Author Topic: Overzealous Teacher (Read 2974 times)

ChopSaw · « **Reply #135 on:** March 20, 2006, 01:01:32 AM »

Quote

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.

Sandman · « **Reply #136 on:** March 20, 2006, 01:05:55 AM »

Quote

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #137 on:** March 20, 2006, 08:19:35 AM »

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

ChopSaw · « **Reply #138 on:** March 20, 2006, 10:53:15 AM »

Rant on, man. You have my response.

phookat · « **Reply #139 on:** March 20, 2006, 11:45:19 AM »

Quote

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.

ChopSaw · « **Reply #140 on:** March 20, 2006, 11:57:15 AM »

Quote

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.

Mighty1 · « **Reply #141 on:** March 20, 2006, 01:55:23 PM »

Quote

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?

lazs2 · « **Reply #142 on:** March 20, 2006, 02:30:59 PM »

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

Seagoon · « **Reply #143 on:** March 20, 2006, 03:50:48 PM »

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:

Quote

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]

phookat · « **Reply #144 on:** March 20, 2006, 04:03:43 PM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Shuckins · « **Reply #145 on:** March 20, 2006, 05:04:06 PM »

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

ChopSaw · « **Reply #146 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:54:31 PM »

Quote

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #147 on:** March 21, 2006, 08:27:24 AM »

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

ChopSaw · « **Reply #148 on:** March 21, 2006, 12:56:17 PM »

As I've said before, rant on. I've also said, I won't be spending anymore time on you.

lazs2 · « **Reply #149 on:** March 21, 2006, 02:05:13 PM »

yes... I read that and I understood it. Who are you really speaking to?

lazs