Posted on 07/18/2006 11:24:14 AM PDT by george76
The Times report says “Children in public schools generally performed as well or better in reading and mathematics than comparable children in private schools.”
The actual study says, “In..both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools.”
The only point at which parity is reached is in comparing poor children in public schools with poor children in private schools.
Which is hilarious because thanks to the Times’s hatred of school choice, there are no poor kids in private schools.
(Excerpt) Read more at polipundit.com ...
I'd be careful of such hyperbole. It only takes one exception to prove you wrong, and there are children out there who succeed in spite of, rather than because of, their home life.
These children are academically successful in spite of wasting a lot of time in a toxic environment.
Unfortunately, for many students the home is the toxic environment.
All the waste comes from making available an education to those without the ability pr willingness to learn.
All the waste comes from making available an education to those without the ability or willingness to learn.
Poor is the new code word for stupid.
I agree with you on the willingness to learn part. You can have the best teachers and schools in the world, but if a child does not want to learn, you aren't going to teach him anything. I have always thought there should be an opt out point where high schoolers can opt out of further classwork and sign on for vocational work study or something similar.
On the inability to learn, I tend to disagree. Every child can learn. They are certainly not able to learn the same things or learn at the same pace, but they can all learn. Severly disabled children can learn how to take care of themselves or how to interact and communicate.
I think that these children are entitled to an education just like children without disabilities. It costs alot because it can be very specialized, but it certainly far less than the cost of institutionalizing these children which is what we used to do. Many can and do learn how to take care of themselves and some can even participate in specially designed employment programs. There is no such thing as a child who is unable to learn.
I always try to remember that every child that is unable to obtain employment which is sufficient to support him/her, will end up costing society a whole lot more in the long run. The goal of public education should be to give every child the maximum ability to provide for themselves.
Georgia is great, and full of conservatives too. I highly recommend it.
"On the inability to learn, I tend to disagree. Every child can learn. They are certainly not able to learn the same things or learn at the same pace, but they can all learn. Severly disabled children can learn how to take care of themselves or how to interact and communicate."
Which merely reinforces my point; they can do this same thing without ever setting foot in a classroom.
Why promote them up through the grades when everyone realizes by the fifth grade that a kid who can't read is not going to magically come back in the fall a star pupil?
There are many situations to consider. Some LD kids spend a majority of the day in the regular classroom, some spend very little time there (lunch, art, PE). Some are educated in different schools, some are educated at home. There is quite a bit of evidence to support inclusion of LD or disabled kids in a normal classroom setting, as much as possible. It is beneficial for both the LD and non-LD kids. There are some kids that should never be in a regular classroom setting. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you want to keep special ed. students out of regular classrooms? Do you want them in Special ed only classrooms? (this is much more expensive)
Quit pretending that schools help them or us.
So what is your idea for children with disabilities?
Care for them at home or put them away.
bingo, follow the money, and make no mistake this is about two things; money & job security for union boses. fewer members equals less income,or termination.
I can see that we have very different ideas about children. I imagine you would feel quite differently if you had a disabled child, but you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I believe that children are created specially by God, and we should help them to become productive members of society. I must say that I am glad that I haven't encountered others that share your views. Have a good afternoon.
I'm afraid I must disagree with the last one, "Peckerheads who can’t sleep at night"
sleeping at night is only a problem if you are limited by morals & a conscience.
Compassion in the pursuit of perfection is a shortsighted path to an unattainable goal which shortchanges those who pursue it as well as those who encourage it.
Ok.......... you're right!
whatever.
I just told my husband about the Georgia HOPE scholarship. He actually looked like he might consider moving! We do want to get away from the border soon, so Georgia would be a good first step.
Where do you live now?
"Actually the study seems to have been commissioned by the U.S. Dept. of Education, not the NYT."
I doubt that this would have been reported on the front page of the NYT if the results of the "study" had shown that children sent to private schools did greatly better than those sent to the government schools. And I wouldn't exactly call the Department of Education unbiased. That's sort of like asking for the customer satisfaction survey results from an airline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.