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.
Interesting thread, I find it insightful that many of the more liberal posters actually fully agree with many of the more conservative posters that having both parents working is a core problem in many of the students negative perceptions of education. Probably viewed within different context, but still viewed as contributing to student behavior problems.
If what you say is accurate about the thread (I haven't had a chance to review all the posts), I would have to disassociate myself from what you describe as the conservative side, out of personal experience. Both of my parents -- neither of whom finished high schol -- held blue-collar jobs throughout my public school years, and they emphasized respect for education above all other values. Of course, I'm from the earlier baby boomer generation: my parents were in their twenties during the great depression -- and this may partially explain their insistence that I better myself in ways that were not available to them.
One major thing I have seen inferred in postings, but not specifically addressed is that the more liberal posters generally discuss school as a critical thinking process within the context of learning, while the more conservative posters generally discuss schools within the context of more of a training process, with critical thinking and questioning being more of what should stem from the family.
I think this may be because most conservatives still believe that the nuclear family is the core of a civil and responsible society, while many liberals see schools as a substitute for what they perceive as a natural decline in the importance and relevance of the traditional family unit.
This has been a good thread, though it has strayed a bit from its initial title, which is probably okay, since that was so politically charged.
I knew someone that was having his children trained in a private religious school so that they "would learn to have faith and not to think". He thought that true happiness was only attainable through his concept of Faith in God. When I told him he was putting his kids at great risk he said that God would take care of them and that they would take care of their parents.
I suppose some people find thinking to be very uncomfortable because it questions assumptions and can lead to some very frightening conclusions. In my acquaintance’s case his children, if allowed to think, might just conclude that he did not have their happiness in mind but was most concerned with his own security as he became elderly. I think he believed that his wife and children were his property.
Teaching people how to think is discouraged by the hierarchical faith based community because if the kids learn to observe, organize and evaluate their world the children may conclude that their leaders (parents, clergy, bosses, military commanders) are not acting in the children’s best interests but will be willing to sacrifice the children for the leaders own needs. I would prefer an education system that taught children how to think and was willing to live with the consequences. The most important thing children should learn is to be very skeptical of any salesman. Anyone selling cars, military careers, insurance, religion or anything else is not to be trusted but to be investigated and thought about before you buy. Only trust after verification.
I knew someone that was having his children trained in a private religious school so that they "would learn to have faith and not to think". He thought that true happiness was only attainable through his concept of Faith in God. When I told him he was putting his kids at great risk he said that God would take care of them and that they would take care of their parents.
I suppose some people find thinking to be very uncomfortable because it questions assumptions and can lead to some very frightening conclusions. In my acquaintance’s case his children, if allowed to think, might just conclude that he did not have their happiness in mind but was most concerned with his own security as he became elderly. I think he believed that his wife and children were his property.
Teaching people how to think is discouraged by the hierarchical faith based community because if the kids learn to observe, organize and evaluate their world the children may conclude that their leaders (parents, clergy, bosses, military commanders) are not acting in the children’s best interests but will be willing to sacrifice the children for the leaders own needs. I would prefer an education system that taught children how to think and was willing to live with the consequences. The most important thing children should learn is to be very skeptical of any salesman. Anyone selling cars, military careers, insurance, religion or anything else is not to be trusted but to be investigated and thought about before you buy. Only trust after verification.
I agree with you 100%. We should never take the word of anyone in a position of power and authority as the final word on anything as important as our children's education. That is why I recommend that we think long and hard about the connection between the NEA and the DNC.
Not to be flippant, because I appreciate your thoughtful post, but might I suggest that you support more charter schools and creativity instead of going along with the NEA, which treats these innovative appraoches as some sort of deadly poison, and enlists the support of the DNC to successfully squash new ideas?
Geez, Yeledaf! I stay up all night, pouring my heart and soul into my response and you give me a sentence. I'm taking my toys and going home!
But, seriously, I do support charter schools and creativity. As someone who paid private pre-school and private K tuition, I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is in support of education. This is the first year my son has attended public school and I agonized over that decision and am still uncertain if I've made the right one. Of course, I live in an area of the country where Scooter and Bubba consider themselves scientists as they huddle over their stove cooking meth. While I want my son to think for himself, there are also issues that I do not want him exposed to yet. I would send him to a good charter school in a heartbeat.
I can freely admit that the system is broken. I can also freely admit that the NEA isn't always correct. However, there are many issues that it champions that I support as well. I focus on the greater good. If the Republicans want to pull out a much better idea than NCLB and really improve the state of education, I'm all for it.
Public education is a business and like any other business they want to stay in business. Most businesses compete with other businesses to stay in business. Those that are able to compete stay in business those that can’t compete go out of business.
Some businesses (public education) don’t have to compete to stay in business. In fact they don’t have to produce, or improve on a product, all they have to do is submit a budget to the taxpayer. What other business can do that? What other business submits a budget that is 20% higher than last year, gets approved for a 10% increase and calls it a budget cut?
For years public education has contributed to the DNC to insure they can continue this scam. With more and more taxpayers wanting “vouchers” to make public education compete for the education tax dollars the NEA is contributing more and more of “your” tax dollars to the DNC instead of competing.
Some businesses (public education) don’t have to compete to stay in business. In fact they don’t have to produce, or improve on a product, all they have to do is submit a budget to the taxpayer. What other business can do that? What other business submits a budget that is 20% higher than last year, gets approved for a 10% increase and calls it a budget cut?
Your comments are straight-forward and form the basis of my opposition to the public school system. I think the entire thing should be scrapped in favor of publicly funded community-based schools. I see no reason why people should be forced to send their children to government-monopoly schools. I'm pro-choice when it comes to education.
Geez, Yeledaf! I stay up all night, pouring my heart and soul into my response and you give me a sentence. I'm taking my toys and going home!
I apologize. I had to go to a meeting which determined the fate of millions.
But, seriously, I do support charter schools and creativity. As someone who paid private pre-school and private K tuition, I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is in support of education. This is the first year my son has attended public school and I agonized over that decision and am still uncertain if I've made the right one. Of course, I live in an area of the country where Scooter and Bubba consider themselves scientists as they huddle over their stove cooking meth. LOL / Great line!While I want my son to think for himself, there are also issues that I do not want him exposed to yet. I would send him to a good charter school in a heartbeat.
I hasten to add that both of my kids received excellent educations in their public schools. Of course, I took the time to get to know their teachers, who turned out to be, almost without exception, quality people with plenty of smarts and compassion.
I can freely admit that the system is broken. I can also freely admit that the NEA isn't always correct. However, there are many issues that it champions that I support as well. I focus on the greater good. If the Republicans want to pull out a much better idea than NCLB and really improve the state of education, I'm all for it.
And if the NEA wants to do the same, I will gladly put my shoulder to that wheel with you.
It's a pleasure to read your posts. You manage to combine nutball humor with good sense. I try -- and usually fail -- to do the same. A hat tip to you.
I think this may be because most conservatives still believe that the nuclear family is the core of a civil and responsible society, while many liberals see schools as a substitute for what they perceive as a natural decline in the importance and relevance of the traditional family unit.
That is not true. While the nuclear family is the ideal situation, it is not the only situation. It's hardly lilberals alone who are getting divorced and having kids out of marriage.
Nor do liberals expect schools to be a substitute. Liberals want better schools. Conservatives don't want public schools...
"why should my money go the welfare folks" ....That's a good (and moral) way to end the cycle...
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.
