Christian Views on Public Schooling

[!Fluffy!]

Do you think public schools are a viable option for your children? a national disgrace? hostile to Christianity?

Should Christians support government education?

Recently Meh_Gerbil started a thread in the Locker Room related to this subject in which he wondered whether a Christian viewpoint should be respected in terms of the curriculum. It became a tub of vitriole and abuse (no thanks to me) and after MG and Sylas left, I bowed out.

I do feel education deserves to be fairly and honestly discussed among Christians.

While I do not want to limit the discussion to the government's education system, I'd like to begin with an honest assessment of public schools and go from there to alternatives from a Christian viewpoint.

There have been times when I believed government schools could and should be changed for the better. Now I question the very premise of government controlling any aspect of education.

I've learned a lot about the history of public education in the U.S., and much of what I found shocked me.

There are several good books available and some resources on the web if anyone is interested.

A Nation At Risk (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html) concluded

"If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament."

and more recently the Secretary of Education Dr. Roderick Paige said:

"Twenty years ago, my predecessor as Secretary of Education, T.H. Bell, created a commission to examine the state of America’s public education system. That commission’s report, A Nation at Risk, made us aware of the shocking and unwelcome truth that our country had become complacent towards mediocrity and failure in our public schools. A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, and sparked an “education awakening” among our educators and policymakers leading to the modern day movement for education reform. But almost twenty years later, we must ask what this education reform movement has accomplished."

"According to statistics developed by the Department of Education and the National Center for Educational Statistics, today nearly 70 percent of our inner-city fourth graders are unable to read at even a basic level. Our high school seniors trail students in nearly every industrialized nation on international math tests. Nearly one-third of our college freshman must take remedial courses before they can even begin regular college-level courses. All these troubling facts persist despite twenty years of so-called “education reform” and ever-increasing education budgets at the local, state and federal levels."

"...The greatest failure of our public education system is evident in the growing achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. On the latest National Assessment of Education Progress in fourth grade reading, 73 percent of white students performed at or above the basic level, compared with just 40 percent of Hispanic students and only 36 percent of African American students. Students in inner-city schools are being denied the education they deserve and the education they need if they are ever to escape their troubled surroundings." - http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/02/backpage/index.html

Are public schools viable?

My conclusion: They are too subject to the winds of political change. Our kid's futures are too precious to squander on the various sociological experiments this system subjects them to.

Are public schools politicized? The association teachers belong to certainly is - among other things The National Education Association recently adopted these resolutions:

"
* To participate in a national boycott of Wal-Mart (Two resolutions);
* To fight efforts to privatize Social Security (nine separate resolutions);
* To add the words "other" and "multi-ethnic" in addition to "unknown" in the category of ethnicity on all forms;
* To commemorate the "historic merger of the National Education Association and the American Teachers Association, which occurred in 1966";
* To expose health problems associated with "fragrance chemicals"; (I assume this means perfumes. Another resolution called for designating areas of NEA meetings as "fragrance-free zones.");
* To fight indoor air pollution (two resolutions);
* To make health care an organizational priority;
* To expand efforts to elect pro-public education candidates to Congress in 2006;
* To promote the designation of April as National Donate Month to promote organ and tissue donation;
* To push for a commemorative stamp honoring public education;
* To push for more collective bargaining;
* To study the feasibility of a boycott of Gallo wine (A separate resolution banned the serving of Gallo wine at any NEA functions.);
* To develop a strategic program to help NEA Republican members advance a pro-public education agenda with the party;
* To defend affirmative action and oppose the Michigan Civil Rights Amendment;
* To oppose the annual observance of "Take Your Child to Work Day" during the regular school year;
* To oppose all forms of privatization;
* To investigate the establishment of affordable housing programs for members;
* To respond aggressively to any inappropriate use of the words "retarded" or "gay" in the media;
* To fight the "regressive taxation practices of the federal government";
* To support education programs for prisoners and former prisoners;
* To support research on women and heart disease;
* To push for an "exit strategy to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq";
* To oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement;
* To push for debt cancellation in underdeveloped countries;

* To teach children about the "significant history of labor unions";
* To develop a comprehensive strategy of support for homosexuality;
* To educate the public and members about identity theft;
* To explore alternatives to using latex balloons and gloves at NEA functions.

That's a fair synopsis of the actions taken by the largest "education" association in America – the only union and lobby group that is actually tax-exempt by an act of Congress."

Sources: The resolutions in their entirety are here, this is a large pdf file:
http://www.nea.org/handbook/images/resolutions.pdf
The synopsis quoted above is here http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45270


I open the floor to your comments, and promise to do my part to keep it civil.

[Meh_Gerbil]

I think you've covered alot of ground there, so much ground, in fact, I don't know if one thread could even begin to address all of it. Here are some of the issues that I see:

1: What is the goal of the education system.
2: What should we be teaching.
3: What should we use as a teaching method.

I think any one of those topics is worthy of a book.

Even if we could write a book on the topic, would we want our legislature doing that and then imposing all of that onto 300 million different people? How can we really say Our Strength Is Our Diversity and then hold that everyone is to be educated the same way.

I think the quick fix is school vouchers - let people decided for themselves. It is insane that I can chose to abort a child yet I cannot chose how that child is to be educated? It makes no sense. Allow school vouchers and allow parents to think through this and decide for themselves - that seems the quickest way to get to the heart of the issue, IMHO.

[James Peter]

Or look at those countries whose public school systems do considerably better than the US's and follow their lead.

What does that mean? National Curiculum. National Examinations. Decide on the standard of education that is appropriate for an 18 year old and then set national tests each year which people sit across the country at the same time. That way everyone can see which schools are good and which are bad. You don't have the stupid system where local people get to decide what should be taught and how, even if they don't have any skills in the areas they are talking about.

I'd suggest looking at the I.B. as a model rather than the standard English system. Public education can work fine, you just have to do it on a national scale.

[!Fluffy!]

I think you've covered alot of ground there, so much ground, in fact, I don't know if one thread could even begin to address all of it. Here are some of the issues that I see:

1: What is the goal of the education system.
2: What should we be teaching.
3: What should we use as a teaching method.

I think any one of those topics is worthy of a book.

Even if we could write a book on the topic, would we want our legislature doing that and then imposing all of that onto 300 million different people? How can we really say Our Strength Is Our Diversity and then hold that everyone is to be educated the same way.

I think the quick fix is school vouchers - let people decided for themselves. It is insane that I can chose to abort a child yet I cannot chose how that child is to be educated? It makes no sense. Allow school vouchers and allow parents to think through this and decide for themselves - that seems the quickest way to get to the heart of the issue, IMHO.

I agree, it's the only thing that makes any sense.

So why does it seem like an impossible dream? I don't understand why there is so much flak about it. When the issue was raised here in our county, you would have thought it was a proposal to put public school teachers up against a wall and execute them. Proponents were accused of the vilest motives, even of hating minority children and wanting to "do away with the poor". The smear campaign was so over the top many just got up and walked away from the table.

Why do you think there is so much force directed against school vouchers? I just don't get it.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Why do you think there is so much force directed against school vouchers? I just don't get it.

We could cite money and unions - and while that is a factor I think it is too cynical. I'm not an expert here, but if I were to guess I'd say the following:

Secularists see education as the only road to salvation.

Here is a summary of the voucher program:
"Allow students to each carry a voucher for funding to whatever school they wish to attend so that schools and philosophies of education are allowed to compete."

To a secularist that reads like the following would read to you or I:
"Allow individuals to have salvation vouchers so that they are free to take those vouchers to whatever religion they want - allow religion to compete and support multiple routes to heaven".

You are messing with their church.

[Cynic Sage]

:popcorn:

[Teallaura]

Or look at those countries whose public school systems do considerably better than the US's and follow their lead.

What does that mean? National Curiculum. National Examinations. Decide on the standard of education that is appropriate for an 18 year old and then set national tests each year which people sit across the country at the same time. That way everyone can see which schools are good and which are bad. You don't have the stupid system where local people get to decide what should be taught and how, even if they don't have any skills in the areas they are talking about.

I'd suggest looking at the I.B. as a model rather than the standard English system. Public education can work fine, you just have to do it on a national scale.

Um, we've had one of ther finest education systems in the world in years past without the national control you suggest. It hardly seems essencial. Not that it matters, since the Fed government does play a huge role in setting educational standards now.

Local districts do not set standards. That's done at the state and national level. Funding is tied to standards - incidentaly, this is how "No Child Left Behind" was implimented and every other national education policy as well.

[!Fluffy!]

We could cite money and unions - and while that is a factor I think it is too cynical. I'm not an expert here, but if I were to guess I'd say the following:

Secularists see education as the only road to salvation.

Here is a summary of the voucher program:
"Allow students to each carry a voucher for funding to whatever school they wish to attend so that schools and philosophies of education are allowed to compete."

To a secularist that reads like the following would read to you or I:
"Allow individuals to have salvation vouchers so that they are free to take those vouchers to whatever religion they want - allow religion to compete and support multiple routes to heaven".

You are messing with their church.

Which would make sense if the public schools weren't performing as badly as they are.

I mean if the holy grail of secularists is education, wouldn't it be in their best interests to insure every child in government schools had an excellent education? Or that the dropout rate wasn't so high? (The New York state schools stated their goal for graduating students is now 55%).

I'm missing something and I don't know what it is. There has to be a reason for the rabid defense of government schools and the hysterical opposition to vouchers.

[Teallaura]

Which would make sense if the public schools weren't performing as badly as they are.

I mean if the holy grail of secularists is education, wouldn't it be in their best interests to insure every child in government schools had an excellent education? Or that the dropout rate wasn't so high? (The New York state schools stated their goal for graduating students is now 55%).

I'm missing something and I don't know what it is. There has to be a reason for the rabid defense of government schools and the hysterical opposition to vouchers.

For 'education' substitute 'indoctrination' and I think you'll get the idea....

[!Fluffy!]

For 'education' substitute 'indoctrination' and I think you'll get the idea....

True, they excel at that...




and we just keep letting it happen. And paying for it.

[The Moonshield]

Some links to anti-voucher articles:

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/nov96/molnar.html

http://www.weac.org/resource/may96/vouchers.htm

http://www.adl.org/vouchers/vouchers_main.asp

I haven't really studied this issue enough to have much of an opinion as of yet, so I hope this won't be seen as an argument via weblink, as I'm not really arguing against vouchers. I do think that some points in these articles are worth considering, however.


For 'education' substitute 'indoctrination' and I think you'll get the idea....

AFAICS, the godless folk who wish to indoctrinate others don't get to do that very well in public schools. A teacher can't tell their students that Yahweh/Allah/Chrishna/(insert other religious deity here) does not exist, that the Bible/Qur'an/Book of Mormon/(insert other religious text here) is full of contradictions/absurdities, that spirits/angels/demons/(insert other supernatural beings here) do not exist, that there is no afterlife of any sort, ect.

If you're one of those people who thinks that the teaching of evolution or the big bang is a form of indoctrination and/or that the teaching of these theories constitutes teaching students ideals/values/beliefs that are pro-atheism/Materialism/secularism and anti-theist/Christian, then please don't try and place all the blame on secularlists for this indoctrination. The teaching of these theories is done by many people of varying beliefs, not just "secularists" and the like, and thus if there is any indoctrinating going on, the secularists can hardly be blamed by themselves; Christians and other theists, like my friends biology teacher who is and was a Christian, who teach their students about the theory of evolution and the like are to blame as well.

Please check the rules for each forum befoe posting. This is a Christian only forum. Thanks.

[Ryokan]

Here is a summary of the voucher program:
"Allow students to each carry a voucher for funding to whatever school they wish to attend so that schools and philosophies of education are allowed to compete."
This I support so long as the private schools have to meet certain standards and criteria that accept vouchers. But I think you will see that philosphies or world views, but rather incomes, parental background, personal talent and motivation make the difference.

[James Peter]

Um, we've had one of ther finest education systems in the world in years past without the national control you suggest. It hardly seems essencial. Not that it matters, since the Fed government does play a huge role in setting educational standards now.

Local districts do not set standards. That's done at the state and national level. Funding is tied to standards - incidentaly, this is how "No Child Left Behind" was implimented and every other national education policy as well.

Sorry but things like the whole 'Intelligent Design' fiasco and the control over textbooks certainly seem to be 'setting standards' to me.

Voucher schemes have been advocated over here before but ultimately what they amount to seems to be is to support the middle class who are mobile enough to take advantage of them whilst causing a greater divide with those who are too poor to do anything except go to their local school. Ultimately the choice is to try and introduce a common (and high) standard or to create a system where there is a whole spectrum of standards. Sure, eventually the worst schools might go out of business but under the first model you can just close schools that consistently fail anyway.

[Teallaura]

Sorry but things like the whole 'Intelligent Design' fiasco and the control over textbooks certainly seem to be 'setting standards' to me.

Voucher schemes have been advocated over here before but ultimately what they amount to seems to be is to support the middle class who are mobile enough to take advantage of them whilst causing a greater divide with those who are too poor to do anything except go to their local school. Ultimately the choice is to try and introduce a common (and high) standard or to create a system where there is a whole spectrum of standards. Sure, eventually the worst schools might go out of business but under the first model you can just close schools that consistently fail anyway.

Then you know very little about how the system actually runs - pity that.

Vouchers allow the poorest students access to schools they could never have gotten to otherwise - you really don't know much about how this is supposed to work, do you? A school voucher lets any student choose any school - not just having to go to the failing school down the street. It actually has a lot in common with the ideology behind the Brown v Board of Education suit (as differed from the decision) - that all students should have a real choice in which school they attend.

You'd make a better point if you weren't so obviously more interested in furthering an ideology - and were more knowledgable about how these things actually work (or are designed). At present, you made MG's point.




And Ry - standards wouldn't change (other than hopefully improve) and vouchers would not be honored for unaccredited schools - no one proposed that they should be.

[Gromit45]

Do you think public schools are a viable option for your children? a national disgrace? hostile to Christianity?

Should Christians support government education?


Public schools are perhaps the worst possible option for a Christian's children.

To send one's child for 6 hours a day for 5 days a week to be taught ideas antithetical to the Christian life cannot be reasonably justified.

A child cannot be a "missionary" to the public school, the child is the PARENT's mission field. That mission is greatly compromised by the public school system.

[James Peter]

Then you know very little about how the system actually runs - pity that.

Well, I think it is excusable that I am not intimately aware of the details of the US education system. I know the UK system inside out and so much of what I say is based on the assumption that there are reasonable parallels between the two.


Vouchers allow the poorest students access to schools they could never have gotten to otherwise - you really don't know much about how this is supposed to work, do you? A school voucher lets any student choose any school - not just having to go to the failing school down the street. It actually has a lot in common with the ideology behind the Brown v Board of Education suit (as differed from the decision) - that all students should have a real choice in which school they attend.

That is the principle but in practice I would be surprised if it actually worked like that. Certain social groups are not inclined to travel large distances to other schools, or don't really have the ability to do so. And unless the quality of all schools are increased there will still remain 'bad' ones and who is more likely to end up at them? The kids of the affluent middle class or of the poorer working class (or unemployed)? Whilst the theory of allowing anybody to go to any school is good it just isn't practical unless you have infinite places at all schools. So what do you do? You try to make all schools be of uniform quality so that it doesn't matter which school you go to.


You'd make a better point if you weren't so obviously more interested in furthering an ideology - and were more knowledgable about how these things actually work (or are designed). At present, you made MG's point.


The only ideology I intend to further is the belief that children should receive the best education possible and that they should not be disadvantaged by the religious beliefs of their parents - because those choices will effect them for all of their lives. Of course morality should not be dictated but in subjects like science and history certain standards (and curriculum) should be expected. The question is what comes first, the right of the parent or the right of the child? I put the right of the child to receive a good education above the right of the parent to indoctrinate their child into their religion. Whilst that is partially an attack on certain christian groups the fact is that without that principle nothing stops extremist (but legal) cults from doing the same. What would you prefer? Segregated Islmaic schools which raise up a generation of muslims who are not integrated with society at large and who are not taught how to question the beliefs of their parents or to teach the children to be part of a multicultural society and to make choices for themselves? We actually have Islamic 'faith schools' over here and I'm not at all a fan of them, but if christian 'faith schools' are allowed then on what grounds can we oppose other 'faith schools'?

[Teallaura]

Well, I think it is excusable that I am not intimately aware of the details of the US education system. I know the UK system inside out and so much of what I say is based on the assumption that there are reasonable parallels between the two.If your assumption is false - as your intial one was - then the likelihood is your conclusion will be false as well. American school systems simply don't work the way you thought. Worse, much of what you have prescribed thus far is already in effect - and does not work.

If you are gonna make recommendations, doncha think ya oughta know what's already being done?




That is the principle but in practice I would be surprised if it actually worked like that.It has in the past. Why wouldn't it necessarily work now?


Certain social groups are not inclined to travel large distances to other schools, or don't really have the ability to do so. You'd be amazed what people will do when they want something bad enough - and you're again working under a false assumption. We have these things called buses and many, if not most, students do not live in close proximity to their schools now (there's that whole integration thing to deal with there). I don't think we have to do away with buses - if churches can manage them (and they do) then more independent schools can as well.


And unless the quality of all schools are increased there will still remain 'bad' ones and who is more likely to end up at them? Ya do know that this program isn't in a vacuum, right? The schools still need to maintain their accreditation. Nothing prevents the state from shutting the worst schools down - which they should in some cases.


The kids of the affluent middle class or of the poorer working class (or unemployed)? No, but who says we have to leave the worst schools open?


Whilst the theory of allowing anybody to go to any school is good it just isn't practical unless you have infinite places at all schools. Rethink this one - were it true we'd need infinite spaces in all schools now. We have only a finite number of students.


So what do you do? You try to make all schools be of uniform quality so that it doesn't matter which school you go to.We do this now - it's called accreditation. Schools all have to meet certain standards, whether they are public or private, and no one is proposing otherwise.

It ain't working, judging from the test scores...




The only ideology I intend to further is the belief that children should receive the best education possible and that they should not be disadvantaged by the religious beliefs of their parents - because those choices will effect them for all of their lives.So they should be disadvantaged by your beliefs instead? Your proposals to date are in effect now and are not getting the job done. Your lack of knowledge as to how the system works is crippling your ability to make an effective case.


Of course morality should not be dictated but in subjects like science and history certain standards (and curriculum) should be expected. They are - here's where your ideology is showing. No one proposes not teaching evolution in schools, but to allow counter arguments to be brought up. Critical thinking depends on learning to differentiate between differing views - which is part of why challenges are made. (That and the fact that schools still use totally crappy textbooks... Yup, you still find 'primordial soup' being taught, no matter that it's long since been discredited. A little more critical thinking might be helpful in text selection as well - talk to the state boards about that).



The question is what comes first, the right of the parent or the right of the child? I put the right of the child to receive a good education above the right of the parent to indoctrinate their child into their religion. So, kids don't have the right not to be indoctrinated into secularism? :hrm:

Dude, you just threw out your entire thesis! This isn't about the best quality education, but the teaching of your own worldview. If you think you have the right to impose that on kids, how are you any better than the parents you are railing against?


Whilst that is partially an attack on certain christian groups the fact is that without that principle nothing stops extremist (but legal) cults from doing the same. Yup, no ideology here... <- note dripping sarcasm.


What would you prefer? Segregated Islmaic schools which raise up a generation of muslims who are not integrated with society at large and who are not taught how to question the beliefs of their parents or to teach the children to be part of a multicultural society and to make choices for themselves?
Okay, you are now totally off the deep end - we have private Islamic schools now. They want their kids taught about their religion/heritage there's no prob as long as they meet the academic standards for accreditation and the kids don't all become little terrorists. In our pervasive culture, that would be pretty danged hard to achieve.



We actually have Islamic 'faith schools' over here and I'm not at all a fan of them, but if christian 'faith schools' are allowed then on what grounds can we oppose other 'faith schools'?Are you normally this much of a hypocrite? Why, if one is already allowed, shouldn't the other be - other than your obvious personal bias against anything religious, I mean. (You're a Christian, but you seem to hate people who are different in their approach to their faith - how's that work?)

Be that as it may (the UK having just lost an incredible amount of credibility as a role model here), we've had private and public schools of that ilk for two hundred years! Only in the last five decades - not totally coincidental to the removal of much of Christian influence in the public schools - have we seen any serious decline in school performance.

Private schools often (not always) out perform public schools here - and many (probably most) are religious in some fashion. Our best colleges were founded and, until the last few decades, run on religious ideals and principals. I believe more than a few English colleges were as well, Oxford coming immediately to mind. (Ya do know that much of the education emphasis arose over the centuries because of religion, specifically Christianity, right? That happened well before education had any real connection to livelihood. That whole 'reading the Scriptures yourself' thing had something to do with it.) This notion you seem to have that religion somehow destroys education is just pure poppycock.

[!Fluffy!]

If your assumption is false - as your intial one was - then the likelihood is your conclusion will be false as well. American school systems simply don't work the way you thought. Worse, much of what you have prescribed thus far is already in effect - and does not work.

If you are gonna make recommendations, doncha think ya oughta know what's already being done?



It has in the past. Why wouldn't it necessarily work now?

You'd be amazed what people will do when they want something bad enough - and you're again working under a false assumption. We have these things called buses and many, if not most, students do not live in close proximity to their schools now (there's that whole integration thing to deal with there). I don't think we have to do away with buses - if churches can manage them (and they do) then more independent schools can as well.

Ya do know that this program isn't in a vacuum, right? The schools still need to maintain their accreditation. Nothing prevents the state from shutting the worst schools down - which they should in some cases.

No, but who says we have to leave the worst schools open?

Rethink this one - were it true we'd need infinite spaces in all schools now. We have only a finite number of students.

We do this now - it's called accreditation. Schools all have to meet certain standards, whether they are public or private, and no one is proposing otherwise.

It ain't working, judging from the test scores...



So they should be disadvantaged by your beliefs instead? Your proposals to date are in effect now and are not getting the job done. Your lack of knowledge as to how the system works is crippling your ability to make an effective case.

They are - here's where your ideology is showing. No one proposes not teaching evolution in schools, but to allow counter arguments to be brought up. Critical thinking depends on learning to differentiate between differing views - which is part of why challenges are made. (That and the fact that schools still use totally crappy textbooks... Yup, you still find 'primordial soup' being taught, no matter that it's long since been discredited. A little more critical thinking might be helpful in text selection as well - talk to the state boards about that).


So, kids don't have the right not to be indoctrinated into secularism? :hrm:

Dude, you just threw out your entire thesis! This isn't about the best quality education, but the teaching of your own worldview. If you think you have the right to impose that on kids, how are you any better than the parents you are railing against?

Yup, no ideology here... <- note dripping sarcasm.


Okay, you are now totally off the deep end - we have private Islamic schools now. They want their kids taught about their religion/heritage there's no prob as long as they meet the academic standards for accreditation and the kids don't all become little terrorists. In our pervasive culture, that would be pretty danged hard to achieve.


Are you normally this much of a hypocrite? Why, if one is already allowed, shouldn't the other be - other than your obvious personal bias against anything religious, I mean. (You're a Christian, but you seem to hate people who are different in their approach to their faith - how's that work?)

Be that as it may (the UK having just lost an incredible amount of credibility as a role model here), we've had private and public schools of that ilk for two hundred years! Only in the last five decades - not totally coincidental to the removal of much of Christian influence in the public schools - have we seen any serious decline in school performance.

Private schools often (not always) out perform public schools here - and many (probably most) are religious in some fashion. Our best colleges were founded and, until the last few decades, run on religious ideals and principals. I believe more than a few English colleges were as well, Oxford coming immediately to mind. (Ya do know that much of the education emphasis arose over the centuries because of religion, specifically Christianity, right? That happened well before education had any real connection to livelihood. That whole 'reading the Scriptures yourself' thing had something to do with it.) This notion you seem to have that religion somehow destroys education is just pure poppycock.


James Peter, I would humbly and respectfully request you go to the OP and read it, specifically the comments in A Nation At Risk and those made by the current Secretary of Education, these conclusions were reached by the creme de la creme of educators in this country about the system they are administering.


If you have further information that would disprove their conclusions, please cite them.


Pearls to you Teallaura for an excellent response.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Which would make sense if the public schools weren't performing as badly as they are.

I mean if the holy grail of secularists is education, wouldn't it be in their best interests to insure every child in government schools had an excellent education? Or that the dropout rate wasn't so high? (The New York state schools stated their goal for graduating students is now 55%).

I'm missing something and I don't know what it is. There has to be a reason for the rabid defense of government schools and the hysterical opposition to vouchers.

I have to admit, that is quite an objection; however, secularist's capacity for faith exceeds that of mine own. I think for the secularist the failures of the public school system are because, darn it, Christians just haven't gotten far enough outta the way.

In fact, if I recall correctly we had an atheist here accuse Christains of being the problem with the current school system and the reason our country was falling behind. Apparently the rise of the ID movement is to blame despite the fact ID isn't taught in public schools!

You'll never see these guys give up control willingly - they'd damn the whole nation first.

[!Fluffy!]

I have to admit, that is quite an objection; however, secularist's capacity for faith exceeds that of mine own. I think for the secularist the failures of the public school system are because, darn it, Christians just haven't gotten far enough outta the way.

In fact, if I recall correctly we had an atheist here accuse Christains of being the problem with the current school system and the reason our country was falling behind. Apparently the rise of the ID movement is to blame despite the fact ID isn't taught in public schools!.



Wow, one scary atheist. That's beyond grasping at straws. And according to this person the Jews were to blame for WWII I suppose.



You'll never see these guys give up control willingly - they'd damn the whole nation first

:yes:

Then it is just insanity, because it appears that's exactly what they have done.

Reminds me of that earlier quote:

"If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament."

and I have yet to see one single coherent rebuttal.

[Just Some Dude]

I hate to revive a dead topic, but I had a few thoughts to throw in.

I was thinking of the problem that schools need to set high standards of education (and certain ideological groups, the easiest being the Flat Earth Society, do lower these standards because of their ideology) and that government is the only one with enough power to set up nation-wide schools of high calibur to educate everyone. Yet, at the same time, these schools can't remain neutral, there will be some ideology that the education supports. They can't play devil's advocate all day. If religion is thrown out without a second thought, a secular mindset and education is most certain to fill in the power vaccuum (by secularist, I don't mean atheist; I simply mean looking at everything from a spiritually-disconnected PoV, like looking at the Cistine Chapel ceiling and calling it a beautiful piece of art while missing the fact that someone tried to portray God in the image of man, and did a rather pitiful job at that).

So, why not just extend the "freedom of religion" clause to education as well? Each public school can decide which ideology it wants integrated into its education (because, and I cannot emphasize this point enough, there's no way one can actually have a neutral education, since an entire school cannot play devil's advocate forever or be forced to), so long as that ideology does not compromise the high standards of education set by the government (please, no pot shots at the American government right now). This, of course, means that the Flat Earth Society cannot have a public school since their ideology severely compromises the standards in science. Obviously, this would mean that the creation v. evolution debate would become even hotter, but that's a different discussion and not for this thread.

The first problem I can think of with this plan is that the poor people will very likely not have access to all schools and may be limited in the ideologies they can choose. Which means that in order for this plan to succeed, the government will have to do school vouchers or something else that insures that all parents, no matter their social status or financial state, can have a ideology of their choosing in education. This is probably the biggest problem with the idea, as it will be extremely difficult to make sure every parent can get their child the desired, high standard education. I personally think it's worth overcoming such a hurdle (although I haven't fully thought out any solutions to this problem yet, so I'm not going to post my unrefined thoughts on the subject matter), as it extends the "freedom of religion" clause even further (which helps keeps everything peaceful), would be a very pervasive and effective counter to the overly-secular mindset of too many people, and keeps high educational standards for everyone.

I can't think of any other strengths or weaknesses that need to be addressed right now, so I think I'll end this post. Again, sorry for bumping this dead topic.

[Nordic Kid]

Bingo. If a kid doesn't want to learn- that is, if he has grown up in an environment unfriendly to learning- you can NOT make that child want to learn. The question then is, what are ya gonna do with 'em? And on that, I don't have the slightest idea.

[Conductor42]

It would depend on where I live.

If I one day decide to marry, I'll likely do a mixture of homeschooling and public schools. The kids have got to have proper education, but they've also got to be exposed to the world - sheilding them from those ideologies will only make problems worse. To truly stand on a firm foundation, you've got to understand your POV - and you've also got to understand where they are coming from. That is the basis for all constructive communication.

I've noticed one thing that is constant - parents who let the school system do all of their education, no matter what, do not prepare their children adequetly. Public schooling can be a benefit for many people, but it cannot replace the foundation of a home.

Too many people rely on schools because they have let their home lives go to heck - and this happens in people of all political spectrums.

[Gromit45]

The kids have got to have proper education, but they've also got to be exposed to the world - sheilding them from those ideologies will only make problems worse.

One can be a homeschooler and still expose your kids to different ideologies. Homeschooling isn't about shielding your child. It's about trying to make an environment most conducive to learning.

[Storico]

I plan on sending my kids to a public school. I want them to experience the diversity and the multiculturalism and the differing points of view that only really come when kids are in constant interaction with those of their own age. As much as I'd be willing to teach them at home, and expose them to differing ideas there, I know nothing can quite replace the experience kids get just going to school and making their own friends and making their own decisions. At the same time, I myself grew up in a family that loved learning. My home was always full of paper to write or draw on, books to read, games to try, things to prompt imagination. Trips to the library were a constant -- in fact, whenever I mouthed off or was a total brat, sending me to my room never worked. Too many books there. :hehe: Sitting me in a corner didn't do anything, either... I'd just make up an imaginary story and repeat it to myself. Only the threat of "NO LIBRARY FOR TWO WHOLE WEEKS" did it. :tongue:

That's how I want to raise my kids. With others of their own age, while I give them a love of learning and reading and asking questions at home to start them off. The values parents teach their kids at home can't be replaced in a classroom, and parents shouldn't expect teachers to provide a moral foundation for their kids. It's not a teacher's job. A teacher's job is to give kids good, solid information, to answer their academic questions, to keep them safe in the classroom, and maybe to occasionally bring up moral issues -- classroom rules about being kind, or ethical situations with teenagers that ask "what would YOU do if..." -- but at that point, kids need to have learned those ethics somewhere. I'd sooner it be my home, or in a family member's home. I want my kids to one day grow up very much the same way I did... minus a few major events... but essentially with the same positive attitude to learning and the same knowledge that they're loved.

The other issue for me is a practical one -- most parents can't afford to stay home and homeschool their kids. If they can, wonderful. And in all likelihood, I'll even be fully qualified to do it in a few years... but I'll probably be working outside the home in a learning environment of some sort, making a salary. I've talked to homeschooled kids, though, who said they enjoyed the experience for elementary, but admitted that they were very happy to meet peers their own age in a public highschool.

[Conductor42]

One can be a homeschooler and still expose your kids to different ideologies. Homeschooling isn't about shielding your child. It's about trying to make an environment most conducive to learning.

I agree. Unfortunately, at least in my community, a lot of parents who went the homeschool route when I was a child went too far in their reaction to our failed education system, and ended up raising the child in a box, if you know what i mean.

[Just Some Dude]

IIRC (If I remember correctly), that's how homeschooling parents tend to be all over these United States. That's how my homeschooling experience has gone as well. Homeschooling went well in some ways (the biggest one being that I could move faster in homeschooling than I could in normal schooling), but it has it's flaws (no natural experience whatsoever with other ideologies, plus expenses). Doing both public schooling and homeschooling sounds interesting, although you'll definetly need to balance it well so you only get the good from both and none of the bad. One of the homeschooling pros I pointed out was being able to move at a comfortable pace (for me, faster than most other kids; for others, slower) for learning, and I imagine it'd be quite a challenging being able to get that into a home/public schooling hybrid.

And I most certainly agree that public schooling and the like are there purely academical foundations, although I think I fully extrapolated on that earlier.

[Gromit45]

Hello Storico,


I plan on sending my kids to a public school. I want them to experience the diversity and the multiculturalism and the differing points of view that only really come when kids are in constant interaction with those of their own age.

Where is the diversity of a child stuck in a room for six hours with kids all the SAME age?
One cool thing about homeschool is you can introduce your kids to *all* ages whenever.


As much as I'd be willing to teach them at home, and expose them to differing ideas there, I know nothing can quite replace the experience kids get just going to school and making their own friends and making their own decisions.

How much time are willing to take to "unlearn" what is antithetical to your worldview?



The values parents teach their kids at home can't be replaced in a classroom, and parents shouldn't expect teachers to provide a moral foundation for their kids. It's not a teacher's job.

There is no such thing as moral neutrality. Teachers are not morally neutral.



The other issue for me is a practical one -- most parents can't afford to stay home and homeschool their kids.

Yes, there ARE some instances where both parents must work but many people are simply unwilling to cut back on their lifestyle. When one has children, the children must become priority and NOT the parents. Too many parents want to stay #1.



...'ll probably be working outside the home in a learning environment of some sort, making a salary.

So the daycare will raise your child? The ultimate reason to have children is to be a parent and not let daycare and public school try to be a parent.


'Ive talked to homeschooled kids, though, who said they enjoyed the experience for elementary, but admitted that they were very happy to meet peers their own age in a public highschool.

I would have hoped the kids would have meant high schoolers long before they were that age.:wink:

[Storico]

Hello Storico,

:hi: Gromit. Love the avatar. :hehe:


Where is the diversity of a child stuck in a room for six hours with kids all the SAME age?
One cool thing about homeschool is you can introduce your kids to *all* ages whenever.

That would be the cool thing about homeschool, yeah. Public school doesn't really limit kids to JUST the absolute SAME age, though... at recess, kids can play with just about anyone they'd like to. Kids tend to develop kid friends closer to their own age while they're young, because of the maturity gap. A grade three student, for example, wouldn't have much in common with a kindergarten student or with a sixth grade student. Getting away from making friends with JUST kids, though... I was introduced to several people of all ages when I was a child. I think most kids have family friends and grandparents and neighbors whether they're home-schooled or public schooled. I just remember growing up with friends of all ages, and I was public schooled. :smile:



How much time are willing to take to "unlearn" what is antithetical to your worldview?

Depends on what my worldview is, and on what my kids are being taught. I believe that if Christianity's true, and if we let kids and teens explore that for themselves alongside members of their families, then there's nothing to be afraid of, by exposing them to people from other religions and nonreligions. That's just reality. Adults go out into the workforce every day and face ideas that are 'antithetical to their worldview', and they have to think about those ideas and examine their own. Teaching our kids how to be good critical thinkers early on is good, I think. :thumb: That goes for science, or religion, or politics, or social values. Religion totally aside (since a worldview's so much more than that)... I suspect the way we (my spouse and I) view certain issues will be clearly communicated to our kids from the get-go. I plan on being consistent, as consistent as possible. I want to show them to love one another, to help others, to have compassion for those in need. I plan on taking them to help out in places of need in our community.. taking them to libraries... museums... science centers... you name it. My "worldview" will be one my kids will always understand very well.



There is no such thing as moral neutrality. Teachers are not morally neutral.

I don't expect teachers to be without morals or to be morally neutral. (After all, I'm aiming to be one myself, and I have morals.) I expect my kids' teachers will share their ideas and positions with them. What I don't expect is for my kids' teachers to give my kids a sufficient moral background according to my family's moral standards. You and I agree on this, I think. Generally, teachers want what's best for kids. There are guidelines, and teachers don't tend to overstep their bounds, at least at an elementary school level. Secular teaching isn't to be feared. Teachers don't automatically have to be 'looked out for'. There's only so much of a moral lesson my child's math or french teacher will be able to pull into the lesson, though. Mostly, I'd like my child to be able to come home and say "I learned this" and that way, we can discuss it.



Yes, there ARE some instances where both parents must work but many people are simply unwilling to cut back on their lifestyle. When one has children, the children must become priority and NOT the parents. Too many parents want to stay #1.

Granted. For what it's worth, though, as far as I know, I'll need to work. It won't be an "I'm unwilling to cut back on my lifestyle" thing. If you're raised blue collar and you marry blue collar, you tend to stay in the workforce. There's nothing wrong with that. You can show your kids plenty of love, no matter what. :smile: I never felt like I wasn't a priority, growing up. My own parents worked different shifts. When they both worked at the same time, I loved spending the day with grandparents.



So the daycare will raise your child? The ultimate reason to have children is to be a parent and not let daycare and public school try to be a parent.

Well, I totally agree with you. I'd never expect an institution to raise my kids. That's my job. I don't believe I said a daycare would raise my child, though. :wink: I said I'd be working. In the same post, though, I was talking about school aged children. I'm hoping there won't be a reason to send my 6 year old to a daycare. I'm looking forward to staying home with my child while they're very young, if I can do it financially. Most workplaces, no matter who they are, give mat leave and I'm taking that no matter what -- even if a couple adopts, they are still entitled to mat or pat leave. At the same time, kids need to understand that although their welfare comes first, mommy and/or daddy going to work means that they are being looked after in ways they may not understand yet -- food, shelter, clothing. There'll never be a time when my kid will be left alone with a stranger all day, though. If I ever need to find a babysitter, that still doesn't equate to them 'raising my child'. Right? Right.



I would have hoped the kids would have meant high schoolers long before they were that age.:wink:

:tongue:

Several people have told me that, on starting highschool, they were overwhelmed in a GOOD way by the many, many different kids there. More room for interaction than their parents could have planned. They went from a group of knowing 10 or 15 people from a sunday school group to suddenly meeting hundreds.

[Gromit45]

That would be the cool thing about homeschool, yeah. Public school doesn't really limit kids to JUST the absolute SAME age, though... at recess, kids can play with just about anyone they'd like to. Kids tend to develop kid friends closer to their own age while they're young, because of the maturity gap. A grade three student, for example, wouldn't have much in common with a kindergarten student or with a sixth grade student. Getting away from making friends with JUST kids, though... I was introduced to several people of all ages when I was a child. I think most kids have family friends and grandparents and neighbors whether they're home-schooled or public schooled. I just remember growing up with friends of all ages, and I was public schooled.

Depends on what my worldview is, and on what my kids are being taught. I believe that if Christianity's true, and if we let kids and teens explore that for themselves alongside members of their families, then there's nothing to be afraid of, by exposing them to people from other religions and nonreligions. That's just reality. Adults go out into the workforce every day and face ideas that are 'antithetical to their worldview', and they have to think about those ideas and examine their own. Teaching our kids how to be good critical thinkers early on is good, I think. That goes for science, or religion, or politics, or social values. Religion totally aside (since a worldview's so much more than that)... I suspect the way we (my spouse and I) view certain issues will be clearly communicated to our kids from the get-go. I plan on being consistent, as consistent as possible. I want to show them to love one another, to help others, to have compassion for those in need. I plan on taking them to help out in places of need in our community.. taking them to libraries... museums... science centers... you name it. My "worldview" will be one my kids will always understand very well.

I am glad your public school experience was so excellent.


... There are guidelines, and teachers don't tend to overstep their bounds, at least at an elementary school level...

Elementary teachers can easily overstep "bounds". Kids that age don't know any better and just take in what is rec'd.

The teacher is a HUGE difference. One family loved their son's teacher one year and wouldn't consider homeschooling, but the next year they didn't like the teacher and are now strongly considering it. The odds of getting good teachers *every* year in pretty large.




No, there is nothing wrong with working. However, if your conviction to teach your kids is strong enough then it will override the "need" to work

Again, I qualify that I recognize it *is* a necessity for some parents that both work.

[quote]Several people have told me that, on starting highschool, they were overwhelmed in a GOOD way by the many, many different kids there. More room for interaction than their parents could have planned. They went from a group of knowing 10 or 15 people from a sunday school group to suddenly meeting hundreds.

Um...I was trying to make a joke. A lame one, but an (alleged) joke all the same. An earlier statement could be purposely misread to think your kid wouldn't even MEET a high school until s/he was a high schooler him/herself.

[Conductor42]

What they did is they sent their kids to public schools for things like ochrestra claasses, and a few other non-essential classes. That way, they still had a wide range of exposure, yet when it came to the most important things - the parents had control.


IIRC (If I remember correctly), that's how homeschooling parents tend to be all over these United States. That's how my homeschooling experience has gone as well. Homeschooling went well in some ways (the biggest one being that I could move faster in homeschooling than I could in normal schooling), but it has it's flaws (no natural experience whatsoever with other ideologies, plus expenses). Doing both public schooling and homeschooling sounds interesting, although you'll definetly need to balance it well so you only get the good from both and none of the bad. One of the homeschooling pros I pointed out was being able to move at a comfortable pace (for me, faster than most other kids; for others, slower) for learning, and I imagine it'd be quite a challenging being able to get that into a home/public schooling hybrid.

And I most certainly agree that public schooling and the like are there purely academical foundations, although I think I fully extrapolated on that earlier.

[Teallaura]

Y'all do know that homeschooled kids have equal access rights to extra-curricular public school activities, right? They can play on the softball team, et al (assuming they meet the same requirements of course).

[Tfbandie]

I've noticed one thing that is constant - parents who let the school system do all of their education, no matter what, do not prepare their children adequetly. Public schooling can be a benefit for many people, but it cannot replace the foundation of a home.

Too many people rely on schools because they have let their home lives go to heck - and this happens in people of all political spectrums.


I wanted to highlight this statement as it is one that has been shown in many varied studies. Parent support and views of education is the largest factor in a child's success academically in any setting. A parent who complains frequently about public education but who still sends their kids there, can poison the student's attitude towards school. If a child is taught that education is the most important (along with faith and family) thing in life, they will succeed regardless of school environment.

But as family structures have collapsed the school has become a place that people use to try to replace the family that some kids don't get, programs such as free breakfast and lunch, as well as counseling services, behavioral specialists for example. It also extends into the classroom, as the teacher's role has expanded to include that of mentor, counselor, and in many cases parent figures.

On the other end of the spectrum, a growing societal trend of "lake woebegone" middle class has taken hold, wherein people feel entitled to things they have not earned. Students who have been given everything in life, come in and feel entitled to things such as making honor role or getting into a top university. And parents are encouraging it. Parents call teachers to complain that "Little Johnny needs an 80 instead of a 78 so that he can get into X college". Unfortunately little johnny has a 78 and not an 80. But that is a point lost on many students and their parents. This phenomenon is even extending into the university level, and there is growing documentation of it occuring in the job market (parents calling employers after an interview to complain that son/daughter didn't get a job and want to know why and even going into the interview room with the child)

And these extremes effect the system, which, I believe, is already the most diverse in the world. This is another fact lost on many people. The US public education system must accept everyone. Most other countries do not, denying education to those with retardation for example. This is a significant skew in data in many comparisons. While most countries strive for Excellance in education, the US must strive for both Excellance and Equity.

With all that said, theoretically, home schooling is the best option for education a single child, granting that the parents have the background/resources. But I would venture that a majority of parents are not in that position. So for the totality of all US children it is not the best option.

My plea for those who choose homeschooling. Do so on the merits of homeschooling, there are many virtues, and promote the good of homeschooling. But don't promote homeschooling by denigrating the public education system. We need a society which values education overall in every form. The more we promote education as a whole in every facet the better education will become.

[Gromit45]

My plea for those who choose homeschooling. Do so on the merits of homeschooling, there are many virtues, and promote the good of homeschooling. But don't promote homeschooling by denigrating the public education system. We need a society which values education overall in every form. The more we promote education as a whole in every facet the better education will become.


I can understand your wish for "unity" and "peace" between the sides, but I also think it is a disservice for homeschoolers not to speak up (denigrate) about the failures and impropriety of government run schools. There are legitimate concerns about those schools that drive parents to homeschool.

[Storico]

Guys, I just wanted to say this. My own public school experience wasn't wonderful. It wasn't outstanding. In fact, I'm not certain I'd like to repeat it. All the same, I never had an issue with the education itself. I had what you'd call "social problems" as a child. I made friends, but I was shy and there were family issues that made me keep very much to myself at times. But what I recall most, out of all of it, were two utterly wonderful teachers that helped me more than words can say. They inspired me. My 7th and 8th grade teachers. I'll never forget them. If I see them in person, I'll make a point of thanking them.

There are excellent reasons to homeschool kids. If your public school system offers really unfocused education, if your system has problems with gangs or drugs or simply teachers who just don't care, than I can absolutely see why parents would RUN at homeschooling their kids. And please don't misunderstand me... I don't mean to mock the USA when I say this, but it seems like a lot less Canadians I know did homeschool, while a lot more Americans did/want to. The school system here, in more cases than not, seems to have it's act together. Not in all cases. There are many "problem schools", but the desire to homeschool here seems to be lessened a little. At least in Ontario. :shrug:

I have friends who WERE homeschooled, though, and they did enjoy it. They learned just as effectively as any child who would have went through the public or Catholic system. Others aren't as fortunate to have such thorough parents. I know of one guy who was homeschooled but wasn't taught math at all -- his mother didn't like it, so she just decided to avoid it entirely. That is, of course, sloppy to say the least. Still, the few I know who've been homeschooled seem to have enjoyed it. They were happy to get to highschool with more peers around them, though.

Homeschool wouldn't have worked for me. My family's situation wouldn't have allowed for it. Whether or not it would work for my kids remains to be seen. Although I PLAN on sending my kids either to a public or Catholic school, given the circumstances of my being suddenly able to stay home with them (and that WOULD be a VERY pleasant surprise), I'd do it.

[Tfbandie]

I can understand your wish for "unity" and "peace" between the sides, but I also think it is a disservice for homeschoolers not to speak up (denigrate) about the failures and impropriety of government run schools. There are legitimate concerns about those schools that drive parents to homeschool.

The problem is that they are not legitimate concerns. There are individual, failing school districts, and if you live within one of those districts than certainly fight to improve them and call them where they are wrong. But by and large the majority of schools and school districts are successful. Pointing to national trends for your own homeschooling is a misuse of statitistics. Someone living in my area would be a fool to homeschool a child for the reason of poor schooling.

I also am not seeking unity and peace, what I am saying is that by attacking the entirety of public schools, you exacerbate the variables which negatively effect public schools and all schools as well.