, you can get that without religion. Where I went to school, the non-parochial private schools were considered academically better than the Catholic schools.
BTW, one thing to keep in mind is that the main reason private schools are generally better is that they get to choose which kids to accept.
Good points. I'd only add that private schools also get considerably more money.
-
Originally posted by phookat
The existence of God will always be a matter of belief and faith-- not objective knowledge. Americans have many different faiths. The teaching of faith therefore does not belong in *public* schools. Private schools are another matter, of course.
But..."good, solid education"? Yeah, you can get that without religion. Where I went to school, the non-parochial private schools were considered academically better than the Catholic schools.
BTW, one thing to keep in mind is that the main reason private schools are generally better is that they get to choose which kids to accept.
We have many faiths therefore we shouldn't acknowledge that some people believe in God?
That is a very weak argument.
We have different types of math should we not teach any of them?
How about science?
I don't think that religion should be taught but I also don't think it should removed completely. Why not be able to tell kids where most of our laws came from? Or even that some people believe in creation?
What does it hurt to provide other points of view?
-
in the link I provided, it showed that private schools in the study got about half what public schools got.
it seems that we all agree that private schools outperform public and for less money in most cases. some, like chopsaw are simply worried that some form of religion might be thrust upon the little mushheads and do some kind of damage that he is unable or unwilling to describe.
My position is that if children are worth teaching with other peoples money then we (the taxpayers) should strive for the best results for our buck... a monopoly has been proven to not work.
I also feel that vouchers would not only allow for more private schools but would shame worthless public schools into getting better for cheaper.
I also feel that any religion should be up to the parents and not us as taxpayers... the only thing we as taxpayers have the right to regulate is safety and results.
lazs
-
In all this I'm reminded of what one of my heroes of yesteryear, J. Gresham Machen, wrote about the creation of the modern public school system in the United States. In modern terms, Machen would have been considered politically libertarian, but ultimately he simply saw that the modern state taking over and entirely directing one of the primary responsibilities of parents i.e. the education and ethical instruction of their children, would have negative results and support the creation of an unthinking, poorly educated, and highly materialistic society:
A public school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the inimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free. [J. Gresham Machen circa 1923]
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
We have many faiths therefore we shouldn't acknowledge that some people believe in God?
No. That's not what I said. Acknowledgement != teaching faith. A comparative religions class != teaching faith.
Originally posted by Mighty1
We have different types of math should we not teach any of them?
As a matter of fact, we don't have different "types" of math. That's one of the things that makes math different from faith. When some math theory is found to be wrong, it is discussed objectively and possibly a new understanding is arrived at. You can't do that with faith. You cannot compare two faiths through reason.
Originally posted by Mighty1
I don't think that religion should be taught but I also don't think it should removed completely. Why not be able to tell kids where most of our laws came from? Or even that some people believe in creation?
That isn't teaching faith. That's a "History of Religion" class. On this matter we are agreed.
Seagoon-- Mr Machen is being overmelodramatic. Nobody is making Sunday School illegal. That's where teaching about faith belongs. Not in public schools. If it were to be in public schools, it would have to be made "fair", and that is impossible. Which of the hundreds of faiths do you teach? All of them? You would be spending so much time on that that the kids wouldn't be getting any academic instruction on "real" subjects.
-
Silat,
There IS no strong public school system in the United States. There ARE individual public schools in relatively affluent neighborhoods where the children score well on general aptitude tests. The system as a whole, however, is only mediocre.
I taught in public schools for nearly 28 years, and yet I support vouchers. I support them for the simple reason that I steadfastly believe that those in less advantaged economic conditions who live in inner cities or the Mississippi delta or in Appalachia deserve a choice.
Under the present system, the best schools, the private and parochial schools, are almost exclusively available only to the children of the elite, the privileged few. There is no better example of the hypocrisy of that elite than that of Senator Ted Kennedy's staunch opposition to the use of vouchers for the plebian members of our society while his own children attended private schools.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Silat,
There IS no strong public school system in the United States. There ARE individual public schools in relatively affluent neighborhoods where the children score well on general aptitude tests. The system as a whole, however, is only mediocre.
I taught in public schools for nearly 28 years, and yet I support vouchers. I support them for the simple reason that I steadfastly believe that those in less advantaged economic conditions who live in inner cities or the Mississippi delta or in Appalachia deserve a choice.
Under the present system, the best schools, the private and parochial schools, are almost exclusively available only to the children of the elite, the privileged few. There is no better example of the hypocrisy of that elite than that of Senator Ted Kennedy's staunch opposition to the use of vouchers for the plebian members of our society while his own children attended private schools.
Regards, Shuckins
Even with vouchers, most of the people you're talking about would not get into private schools. Those that were able to make it work with vouchers would leave and take money from the public schools with them. I guarantee you, your disadvantaged are not going to be going to the same school that Kennedy's did, vouchers or no.
-
chopsaw... your guarentee is meaningless. where you live you may have some idea about rich suburb schools but I think you are being pretty arrogant to dismiss shuckins real life experiance so quickly.
other than your "guarentee" we have the actual data that shows private school in most areas to be about half to 2/3's the cost of public school... if more choice was offered then the public school would do a better job.
far from your baseless "guarentee" it is obvioous to most that any improvement is a huge step forward for these kids.... they may not even get up to redmund area public school standards but then again.... they may even get a better education... wouldn't that be great.... poor district private schools outperforming rich district public ones...
That would be a good result right chop? I mean... Improvement of that nature would make it a good thing right?
lazs
-
:cool: As I've said before, rant on. I've also said, I won't be spending anymore time on you.
-
yes... I read that and I understood it. Who are you really speaking to?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yes... I read that and I understood it. Who are you really speaking to?
lazs
:cool:
-
ok... so we both agree that you are a limmosine redmund yuppie socialist liberal who wears shorts to starbucks when the temp rises above 50 degrees and there is a threat of sun?
And that you only don't like vouchers cause the girls at starbucks heard it was bad for the children?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok... so we both agree that you are a limmosine redmund yuppie socialist liberal who wears shorts to starbucks when the temp rises above 50 degrees and there is a threat of sun?
And that you only don't like vouchers cause the girls at starbucks heard it was bad for the children?
:cool: Reduced to name calling so quickly? Far too easy. :lol
-
well... it was easy but I think that I have a certain flair for it if I do say so myself.
I could be wrong but... as beetle would say... I have been to redmund. It is not like the United States.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... it was easy but I think that I have a certain flair for it if I do say so myself.
I could be wrong but... as beetle would say... I have been to redmund. It is not like the United States.
:cool: You mistake penchant for flair and you're right, you're wrong.
-
That is your opinion but I don't think anyone from redmund has any idea what "flair" is.
I have been to several resteraunts in redmund and a traffic jam so I know of what I speak.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have been to several resteraunts in redmund and a traffic jam so I know of what I speak.
:) If you did, I'd be strongly disposed to congratualte you on a personal first.