I’m somewhat unclear as to how the conversation drifted to this point. Who wants the SCotUS to do what now?
I just want the government to stop giving money to people for the purpose of lying to teenagers in sex-ed class. I don’t want to abolish public schooling, I’m not trying to get the Supreme Court to force sex-ed on anybody (although I’m obviously in favour of sex-ed in the first place), and at the moment I have very little interest in discussing hypothetical funding formulas for public education in North Brickerkota, or court intervention in same.
What does any of that have to do with not using federal money to lie to teenagers?
Mmm. I think you’re on shaky ground, wording it this way. I think a real case could be made for saying something like this:
“Something unique comes into existence when sperm meets egg. Legally, since the Roe vs Wade decision in 1973, this unique thing is a legal non-entity. Abortion is legal in all US states through the first trimester, and later in some other states. Under certain circumstances, it is legal until the moment of birth. However, the legal waters are muddied: in some states you can be prosecuted for harming a fetus inside the mother <etc>. Many people believe the fetus is a non-person until the point that it can live outside the mother’s body, others that it is a non-person right up until birth. Others feel life begins at conception. This is a source of much philosophical and metaphysical debate. But legally, you understand, the fertilized egg, while genetically unique, is not considered a person until birth.”
To fail to tell young people that something pretty remarkable happens at the point of conception is disingenous and as far as I’m concerned, lying by omission. Science is science. Don’t water it down just because the law makes a statement about what can, and cannot, be prosecuted. That would be just as bad (in my mind) as yanking the teaching of evolutionary theory from classrooms just because some parents don’t want it taught.
Tell the kids the truth: something happens. Here is what a blastocyst looks like (and it certainly is alive, using any reasonable definition of ‘life’). Here is what a 6 week old fetus looks like. Here is what a 12 week old fetus looks like. Here is what a 24 week old fetus looks like (the legal point of viability in many states.) The procedure necessary to remove it is invasive, carries risks, and can damage your future reproduction - and the farther along you are, the more risks there are. However, overall it is a remarkably safe procedure for the woman to undergo, and it is a legal option for those who wish to choose it.
I find it quite offensive to suggest that what the law says about personhood means that our kids oughtn’t to learn science in a health class.
Secondary issues? Have you considered addressing the primary issue?
To repeat: the federal goverment currently plans to give $170 million in grants next year to third-party institutions like the “Medical Institute for Sexual Health” to produce abstinence-only sex-ed programs, but the vast majority of the programs currently receiving the grant money have been found to promote false and misleading information. I think it would be nice if the federal goverment stopped giving money to third-party organizations that lie to teenagers.
Doing so doesn’t require abolishing the entire public school system: that’s just cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Doing so doesn’t necessitate any intervention by the Supreme Court: that’s just a red herring. Doing so doesn’t require that we completely rethink the question of who gets to mandate how education dollars are spent: that’s a giant red herring with a switchblade that cuts off our noses for us, saving us the trouble of cutting them off ourselves.
Doing so doesn’t even require that the government not spend $170 million in grants next year to promote abstinence-only education. It just requires that they stop giving that money to people who lie.
While I personally would be ecstatic if the government actually promoted a form of sex-ed that I believed would be effective at protecting teenagers from the dangerous consequences of unprotected sex, at the moment I’m just trying to settle for a state of affairs that doesn’t actively cause harm.
Stop. Lying. To. Teenagers. Stop using federal money to lie to teenagers. That’s what I’m asking for at the present time.
But statements have consequences. Of course it’s true that “you didn’t say that”, but it IS a logical conclusion of what you DID say. At any rate, it’s not really central to what we’re debating, so I’ll withdraw my comment.
Now it’s my turn: I never said children have no rights. I think we can all agree, for instance, that parents can’t kill their children.
I clearly stated that I wasn’t going to argue that parents could prevent their children from being educated. And I also didn’t say that each individual parent could set his or her child’s curriculum. I said that parents, thru their elected school board members, can and in fact DO set the curriculum.
PS: I didn’t say children are pets or slaves either. They are citizens, yes, but ther ARE NOT equal citizens to adults. They do not have the same rights as adults.
Haven’t you been advocating for certain federal control over the curriculum? That doesn’t exist now, except insomuch as states accept federal funds.
You did:
Agreed, and those people are elected by?? PARENTS!! How do you think it works?
Who, in your estimation, is “qualified” to set a curriculum? Why, based on what we know of the history of education in America, should we believe that some group of ‘experts’ somewhere knows best what our children ought to learn - and not learn? Suppose, as a homeschooler, I want to focus very heavily on early American history - indeed, suppose I want to put a very heavy focus on history of all kinds (in addition to all other subjects covered), far beyond what the state would decree as necessary - is this a problem? If so, why? Why am I not qualified to decide this is highly important?
Actually, John, you brought the Supreme Court into the discussion. Post #49. Diogenes’s post which you quoted was in response to your post. Which was why I addressed my earlier question to you and Bricker, not Diogenes and Bricker.
Yes, but he still made a statement about what he thoght the SCotUS should do. Then he claimed not to have said anything about the SCotUS. I wasn’t accusing him of lying, I just wanted to point that I wasn’t pulling shit of my ass. At least in that instance I wasn’t!
JM:All states currently require children to attend some form of schooling. I’m not going to argue for or against that. Let’s just accept that as the status quo and go from there. I certainly DO think that parents, thru their local school boards, should be able to decide the school curriculum w/o any interference from Wash DC. In the instance that the local school board decided NOT to teach math, then so be it.
I think this is a lousy idea. I agree that the feds shouldn’t have total control over kids’ education, but I think it’s only reasonable to have some basic nationwide guidelines about what, in general, needs to be covered. Eliminating math altogether should not be an option. Nor, IMO, should eliminating reliable information about human reproduction, contraception, STDs, and other aspects of sex ed. (I suppose that for religious reasons any parent should be able to opt their kids out of the latter subject, at least the parts of it that go beyond the basic biology of reproduction, but schools should be required to teach it to those that don’t opt out.)
All these kids will have to deal with the same federal government in their adult lives, after all, and it’s reasonable for the government to be able to assume that the vast majority of its citizens have acquired the same basic literacy and math skills, general knowledge, etc. (Unless you want to have to spend federal tax money on, say, multiple versions of federal forms for citizens with wildly varying levels of basic skills.) And it is definitely in the government’s interest to have all its citizens taught reliable basic knowledge about sex.
Chotii: *Suppose, as a homeschooler, I want to focus very heavily on early American history - indeed, suppose I want to put a very heavy focus on history of all kinds (in addition to all other subjects covered), far beyond what the state would decree as necessary - is this a problem? *
As long as you’re adequately covering other subjects as well, why would it be a problem? I don’t think anybody’s suggesting that the government (federal or state) ought to be rigidly monitoring every aspect of the curricula that local school boards or individual families decide to use. Their job ought to be setting general guidelines for covering the basics.
I’m willing to trade off the .0000001% probability that a state would actually allow math to not be taught against the certainty that involving the Feds will cause more problems and NOT give parents what they want for the kids. It would be wrong to assume that just because a state CAN do someting that it WILL do it. States are perfectly capable of handling their own educational affairs without the redundancy and the loss of local control that bringing the feds in will entail.
JM: * I certainly DO think that parents, thru their local school boards, should be able to decide the school curriculum w/o any interference from Wash DC. In the instance that the local school board decided NOT to teach math, then so be it.*
Now you say:
JM: * It would be wrong to assume that just because a state CAN do someting that it WILL do it. States are perfectly capable of handling their own educational affairs *
First you seemed to be arguing that the local school boards should be able to decide all curricular issues—up to and including drastic measures like eliminating math—independently. Now you seem to be saying that the state governments should have the ability to set basic curricula. Could you clarify, please?
I see no problem with allowing the states to decide not to teach math if they choose not to. In this case, you can elevate my comment about “local level” to “the state level”. Do you actually think there is even the remotest possibility that any state would ban the teaching of math? We don’t have laws forbidding states from outlawing haircuts, and yet sates have managed, somehow, to keep haircuts legal all these years.
JM:Do you actually think there is even the remotest possibility that any state would ban the teaching of math?
No, but I think it’s remotely possible that some local school boards would. It’s more than possible—it’s absolutely certain—that some school boards would ban the teaching of evolution or sex ed, for example.
So are you saying that state governments should be requiring the teaching of certain basic subjects, or that they shouldn’t be setting any educational requirements at all?
That is possible, although I’m not sure it’s certain. Aren’t there states that, right now, operate on that level-- ie, that local school boards set the curriculum? I’m honestly not familiar with all the state’s laws.
But, let’s differentiate between “banning the teaching of evoluton” and “mandating the teaching of Creationism”. I do think that the first amendment covers the power of the government (state and federal) to forbid the teaching of creationism in public schools.
I think that good arguments can be made for all sorts of arrangements at the state level. Personally, I’d prefer control to be as local as possible, and especially in big states, that would mean at the sub-state level. But we allow wide lattitude to what state governments can do-- essentially they are only required NOT to violate the federal constitution. In our current form of government, I see no LEGAL problem with a state wresting as much control over education as the people of that state so decide. I also see no problem with any given state allowing as much local authority over educational matters as the peope of that state so decide.
JM:But, let’s differentiate between “banning the teaching of evoluton” and “mandating the teaching of Creationism”. I do think that the first amendment covers the power of the government (state and federal) to forbid the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Why the distinction? Is there an educational reason to ban the teaching of evolution that isn’t just promoting the teaching of creationism? In any case, although the latter policy may be worse than the former in terms of SOCAS, I think they’re both equally bad for education.
JM:I also see no problem with any given state allowing as much local authority over educational matters as the peope of that state so decide.
Okay, you seem to be saying that the ultimate responsibility for curricula rests with the state governments, although they can delegate control to localities if they want to. That’s not as lousy an idea as the one I first thought you were advocating, because the random-looniness quotient of state governments is probably a lot lower than that of school boards. (Which is an argument against trying to devolve everything across the board to as low a governmental level as possible, btw. Sometimes the larger government that is answerable to a wider range of people has more moderating influences that make it less likely to do batshit-crazy stuff.)
However, I still think it’s reasonable for the federal government to have some say in determining what its citizens ought to learn. Moreover, I think there will always be a need for some federal funding to mitigate economic disparities in the resources states are able to devote to education.
Please, do explain what basis you have for claiming a “federal right” to any sort of education, legitimate or otherwise. And “because Dio says so” doesn’t count.
Why the distinction? Because teaching Creationism is against the constitution, but there is nothing in the constitution that requires the teaching of any specific subject. It is possible to both not teach evolution and not teach creationism.
I think both are bad for education, too, but I don’t like the government telling me which decisions I make are good and which are bad. If I allow my own personal preferences to be codified into law, there is no guarantee that someone else’s personal preferences won’t end up trumping mine some day.
And that is something we’ll have to agree to disagree on. But, my view is actually what the situation is today, so we’d have to change the laws if your view were to prevail. And, keep in mind that these decisions about education would be made by the Dept of Education, run by an appointee of Bush. You might like things when your guy is in charge, but when your guy isn’t in charge, you’ll probably find things not to your liking at all. At least in my view, you could choose to live in a state more closely aligned with your own preferences. In your view, we’d currently all be stuck with Bush’s ideas.
So remember, girls…don’t let boys know you think too much, or can solve problems too, or do anything that might lead them to think you might happen to have a functioning brain! Boys don’t like that kind of thing. And then you’ll never get married. And then you’re worthless…you know, because the only way it’s possible for you to feel accomplished, is to have successful relationships :rolleyes:
So…our federal tax dollars are going to mentally abuse young girls who already tend to suffer low self-esteem or low self-worth now?
Ah yes. Delightful “curriculum” material, chosen for our children by those people who are qualified to do so. Unlike all us parents out here, who aren’t qualified. Or so says our esteemed Diogenes the Cynic. I still think I’ll stick with my plan: to teach my children what I believe is important (in accordance with state guidelines. In the state of Washington, here is what the law says:
Beyond this, as long as the children participate in annual tests (either a non-test assessment by a qualified certified teacher, or the standardized tests)…it’s up to the parents, quite literally, what they want to teach, and how to teach it. At least, that’s the way it is in Washington, and I frankly like it that way.
