Whoops.
Take:
- My computer set to auto log onto the Dope.
- My 5 year old and his ability to manipulate and enjoy things.
Mix well, and get an interesting post.
With apologies - and feel free to nuke it with your magic mod wand.
Actually, it appears to provide a good comment on much of this thread. I was just hoping for a translation.
Uh, have you heard of the Jesuits? They’re pretty big on book learnin’. And I think that your whole “ignoring science” is just bullshit. As far as I am aware most catholic schools, for instance, do teach science. They do teach the theory of evolution. If they share the catholic doctrine, too. what’s the big deal? In fact, if evolution is so strong a theory and everything else so lame, you should invite the comparison. Just look at Christopher Hitchens, a religious education didn’t brainwash him. This whole “don’t teach science” is just a big bugaboo.
Umm sure. Some faith based schools give a decent science education. So? Do you have any proof that “faith based= great education all the time” and “public= shitty education all the time”?
I accept some private schools are better than some public schools- and the other way around.
But if a public school tried to teach Creationism instead of Evolution, it’d be stopped- and rightfully so. However, private schools can and do teach that- not all of them, but enough.
You’re the one who broad-brushed religious schools as “ignoring science”. You admit now that religious schools do not equal shitty science teaching. Good. I think we are in agreement also in that Charter schools are a good idea, as the only kids going to them will be ones taken out of a, by definition, shitty school. As far as the others, those public schools that do a good job—and there are many—why would a parent take a kid out of a good school? Unless to go to a better one?
I practice no religion, but I really have a hard time understanding the degree of animosity to teaching Creationism. Now, if that were taught to the exclusion of evolution, I could see a real concern. But is that actually the case? If it is, is it the case in more than a handful of schools. On the other hand, what’s the big deal if it is mentioned? Again, I would think the more fervently you believe evolution to be correct and Creationism to be false, the more you would invite a side-by-side comparison.
Finally, if your kid was in a shitty school, and they gave you a voucher to send her to a good school, and the one that was by far the most convenient (and was an excellent school) taught evolution and creationism, would you send her there. If not, can you help me understand the absolute animosity to a religious instruction?
A side-by-side comparison, fine. That’s great. Bring on da truth!
But what actually happens is that these proponents of creationism taught along with evolution want them taught as two equally probable belief systems that try to explain how life came about. Which they aren’t, any more than germ theory and bodily humours are equally probable belief systems that try to explain why people get sick.
Oh, I agree. Still, I don’t get the animosity some people have. If they are taught side-by-side I think it becomes painfully obvious which theory is good for what and to what degree.
I agree with you. Some private schools do a very bad job and some public schools do a great job. So, then, I’d assume you’d support giving parents the resource to make a decision about which schools to send their children. If a public school is doing a good job, it gets the voucher money. If a private school does a good job, it gets the voucher money. Those that do a poor job go away. When was the last time a shitty public school disappeared for lack of students?
It makes no difference: education is degraded because the “consumers” of it are coerced into purchasing the product. Forcing angry, disruptive children to sit in a classroom is doing NOTHING to solve the problem.
What needs to happen:
-evaluate each child, and decide upone the appropriate educational ‘track’ for him/her
-set up carriculae for each track
-handle the disruptive types with appropriate controls-and expell those who do not wish to participate
Yeah, maybe it is un-democratic, but this is the only way to fix inner-city schools.
-
No I did not “broad-brushed religious schools as “ignoring science””. Some do some don’t. The ones that do are shitty.
-
They take them out of a “godless” public school in order to make sure their beliefs can’t be questioned by facts.
-
Creationism is taught to the exclusion of Evolution. But Creationism is simply wrong and also Christian theology- why should it be taught with my tax dollars?
-
Any school that teaches Creationism is by definition a "shitty schooL’ thus your sitrep is impossible.
Nope. If a Public school is doing a bad job, you vote the bastards out. If *your *local Public school is doing a bad job, then it’s your fault. Do you vote? How many letters have you written? School board meetings attended? Do you support a slate of board candidates who will fix things? Have you served on the County Civil Grand Jury for a year to investigate “waste, fraud and mismanagement”? Failing that, have you run for office yourself? The “shitty public school” is not run by “them”- it’s run by *all of us. *
-
Okay. I misunderstood you. My apologies.
-
How about those parents that send their kids to a religious school that is a different denomination than the one the belong to? Or are atheists? (I think there’s someone on this board, in fact.) How about my friends (Catholic) who sent their kid to a Jewish school? And now send their kid to a Chinese school?
3., 4. You’re evading the question. Are you saying that there are no schools that teach Creationism AND have students that score well on standardized tests/ Or are you using some other metric to judge “shitty”? Also, the question went to whether you wold send your kid to a religious school that had already demonstrated that is was not a shitty, but a fine, school. Would you rather have your kid get the best the known shitty school could offer? Or have an opportunity to learn more at the much better school, where she would also be exposed to Creationism. Again, this is a school proven to be excellent in which the students do well on all standardized tests, including those for science. (That’s my criteria for a good school.)
Your experience perhaps. Not mine.
Please don’t lob balls so softly over the net in the future. Makes my smart-assedness harder to fight.
Not at all. You’re both just wrong.
I don’t recall saying that they were evil. Just perpetrating a scam. Simply put, competition will not cure all ills. And as DrDeth so ably put it:
If you want things fixed, then you by god fix them. It is, after all, the American Way. And to attempt to use an end run around the problem of public schools, some of which I readily concede are failing at an alarming clip, by claiming that using per pupil spending to determine that parents can send their children to private schools with those dollars is disingenuous at the very least.
As I said previously, I would do my damnedest to improve the situation as it exists. Is your private school accredited by the state? If not, I’m certainly wary of sending my child there. Does your private school accept every kid who shows up on the first day? If not, why?
Apples and oranges. Nobody (save parents on occasion) insists on higher education. Yet not only does society insist on children attending school, it’s actually the law.
Charter schools already (mostly) get their funding through the same channels as public schools. So this is a non-starter, as well.
The Washington Post editorial page came out today in favor of this program, saying in part:
That’s just skirting the questions. What do you do while you’re trying to improve the system. People have been trying to improve it for decades. So all those kids just have to wait for you. Sorry, I’d rather have at least some kids getting a good education than you needing to feel good about some pipe dream of giving it to all kids.
Oh, so now we need a school that’s immediately elastic. X kids show up; X kids get in? You’re evading the real issue again.
That’s a funny thing about analogies—they’re not identical. If they were, they wouldn’t be analogies. Of course you choose to look at the difference—which is immaterial as to why the analogy was brought up. You might find it easier to just state that you don’t want to answer the question. Or just not answer. The fact is that our higher education system is an envy of the world. Our public elementary, middle, and high schools? Failing way too many kids and neighborhoods. One improves due to competition, the other doesn’t.
Sheeze! You might want to have the stuff you type actually relate to what it is responding to. And did you miss the part about the money for the Charters NOT coming from the same fund?
And how well has this approach worked in DC? And isn’t it simpler to just give parents money to send their kids to a better school? Why jump through all these hoops (that, given past experience, won’t work) when you can just simplify the process by allowing school choice.
No, I’m talking about the experience of DC kids in the voucher program. You claimed that “most of those students who would be eligible to receive vouchers would never be allowed to get anywhere near a private school”, which flies in the face of what is actually happening in DC.
Again, you said this: “But I’ve yet to encounter an honest voucher fan who gives a damn about any kid save his or her own.” I know many voucher fans who don’t have kids or whose kids wouldn’t be eligible for vouchers. Questioning the motivation of voucher fans (which is what you were doing) is a very weak debating tactic.
Sorry, but some school districts are too large, The teacher’s union is too powerful, and the parents are too poor (or working) to make an impact. This arguement is insulting to the working poor who want a real choice in their kid’s education, rather than being forced into the poorly run government solution. They are asking that a portion of the dollars that the state spends on their kids be instead allocated to the educational institution of their choice. Parents do NOT run the school - the school districts do their best to prevent that. Parents do NOT run the school board, since the board is elected of ALL voters in the district - not just the parents.
My kids are in public schools. I have one member of the school board that I can call at home or on their cell. I am on a first name basis with the Principal of my older child’s school. It STILL takes 12-18 months for a change to be made, and this level of influence has cost me over $10k in donations and lost earnings. I can afford this, and I pay a higher mortgage to be in this district.
However, I have also volunteered in the 'hood, and those parents are SCREWED. The game of pass-the-trash teachers has resulted in a large number of shit instructors with small islands of saints - all protected by the union and entrenched administrators. The cleanest option for those parents is to allow them to take their voucher grants to new schools. Anything else will be too late for their kids.
No. It isn’t. If there’s a problem you work to fix it rather than throw your hands up and run away. Or get self-righteous about what you’re pissing away your tax money on. I’m a member of my local school board (hell, for all the good it does me, I’m the freakin’ vice president) and I balance very keenly the desires of my constituents and the welfare of the students in my district. Y’wanna know a little secret? It can be an incredibly tough gig. But at the end of the day, you step up and try to find solutions to the issues at hand. Sometimes that involves establishing alternative schools for students who quite simply aren’t going to make it in a traditional school. Sometimes it involves kvetching and kvelling about the private schools (three that I can think of offhand) who poach our students. And sometimes it’s all about fixing what other people have screwed up and hoping against hope that we don’t screw something up ourselves. One thing that nobody does, though is piss and moan that we can’t fix it, so let’s just throw in the towel. I got involved in this delightful exchange of ideas because I actually have some experience with public schools as a graduate, father of a graduate-to-be (or so I continue to believe) and a school board member. The one thing that I never hear from a voucher advocate is, “Let’s fix the problem.” And that really sits wrong with me, because I strongly believe that public education is a very important part of society. What I hear instead is, “This group of students seems to be doing well,” (no evidence that they are) when they’re in a setting that cherry picks them to be successful. Which is absolute crap.
Or, y’know, a school that actually serves the population. And it’s not evading the issue to ask you: Is your hypothetical school accredited by the state? Or will it accept every student who shows up? Because if it isn’t or it won’t, then I have a lot of issues with you taking tax dollars to support your little fantasy land.
[quote]
That’s a funny thing about analogies—they’re not identical. If they were, they wouldn’t be analogies. Of course you choose to look at the difference—which is immaterial as to why the analogy was brought up. You might find it easier to just state that you don’t want to answer the question. Or just not answer.
[quote]
Or all that terribly analogous when you posit the ridiculous crap that you do. Unless and until higher education is mandated by law, then you’re comparing apples and oranges. See, the reason I chose to see the difference is because the difference is the defining essence of what you posted.
Some public schools do suck. I won’t argue that point. But to claim that they suck because there’s no competition is ridiculous. There are an awful lot of colleges that fail pretty miserably at churning out an educated populace. And they are the competition.
Initially, yes. My bad.
And I was taking a more macro view of private schools. So it appears we were talking at cross purposes. Of course, those selfsame private schools would, I imagine, tell me to get bent if I were to take my daughter in and attempt to enroll her. If I’m wrong, I will cheerfully concede the same.
You completely overlooked my point. The cross we subtle people bear! Alack! Alas! (insert sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth here. Or don’t, your call)
I also know many voucher fans. And once they’ve finished their spiel about public schools sucking ass and how they feel it’s only right that parents get to choose to spend their tax dollars where and how they see fit, they will either tell you that it’s their own kids that they’re concerned about and/or their own tax dollars that they don’t want to see subsidize schools. And some schools do suck ass. Most don’t. And I’ve also never met a voucher fan who feels that those parents should get one penny less than the average that each child uses. Despite the fact that using average numbers rather than actual numbers is grossly disingenuous. I’m not questioning their motives, I’m parroting them.