Posted on 07/01/2008 10:40:58 AM PDT by wintertime
We must be willing to redefine education. What education looks like now is an artificial construct. It was not created by people who knew or understood children or teens. It was created by bureaucrats and special interests who wanted to control children and teens.
I talked with a young lady the other day – 14-years-old – who loves horses and aims to own stables and teach riding, among other things. She’s been working with horses since she was five. She’s good enough now that she “breaks” new ones and retrains ones facing changes in the use they’re being put to. She knows her stuff.
(snip)
Then there’s her other life – public school. She failed her end-of-year math exam by three points, so she’s going to summer school. She’ll have to pass the test to move on to the next grade. I’ve talked with her. She’s smart and highly competent – just not especially interested in algebra. She’s more accomplished than many adults (even ones who did pass algebra). But she has four more years of school to go, during which time she’ll have to pass endless tests and divert her efforts from what she knows she’ll devote her life to.
(snip) I get many calls a month from parents of teens who simply haven’t managed to fit into the school mold. They’re smart kids, often kids with serious interests they’re prevented from pursuing because so many adults in their lives are running them through the testing/counseling/therapy wringer.
(snip)
In order to redefine education, we will have to engage in some self-liberation, for most of us have a very hard time letting go (I mean really letting go) of the idea that the state knows some secret about education that we don’t and that if we defy their model we just might be sorry.
(snip)
It is difficult to respond to personal insult. What am I to say? That I am not “crapola” or not “ignorant”? That would be silly.
Freedom to choose is still there. Why take away freedom?
No one is forcing you to read my posts. If you are tired, then don’t read them.
Do your homework and get back to me.
My children are **not** prodigies. They are normally bright children who have been homeschooled. I have posted this many times. I am sorry you missed it.
As homeschoolers go they are not especially remarkable. They didn't go to Harvard like the Colfax kids. They didn't write a book on the New York Times best seller list. They haven't written an scripts for multi-million dollar films. They haven't won any National Bees. They weren't running million dollar businesses as children. They aren't athletes in the major leagues. They didn't win any Westinghouse competitions. In other words, by homeschooling standards my children are very unremarkable.
If my kids seem to be prodigies, it is because institutionalization too often artificially retards social and academic development. ( My opinion.)
I am willing to bet that my children are **not** any smarter or more talented than the children of the posters on this board.
I would bet that they are less so, since by your own admission they can't even support their own families without your financial assistance.
Silly? That’s a laugh.
Just the fact you responded to yourself instead of me says a great deal about you and your silliness.
But thanks for giving me the proper term for your posts - silly. As well as trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
Yes, you are an ignorant bigot who spouts nothing but spam-type crapola.
As is par for the course with you there is not an iota of attempt to deal with the facts placed before.
One of these days you will get it through your head that your personal opinions are NOT in anyway shape or form FACTS.
It has been several days since I asked you a simple question, which you have refused to answer and thus can only lead me to conclude that my post of today about you having no recent experience inside a public school is correct. Therefore it goes to the next logical step in that you have NO CLUE what you are running on about. You have no daily, day to day basis experience inside a public school and thus have no business telling those of us who do, both teachers and parents, what is going on inside public schools.
When you spend even half as many hours within the confines of a public school as I, as a parent, or others on this forum, as teachers, do -— then you can claim you might have a bit of understanding of what goes on. Until such time, you only have hresay 2nd hand knowlege of what you claim to know so much about.
I'm willing to take that bet --- because you are correct they are no smarter or talented than any of the children of the rest of us.
I actually feel sorry for your children. To grow up with such a bigot of a parent as you must have been VERY detrimental to them. No wonder they wanted to atttend government institutions of higher education at such ages, they wanted to get away from you as soon as they could.
My 10yo and I get along fine for the most part, but she will be the first one to tell you that she actually enjoys being away from mom for a good part of the day. We're less than a month into summer break and she is already looking forward to bible camp school next week and the week after.
Personally, I oppose the voucher system. I want spending in the public school system cut down to a bare minimum and school taxes lowered drastically so that private and parochial schools are allowed to thrive.
If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
I noticed this discussion keeps referring to public schools as if all are in poor, inner cities. There are public schools in middle-class and wealthy townships across the country, too. I guarantee you that, if public schools in the wealthy communities were cut down to the bare minimum, most of those parents would put their kids into private schools. Government-funded education is not necessary everywhere.
The only personal insults I see in this discussion have been directed at wintertime (such as the insults in your posts, Gabz). The only bigoted comments I’ve come across on this thread have been made by schoolteachers.
All wintertime is doing is criticizing the public school SYSTEM. She is saying that children would be better served with more choice in education. Such comments should be no surprise on a CONSERVATIVE forum.
Like it or not, public school is not on the Free Republic platform. It is a liberal, leftist cause. Check the statement of the founder:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
And then check the profile page of the founder, and you will see that Separation of School and State is linked there: http://www.freerepublic.com/~jimrobinson/
When people post leftist comments on other threads, they are considered trolls, and the Viking kitties are called forth. Wintertime is supporting the conservative side of the issue here. You are entitled to your opinions. But, if you support public school as-is, then your opinion is the same as the liberal Left. Recognize that, and if these threads bother you too much, don’t post on them.
I’ve said it before: There are a couple of discussions I’ve learned to avoid here, even though my take on those few issues differs ever so slightly from the conservative point of view. I came to respect the purpose of this forum. At one point, I ran a ping list, and I would ping to articles I sometimes disagreed with! But I knew the pinglist members felt strongly about those issues, and I would ping them because they were more in line with the purpose of this forum than I was (on one or two issues).
I suggest everyone respect the purpose of this forum.
Thank you very much for you kind words.
Wintertime
Charters are my least favorite of all the plans to increase choice for parents. Vouchers are next up on my list.
What I would most like to see is for enough children to leave the government schools that the entire socialist-Marxist system collapses from lack of taxpayer support. That would be ideal. Americans are very, very generous. Surely we could provide charity for the needy and desperately handicapped.
If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
Sitting here chuckling. Is this the reverse of the NEA talking point that parents can choose a private school now if they want? :)
Sometimes I welcome all the nutty, socialist, homosexual, birth control dispensing, atheism,,etc., in the government schools. The nutty and more morally and socially dangerous they become the more likely parents will leave for home and private schooling. Do this and the taxpayer support erodes.
I noticed this discussion keeps referring to public schools as if all are in poor, inner cities. There are public schools in middle-class and wealthy townships across the country, too. I guarantee you that, if public schools in the wealthy communities were cut down to the bare minimum, most of those parents would put their kids into private schools. Government-funded education is not necessary everywhere.
Social Security for the elderly will eventually become a welfare check for the only the needest elderly. The government will do this by increasing taxes on Social Security for the middle and wealthy classes. Eventually the taxes on SS will be so high that it has little actual value.
This is why I support vouchers and charter schools. They immediately provide more choice for parents. In the right circumstances parents could eventually be asked to contribute more and more of their own money in the form of tuition. Eventually voucher and charter schools would be funded by the parents' own money and the vouchers would be reserved only for the genuinely poor and the catastrophically handicapped.
Of all the ideas for privatizing universal K-12 education, I like tax credits best.
One the easiest ways to get kids **out** of the government clutches is to allow any child of any age to take the GED. This would immediately make them eligible for government and private scholarships in colleges and trade schools. Perhaps a private test could be developed that would be widely accepted by employers, colleges, and would passing it would automatically mean the student gets a fully recognized high school diploma.
Ever so often a state will have a bill in the legislature that will allow children of any age to take the GED. Unfortunately the teachers unions go NUTZ and lobby furiously to have it squashed.
One more thing about the GED:
If a child has some college courses the stigma of having a GED is immediately erased in the eyes of many employers.
You're correct that vouchers still require public dollars - and perhaps as many or more, since the system must be administered by someone in the government.
If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
That's really not the point. Wintertime keeps claiming that if parents have choice, they'll choose the best ones for their children. The experiences with the DC voucher program don't necessarily support that contention.
I noticed this discussion keeps referring to public schools as if all are in poor, inner cities. There are public schools in middle-class and wealthy townships across the country, too. I guarantee you that, if public schools in the wealthy communities were cut down to the bare minimum, most of those parents would put their kids into private schools. Government-funded education is not necessary everywhere.
Generally the public schools in wealthy communities are successful academically, and aren't the ones people speak of when they speak of public schools failing.
Wealthier schools may sometimes be more liberal socially, depending on their community, but they are usually very good academically.
Also, many of us who teach in public schools teach in areas with a large number of "at-risk" students, rather than in the wealthy schools.
Public education has been a part of the history of this country since before it was a country...the first public education here was mandated in the mid 1600s.
Thomas Jefferson stated that without an educated populace, our system of government could not survive, and he was in favor of public schools.
Being in favor of public education is not necessarily a liberal position, unless you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a liberal.
Point 1: You're assuming that public schools are a "socialist-Marxist system" when actually public schools in this country pre-date the founding of our Republic, Thomas Jefferson (no socialist or Marxist he!) was strongly in favor of public education, and public schools existed in most states before anyone ever heard of Karl Marx and his ideas.
Point 2: it would be very nice if our country could "provide charity for the needy and desperately handicapped", and theoretically I agree with you that doing so is the job of churches and private charities.
As a practical matter, charity never seems to quite do enough, and government only seems to become involved when things are perceived to be a big problem, and charities don't seem to be able to handle the problems.
In other words, if charity worked, there would not have been a need for government to get involved in the first place.
Tired of Taxes: If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
wintertime: Sitting here chuckling. Is this the reverse of the NEA talking point that parents can choose a private school now if they want? :)
Actually, that seems to have been Tired of Taxes' talking point, not the NEA's....
I'm still waiting to hear you explain why parents in D.C., when given a choice, would choose horrible public schools over good private and parochial schools.
I’m still waiting to hear you explain why parents in D.C., when given a choice, would choose horrible public schools over good private and parochial schools.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you provide a link?
Was that **every** parent, some parents, or a few parents chose government schools over private schools?
I didn't think I'd have to spoon-feed you, but okay, here's the link.
Please see page xiii ( Table ES 2) and ( Table 3.2). You will see that the probability of getting a “scholarship” to all schools combined was 100% for K-5 **BUT** the probability of getting a scholarship to a private school was only 43%
The report did say that some who did receive scholarship did not use them. The parents reported transportation and scheduling conflicts. It could be that the older children were able to travel by themselves and didn't need as much babysitting, thus allowing them to apply and accept the scholarship if chosen. Washington's figures for accepting the scholarship were in the same range as other cities and not unusual.
I found table table C7 **very** interesting. The satisfaction of parents with kids in the private schools was 88%! The satisfaction rate for those with kids in government schools was 9%. ( This is the % of parents giving their child's school an A or B rating.)
I agree 100%.
I think you and I only disagree on a few minor points. For example, I can understand vouchers for the neediest of students. I do understand how a voucher system works like the free market with schools competing for students.
But I expect a voucher system to have the same effect as tuition grants for college: Eventually, more and more parents will find a way to qualify their children as "needy". Then I think we'll no longer have the option of a truly private school. Most (if not all) private schools will be influenced by government intrusion.
So, that's why I oppose vouchers.
Sitting here chuckling. Is this the reverse of the NEA talking point that parents can choose a private school now if they want? :)
Yes, come to think of it, it is! ;-) I'm picturing public school funding cut so drastically, and government-funded education cut to a bare minimum. Then public school would be considered the last resort. It should teach the basics only: reading, writing, and arithmetic. Just enough to earn a diploma in basic knowledge. It should end at age 16 maximum. Nothing fancy. No big expensive equipment (unless it's donated and maintained by donations). Extracurricular activities like sports should be privatized.
I believe drastic cuts in public school spending would happen without vouchers, as an increasing number of parents remove their children to homeschool. It looks like part of the answer lies with the homeschool movement. We're on the battleground fighting truancy laws and state oversight; we are finding different options and enrolling our children into college courses earlier.
Also, school taxes/school spending should reach a plateau. It's very interesting what's happening in my state: Here, most towns have their own school districts, so property taxes are so high that people are being taxed out of their homes. At the same time, the state has overspent so much that there's no money now. Hospitals here are closing and consolidating because they're bankrupt. I wouldn't be surprised if schools began closing down and consolidating.
Then maybe community education can play a more vital role. Community education thrives in my area: Teachers and private organizations offer courses and programs using the public school buildings. Each course/program runs only if enough students sign up. The teachers and/or organizations are paid directly by the students' families. Only the facilities are funded with taxpayer dollars.
I'd like to see that happen everywhere: Tax revenue would pay for the facilities, but individuals and private companies would come in and offer programs. And there are religious groups that run programs free of charge in those buildings.
Then maybe the private and parochial schools that were put out of business by the public school monopolies would open again. I don't think it will happen for my children, but maybe it will happen for theirs.
Yes, that's true, probably because the amount of the scholarship came closer to covering elementary school tuitions than high school tuitions.
For high school the acceptance rate was only 17% for a private school and only 28% for an SINI school. In other words there was a very high demand for high school and a moderate demand for middle school. ( Table 3.2)
You're misreading the table. "SINI" schools are public "Schools In Need of Improvement" - in other words, the worst of the worst public schools in D.C.
100% of the high school students from SINI schools who applied for vouchers received them, because they needed them the most. Only 28% of the students who attended public schools which were not in need of improvement received scholarships (vouchers), and 17% of those who received the vouchers were already attending private schools before receiving the vouchers, but since they met the eligibility criteria, they received vouchers anyway.
(Allowing students already attending private schools to receive the vouchers was quite controversial, by the way, because many had been attending those schools on private scholarships, which were then supplemented or replaced by taxpayer funded vouchers.)
Please see page xiii ( Table ES 2) and ( Table 3.2). You will see that the probability of getting a “scholarship” to all schools combined was 100% for K-5 **BUT** the probability of getting a scholarship to a private school was only 43%
Again, you're misreading the chart. The probability of receiving a voucher if you were already attending a private school was 43%.
The part I wanted your comment on, however, is also in Table 3.2: of the 1,828 applicants for these scholarships or vouchers, only 79 were from the Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI) - the very worst public schools in the abysmally bad D.C. school district. WHY WERE THERE SO FEW APPLICANTS FROM THE VERY WORST SCHOOLS? Do those parents not want the best for their children???
The report did say that some who did receive scholarship did not use them. The parents reported transportation and scheduling conflicts. It could be that the older children were able to travel by themselves and didn't need as much babysitting, thus allowing them to apply and accept the scholarship if chosen. Washington's figures for accepting the scholarship were in the same range as other cities and not unusual.
If public schools were abolished and only private schools were available, would these problems disappear?
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.