Public School Advocate Matt Damon Enrolls Kids in Private School (program, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a big surprise. Activist Hollywood types are generally "do as I say, not as I do" types. There are some rare examples who actually practice what they preach. Ed Begely Jr. is an environmentalist who lives as he preaches. He's still a nut, but he's not a hypocrite like other environmentalist celebrities with private jets, multiple mansions, heated swimming pools, and gas guzzling sports cars that use more fuel than large SUVs sold today. I could respect his decision to move his children into private school instead of public school if his decision had been based upon the potential treatment they may receive at public school because of their celebrity father. Either being a target for attack by school bullies or a target for those looking to try to mooch off the kids knowing their dad has plenty of money. Instead, we hear it's because public school (generally ruled by the teacher's union and nearly 100% pro-Democrat and nearly 100% anti-military) isn't "progressive" enough for him. This says a great deal about the man himself. He doesn't want his children to receive an education, he wants them to receive an indoctrination.
Not a big surprise. Activist Hollywood types are generally "do as I say, not as I do" types. There are some rare examples who actually practice what they preach. Ed Begely Jr. is an environmentalist who lives as he preaches. He's still a nut, but he's not a hypocrite like other environmentalist celebrities with private jets, multiple mansions, heated swimming pools, and gas guzzling sports cars that use more fuel than large SUVs sold today. I could respect his decision to move his children into private school instead of public school if his decision had been based upon the potential treatment they may receive at public school because of their celebrity father. Either being a target for attack by school bullies or a target for those looking to try to mooch off the kids knowing their dad has plenty of money. Instead, we hear it's because public school (generally ruled by the teacher's union and nearly 100% pro-Democrat and nearly 100% anti-military) isn't "progressive" enough for him. This says a great deal about the man himself. He doesn't want his children to receive an education, he wants them to receive an indoctrination.
Again, he's not using the political definition of progressive.
He's saying public schools are not progressive enough in their teaching methods. And he'd be right.
It takes a long time to affect change in public schools, and the standardized testing and rote learning is not for everyone.
Again, he's not using the political definition of progressive.
He's saying public schools are not progressive enough in their teaching methods. And he'd be right.
It takes a long time to affect change in public schools, and the standardized testing and rote learning is not for everyone.
This is where I step in and caution everyone, again, that so-called "progressive" teaching methods like "discovery," "constructivist," "inquiry-based learning," "project-based learning," etc., have serious shortcomings.
The greatest benefit of such is experienced by those who are already knowledgeable on the relevant topic(s). Novice learners experience cognitive overload making it less likely that they will learn. For a look at the limitations on the use of the progressive teaching methods with novice learners:
The gist: When used on novice learners (anyone who doesn't already have a substantial knowledge base, i.e. children students, early years of any college degree program, etc.), those progressive teaching methods result in little learning, and even what is learned is frequently incorrect.
This is where I step in and caution everyone, again, that so-called "progressive" teaching methods like "discovery," "constructivist," "inquiry-based learning," "project-based learning," etc., have serious shortcomings.
The greatest benefit of such is experienced by those who are already knowledgeable on the relevant topic(s). Novice learners experience cognitive overload making it less likely that they will learn. For a look at the limitations on the use of the progressive teaching methods with novice learners:
The gist: When used on novice learners (anyone who doesn't already have a substantial knowledge base, i.e. children students, early years of any college degree program, etc.), those progressive teaching methods result in little learning, and even what is learned is frequently incorrect.
I don't care what you think about progressive teaching methods, my point is that that's what Damon is talking about, as opposed to schools not being LIBERAL enough. Which is how this thread has been incorrectly marketed, and what persons here are aghast at.
Whether they work or not is beside my point. That's a different thread.
I don't care what you think about progressive teaching methods
It's not what I think. It is what is known via empirical data. Progressive teaching methods only work on those who already have a significant knowledge base in the relevant topic(s), experts, if you will.
Quote:
my point is that that's what Damon is talking about, as opposed to schools not being LIBERAL enough. Which is how this thread has been incorrectly marketed, and what persons here are aghast at.
It's not what I think. It is what is known via empirical data. Progressive teaching methods only work on those who already have a significant knowledge base in the relevant topic(s), experts, if you will.
He can send his child where ever he wants, we all know if you have money then private school is an option. That still doesn't change the importance of public schools for those who aren't rich.
But it's not quite that simple. The elitist left wants options for their children, but not for the children of the poor and middle class. Why? Because options for children of the poor/middle class would represent a threat to the teachers' unions, who are their stalwart political allies: Obama Cuts Funding for D.C. Voucher Program: DCist
Why do you think that only the children of the rich should have options?
Funny the self-Righteous whiners here weren't crying hypocrite! over Mitt Romney who supported the Vietnam war/draft yet conveniently ran the other way instead of taking his turn, eh?
Typical RW hypocrisy.
I haven't noticed too many left-wingers express much outrage over VP Biden's non-participation in the Vietnam war. Joe also is a great supporter of public schools for children other than his own.
But it's not quite that simple. The elitist left wants options for their children, but not for the children of the poor and middle class. Why? Because options for children of the poor/middle class would represent a threat to the teachers' unions, who are their stalwart political allies: Obama Cuts Funding for D.C. Voucher Program: DCist
Why do you think that only the children of the rich should have options?
I don't live in DC so I don't know anything about their school system m
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
