Yes, it’s almost entirely this. You’d be hard-pressed to find a public school that endorsed conservative and/or religious views. In fact, the latter would probably be downright illegal.
So public schools are very likely to have a liberalizing or secularizing effect on their kids, and they know it.
Way to miss the point.
I’ve got nothing against agreeing with you, and I do agree with this.
You live in a good neighbourhood, I’m guessing?
I agree.
Those are not the only two options. Would star athletes dedicate the hours a day necessary to training without the chance of fame and fortune? Or would they get an ordinary job that let them have a life? For another example, who would take the risk of setting up their own business if there were no rewards to be had?
And yes, I think if I had no reason to go to work, I’d spend a lot of my time sitting on my ass playing on the internet. Judging by the effect of widespread unemployment on various communities, I am far from alone in that inclination.
Not sure what you mean here.
Indeed. But I think there’s another aspect to it: dealbreakers.
A lot of conservatives probably don’t consider what the public school system offers holistically. They take certain specific aspects of the curriculum that is unacceptable to them and say they want to shield their children from it. Remember that a lot of social conservatives are members of conservative and fundamentalist religious groups. The ideologies promoted by these groups often have values that clash with progressive secular morality, and may condemn such things as sex education or tolerance toward LGBTQA people, which, while only one of many things that one could be exposed to at a public school, goes against the preaching of their religious group and so for them, those matters are like an end-all.
The gap here is that only 86% of high school students graduate. A huge number of those that don’t are the functionally illiterate. They aren’t necessarily graduating functionally illiterate people, they often just simply never finish.
Exactly. Equality of opportunity is a big part of Canada’s success in creating a world-class K-12 public school system. I find it amusing that this has largely been accomplished by doing pretty much the exact opposite of what conservatives routinely seem to recommend:
Public schools are well funded.
Public school teachers are relatively well paid.
Public school teachers have strong unions. (The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, with some $222 billion in assets, is the largest single-profession pension plan in Canada.)
Public schools are held to uniformly high standards regardless of whether they’re in a “good” neighbourhood or not.
Above all, instead of bickering about private schools and charter schools to escape a deteriorating public school system, there is a great emphasis on equality of opportunity for all within the public system, regardless of economic background or language or ethnic status.
One can’t help but get the impression that the egalitarian aspect of a high quality public school system offends conservatives for the same reason that universal health care does, and why the US is the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t have either.
That could be, those stats did not say either way.
Still after 1-4 years of high school, and 6+ years of Elementary school, then if Johnny can’t read we have failed him- serious learning disabilities aside.
Wow! I’ve known quite a few people who HSed for a whole assortment of reasons. Their child may have special needs that can’t be met by the local school district (happened in my family); the public schools really are that bad and private schools are prohibitively expensive, have long waiting lists, and/or are no better; it was the right thing for their children, for any number of reasons; and I know of several Christian families who did this and used a secular curriculum because they were doing it for non-religious reasons.
In my old town, I knew a woman who owned a craft store (and still does) and she had no idea that these fringe HSers existed in our area, until they started bringing their kids into her store for “socialization.” These kids could barely read, didn’t know basic math, didn’t have an age-appropriate knowledge of current events, but they DID know the Bible inside and out. She’s a devout Christian herself but her shop is nonreligious in every way.
My brother and his wife, before they had kids, lived at different times in the Kansas City and Houston areas, and in both cities, they met TEACHERS who homeschooled - the schools really were that bad. This was in the 1990s. Kansas City at the time had the highest per capita rate for public school education of any large city, and some of the lowest test scores. What were they spending the money on, anyway? Well, one thing they did was send taxicabs if the kids didn’t show up for school, so a lot of parents just plain old didn’t bother getting their kids up and ready for school, because they knew a taxi would come and pick them up.
Funny you should mention communism, because what prompted me to start this thread was an interview I heard a few days ago on C-SPAN 2’s “About Books” that, in the online Q&A, had someone who said that some kids told them that they had “learned in public school” that communism led to people basically getting together and singing “Kum Ba Yah” and they had to teach them otherwise.
Like the teachers who were allegedly taking girls to get abortions during the school day, I’d like to know where that happened.
I HAVE heard about teachers who assigned really out-there assignments, like asking kids to write their own suicide notes, or sex education programs in the 1980s that included showing kids position books, and other situations where the kids were instructed not to tell their parents what they were learning in school, and it turned out to be things that a huge percentage of parents who were interested in their kids’ education disapproved of and/or disagreed with.
Why Johnny Can’t Read—And What You Can Do About It by Rudolf Flesch appeared in 1955, during the conservatives’ imaginary retroactive Golden Age.
Probably because that, after they spent God’s own amount of money to move to a “better” school district, they are afraid that the liberals will tell them, “Sorry, but in order to balance out educational opportunities among all classes, your kids have been randomly selected to attend a ‘lesser’ school district miles away from where you live. Oh, and thanks for the extra property tax dollars.”
Could you point me to some conservative writing about how bad police unions when protecting cops? I’ll buy that there are such things when the unions try to get more money for cops.
I used to be a conservative by the way. Worked for Jim Buckley and the NY Conservative party in '66 and '68. Had a subscription to National Review. Admittedly, conservatives were different back then.
That agrees with the people who said they are afraid their kids will be indoctrinated with progressive and/or secular values.
I have also seen this online. Conservatives complaining their children are being taught what to think about various controversial issues, rather than learning how to think. And their solution is homeschooling; they don’t believe they have the power to ‘fix’ public schools to be the way they would like.
Reading this thread brings to mind the truest statement about conservatives I’ve ever seen:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith, 2002
It depends on the state. Some states have required tests to pass. I believe that requirement was dropped for Minnesota, but I know that for most of my kid’s high school careers, they would be required to pass a test to graduate - and that suppressed graduation numbers.
And yes, we have seriously faired Johnny if he can’t read by sixth grade. But there is no saying a private school or charter school would have done better. Some of these kids are facing incredible challenges - foster care, abuse, incarcerated parents, drug use in the home, hunger…that have nothing to do with learning disabilities, but everything to do with their ability to learn. Often charter and private schools that get good numbers get them by not admitting the Johnny’s of the world - or expelling him when he can’t live up to their academic standards. More often, the Johnny’s of the world don’t have adults who are getting them into targeted programs so we could even see if charter or private schools will do better. To get a kid into a charter school, a parent has to be behind them driving an application. Six year olds don’t make and drive education decisions.
We are about to have an entire generation of kids where this is going to be a huge issue. They will have gotten lost during Covid. Even with stable homes, they have gotten left behind in a virtual classroom because they need more human interaction, their parents weren’t in a position to act as supplementary teachers. Some of these kids will never catch up to their peers. Some of them with decide that means they are stupid and incapable and stop trying. And there is only so much even an incredibly funded public school can do to deal with a kid who has just given up.
That happens the other way as well. Teachers who have students “creatively imagine” slavery. Textbooks that refer to slaves as “immigrant workers” My youngest had an abstinence educator who sat in front of a class and told them that Herpes rates were 60% and herpes killed.
Do you think it agrees with reality? I don’t.
I do. And we spend more than we should on our home, for fewer square feet, because then our children can attend a really good elementary school.
But I don’t think the fact that there are less good public schools (along with equally good schools, and perhaps even better schools) in the city is an argument against public schools.
It is, however, evidence that the school system serves relatively affluent families better than poor families. Is that really a surprise? I mean, that’s kind of how everything works. Garbage pickup is better in middle-class and rich neighborhoods than it is in poor neighborhoods.
And that’s a problem. But the problem isn’t that public schools exist, it’s that government services are not distributed in an equitable fashion.
If we’re all going to live together in one society, children will need to at least be exposed to the secular idea that different people get to believe different things, and should not be disadvantaged by the laws of the overall society for doing so.
What the people who think they want a non-secular society are missing is that this principle is also what protects their beliefs.
Sorta.
In the little bubble they live in, their sect is the only one that matters, and the vast majority of Real Americans are adherents of their sect.
So to their little minds, the two possible choices are:
A society run by the secular progressives standing for everything we disagree with.
A society run by the (e.g.) Baptists according to the Baptist reading of the Bible as G** intended and as the majority of Americans who matter want.
Starting from those factually inaccurate premises it’s easy to see how they arrive at their factually wrong conclusion.
This, exactly. In my small town, there are two private schools, both religious-based, one Catholic, one Protestant. Neither school offers ESL or has facilities for special-needs kids. Neither school offers busing or other transportation to and from school. Neither school offers interscholastic athletic programs. And, if a student becomes disruptive or falls behind, that student is removed from the school and then goes to the public school system. It’s a wonderful arrangement–for the private schools.