|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/20/2007 : 13:20:38 [Permalink]
|
Boron10---Its a 501(c)(3) organization; thus having public records, please find all of the funding so as to try and prove your point.
This is still a minor discussion in the context of the purpose of public schooling.
If you would like I could start to add all of the cost of the federal buracracy to my side of the equation, but then it would get silly.
The major point of disscusion is the public school intention of stiling thought and individuality, thus creating non-thinking workers.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 13:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dr. Mabuse---"No, it advances the evolution of society"
Only in the direction of those with the power to exert their views.
There are many examples in history where opposition and repression of thought by those in power caused the slowing of societal evolution.
inquisitions
shahira law
I hope you do not believe stifling of thought of which you disagree is O.K.; because in the future it maybe your thoughts that are in disagreement with the powers that be. |
For once, JEROME DA GNOME, I think nobody is disagreeing with you. Dr. Mabuse is being sarcastic. He's saying if US schooling sucks, Swedish society will eventually kick our asses, and society as a whole will advance.
He's just taking a broader view than yours. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 13:44:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Boron10---Its a 501(c)(3) organization; thus having public records, please find all of the funding so as to try and prove your point. |
I will do no such thing.
My point was that your two data sets were incomparable. Since tuition alone does not pay for private school, and your public school figures are unsupported, the onus is on you to show valid data. | This is still a minor discussion in the context of the purpose of public schooling. |
I agree completely. Shall we curtail this tangent? | If you would like I could start to add all of the cost of the federal buracracy to my side of the equation, but then it would get silly. |
Yes, it would get silly. | The major point of disscusion is the public school intention of stiling thought and individuality, thus creating non-thinking workers. |
Ok. You have yet to provide evidence for this claim. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 13:50:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist---
www.nap.edu/catalog/11267.html
I have to pay $57.50 to see the methodology and definitions of literacy.
Unless you are willing to pay %57.50, the conclusions without seeing definitions and methodology can not be taken as fact. |
No, I found their definition of literacy and their methodology. I'm not saying that based on their definition of literacy, something like 14% are "below-basic." My initial objections were because I assume a more basic definition. Once we expand the definition of literacy, then naturally more people will be excluded.
Either way, I don't think that this is some reflection of a giant government conspiracy to have a large population of non-critical thinkers. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 13:56:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Boron10---Its a 501(c)(3) organization; thus having public records, please find all of the funding so as to try and prove your point. |
I will do no such thing.
My point was that your two data sets were incomparable. Since tuition alone does not pay for private school, and your public school figures are unsupported, the onus is on you to show valid data. | This is still a minor discussion in the context of the purpose of public schooling. |
I agree completely. Shall we curtail this tangent? | If you would like I could start to add all of the cost of the federal buracracy to my side of the equation, but then it would get silly. |
Yes, it would get silly. | The major point of disscusion is the public school intention of stiling thought and individuality, thus creating non-thinking workers. |
Ok. You have yet to provide evidence for this claim.
|
I agree with B10 here. Moreover, we have to include the fact that private school is a self-selecting bunch. Since it actually costs money to send a kid to private school, certain groups-- notably the poor-- won't send their children there. Moreover, since many private schools have a selection process (like colleges), they are free not to accept certain students. Thus, it is unlikely that remedial kids will be in a private school, and said schools won't have to spend extra money on remedial education. Moreover, as B10 noted, public schools, by nature of the fact that they are part of a larger governmental system, have oversight costs (various superintendents, board members, etc.) that private schools won't have.
I have no idea if private or public schools are more expensive. However, if public schools are more expensive, it is because of some of the self-selecting factors I outlined above. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 14:14:37 [Permalink]
|
I've gone to both public and private schools. I thought the private schools lacked many of the resources available to public school systems. There were always shortages of everything and this was at what was supposed to be a nice suburban private school. Which one costs more is not going to decide anything. The school that provides the best education is a far more interesting argument. Sure, private schools can cost less. I bet a lot of them are in the south were all costs are less than in the north. Even if you don't want to consider that as important I didn't feel that my private school did much more than teach me how to take tests. Teaching students to think critically is probably going to cost more than teaching to tests.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 15:29:48 [Permalink]
|
@tomic---"Teaching students to think critically is probably going to cost more than teaching to tests."
Not necessarily; the question is , do government schools teach to think critically?
I contend no, and its intentional.
I will provide quotes from the authors of the current public school structure to prove this is the intention.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 16:44:46 [Permalink]
|
| Probable cause of a crime would be needed to enter the home in the cases of child abuse; and a child care operation is a business run in agreement with the state, hence state inspections. |
Yes, you have shown the limitations of my comparison, but the point still holds. Children need education. Parents and guardians are responsible for that education, but if they can't afford school and can't provide education themselves, the state has to offer a system, which is public schooling. Parents are obligated to get their kids into school, and if they don't the government gets involved. If you homeschool your kids and provide the required evidence that they are properly educated, you've fulfilled your responsibility. Children are not their parents' or guardians' property. Just as parents cannot physically abuse or neglect the children in their care, they cannot leave them uneducated. Do you disagree? If you agree, obviously there has to be some set of public standards by which to assure that children are receiving an education.
"Two incomes are necessary for a variety of reasons"
I agree, I should have stated initially that there are a variety of reasons; the point being it is many times necessary to have two incomes which is a major reason (among others) it necessary to use public schools. |
There's two other good reasons why working class families might use public schools: neither mom nor dad may be competent enough in the area of teaching a wide variety of subjects to homeschool effectively, AND neither mom nor dad may have any interest in being solely responsible for their children's entire primary education. Lots of women started working because they wanted to, not because they had to. I happen to be one of those. I have no interest in being a housewife even if my husband's income were enough to support us both and kids. And even though I'm a teacher, I have no interest in homeschooling my kids because as a teacher I realize how much work that would be. It would really be a fulltime job – and unpaid. And whenever one spouse sacrifices an income and career, they put themselves in a position where they are dependent on the working spouse. If the working spouse dies or there is a divorce, the non-working spouse ends up at a huge disadvantage, and we see the results of this in the stats which show that women tend to earn less after a divorce, while men tend to earn more. I fail to see how duel-income families is a bad thing, so long as there are enough social services (such as public schools) for the children of poor and lower-middle class parents.
What the heck are you proposing, Jerome? There will always be the poor people who cannot afford private schooling and who cannot provide homeschooling. I work for a private nonprofit school and difficulties in keeping tuition down and quality up is a continuous challenge. Given that there will always be children born into poor and lower-middle class families, what should be done to guarantee that those children receive a proper education?
I adamantly support public schools as a necessity. Our current system provides a FREE education for ALL children through a system that is TRANSPARENT and ACCOUNTABLE to the taxpaying public who pay for it. It is not perfect. School systems all over the USA have serious shortcomings in terms of facilities, pedagogy, and community support. That is why people who have the time, resources, and wherewithal should and do get involved with improving the public schools in their local communities.
The stat |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 16:53:25 [Permalink]
|
The main source of my own critical thinking comes from my public education. Attending San Diego's Lincoln High School in the early 1960's, I was fortunate to have two wonderful life science teachers, Mssrs. Howell and Rodriquez, who combined their classes and cooperated in presenting a broad and intense presentation of biology.
They covered the possible origins of life, the various theories and notions about how it evolved, and even the question (and it's not a trivial one) of what life is. All this was done in a continuing cycle of lecture, discussion, experiment, and observation, with questions and objections being actively sought from students. We talked about the ancient notion of spontaneous generation, Creationism, Lamarckism, and Darwinist evolution. Every student who went through those classes learned the methodology of science, and learned the skills of critical thinking.
Thank you, Mr, Howell and Mr. Rodriquez! Thank you, public secular education!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/20/2007 16:54:16 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 17:13:00 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: "Literacy among college graduates declined between 1992 and 2003, with less than one-third of all graduates at the highest “proficient” level in 2003, and less than half of all graduates with advanced degrees at this level."
This goes to the original point; If one can not read proficiently one has little chance to think proficiently, thus creating non-thinkers.
This also stifles competition of thought and theory. |
The fact that literacy has declined is not proof of an organized conspiracy to dumb down our kids.
Kil---"Privet schools are expensive"
---Generally private schools cost less per student than public school. |
A huge reason for that is that private school teachers are paid on average less than public school teachers. I work at a private school for $12K less a year than I could at a public school.
However, another reason (IF indeed public schools overall cost most than private ones) could be that the average cost of public schools is offset by the public schools in wealthier areas which are very well funded, opposed to schools in poor neighborhoods which are often underfunded. And then there is the simple possibility that many private schools are inadequate or receiving funding through religious charities. For instance, many private schools are specialized and thus do not offer all the services necessary for a broad spectrum of kids. (An example would be my cousin who is mentally and physically retarded and went to a great public school that was able to cater to his special needs.)
Unless you contend that private school is financed from other sources.
If so please cite data to confirm this contention. |
Catholic private schools are heavily subsidized by the Catholic Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parochial_school
The major skill not being taught is the ability to think. Only the ability to regurgitate is taught.
…
This process will stifle competition of thought and thus retard the evolution of human society. |
Hold the phone there, buddy. First of all, the educational systems in Japan and South Korea are much more about the ability to regurgitate than the American educational system. The reigning theories on education in American public schools do not overemphasize the memorization and regurgitation of information. Maybe we are heading in that direction with all this standardized testing crap, but we are not there yet. In fact, a far cry from it.
The major point of disscusion is the public school intention of stiling thought and individuality, thus creating non-thinking workers.
|
I simply don't see any evidence of this. Most of my skeptic friends are products of public schooling. Three of my cousins have recently graduated HS. One is now a born again Christian (which happened due to outside of school influence). One is an ambitious young art student with strong liberal and atheistic poli |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 17:18:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Not necessarily; the question is , do government schools teach to think critically?
I contend no, and its intentional.
I will provide quotes from the authors of the current public school structure to prove this is the intention. |
I eagerly await the evidence for this contention. But note: quoting people who simply agree with you is hardly compelling. That is, if you take a quote from Big-Shot-A, who was a teacher or educator of some sort, and this person says something that is, on the surface, akin to what you've suggested above, it won't be compelling. What you need are quotes from actual government officials who have some control over education on the national level who say something like "it's been our plan since the early 1900's to create a class of dull-witted citizens who won't be able to think critically so that we-- the people in power-- will be able to maintain our grip.
Of course, even then there are myriad problems in supporting such an argument (while George W Bush may come from a family with a long history of power, what about Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter? What about the various members of Congress? Etc., etc., etc....) |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 17:25:20 [Permalink]
|
| stiling thought and individuality |
Actually, there is lots of evidence that the last thing public schools are doing is stifling individuality. The pedagogical theories that have flowed out of academia since the 1960's have heavily emphasized self esteem and individuality. Some of us might remember doing projects in school about our own desires, goals, likes and dislikes, etc. In fact, some have argued that this focus on making students feel good about themselves regardless of achievement has lead to a neglect of high academic standards in the basic subjects of reading and writing proficiency, math skills, and scientific and historical knowledge.
For more on this topic, I recommend the book Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can't Read, Write, or Add by Charles J. Sykes. The book is probably slightly outdated now (published in 1996) and I don't agree with the guy's proposed solution in the end, but most of the book is jam-packed pull of hard research and history into America's public school systems.
As for stifling thought, I agree that critical thinking skills are neglected, but those come with learning proper reading, writing, math, history, and science. And the extra curriculars such as art, music, and sports have shown over and over again to help kids who struggle academically with their issues of self esteem, which in turn leads them to improve academically. I don't think the problems with our schools has to do with any conscious effort to limit critical thinking skills. Rather, it has to do with bad pedagogical standards and a lack of common sense. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 17:44:19 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox---Thank you for your reasoned response.
"Children are not their parents' or guardians' property."
---They are less the property of the state.
"Just as parents cannot physically abuse or neglect the children in their care, they cannot leave them uneducated. Do you disagree?"
---This depends on how one defines educated. My contention is that the state educates for the purpose of creating non-thinkers; which would, in my opinion, be abuse.
" obviously there has to be some set of public standards by which to assure that children are receiving an education. "
---Again; who sets the public standards, and are the current standards teaching children to think or regurgitate, thus leaving them as prey.
Thanks again, I have yet to digest the second part of your response.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 18:52:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
---Again; who sets the public standards, and are the current standards teaching children to think or regurgitate, thus leaving them as prey. |
You set the standards, JEROME, by voting for whomever you voted for in your local, state and Federal elections. That includes members of the school board(s), legislatures and executive branches. We live in a respresentative republic, so that means that public standards are set by the people who are chosen by the various interested communities to represent them in the adoption of such policies.
By the way, just last year Virginia upped the standards for homeschooling: the parent doing the teaching must now have at least a bachelor's degree. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 19:24:27 [Permalink]
|
| This depends on how one defines educated. My contention is that the state educates for the purpose of creating non-thinkers; which would, in my opinion, be abuse. |
This is clearly the domain of private, religious schools that refuse to teach their students what they need to know. Sexual education is an example of this. Putting children in an environment free of of curriculum that disagrees with religious belief is, in my opinion, a method designed to churn out kids that have never had their beliefs challenged. What kind of critical thinking will they have had the opportunity to develop?
Not that I think you really care. You just hate the government mandating anything you don't agree with. Unfortunately, you don't even want a real debate. You just want people slinging opinions back and forth because you think you might win that way.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Compulsory Government Education
Topic Locked
