I'm interested in summarizing the conservative approach to education reform. This goal is motivated by the idea of the debate I proposed with the Forvm, but it's also a personal interest of mine, and judging by the response to the education subthread the other day we have a lot of interest and knowledge here to draw upon. I'd like to use this diary to collect information and work through particular arguments, so please jump in to question, correct, or clarify.
Let's start with vouchers (some info here 
-- biased source, obviously). The basic idea is to place some of the per-pupil funding in the hands of parents, allowing them to afford tuition at private schools. The consequence is to drain funding from public schools, particularly those performing poorly, and to also drain resources such as parental involvement. Those students who switch generally do somewhat better in their new school. The argument is that the students left behind also benefit because the loss of funding will motivate improvement in the public school. One other point to consider: as with health insurance, not everyone costs the same amount, and so moving the lower-cost students out of the public system has a non-proportional impact upon education cost.
Another topic is so-called high-stakes testing. I'm going to broadly define this to include requiring students to pass certain tests in order to graduate, or conditioning school funding upon test scores. The tests provide an objective method of assessing student learning and determining which schools are succeeding (see here 
, but note this author is also referenced in voucher link). This topic inevitably bleeds over into a discussion of curriculum: balancing "teaching to the test" with ensuring that all students master core concepts. The argument is that high-stakes testing promotes achievement by providing meaningful incentives (similar to the reasoning behind vouchers). The federalization implicit in high-stakes testing isn't particularly conservative, but the political split does seem to usually leave liberals opposed and conservatives in favor of high-stakes testing.
The final topic that I'm interested in exploring is discipline in schools. As I cover here 
, at the same time as schools are moving away from corporal punishment they are relying more heavily upon police to enforce discipline; these two trends aren't unrelated, as removing the option of physical intervention from administrators leaves them searching for options to control unruly students. I don't think many people are in favor of corporal punishment anymore, those days are past (and good riddance). However, the debate over how to handle behavior issues remains, with conservatives generally in favor of stricter consequences (zero-tolerance policies, suspension, even arrest) and liberals generally in favor of more flexibility. These are broad stereotypes (and ignore libertarians) but provide a starting point. In the age of school shootings, how do we handle potential threats to the safety of teachers and students?
I realize these are broad topics and don't have simple answers, but I'm hoping to take advantage of the interest and knowledge here and get some information and arguments hammered out. Again, for the purposes of debate I'm interested in the conservative perspective, so feel free to explicitly detail whether your point strengthens or weakens that case, and perhaps to provide a potential antithesis. Also feel free to address different education-related topics if you'd like. Links to reasonably reputable sources also appreciated (but certainly not required for these purposes).
Comments :
Here's one big problem with vouchers
You would suddenly have a bunch of new private schools popping up like mushrooms -- not to educate kids but to cash in on all those vouchers. A lot of these schools would be marginal or even fly-by-night places. Within a few years you'd start seeing newspaper stories about how mismanaged some of them are and how corrupt their owners are. And oversight by the states would be way behind.
It would be a huge, corrupt mess.
qui tacet consentire
Absolutely right
It already happened with charter schools. Minnesota recently capped the number because so many were so poorly run or outright corrupt. I think a better solution is to have more regulation of charter schools, which somewhat contradicts the spirit of forming them in the first place but, human nature being what it is, appears necessary.
There need to be objective standards to judge which schools are legit, which might explain the odd marriage-of-convenience conservatives have set up between high-stakes testing and school choice.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yea that's all America needs.
It's own versions of Madrases.
I never understood vouchers
Why do conservatives like school vouchers.
It is subsidizing a private school---like corporate subsidies.
Anyone is free to put up a private school or even attend one.
So why do you need to subsidize private schools. Why should the taxes I pay be used to subsidize a private school.
I think there should be more magnet /science high schools strategically placed in poorer districts with poor public school system. I think there should also be trade high schools.
I think there should be school uniforms.
What good is testing if the one making the test is the state and it will vary from state to state. So how can you measure that.
There should be something like SAT--which is one federal uniform test for all. And results should be made public for comparison.
Vouchers and Uniforms
In my area, the argument for vouchers / charter schools has been "why should the taxes I pay be used to subsidize a school where children do not learn?" I've not kept up with how well the charter schools are doing overall, but just from random news reports it seems to be doing OK. We've had a few cases of rip-offs and charter school closings, but other charter schools are doing very well and have waiting lists.
Houston ISD is a huge district and they moved to optional uniforms a few years back. It seems to have really worked well, because that's all you see the pre-high school kids in. Parents like it a lot too.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I'm with you here...
I think specialized schools are definitely the way to go because they generally do a good job. I attended a magnet school for high school and did not attend a private school until I got to college. Private schools have a lot more control over who gets in, and require money.
Vouchers may work, but it's just wealth redistribution all over again, which most conservatives are leery of. I'm not sure the government would be good at that.
I would also be in favor of charter schools--sometimes they fail, but there have been some remarkable successes as well. The issue is allowing less centralized control of the school and school boards and the unions, and allowing the power to sit with the principals/individual schools. I think pay-for-performance is also a good idea, and it brings accountability.
On testing, I'm somewhat neutral. We need a way to make suer our children are learning the skills they need to compete with the global economy.
Finally, I think we need less moving parts in schools--I think a two-stage primary-secondary school system is more effective than the 3-stage elementary-middle-high school because every time you move into a different school, there's the whole idea to catch up people to the same level, and valuable time is lost.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I would LOVE to have a voucher system.
But it will soon be of no use to me.
Why do I want one? Because right now I am paying property taxes to educate my neighbor's kid ... which I can't get out of ... and so have to pay for my own son's education completely out of packet (since he attends a private school).
The cronyistic bureaucracy that is the public education system is an abysmal failure. Free market schools where people vote with their $$$ is the only way to drive efficiency into the system.
It is true that charter schools are currently under fire as mentioned elsewhere, however the solution is NOT to do away with them but rather to let the free market work its magic ... which takes time. The schools that are bogus or poor won't be getting they $$$ after a while and those that do well will reap the benefits.
How do we decide which schools are doing well? Objectively via standardized testing.
I don't think that they should. Neither should mine be used to foster a public funded disaster. I don't want any of your tax dollars to help me fund my son's education. Just let me keep MY tax dollars that are sent to the public system so that I can better afford to educate him elsewhere.
I am not asking for YOUR money with vouchers, just to keep MY money.
I don't have a problem with this. In fact I agree with the need AND I would be willing to have some of my taxes go to fund them ... as long as they are run efficiently and are proven to produce well prepared students. The first part is only possible with a free market system, and the second is only possible to assess with standardized testing.
So, you have vouchers and standardized testing ... both of which the conservatives want.
My son's school has them. The (our) public school does not.
State testing is better than no testing. I have no problem with a national test but that will be even harder to get in place. Think baby steps here ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Minor quibble
Assigning you the role of the hypothetical everyman on this, your premise would not be accurate everywhere. For example, in Texas, schools are paid for via property taxes. If our hypothetical everyman rents, he pays no property tax (or at least nothing identifiable as such) and therefore there is no comperable concept of "letting him keep his money"; giving him a voucher would be giving him other people's money.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Good point.
So define the hypothetical voucher system to account for that in some way.
For example, I could also make the case that while he doesn't directly pay property taxes he most certainly is indirectly paying them through his landlord, correct? Part of the income the landlord makes is, in fact, going to pay property taxes under any business model I can think of. So take the property taxes from the rental property and apportion them across how ever many families live there to come up with a $$$ amount for an individual, and if necessary include the landlord in the calculation to determine an amount for them as well.
Alternatively, I am not necessarily against the concept of public funding of primary education. So even if we don't focus on ME saving MY specific tax $$$ amount I am still OK with viewing the whole pot of (educationally allocated) funds as a pool which is divided equally amongst the students which it is meant to cover. The voucher is simply for that amount or some proportion thereof (to account for fixed overhead within the system), and I can spend it wherever I choose (for an appropriately accredited school, obviously, or for home schooling).
From the liberal perspective this has the advantage of completely leveling the playing field for the low income families (they get just as much as the fat cats in the voucher), but it still helps the fat cats if they want to go to a private institution. This is especially true if you aggregate the pool across the entire state so that the rich end up subsidizing the poor (which it might surprise you to know that I am also not against in the case of education). (And no you don't get to whine that the dole out should be progressive since the dole in is already progressive under this scheme by virtue of the amount of property taxes we each pay.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So, if I understand you
So, if I understand you correctly, you now understand the objection that Jasmine raised about not being really keen on the idea of using her taxes to subsidize private schools, and you agree that operationally it would not be just "you getting your taxes back" but that vouchers would indeed involve a sharing of the tax base among public and private schools, using some agreed-upon methodolgy. That means you've updated your position from the original where you said that you did not think that her taxes should be used to fund private schools.
Agreeing upon a methodology is the tricky part, and I would lean to letting the states decide if and how they want to handle something like this, because each state's tax process is different.
But if you're going to divy up the pie, can I get a rebate back for not having a child in school and thereby not burdening the system with my offspring? (I wouldn't want to disappoint you by not whining about something. You do brandish a very broad brush, dear GoRight. Are we not individuals to you yet?)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Actually, I haven't changed my position.
My basic position is "I'll pay for my kid, you pay for yours." Hence, my original comment. I don't really care what the rest of you want to do as long as I don't have to pay for MY kid AND your kid (i.e. I don't want to have to pay twice).
The only thing I added was the concept that I don't mind paying into a public pool so that the burden of a good education for the poor can be subsidized, but in this case I expect to get my fair share out of the pool.
If this latter concept seems somehow inequitable for you then drop it and revert back to "I'll pay for MY kid, you pay for YOURS" and I will be just as happy but I suspect the poor might not be.
I'm not sure what broad brush you think I am using here, other than the "everyone deserves a good education ... even the poor" brush. Other than that, I am all for individuals pay as you go.
So, to answer your last question ...
Under an individual pay as you go plan, a rebate doesn't even apply.
Under the public funding (but not necessarily implementation) model, no you don't get a rebate because the pool is being established as a societal obligation. In other words, it is being established because we, as a society, are agreeing that everyone deserves an equal chance at getting a good education. As such it is a burden on all of society.
I have no problem letting the individual states determine how they want to fund the pool. I don't even have a problem, per se, with that mechanism being progressive to some reasonable level. My (possibly confusing) point above is that with property taxes the progressive aspect would be automatic because, presumably, the rich would be paying more property taxes than that poor would. If you prefer an income tax then so be it.
After that, however, each student should be allocated an equal amount of funding from the pool. In this sense yes some people would have their tax dollars going to others ... that's the point of back filling or subsidizing for the poor.
I just wouldn't put any restrictions on the types of schools that you can use the money for. It becomes personal choice at that point by societal agreement (as codified in law).
If I don't get to complain about public money going to abortions, then you don't get to complain about public money going to religious schools. That seems fair to me.
Funny, I would have thought you would have liked me agreeing to a progressive tax to fund education as a means of subsidizing the poor. Why are you attacking me for that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Omigod
Either I am actually being exceptionally unclear, or your sense of humor has gone missing. My mention of a rebate was a joke, man.
I am trying to understand you.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
What if you have 12 children
What if you have 12 children needing vouchers and your neighbor has no children. Then you will be getting other people's money for vouchers which is grossly unfair.
Vouchers are really a bad idea.
Also places w/ very good public schools are those places where property taxes are high because houses are expensive.. Houses are expensive because it is a high demand area because of good public schools( chicken and egg thing).
So if you do not want to pay high property taxes then go to areas where property tax is low and send your children to private schools.
Comments.
Under the current system of public schools, what if I have no children but my neighbor has 12 kids in public school? He is getting my money which is grossly unfair, right?
With a publicly funded system he will be getting my money whether his kids go to public schools or we give him a voucher (for the exact same amount that it would have cost the public school) for each kid and let him send them to a private school.
I, with no kids, pay the exact same amount either way and he gets the exact same monetary benefit (from me) either way. If he prefers to use the voucher to send his kid across town to a private school rather than the public school down the street it costs me exactly the same either way.
I don't think that you really understand how the system works here. The rich people first build nice neighborhoods with really big houses, and as a consequence they have to pay really high property taxes (e.g. the taxes on a $1.5 Million home are going to be higher than the taxes on a $25,000 home).
This generates a large amount of revenue that ends up dumped into the school district that the rich people live in which in turn allows them to hire the best teachers, equipment, and build the best facilities. This in turn creates a really good school that everyone wants their kid to go to.
The problem? The poor people can't afford to move into these areas. It is really hard to move up to a $1.5 Million home from a $25,000 dollar home, much less afford the annual property taxes on the increased value of the home.
So the poor people live in places with $25,000 homes and these, of course, don't generate as much revenue for the schools. As a result those schools tend to lack the resources and facilities that the better schools have, and thus they are considered not as good of a school.
Regardless of whether the prices of the homes are high because they are large or just in demand, either way the poor people are blocked out. Only the rich people can afford them.
Your solution of moving to a place with low property taxes doesn't really work for me (or others like me) because I don't want to live in the neighborhoods with low property taxes (since they tend to be high crime areas with low property values and run down houses). I prefer to live in a nicer neighborhood but still want my kid to get a better education than is offered by our public school. Thus I send my kid to private school.
For the sake of argument, let us say that it takes $1000 per year to educate 1 child in the public school. Everyone pays their taxes and sends their kids to the public school. That means that I am getting, in effect, $1000 in education out of the public system for my 1 child (or $12,000 in education if I have 12 kids in school).
Now lets assume that for whatever reason I decide that I prefer to send my child to a private school which has a tuition of $1200 per student per year.
As it stands now (without vouchers) everyone is still paying the same amount in taxes which means the school is still receiving the $1000 per year to pay for my child whether they attend the public school or not, and I have to pay the $1200 per year out of my pocket for the private school.
With vouchers, however, if I decide to send my kid to a private school that $1000 that was being sent to the public school even though my child never went there now comes to me and I can, in turn, use that $1000 along with only $200 out of pocket to pay the tuition at the private school.
Under the current system the public school gets to keep the $1000 that was collected in taxes to educate my child even if they do not attend that school. To me, this is inherently unfair. My child is not using any resources at the public school so let me use that money to help pay elsewhere if that is my choice.
This is what vouchers solve and they are a very good idea. In the case of people forced to live in poor neighborhoods they can take that $1000 and use it to pay tuition at some private school that is better than the public school where they live. If they find a better school whose tuition is only $1000 per year then, in theory, they would not have to pay any extra but would still get a better education for the money.
Please don't take these examples as being a broad brush denunciation of all public schools. Some public schools are doing a fine job. If you are happy with the public schools where you live then, by all means, send your kids to that school. If, however, you decide that you prefer some place else then you should be able to take the tax dollars which had been collected to educate your child and use them wherever you feel most appropriate.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4To those who have more, more are expected from them
Call it what it is ---tax subsidy for private schools.
Why should private schools deserve govt money.
There are many successful private schools w/out govt subsidy because of their own merit.
You are just sugar coating it as school vouchers---$1000--that only covers 10% of private school tuition therefore no help.
It is govt subsidy and conservatives shd be against any form of tax subsidy.
Sigh.
I would have thought it obvious, but the numbers I was using above are just made up numbers for the sake of discussion. I have not even attempted to provide accurate numbers. Even so, if I could get even 10% of the private tuition paid I would be happy for it. You must be independently wealthy?
OK then, why should I have to pay into the public school at all if I don't make use of its services. Call it what it is, wealth redistribution, petty larceny, thievery. Take your pick.
Hey, I don't need no stinking subsidies. (Apologies to Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles) And I am happy to pay for my kid's education all by myself, obviously, because I already am.
So, since you are so concerned with people having their money used to subsidize others, are you OK with me not having to pay my property taxes (which are used to fund the public schools) as long as I don't make use of the public schools? Because I would be perfectly fine with that deal as well. I mean why should I have to pay into a system that I don't use?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Education
One of the major problems I hear with vouchers is that it is a back door to fund religious education. If parents can use vouchers at any school, public or private, then parents can use this money at say a Catholic high school. Fair? Well, not really as this is public money going to support a religious institution which clearly violates the separation of church and state.
A myth about charter schools is that children excel or do better at these schools. The evidence does not support this assertion
so far. A few qualifiers must be stated here. These comparisons are based on standardized tests in which public schools almost solely focus on now, while the Charter schools often have more creative/alternative teaching methods.
As far as standardized testing (this was going to be the second diary in my education series, but it was the weakest of the three, so I may just drop it now that you brought it up here), our evaluation is based on two separate values: 1) are there certain skills and information we deem as absolutely necessary for our society that we should only focus on this information in order to make an educated populace? or 2) do we wish to instill the ability to adapt knowledge, through creativity and critical thinking skills, to new situations which are not mastered? The first is the equivalent of memorization (tradition) and the second as more of a toolbox for various scenarios (adaptability). I think we can do both obviously, but we often do not (especially at the middle and high school levels).
Now an interesting thing is that conservatives often favor the standardized testing (which is a hallmark for conservative conformity in our society--every citizen should know these certain things--which carries over into other societal/educational things such as English only classes), yet public schools are the only schools that focus on standardized teaching. Conservatives prefer school choice, but charter schools do not focus on standardized testing as much as alternative teaching methods (basically my #2 above). Charter school's focus on creativity also creates an entrepreneurial attitude of focusing on 'out-of-the-box' type solutions to problems, but it also leads to non-conformity.
Liberals, such as my wife, wish to send our kid to a creative charter school (he can already read many words and knows 40+ sign language signs and he is not yet a year and a half so I think he can afford a creative approach since I am not concerned about his ability to learn the basic skills), but she is a big advocate for public schools. We live in a backwards world. Again, I think one of the fears for liberals is the backdoor to religious teaching with total school choice. This ulterior motive shows the man behind the curtain which causes these reversed roles of which ideology favors which type of school (conservative = charter, liberals = public). There are other reasons too, but I think this is one that is seldomly discussed.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Great points
That's a nice take on the contradictions between conformity/innovation and public/charter.
With respect to supporting religious schools, I wanna just head off the inevitable "what's wrong with that" from conservatives and ask how they'd feel about government dollars supporting, say, an extremist Islamic school.
OTOH I know many "religious" schools that are extremely good schools first and religious environments second. I went to a Catholic school for ninth grade as a non-Catholic and the math/English was excellent, and oddly enough religion was my favorite class. But I do recognize the separation of church/state issue here, and as a Christian it wasn't that hard for me to become comfortable with the school whereas it might have been more difficult for someone of another faith.
No easy answers of course... sigh.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Religion is not the only
reason. I think liberals often think vouchers are the first step toward total privatization also.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I think for many conservatives they probably are
just as the partial-birth abortion ban was, for many, a lever to attack Roe. However, that big-picture realization doesn't necessarily make them a bad idea in the short-term. If vouchers help some kids significantly, and have a mildly negative (or maybe even mildly positive, although I personally don't think so) impact on the rest of the students, perhaps that's justification enough. Plenty of time for liberals to address those failings of public education that make vouchers enticing (and yes, I think public education is much better than is generally conceded, but still).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I may be wrong,
but I always thought the opposition to and support for vouchers was always primarily a money issue. Basically (cue Norquist), the people paying the highest in taxes are also the least likely to be sending their children to public school, so in effect it's like paying for double the education costs of your own child. I know in New Orleans there's a strong level of racial animosity added to this, as well: the city public schools are predominantly black, with white private schools sprinkled throughout.* So it's not just that the wealthy are paying twice as much in education costs, but they're doing it to support people that, in the New Orleans case, they'd rather leave to their own devices. The city is not exactly ground zero for racial reconciliation anytime soon.
*(a quick pseudo-defense of some of them: private schools around the country sprung up in opposition to school desegregation, but the New Orleans situation is often the result of religious tradition - for example, my own school is well over a century old, so its founding wasn't tied to segregation issues or race. Its history since then has been, unfortunately.)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
No, you are right
My education series was going to cover 1) Student's rights in the age of school shootings (done), 2) Standardized testing (doubt I will do this one now, as I addressed most of my points briefly below), and 3) the stratification of the educational system (still plan to complete).
You touch on an important point: the alternative education of the rich. The racial component is sad. Basically, the rich are saying they should be able to buy segregation. Sad.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
And here I was beginning to feel
all warm and fuzzy about you again (don't read too much into that, please) ...
Then you go and say something like this. This is pure bigotry.
I send my son to a private school (and I'm not even rich) to get a decent education, NOT to buy segregation. His school has plenty of minorites there, thank you very much.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I am all in favor of the public funding of education so that we can equalize the playing field for the poor. I just don't want to have to pay double.
Set the per student bar as needed, and then collect enough taxes to cover that using whatever scheme is found to be constitutional. After that give the money to the parents and let them decide where to send their kids. This is the best and most viable means of actually getting the poor onto what even comes close to a level playing field.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Then I was not talking about you (or to you)
I was speaking about (and to) pico's experience. You have a very reactionary attitude about racial things. Something you want to tell us?
I understand your point, but can you answer the separation of church and state argument I make above? Would you like to pay to send a student to a Madrasah?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Yes.
I, as a moderately successful white male, am tired of being told that I am a racist when it is not true ... nor is it true for the vast majority of people within my particular group.
I, as a moderately successful white male, am tired of being told that I and the people like me are the sole problem faced by the poor, the down trodden, and the minorities of the world.
Other than that, I'm peachy.
As for being reactionary, given the frequency with which the race card gets (inaccurately) played in this country I could say the same for those who play it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why do you automatically assume
I am talking about you then? If you are not racist or bigoted, nor do you support their causes, anything I write about racists does not pertain to you.
Defending the racists is not defending whites. I assume most of the liberals on this site are white--as I am for all intents and purposes--and they do not take offense when I discuss racists and segregationists. Hmm?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Even in the context of your original comment
the phrase "the rich" was clearly directed at "wealthy white people". This is clearly implied in your comment.
You all [the liberals on this site] complain about me using a broad brush too much, but here you are doing it too.
I happen to identify with the group "moderately successful white males". Even in the context of your statement "the rich" clearly translates to "wealthy white [males/people]" and you are clearly calling them [all] racists. That's bigotry whether you were talking about me or anyone else. I am sorry if you feel uncomfortable about having your bigoted comments pointed out like this, but that does not make them less bigoted.
You didn't say "the racist rich" or "the rich who are racist", you just said "the rich" in a context where that clearly translated to "white". And I would have called you on these phrases as well, BTW, because no matter how you try to hide it or cover it up it is a bigoted comment.
Would you let me get away with use a phrase like "the poor" in this same context if I said something like "the poor just don't want to have to pay for their own kid's education?" I mean, I obviously was only talking about that subset of the poor that think this way, correct? I doubt that you would have let such a statement pass yet you expect me to let you have a pass on a [reverse] bigoted comment.
Please try to grow some objectivity and intellectual honesty here. I recognize the bigoted nature of your comment because I have 20 years of affirmative action training drilled into me to help me recognize it. Believe me, a statement like "the rich are saying they should be able to buy segregation" is a bigoted comment no matter what context you use it in.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What is it about
'thread' that you don't understand. Again, I was referring to pico's remark:
I was speaking directly to this comment which was right above mine. It was not a blanket statement about all wealthy people, but, in the context of responding to pico's previous comment, it was a direct reference to a particular situation. Furthermore, in this context, it is only the rich who are putting their children in private schools due to racism, which is also heavily implied by the context. So rich racists in New Orleans who segregate their children are who I was discussing. Particular and specific. Not all.
Get off it already.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I have answered this in other comments ...
Short answer is:
I don't care where people want to send their kids as long as that place teaches them the required basics as defined by a standardized test (which won't include religious material).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4At least
you are consistently unconstitutional on this matter. I'll give you that.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
How is
calling someone a segregationist being a bigot? BTW, I did not mean all rich people, just the situation pico was talking about as I thought was understood in the context.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I stand corrected. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Thanks
I am actually in agreement with some of your views on this. I may be for school vouchers if religious schools were not included and there was some type of oversight. As far as the oversight, I am torn on how it should be completed as I am not in favor of standardized testing overall. I have to think more about it.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
So what is your position on
public funding for abortions?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't know
as I have not too much thought into it, but perhaps there can be a medicaid-type limit for help in funding for those who absolutely cannot afford the procedure. I am not a huge fan of abortions, but I see how they are a necessary evil in our society.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
So you would support forcing someone
to have their tax dollars used to commit what they consider to be murder, yet would deny them the right to use others tax dollars to send their child to a religious school even though doing so does not force that school's beliefs on anyone that does not wish to go?
Seems sort of one sided does it not?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No,
one violates the constitution, and the other does not (well, at least until you guys get another justice on the SCOTUS).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Separation of church and state
is about freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion.
As long as there are no restrictions on which religions can form schools ... including the those who make the religious choice to be atheist ... then the government is NOT sanctioning any specific religion. There would be no harm except to those who would seek to stamp out religion in all of its forms (which, of course, would leave only one religious choice remaining, the atheists).
I find your position to be quite arbitrary and self serving, actually, and (somewhat) narrow minded as well. That is a disappointment.
I am not religious but I do not fear others being so.
Why do you fear the religious among us so? Why do you insist that they must give in to your demands (i.e. by using their money to commit what they consider to be murder) yet are not willing to accept theirs (i.e. to have the freedom to teach their children as they see fit)?
And still you cannot understand why they might object.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Confused as usual
Not true. 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . " You are only focusing on the latter half of the phrase instead of the former. Giving tax money to any religion (or all religions) is government endorsement of a religion; therefore, respecting the establishment of religion.
Clever, but atheism literally means 'without theism', meaning not religious. You don't have to take atheism by faith (since it is illogical to prove a negative in this case), but you do with religion. Twist this all you want, but that is the way logic works. Sorry. (I think we should get into some spin versions of what a 'militia' means to really get you going. I like how you are so cavalier about other rights. Remember this thread
?)
This means that atheism is not a sanctioned religion. Man, you conservatives spin everything to the point of absurdity. Please tell me how the world is actually flat, because I know you have an argument for that too. How does it feel to live in such bad faith everyday?
I don't know how many times we have to go over this, but I have nothing against religion or the religious; I just don't want it thrust upon me, nor do I wish to fund them with tax dollars. Here is a funny video
that gets to my point.
Regarding this part, "(i.e. by using their money to commit what they consider to be murder)", by the same logic I wonder why pacifists have to support the Iraq war, since they basically consider what we are doing murder? Right back at ya.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Not confused at all, despite your (false) assertions.
"Respecting and establishment of religion" MEANS the government cannot create a single state run and enforced religion. It prohibits having an "official" government religion. In other words, the government cannot raise any one religion above the status of any other by giving it any special status.
"Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" MEANS the government cannot prohibit people from practicing whatever faiths they so choose, including atheism.
Using tax dollars to pay for religious based schools does not violate either of these provisions so long as the law in question specifically prevents any individual religions from being excluded or given preferential treatment. Under these circumstances the government would NOT be creating a state sanctioned religion which is the whole point of this clause, is it not?
I believe (intended) my comments above to be in accordance with this perspective.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Where does it say
any of that? I only see 'respecting an establishment of religion'. Almost all SCOTUS cases have said that means any government endorsement of religion (in other words using tax payer money to support any religion). It does not mean that it can support all religions or that as long as it does not favor one, it is OK to give tax money to religions.
Establishment does not mean 'established as the state-sponsored religion'. It means 'any religion'.
Please give me evidence of a court case in which it was decided that as long as we give out money to all religions it is Ok.
I thought you guys were supposed to favor the original intent of the constitution and not add your own subjective interpretations?
(edit): There are cases that give money to religious organizations if it is decided that this money does not constitute indoctrination, but there is no case that says the government is allowed to pay for religious education. It can make loans to religious organizations
as far as materials that can be used in both private and public schools (and I personally think this is overboard), but not pay for a student's education.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Gee, this one seems pretty applicable ...
to our discussion here, wouldn't you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris
As recently as 2002 a majority of the SCOTUS said pretty much exactly what I have been saying here (in all of the school voucher threads).
Does this count as just a "technicality" win or a "full blown" win? Or do your want to argue the case with SCOTUS directly? :-)
They even created a 5 point test for would-be lawmakers!
Thanks for making me look around for this, it was very educational.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I stand corrected
Although I think this law is ridiculous and a violation of the Establishment Clause, I am not on the SCOTUS so my opinion does not matter. Nice job*.
*I wish you were as graceful in defeat instead of ridiculously clawing through every last vestige of rhetorical spin.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Now this is an interesting comment.
I can appreciate your perspective, but in all honesty I am just as gracious "in defeat". I am not above acknowledging good points where I see them.
When we have discussions or I have discussions with others both sides make their points, correct. You seem to be of the opinion that just because you articulated what you feel was a good point that this settles the entire matter. If I come back with additional points or try to approach similar points from different perspectives you feel that means I am "clawing through every last vestige of rhetorical spin."
Put yourself in my place. Could I not say the exact same thing from my perspective? How would you feel about that? Would it be true? Would you feel that you had been arguing in bad faith somehow?
Who is the arbiter who decides when one party or the other has been "defeated" in these cases? Most cases are no where near as clear cut as the one we have here.
I consider each and every post that I reply to and, for the vast majority of the time, I am not flippant when I believe that the person on the other end is still actually engaged and seeking a better understanding of my positions (or possibly common ground).
I believe that I put at least as much time into every post as the next person does in terms of providing either new content or clarifications of content already on the table. I do not feel like this makes me "ungracious", quite the contrary. I DO feel that this is the best way for me to show respect for those I am discussing things with.
(Obviously this statement does not apply to posts which are clearly meant to be jokes, or where the conversation is obviously on the light side.)
Am I pushy and obnoxious at times? Yes. I have admitted as much, what more do you want? I have also explained why I tend to be that way. Given the reasons I have provided, do you not understand that I too feel like many on the left [admittedly not many on this site] are making arguments which I find to be just as puchy and obnoxious?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4or how to take a beautiful metaphor
and..........
I'm only half stupid
I think
this case pertains
to what I was getting at with my comment.
But I appreciate your explanation anyway. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
While I appreciate that you feel I am clever ...
that was not my intent.
Here are the opening 2 paragraphs from the Wikipedia article on atheism
:
I think that the underlined portions of this are pretty applicable to and representative of, those people who would refer to themselves as liberals or progressives, but more importantly secularists.
Atheism embodies much more than just a rejection of deities, and Religion does not depend on the existence of them. In other words, there ARE atheistic religions. Likewise, atheism itself can be viewed as being a religion.
Here are the opening 3 paragraphs from the Wikipedia article on religion
:
In its most general form, a religion is nothing more than a belief system. The decision to not believe in deities is, strictly speaking, a belief. It is what that person believes. [Side note: Since the existence, or lack thereof, of deities cannot be empirically proven one way or the other, the choice the NOT believe in them is ALSO an article of faith.]
I believe that the underlined portions of the section on religion pretty well describe today's secular progressive community. They have "beliefs and practices" (i.e. science, the scientific method, moral relativism, etc), and they have mechanisms to foster "adherence to their codified beliefs" (i.e. Political Correctness, Institutions of Higher Education, etc.). They use "cultural traditions, writings, and history" to foster "communication stemming from their shared convictions."
They fundamentally "divide the world into two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane" (i.e. atheistic science = sacred, other religions = profane). They exhibit a "coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought" (i.e. Political Correctness and Moral Relativism) which they believe the be "the highest truth."
Their personal "moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and traditions" are "often associated with their core beliefs." They view these as defining "a way of life", and therefore form what is essentially a religion in this context.
They often form "organizations of people to support the excercise of their prescribed beliefs" (i.e. the ACLU, many Institutes of Higher Education, Gay Rights groups, Feminist groups, groups supporting specific minorities, etc) which often "take the form of legal entities."
They prefer their beliefs to be "more socially defined" than that of "personal convictions".
Secular liberalism ... it's a religion. (At least by my reading of the above descriptions.)
Edit:
Do you still feel that this was a fair comment:
I mean, it is not like I made up the Wikipedia descriptions.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Picking and choosing the underlined sections
does not an argument make.
First off:
Over generalization. So any belief is a religion. So if I believe in capitalism, it is now a religion that should not get government funding???? Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are religions? Your arguments are absurd. (Philosophy is not religion either.)
Let's try reverse underlining to see what GoRight leaves out to make his arguments (BTW, learn the logical necessity of the term and which does not allow the type of cutting and pasting you are doing vs or which does allow it:
Do you see how your argument makes no sense?
I don't care what minor coincidences you can pull out of context. What I do care about is the term atheism.
Look at the word: 'a' is Greek for 'without' as in amoral meaning without morals. 'Theism' means a 'belief in (the) god(s)'. Atheism = without belief in gods. Without belief is not belief.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
More cognitive dissonance.
Look what you have done. 80-90% of the textual description doesn't support your view so you just "blot it out like it doesn't exist." That's cognitive dissonance at work.
Again, I didn't make up the Wikipedia descriptions. They are not my words.
I was underlining for emphasis, BTW, not to leave anything "out" as you (incorrectly) claim. I provided the full text for all to see.
But, by your own technique (remember, I like to replay people's own techniques back at them) lets reverse the underlining to see what Specter "left out":
See how you comment is, as I have pointed out more generally about liberal arguments elsewhere, relying on only half the story? This is yet another example of how you need to ignore the bigger picture to make your points.
Sure it is. If I choose to believe that something doesn't exist (e.g. gods), that is still believing in something (e.g. the non-existence of gods).
What is the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic in your lexicon?
In mine "without belief" better describes an Agnostic than an Atheist.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Agnostic vs. Atheist
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This does not matter
because I do not accept the overly-simplistic definition of 'religion as any belief'.
No where in the definition of belief do I see the word religion:
Belief is part of religion but it is not religion, just as a tire is part of the space shuttle, but a tire is not the space shuttle.
So even if atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God, it is not a religion.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
But this discussion is about ...
what constitutes (i.e. defines or makes up) a religion not what consitutes a belief.
So what you SHOULD be looking up is the definition of religion:
In other words, a religion is a set or system of beliefs. The beliefs may (and often do, but are in no way are required to) include things relating to the supernatural or deities.
In the case of secular progressivism, the focus is on ultimate realities, as opposed to deities. This is embodied as a belief that people should focus on making decisions based on observable phenomena and hence there is a strong association with science and the scientific method. Secular progressives advocate (evangelize?) this notion as being the true reality. In this way they operate much as the Jahovah's Witnesses do by going out amongst society and preaching their message (in this case that science is the one true reality). In some respects, however, they actually go one step further by trying to enact laws which govern their lives and the lives of others based on these beliefs. [Edit: For example, they have successfully institutionalized their belief system within the public school systems throughout the country. In this way they seek to spread their message to the exclusion of others. ]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I accept
that belief is part of religion, but I still do not buy that belief is religion as pointed out by the definition and my example. Part does not make a whole. Yes, atheism and religion share commonalities (such as belief and some of the things you underlined in your wiki passage above), but they also do not share many things that prevent them from being considered identical or the same classification (as I show with my underlined sections of the wiki and the definition of 'belief').
You can believe that atheism is religion all you want, but I think this is an example of you twisting rhetoric beyond limits to prove a point.
(Edit): I think I'm done with this conversation as it neither here nor there since you already won the main point I was objecting to (government funding of religious schools). I will post this question in the philosophy forum (link
), so we (as in anyone here) can take it up later if we wish.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Can't resist. :-)
Well, actually no, I don't. The parts that I highlighted sort of had a logical flow. What you have done here sort of looks like gibberish...
(Just kidding) :-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They do not have
a logical flow because you disregard the logical necessity of the and that I spoke of above.
In other words, most of the stuff I underlined is a necessary part of the definition. Atheism does not include rituals, mythologies, and mystic experiences.
Like I said above, just because you can pick things out of context does not mean atheism is a religion.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
More thoughts.
Not any beliefs, just those that deal with things like moral codes and ethics. You know, those beliefs that we all have that help us to decide between "what is right" and "what is wrong."
[ Aside: I thought that this would have been obvious given that this is a thread and all, and because the concepts I was refering to were in the very same post. :-) ]
Actually, in a manner of speaking, yes this could be considered part of your religious beliefs under the definitions/descriptions provided above.
If I believe, from a moral perspective, that it is "right" for people to organize their lives around a system where they fundamentally fend for themselves based on their own initiative, and that things like taxes and involuntary wealth redistribution are fundamentally "wrong" then this would, by definition, be part of your moral code (and thus part of your personal beliefs and/or religion).
[ Another aside: You are correct though, within the religion of "capitalism" any form of "government funding" is considered "evil" and should be abolished. :-) ]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think you meant 'less thought'
Atheism does not carry a dogmatic moral code with it. It leaves the question open to what is right or wrong as it does not say anything about it. You may say there are logical implications, but this is different than a moral code (as codes are not 'implications/unstated suggestions' but systematized arrangements of laws). So no, atheism does not follow this criteria.
Good. I guess that means we can get rid of the military too. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
It is so simple
The Establishment clause was put in place, not because we are afraid of having religous people in government, but because our founders did not want government in the church.
As in the government telling you which religon is THE federally sanctioned religon. That is the danger, not the other way around.
I'm only half stupid
I completely agree.
See this comment
.
Do you believe that using tax dollars (via vouchers) to pay for religious schools as long as there are no restrictions on which religions would be considered applicable somehow violates the principle that the government cannot sanction any specific religion(s)?
If so, why?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Actually,
base on this I think the proper response from you is, YES since you would, in fact, use the tax dollars of those who would consider it murder to perform abortions, while at the same time denying them the right to use tax dollars to send their children to a school of their choice. That was, in fact, the question I asked.
Your reasons for saying YES are interesting and telling, but they do not change the YES to a NO.
EDIT:
Unless your NO answer was to the second question about whether this would be one-sided. But even in that case the correct response for your position would be YES, this is a one-sided position.
Whether one of these sides violates the constitution (in your estimatation) or not does not logically alter whether the result was one-sided or not.
The issue of constitutionality only addresses the point of whether you believe that the one-sided nature of the situation is somehow justified.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Whatever,
You can see what I meant in the clarification of my position. Take your small, technicality victories and run with them, as those are about all you get. :)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
This is one of those highly reusable fallacies
You support the war don't you? You use taxes to support that war don't you? So you support forcing someone to have their tax dollars used to commit what hey consider to be murder, yet deny them the right to use others' tax dollars to
...
gain access to free health care even though doing so does not force that care on anyone else,
build churches to the Flying Spaghetti Monster even though doing so doesn't force anyone else to worship there.
etc, etc.
PS. But your statement did not make that clear. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It follows
right after pico's discussion. It is called a 'thread
' (see 4 b).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Yea yea. :-) n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4:-) n/t
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately you have hit on the key issue
From Pico
By killing public schools (as they did in Pakistan) those in upper castes get a broad education and are taught how to run their industry and country.
Those in the lower castes go to the schools they can afford. This is usually at least partially subsidized by religions, and thus you have the poorest kids being taught to be religious cannon fodder, but are otherwise kept extremely ignorant.
That system has worked out so well in Pakistan, folks who want the same for America are anxious to do it here.
For myself I very much want the neighbor's kids educated to the maximum and even without kids myself I still benefit hugely. Ignorant, the kids are a big drain on society, they cannot do a lot that is useful, they don't earn much money, so cannot buy anything from me.
Educated, the kids can contribute the maximum to the whole society. If they work for me I get maximum productivity and creativity, and make much more money than if they screw up the work I assign them because of lack of critical thinking.
If they all become Doctors I have my choice of the best doctors at a price brought low by all the competition (the same is true for all the other professions I might hire).
The factor on the right that because the public schools are poorly run and terrible I will send My kid to a private school will just make those public schools even worse, because instead of caring, those who could make a difference just opt out.
As a result both they and their kids will complain endlessly about the ignorant masses, when they are a big part of the reason.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
I see vouchers more as a means of
opting out of the public system. If others like that system then they should be free to continue to use it. Just don't force it on me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sorry
we are forcing an educated populace on you.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
That's actually debatable ...
Which is why I went looking elsewhere.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Your use of inductive logic
Your use of inductive logic all the time is simply astonishing. I am a product of public schools, as is my wife. Between the two of us we have four degrees and four subject field certifications. Quit with your blatant blanket assumptions and generalities already.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Clarification.
I was in no way refering to you or your wife. I too am a product of a public education. None of us are a product of today's school system.
The part that is debatable is whether today's schools are turning out an educated populace. I would argue that the continually declining standing of US students relative to their international counterparts speaks for itself.
(Now who's being reactionary.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I would
call a single incident 'defensive'. Several instances, I call 'reactionary'. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
PS. You are sounding like missliberties.
To what was this referring?
In this context.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That public
schools put out failures. I am fairly young (graduated in 1994 from high school) and deal with students straight out of high school every Fall. Some are quite intelligent, and some are not. I would not put all the blame for the failures on public schools, as I think parents, technology (and its distracting/distancing/anonymity effects), and sometimes peer groups have at least as much influence on a student's success or failure at school as the general education system.
(edit): I will take the missliberties comment as a compliment, as I usually like the way she sounds.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I agree.
The whole blame does not rest with the public schools. I got out of my education what I put into my education in terms of effort. It will be the same for everyone. In that respect anyone should be able to get a good education in just about any school. I just believe that many of the public schools don't motivate students to do their best or stress some of the things I think are important ... like critical thinking skills.
My other objection to public schools is that I view them (going to over generalize again, sorry) as indoctrination centers for the left wing. This isn't necessarily some nefarious plot by the left, but rather the effect that we (or at least I) see with the media. A high percentage of those in those fields are admittedly liberal, so the influence is (at least in my opinion) skewed to the left.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Effort
I can agree with your 1st point somewhat. I think you are verging on one of the usual 'personal responsibility' talking points of republicanville, but I think expecting children to have personal responsibility can sometimes be asking too much if they don't have a good support system (parents, friends, role-models, teachers, etc.). For example, my parents could care less about education. If I got C's and passed, they were happy. My mother (apolitical but a military brat) was disappointed I went to college. She would rather I go to the military any day. It is the whole leaving your proper station thing for her (I was raised basically lower-middle class verging on lower class at times). Luckily, I had great role-models as far as an uncle, best friend, and my father (when he wasn't going on silly rants about the liberal universities like you do above also).
As far as the liberal media and educations system, you conservatives are too much with your conspiracy theories.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Conspiracy theories?
What do you think I meant by the underlined portion of this?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh, nevermind (kind of)
Even with your qualifier, it sounds a bit conspiracy-theoryish, but I will take my comment back for now. Sorry.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Proving my point.
And yet here you are, college degrees and all. How did you get those, BTW? Did those schools they came from just give them to you or something? Or did you have to put in some effort?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm a fluke
My brother has been in jail most of the time for the last 10 years, and my other brother will be lucky to make over $35,000 in his job a year (and as soon the union disappears, probably closer to half that).
I happen to think I just got lucky for the most part (fell in with the right friends, had more people take me under their wing, etc.).
(edit): Of course I put in a lot of hard work too, but I think it is a little more complicated than personal initiative.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Now you sound like one of Rush Limbaugh's
parodies.
You, my friend, are suffering from "Affluenza".
I forget the exact dialogue but it has this guy that sounds totally distraught and weepy (you know the type, sort of liberal) saying:
"I'm one of the lucky ones. I studied and got my degree. Then I worked real hard for ten years, nights and weekends, (sob) and now I'm the president of the company."
If your brothers had done what you did and put in the effort, they would be where you are today would they not? I assume that they would be smart enough if they chose to do it, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Psychology is a
strange bird, and poverty is often a psychological cycle (my mom is an example). My brothers are both very smart, but drugs are powerful and it is easy to get into a rut.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Kudos to you for taking the path of
personal responsibility and not falling into that rut.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Comic relief
So this highly religious Jewish couple has a real troublemaker of a kid, and the kid gets kicked out of the religious Jewish school. The parents decide that they can't bear the thought of him going to a secular public school and after much angst decide that he will be closer to G-d if he attends a private Catholic school. Lo and behold, the kid becomes a model student and aces all classes hands down. The parents are just as pleased as they are perplexed, and one day at dinner they ask their son what it was that changed him from a troublemaker to such a good student. His reply: "The first day I walk into the new school I see a Jew hanging from a cross right at the entrance. So I decide Whoa I better behave or else!"
Hope this does not cross anyone's lines.
P.S. I am just Jewish enough to be able to make the jokes - like Seinfeld's dentist.
You know your empire's crumbling when people are getting more religious and less scientific, not the other way around. --David Michael Green
lol
Jokes are always welcome.
Catholic schools have other ways of encouraging good behavior, although from stories I've heard they're positively tame now compared to a few decades ago. Some of the nuns are pretty strict, but generally quite good teachers. I learned an important grammar lesson when I got a paper back with red ink explaining that "it's = it is = nonsense!"
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Quality of Catholic Schools
Interesting link
http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/269
Some thoughts.
I agree that this is one of the sticking points. But for those who claim to believe in the concept of individual freedom it really shouldn't matter. The important issues here are:
1) How to make sure the everyone, even the poor, have an adequate shot at getting a good education (through funding).
2) Insuring that some basic level of content is included in the curriculum (through standardized testing).
So if someone chooses to send their child to a religious school what is the problem as long as they come out with the requisite level of content. As long as the standardized tests don't mandate any religious content, then where is the harm?
The standardized tests are meant to be a minimum level of achievement, NOT a limit on the topics covered, correct? If a given school is operating in such a way that they are strictly teaching to the test, then I say don't send your kid to that school.
If someone like yourself wants to stress critical thinking skills in addition to the basics, then you should be able to send your child to a school that stresses those skills in addition to the basics. If someone else wants to stress a particular religion in addition to the basics, then they should likewise be able to send their child to a school that stresses that religion in addition to the basics.
Do I have any problem with people forming and sending their kids to Islamic based private schools? Not really, as long as I can send my kid to a Catholic school if that is MY preference (which it wasn't in actuality) and you can send yours to a charter school if that is YOUR preference. It is all about stressing the things that we, as individuals, feel are important to helping our respective children to succeed. The least common denominator amongst all of these options, is the basic set of knowledge that is ultimately codified as part of the standardized testing.
As I am sure you must be aware, these are not mutually exclusive. Both are important, no?
It's actually kind of cute to see you trying to explain what "conservatives think." :-)
I favor standardized testing NOT because it is "a hallmark for conservative conformity in our society," but rather for the following reasons:
1) It is the only means of obtaining an objective measure of the quality of the output from public and private schools.
2) There are certain basic facts that I believe everyone living in this country should know off the tops of their heads, like George Washington was the first president of the United States or that 1 + 1 = 2 or that you spell cat "C-A-T".
Conformity has nothing to do with it. I have no problem with people being individuals who are interested in or specialized in differing areas. In fact, this is absolutely necessary in our society.
Standardized testing merely insures a sufficiently large base of basic information to allow these differing individuals to communicate in some meaningful manner that can actually cross disciplines.
The fact that you learned to craft clay pots and I learned to build bridges is just icing on top of the standardized testing cake, or at least it SHOULD be.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Phonics and whole language example
You said
:
I find this an interesting example, because it works backwards from the way I understand it (but I could be wrong as I'm not an early education specialist). It seems to me, standardized testing would be equivalent to the whole-language approach: show *picture of a cat* and teacher says, "This is a cat. C-A-T." Pure memorization and equal to the teaching that goes into standardized testing.
With phonics, it is more centered on the sounds a letter makes. "'C' is 'ck', 'A' is 'aah', and 'T' is 'te'. 'ck-ah-te' Cat." Phonics allows new word formation because we have the tools necessary to build new words or figure out the letters of words through sounds. This is more similar to the creative charter approach. Building blocks and application to new scenarios instead of memorization.
Am I off here?
Of course, a combination approach is the best (see the word and picture for CAT, then spell it out using phonics), and I think that is what gets lost in these discussions.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
You're not wrong
One of the standard jabs from the phonics side is that whole language essentially requires memorization of every word in the dictionary. Nonetheless, whole language is more often associated with literature and fun, while phonics is associated with drills and tedium. The consequent assignment of political affiliation to the two sides is self-evident :p (if simplistic).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
That's how I read
I don't read letters or words. I read shapes. I think all good readers do. And I suppose it does mean that ultimately one memorizes every word, but if you start off with Dick and Jane and work your way up, by the time you get to a significant variety of words you know how to read (and use a dictionary).
The downside is that sometimes one gets confused and doesn't realize it until it comes time to speak the word aloud for the first time. Public looks awfully like another less common word, one that is not spoken much, but that is read more often. . . . yep, happened to me when I was about 8. Embarrassed the heck out of my aunts.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I was the kid
who would intentionally mispronounce organism in biology class.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
You are funny!
Misprounoucing organism while kicking the reagan dime down the street.
I think your new status on the site has greased up your funny bone!
I'm only half stupid
I'll be here all week,
and be sure to tip your waitress.
I tried to tell a few jokes in class yesterday to a fairly tepid response, so I'm glad I'm entertaining someone. :)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Phonics :-(
In first grade, I got taught using a brand of phonics called ITA
. Seemed silly to me even at the time, because I already knew how to read and write. Nevertheless, we had all our books, Curious George on down the line, in ITA and not the regular alphabet.
I'm not going to say that it damaged me for life or anything, but it was pretty much a waste of a year.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Oh gawd
How gastly. Really. Glad I missed that bit o' innovation.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Wow, what a terrible idea.
ITA is useful if you're a linguist, but not so much if you're a first-grader.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Would conservatives support mandatory tests for private schools?
Start with (1) national standardized testing identifies schools needing improvement and (2) parents should be able to choose the best school for their child and (3) some government funding flowing to private schools is ok. Then you pretty much have to conclude that private schools should be held to the same standards, right? If testing is good for public schools it's good for private schools; parents should have access to that same information, and schools should be held accountable for the students' learning. If government is spending tax dollars on private schools they better have some oversight as to how that money is being spent.
Otherwise the only conclusion I can draw is that the focus on testing/vouchers is an attempt to gut public schools rather than actual concern for optimizing education.
Am I missing something?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Wouldn't they have to?
I cannot see any argument that would say that private schools receiving public money via vouchers or whatever would be exempt from demonstrating student proficiency through some sort of standardized testing.
I think the charter schools in Houston have to take the same standardized tests as the public schools, although there is a movement afoot to stop the TAKS tests altogether.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Completely agree
but AFAIK it's usually not explicitly stated.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Of course.
This sort of goes without saying. There is not hidden agenda in the standardized testing. It is merely a tool to allow for the objective assessment of the quality of schools, public OR private.
My son has to pass the same standardized tests as any public school student would to graduate. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Citizenship
The libertarian mindset is the opposite of that of the founders of democratic societies. Instead of everyman for himself, the idea was that all members of society have certain obligations.
These include paying taxes to support the general welfare, serving on juries and in the military when called upon, and participating in certain public health efforts like vaccinations.
Without this one has anarchy.
So even thought I haven't had any children in the local school district for 20 years I still pay the school tax. On the other hand some people are now paying for my social security. That's how it works. In a perfect society everyone would get out what they put in, but life isn't always fair. We can just try to make it better.
If it were up to me, there would be no private schools. Public schools don't just educate, they promote the ideas of a common nation and the obligations I just mentioned. For those who feel that their children need to study special areas whether in religion, sports or their parent's native language they should attend classes outside of the regular school day. Private schools foster elitism and separatism when what we need is a feeling of community.
As for standardized testing. The purpose of NCLB was to discredit public education and put the blame on the (unionized) teachers and the administrators so as to make the idea of private schools more appealing. The kids have no stake in how they do on the NCLB tests, so they have no incentive to perform well. The ones who do have a stake are the teachers and the administrators and they can't control the outcome. Indeed most of the outcome can be correlated with the socioeconomic status of the student's parents. Schools can't fix bad social conditions.
--- Policies not Politics
The problem is urgent
I agree with you that one of the noble intentions of public education is to promote the ideas of a common nationality and to foster a broader understanding of the priniciples upon which this nation was founded, but it is difficult to argue that public schools are actually accomplishing that when they cannot even manage to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic to all students.
Something is dreadfully wrong with a lot of our schools. Nearly half of all children drop out of school with what passes for an 8th grade education. As has been pointed out, there are socio-economic factors that can attribute to a lack of success, so maybe there is something wrong with our culture too. And maybe those socio-economic factors cannot be corrected quickly enough to affect students in school right now. In the interests of our children, do we quibble about noble intentions or do we do something now so that at least some additional portion of the children manage to get an education?
I don't have the answers. But it sometimes seems like we like to skirt the real issues too much and forgo any change because we fear for an ideal that we are not really accomplishing today anyway. We need to be more flexible.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Purpose
One of the open issues about education is: what is the aim?
One group believes that the goal is to teach people how to learn so that they will grow up being able to absorb new material and evaluate things for themselves.
The other group believes that the goal is to teach a core set of information. Their goal is to produce compliant citizens who will follow the leaders and not question things. Promoting consumerism seems also to be a secondary objectives these days as well.
Many in the second group are so fearful that their children may be exposed to non-approved ideas that they either send their children to parochial schools or try to make the public school curriculum conform to their beliefs. Extreme examples include the Hasidim and the Amish.
I posted a short, autobiographical essay, about this recently:
My Progressive Education
As to the poor outcomes achieved in many inner city and poor schools this is not the fault of the schools and blaming them is all part of the right wing agenda to do away with public education (or at least starve it for funds).
Schools which service the poor are generally underfunded and have a hard time attracting good staff. In addition the social services that the communities supply to troubled kids and families at risk are also inadequate.
Whether it is due to ignorance or willful disregard of the situation the middle class seems unwilling to tackle the issues. The example of New Orleans shows how little the average person understands of the situation of the lower classes.
Part of the reason is that the excessive militarism in our country has absorbed 50% of the federal discretionary budget. This means people are getting poor value for their taxes which leads to resentment and an unwillingness to pay for social programs. This is part of the "starve the beast" strategy being practiced by the GOP.
--- Policies not Politics
Well said! n/t
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Some data and my two cents
I recognize that this is how you generally see things, but to me the dichotomy is not so clear. I think there are people in both groups (both the black hats and the white hats) who really want their children to learn both how to learn and their multiplication tables (and other core sets of memorized information).
It is not just "poor schools" that are doing poorly, and not just because of funding. I submit for your perusal the data page on HISD, the seventh largest in the nation. They spend $7K per pupil per year, for 200K students, and yet certain segments of those students lag behind others. There is some variation from school to school, and many of the schools need updated infrastructure, but in general we do not seem to hear a lot of unfairness in the way the district allocates money within the district. Their graduate/dropout rates are generally deemed to be skewed; note they do not provide the methodology for these rates.
http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=62c6757761...
And a recent piece on how charter schools are doing in the same area
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4758368.html
I'm not picking on you Robert, and I apologize if this is coming across that way. This is a complex issue and I'm no expert. But I still think you need to enlarge your paradigm a bit.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Spending
I can't speak about Texas, but I notice that there are very few white children in the public schools. How does this compare with the population of the city?
Here in NY my local suburban district spends about $17,000 per student. In Yonkers, a lower middle class city, the number is $13,000 while in a community near Buffalo the number is $6,500. Even allowing for the lower cost of living upstate this is a huge difference.
What does the extra money buy? Our students have sports, a theater group, several music groups, a new fancy gym in one of the high schools and well paid teachers.
In Yonkers there are no special programs, there is a shortage of support staff and a lack of materials for science and even computers and TV's for use in the classroom. This is a community that needs extra help, not less of it. The entire idea of using local real estate taxes to fund public education is a scam designed to preserve these types of inequalities.
I see nothing wrong with a district raising extra funds for special programs, but basic educational costs should be derived from broad based taxes. Of course this means that the rich would end up supporting the less rich more than now. An obvious non-starter.
As to those who want to restrict their children's exposure to different ideas: proving that this is a common theme is easy. Just pick up any newspaper over the past decade and you will find fights over things like sex education, evolution, and even the right way to teach reading. Those objecting are never trained educators, but are always affiliated with some right wing or religious group or another. Even our history books have been scrubbed clear of anything controversial. Take a look at the civics book of your choice for the middle grades through high school and see how much they deal with things like the rise in unionism in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, especially things like the Haymarket riot or the Ludlow massacre or the role of the Pinkerton men.
Then see how thoroughly the US behavior in the Philippines during and after the Spanish American War is covered. I'm not even mentioning areas that are still hot button items like the red baiting of the McCarthy era or the Vietnamese war. As a matter of fact Texas is famous for forcing textbook publishers to put in (and leave out) exactly what they wish before the state will approve the use of the book. Since Texas is such a large market this affects the book's use elsewhere.
If we are to ever prevent the types of misuse of power that we are experiencing right now than it is important for people to know how it happened in the past so that they can recognize it when it occurs again. To the extent that the majority of the people were fooled (again) this time I will agree that our educational system was a failure.
On the other hand it is doing exactly what those in power wish it to do - make compliant citizens who believe everything they are told by their leaders. We will see how well this plays out when Mother Nature starts to exercise her wrath.
You may be able to persuade people that Saddam had WMD's, but you aren't going to be able to persuade people who are sitting in the cold that we haven't run short of fuel.
--- Policies not Politics
More data
Houston demographics are roughly 30/30/30/10(Asian).
The number of children in HISD breaks down as
African American 59,274 students / 29.2%
Asian 6,368 / 3.1
Hispanic 120,354 / 59.3
Native American 139 / 0.1
White 16,801 / 8.3
Total 202,936 / 100
The number of white children might appear low because many affluent whites in the metro area with children are in the exurbs, in different school districts. In other words, much of the white population in the city proper is childless, young professionals who have not started families or childless couples or people whose kids are in college or already launched. But this is a hard demographic to pin down as the city boundaries are always changing to adapt to population movements, and if the newly incorporated areas already have functioning school districts they do not automatically fold into HISD.
The other big skew is the Hispanic number due to illegal immigration. The adults avoid most counts, but their children have to be educated somewhere.
Cost of living here is very low, either at or just below the national average IIRC. Median price in 2005 for a 2000 sf home was $140,000, for example. Unemployment too is low, something like 4%.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
A link to Obama's recent speeches
He seems to be speaking to some portion of the socio-economic issues involved in this topic. Would we categorize his positions as liberal or conservative? Hmmm....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18426890/
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
One think I like about this site
is that the topics sometime send me on interesting quests for data.
I ran across a government report on adult literacy in 2003. Based on what it says, my educational expectations (and yours) may be way too high. Some tidbits:
Percentage of White adults possessing intermediate or proficient prose literacy levels: 68%
Black adults: 33%
Hispanic: 27%
Asian: 54%
Someone with intermediate prose levels can perform tasks just slightly more complex than finding information in a pamphlet for prospective jurors that explains how citizens were selected for the jury pool.
For document literacy levels, intermediate and above:
White: 73%
Black: 42%
Hispanic: 38%
Asian: 67%
Someone with an intermediate level of document literacy is able to enter product numbers for office supplies on an order form, using information from a page in an office supplies catalog.
For quantitative literacey levels, intermediate and above:
White: 56%
Black: 17%
Hispanic: 21%
Asian: 47%
Someone with an intermediate level of quantitative literacy is able to determine what time a person can take a prescription medication, based on information on the prescription drug label that relates to the timing of medication to eating.
I found pages 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17 to be the quickest overview, but there's a wealth of data there.
http://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein