"Free education for all children in government schools." Marxism
http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com/public-school-menace/ps-unamerican/socialist-public-schools-in-america
Perhaps Marx took education ideas from us instead of the other way around. Other countries have "borrowed" good ideas from us before. Even our clothing styles have mostly gone from us to others, not the other way around.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 18, 2009, 02:07:30 PM
Perhaps Marx took education ideas from us instead of the other way around. Other countries have "borrowed" good ideas from us before. Even our clothing styles have mostly gone from us to others, not the other way around.
Sorry to inform you but marx got it from the same place that this country got the idea of Government schools. It was first used over in european areas. maybe the barvarian areas. i don't remember right off hand which. But this country didn't have Government schools til early - mid 1900's.
QuoteIn America, compulsory-attendance laws in all fifty states force parents to send their children to public schools.
not true, you can send your kids to private school or home school them. Families have the choice.
QuoteIn America, teachers, principals, administrators, and school janitors are also government employees, paid, trained, and pensioned through government taxes.
College tuition is mostly paid for by the student.
QuoteIn America, public-school teachers' salaries depend on length of service competence is irrelevant.
in America, all teachers are underpaid.
I agree that most school suck, but there are a lot of good ones too. Charter schools are popping up all over here in california and they are largely a success. I think that schools, like the fire and police department, are pretty much based on socialist ideas.
On the other hand, I'd rather live in a country full of intelligent citizens than a country of people who can't read. I think abolishing public schools would be the best way to hasten our descent to a third world country. We are already on that track. Lets deny education to kids and see how that works out, right?
Quote from: Anmar on December 18, 2009, 08:12:04 PM
not true, you can send your kids to private school or home school them. Families have the choice.
College tuition is mostly paid for by the student.
in America, all teachers are underpaid.
I agree that most school suck, but there are a lot of good ones too. Charter schools are popping up all over here in california and they are largely a success. I think that schools, like the fire and police department, are pretty much based on socialist ideas.
On the other hand, I'd rather live in a country full of intelligent citizens than a country of people who can't read. I think abolishing public schools would be the best way to hasten our descent to a third world country. We are already on that track. Lets deny education to kids and see how that works out, right?
I doubt it. I don't see it stopping those who want to learn from going to college and they have to pay for that. Should work just fine if they have to pay for their primary education. At least parents that have to pay will take more of a interest in what and how their child is doing.
what about the parents who can't afford to send their kids to school? My bet is that the majority of people living in Elk county wouldn't be able to afford private school. It's my understanding that Elk is one of the poorest counties in the state, with a very large portion of the population relying on government handouts to make a living.
Quote from: Anmar on December 18, 2009, 08:25:37 PM
what about the parents who can't afford to send their kids to school? My bet is that the majority of people living in Elk county wouldn't be able to afford private school. It's my understanding that Elk is one of the poorest counties in the state, with a very large portion of the population relying on government handouts to make a living.
There's always homeschool. Not as cheap as public, but less expensive than private and a lot more control over what is taught and individualized one on one attention.
Do you homeschool, Sarah?
Since Castro took over Cuba, he's "improved" education and all are educated.
But, that's about as far as it goes.
And there's a lot of educated people in this country that act like they were educated
in Cuba - but they weren't.
Huh?
I have been seeing this conversation about "government schools" and I had stayed away because I didn't want to appear stupid and uninformed. However, my curiosity has overridden my fear of looking totally ignorant.
What------are government schools? Are these special schools aside from public schools? I saw a statement that educators, principles, etc., are paid government employees. Here in California, there are public schools and private schools and some choose to home school their children. The public schools are supported by property taxes levied on each house in the county even if those living in those houses don't have school age children. More money comes from the State from its education fund and a pittance from the state lottery. So, I guess that makes them government schools because the money comes from the government and the taxpayers. And, I guess the employees (teachers, etc.), could be considered government employees. But, the way you are saying "government schools" makes them sound ominous.
In the history of this country, schools were basically private schools as each community supplied its own school and school teacher and the costs were shared by the citizens of the community. I think that the current school system is basically the same thing, but on a larger scale. So I find it hard to see the difference.
Okay, I guess I am just ignorant in my old age. My children and I paid for their college education and one is still paying back student loans. Now that they are grown, I still pay for the schools through my property taxes even though I no longer have school age children. But that's okay because when I did have school age children, others were paying for them, also.
Local School Boards normally determine what is taught in the schools so I guess you could say that the government is controlling what they learn because the teacher is a government employee. I never had the feeling that my children were being taught anything different that what I was taught growing up in public schools. I am able to read history books for myself and any other subject I choose to read about and no one controls what I read.
Somebody help me out here.
Larryj
Larry,
That a pretty accurate discription of how the schools are paid for. I think the issue that some people have is that the school board at the state level mandates a curriculum. In some cases, certain parts of the curriculum are mandated by the federal government. School districts eventually have the final say in what is taught, however state and federal governments can influence school boards by providing or witholding funding.
For example, One of the charter schools here in the bay area is centered around a community of Lebanese immigrants. They teach all the normal classes plus arabic language. Although students there are both christian and muslim, a group of parents wanted the school to have classes teaching Islam. The board governing the school had to make a decision. They have the freedom to choose a religous curriculum if they wanted to, but by doing so, they would lose a portion of their funding because promoting religion in school is not something the government is interested in doing.
You are correct. Hence we have Catholic schools and others. These would be paid for private schools, I guess. Is there something in the Constitution about having religion in schools? I know they don't get to pray anymore. My granddaughter goes to a Baptist pre-school only because that is where her mother goes to church and wants her daughter to have that schooling. I am involved to some degree in working with the staff and teachers there and I don't see a difference in the quality of education there than anywhere else. The only difference is they stress belief in God along with the standard education. Nothing wrong with that. Next year, when she begins Kindergarten, she will be in a public school and probably one of the only differences will be that she doesn't go to chapel once a week and they won't be saying a prayer at the end of the school morning.
Larryj
There is no law against teaching or practicing religion in school. The supreme court has said that the government, federal or state, can't promote any particular religion. This decision was obviously derived from the first amendment. So faith-based schools can't recieve money from the government (local, state or federal) A few years back, I coached at a catholic school. Families there paid just over 10k a year per student. I think thats about average for a high school out here. The government pretty much has no control over what the school teaches.
I was reading a little bit on religious schools and the constitution and i found a good like that goes over a lot of the supreme court rulings.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html#cases
One interesting fact i didn't know..
In the pledge of allegiance, the words "under God" was not in the original version. It was inserted into the pledge in 1954.
Those of us who are older will remember when they decided to add "under God" to the pledge. And, I also remember prayers before high school games.
Larryj
I can't help you out because I believe you to be right on track. ;) ;)
Larry, I too remember when "under God" was added. We practiced it a number of times and most of us still don't say it correctly. There was no pause after "under God." It was meant to be said "under God indivisible", and then the pause, followed by "with liberty and justice for all."A number of us at the fire house always say it correctly, which makes us out of cadence with the rest ....too bad.
ARGGG! attacked by the gremlins again. Okay, one more time.
I think the pledge has become sort of 'singsong' for many of us. The punctuation, meaning the location of the colon and the commas should indicate a pause. So there should be no pauses until the word 'stands'. There would be no pause between 'nation' and 'under'. However most of us tend to pause after 'flag' and after 'America', making it sort of singsong.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
However you say it, though, say it like you mean it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Larryj
We learned it without the pause after God. one nation, under God indivisible, with liberty and...
Almost sounds like a different chant if you say it like you learned it.
What does "indivisible" mean when said your way?
Public schools would be locally controlled with no centralization of control. As it is now, there are no public schools as they are controlled by Dept of Ed. IF schools were handled on a local level and paid for locally, then they would be public schools run by the Parents of the school in that area. As it is now Parents basically have no say in curriculum that is used. What happens is that some higher up decides ok were going to offer x y z curriculum and you choose only from x y or z. Doesn't matter if A or B or C is a much better curriculum the PTB or Dept of Ed says we won't fund if you deviate from our curriculum.
For example, Lets say parents of Elk county do not want their kids taught sex ed by the school, they believe that subject falls under the authority of parents not the state. A public school would adhere to the wishes of the local public. Since they will not adhere to the parents wishes, they are Government school because they teach what the Government dictates.
Take a gander at world history book that the Government approves. You will find chapters devoted to islam, buddism, even witchcraft, but when they mention christianity or judaism, they devote at most 1 or 2 paragraphs to the religion. This is Government interference.
Personally as a christian, i dont' want the state teaching my kids about Christianity. A teacher is not qualified to teach Christianity if they are athiest, buddist, islamic, or any other non christian religious belief. SO to allow the state to appoint a "professer of religion" to teach christianity when they themselves do not believe in it is not appropriate.
As far as prayer in schools, i have a major massive problem with allowing special prayer rooms for islamic kids, and not any other belief. It in effect is silencing christians.
Private schools do not recieve Government funding. They also refuse to participate in accreditation. These two things give government a foothold into the school to dictate what is taught in the school and most private schools are not going to allow that. It wasn't long ago that the state of ohio went on a campaign to shut down private schools. When it finally came to a full blown battle, those schools that accepted state accreditation or government funds were shut down because the government said they had a stake in the school since they provided something. THe ones that didn't take anything which was a majority of schools in the state took their case to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled i their favor but against those schools that took government funding.
Last of all, the state of Georgia and i use them as a example because i remember the figures, The Government schools spent 18,500 approximate per student to educate 1 year. The private schools on average spent 9,200.00 per student, and homeschoolers were far less something around 3,000 per student.
Now the private schooled and homeschooled students, blew the governtment school students out of the water in grades, and scoring. The private and homeschoolers scored much higher on SAT's and ACT's. The private schoolers and homeschoolers averaged a 2nd year college level at the 11 grade in reading, math, and science.
Now how is it that private and homeschoolers can do that much better in school on half the money that Government schools get. HALF THE MONEY!
The reason is, the curriculum, the learning environment, and the fact that these students and parents had to pay for this kind of education made them appreciate their education more. They worked harder, knuckeled down and did the job. You can't just throw money at a problem and fix it. You have to require an accounting for the money spent.
IF Government schooling was so efficient and great, then why is there a ton of CORPORATE Schools that help kids catch up all over the place. IF the Government schools were so effective, then sylvan would be out of business.
I hear folks saying ohh our teachers are great. That might be true. But Theres a problem. IF Schools were a business, and children were a manufactured product, the schools would be going out of business because their producing defective products. There would be more recalls than there would be quality students.
Just take a gander at what is produced. Got a question. In the 8th grade, Duke University goes to schools and inquires about the students. They go to the best schools to look for the best students.
How many 8th graders do you know have been invited to attend duke?
I have three sons that in the 8th grade Duke invited all three. And the Common denominator is they didn't attend a Government school.
Steve, Maybe your state handles it differently, but most of what is in your post doesn't happen here in california
My nephew Dan went to Duke. Also, if you were a baker and part of the time you were forced to bake with moldy, buggy flour, what would you expect the results to be? It is more expensive to educate less capable kids. Or we could drown them at birth, how about that. Hitler wanted "perfect" children too
I'd like to comment on Red's post sometime back...Our pledge is not a "chant", that's quite an insult. It isn't said "my way". It's the way it was supposed to be said when the words were added more than 50 years ago. It means (duh) that if we, as a country, stand as one nation collectively under God, we shall not be divided. It was meant to be unifying. However, when one is a committed skeptic, one assumes the worst at all times I suppose.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 19, 2009, 08:32:55 PM
My nephew Dan went to Duke. Also, if you were a baker and part of the time you were forced to bake with moldy, buggy flour, what would you expect the results to be? It is more expensive to educate less capable kids. Or we could drown them at birth, how about that. Hitler wanted "perfect" children too
Well then you know you don't get into Duke unless you have great potential. Most kids do have great potential. But their not challenged in the current system enough to produce that potential. I believe in setting the bar high for everyone and those that reach that bar are the best of the best. Those that don't are still reaching their potential. When you lower the bar, then you are crippling everyone. The school system belief that everyone is the same, everyone has the same opportunities is a bunch of male bovine excrement. Lets get into the real world. No one is the same no one deserves the same opportunities that the other one gets. Opportunities exist only to those who seek them out and go get them.
I believe that if we set our educational standards in the pre college education to meet or exceed college level expectations, you will find that most kids will achieve that whether or not their black or white or purple. The ones that don't, have reached their potential and there are opportunities for them too.
I made the reference about my boys can attend duke because it is uncommon for students to get into duke unless their way above everyone else. The ones that get to go are very few and the odds of a school producing a duke candidate is low in todays time. But to have 3 brothers that were asked, says that it is not the individual but the education they recieve.
Josh is my oldest and he can attend not only duke but MIT and Harvard if he so chooses. Eli can attend duke, and Joe can attend MIT and Duke if he chooses. That shows the differences in ability between them. I am hoping that all three decide to go after the brass ring. But if they don't thats ok too they were asked to attend these institutions and thats all that matters.
Josh is still military, Eli is working to open his own business and joe's interest is in race cars.
At any rate, Opportunity is there. And if Opportunity isn't there, i have taught all of them to create opportunity.
In comparing public and private schools and their funding, Steve, you didn't mention the difference in the overhead of running the schools. Sure, private schools can devote less money to each student because they can limit their enrollment and maintain smaller class sizes. More one-on-one from the teacher makes for a better student. But, the private school may be only one building with fewer teachers. The public school system has to accommodate all that are school age requiring larger facilities and more teachers. This means less one-on-one time. And, it is true------------I've seen it happen-----a teacher will devote more time to an individual student if that teacher feels that student has more potential. Sad to say, but some teachers do this and just allow the less than average student to slide by.
In California, we have what are called GATE schools. These are elementary schools that handle the education of the children in their geographic area, but also have special classes for those who are deemed to be a little smarter. My son was recommended to the GATE school after second grade. Our high schools have AP classes which are more concentrated on a subject than just regular classes, i.e. English, Math, etc. When a student is applying to a college, AP classes are considered highly desirable to admissions officials. My son took all the AP classes he could take. He graduated just like all the other kids with no special honors and went to a private college back east for one year until the snow got to him. He came back and finished in a private (not state run) college not far from where we live.
As far as the pledge, it seems to be a problem in how you believe it should be recited. "indivisible" means the United States is indivisible --- cannot be divided. Does it really matter how you say it?
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on December 20, 2009, 10:23:08 AM
In comparing public and private schools and their funding, Steve, you didn't mention the difference in the overhead of running the schools. Sure, private schools can devote less money to each student because they can limit their enrollment and maintain smaller class sizes. More one-on-one from the teacher makes for a better student. But, the private school may be only one building with fewer teachers. The public school system has to accommodate all that are school age requiring larger facilities and more teachers.
Ok why is this? because they have to bus everyone into one central location. When you centralize the insitution of learning, it overcrowds. THats why the 1 room school house worked so well. it educated those students in that area. And you had teachers that taught multiple subjects instead of specializing in 1 subject. I think the 1 room schoolhouse teachers were more qualified to teach as they had to be able to teach everything. But i understand that with more people there has to be a increase or a method to educate laarger groups.
Thats why homeschooling is much better than institutional. The homeschooled children can learn more learn faster, learn better and do it in 3 hours a day where as the government school takes 8 hours.
QuoteThis means less one-on-one time. And, it is true------------I've seen it happen-----a teacher will devote more time to an individual student if that teacher feels that student has more potential. Sad to say, but some teachers do this and just allow the less than average student to slide by.
Oh you are absoutely right. And it is a majority of teachers that do this not a minority. Now can i blame them for it? Not really. IF I were teaching and found some students that were exceptional i would spend more time cultivating them than i would students that either didn't care or just wasn't able to go that far. Look if you are producing seeds for example for gardens or crops, you cultivate the crop. Then at harvest you pick the best seeds first. Then you plant again and cultivate and fertilize and weed that area where the crop is thriving the most and producing the best seed than you do the rest. You harvest the best and save back for planting next year and the rest of the seed or harvest goes to things like flour or feed or whatever need there is. You never sacrifcie your best.
QuoteIn California, we have what are called GATE schools. These are elementary schools that handle the education of the children in their geographic area, but also have special classes for those who are deemed to be a little smarter. My son was recommended to the GATE school after second grade. Our high schools have AP classes which are more concentrated on a subject than just regular classes, i.e. English, Math, etc. When a student is applying to a college, AP classes are considered highly desirable to admissions officials. My son took all the AP classes he could take. He graduated just like all the other kids with no special honors and went to a private college back east for one year until the snow got to him. He came back and finished in a private (not state run) college not far from where we live.
Ok got a question. Like the above example i posted, you plant a crop. The best of the best is in that crop as well as the tares. You can fertilize it with a low grade fertilzer or you can fertilize it with a high grade organic fertilizer. The high grade will produce more product than the low grade. So why is it that when we look at students, we say ok, abc student are smarter, so were going to fertilize them with the high grade best fertilizer. efg student is not as smart but adequate so were going to fertilize them with standard fertilzer and weed control. and xyz student is dumb as a rock and has no hope so were not going to waste fertilzer or time weeding.
That is essentially how the school system is set up! IF you ferilze and weed with the same HIGH STandard fertilzer, your going to get the BEST out of everyone.
I'm sorry but set the standard high. IF they achieve it, great! That produces the BEST. IF they fall short then thats their potential. Thats not a bad thing. They have achieved much more than if youo lower the standard to meet their potential. You know educational standards have declined drastically in the last 25 - 30 years. I mean its abysmal. I went back to college in 2005. I had to take something called a ACT test. didn't matter that i took the SAT's back in 1980 and scored 1050 on it. They wanted me to take ACT. SO i took it. Now I never went to a traditional college, i dropped out in 11th grade and took my GED, which i scored 186 out of 200 on it. I went to electronics school in 1992. Graduated with 4.0 So i didn't have the English skills nor the math or science skills that college grads have, just highschool skills. On that test, and you have to remember i probably have forgotten a ton of stuff over the 25 years, i was one of 10 people that passed the ACT test out of 50 applicants. Out of these 50 applicants, 8 of us were over 40 and 5 of us were over 30. The rest were highschool student graduates.
When your over 40, you have a excellent reason if you don't pass something if you don't use it. But The fact remains that the only ones that passed were over 38 years old. What does that say? It says that the educational system is screwed. It says that the standard bar that is set is lacking if the highschoolers can't even pass the test. Every one of those applicants had to take remedial courses just to bring them up to a basic college level.
Ok now some of those student took the remedials and was admitted along with me. The first semeseter, my class started with abou 50 students. BY the end of that semester, only 5 of us remained.
5 out of 50 the 45 that left left because they were failing. THey were not prepared in highschool to survive a college or techschool education. They couldn't do the work because they didn't learn what they needed to knwo in the elementary and highschool grades. Now highschool is bascially nothing mroe than repeating elementary lessons taught. You learn everything you need to know in the first 8 grades and then you go through repetition in highschool. IF you cannot learn it after 12 years of repetition then theres a problem with the method.
[quote author=larryJ
As far as the pledge, it seems to be a problem in how you believe it should be recited. "indivisible" means the United States is indivisible --- cannot be divided. Does it really matter how you say it?
Larryj
[/quote]
Why can't the United states be divided? Specifically ONE NATION UNDER GODS AUTHORITY.
Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God [be] for us, who [can be] against us?
History has shown that if a nation stays under Gods authority and blessings, no man, no nation can stand against them.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 19, 2009, 08:32:55 PM
My nephew Dan went to Duke. Also, if you were a baker and part of the time you were forced to bake with moldy, buggy flour, what would you expect the results to be? It is more expensive to educate less capable kids. Or we could drown them at birth, how about that. Hitler wanted "perfect" children too.
You know, for a person who claims to be "in the middle" you sure like to jump from one extereme to the other.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 19, 2009, 08:32:55 PM
It is more expensive to educate less capable kids. Or we could drown them at birth, how about that. Hitler wanted "perfect" children too
I was thinking about this, You know it costs no more to educate less capable kids. You set the level high. They achieve what they achieve. If these "less capable" kids can sit and play a complex video game that requires knowing at least 10 or 15 buttons on the controller to use the tools and actions of the character, and to use them in the right sequence and at the right time, then they can learn complex math, complex science and English sentence structures. I know the video game is repetition but so is math, as it has a set of rules to solve each math equation that when you follow those rules you solve the problem, same in science, you use a set of rules and procedures to come to a conclusion and in English it also has that set of rules to follow.
You said hitler wanted perfect children, maybe so. But the thing that wasn't perfect in his "desire" was they were not Aryan. There were HIGHLY educated children and adults. Look at Einstein, even Von Braun was not the perfect one, he was a prussian that almost won the war for hitler.
The problem lies in that centralized education sets the education standard too low. In all Government schools today they try to suppress the individuality of each student.
one good example is that prior to the first day of school parents are told that they need to supply x y and z supplies so that it can be locked up and distributed through the class. This is nothing but socialist agenda. Personally if i were to buy supplies that would be for my child and my child only. If you were a teacher and were to give it to other students i would be livid.
there are far too many examples to post here.
Where do you get this stuff abut school supplies being locked up? I never heard of such a thing. My students brought their supplies to school when asked and they kept them for their own use. They were never collected by me or anybody else.
Varmit, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Steve, I'm talking about much less capable kids than you are. I'm talking about kids who will never use computers. They learn to wrap flower stems and make simple arrangements.They learn to bake cookies and dog treats. They learn to print t-shirts and they learn to make printed copies of things. They learn to wash and detail cars but will never drive one. They wash dishes and sweep up, but won't ever learn to make change even at Mc Donalds. They are always supervised in sheltered workshops That is very expensive. You just don't get it.