NY high school lifting suspension

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I support doing what is good for America. I think those that wish to broadly define speech and privacy are agenda driven. I heard a college student was sued for hatespeech because a controversial conservative speaker was coming to speak at the college. The student put up signs saying simply the name, date, place of the event. The student spent 18 months and 40k to defend himself in federal court. Thankfully, he won. I think that those who are the biggest promoters of free speech and privacy wish to limit the ideas they disagree with.

Can't teach creationism as science? How much science is involved with the THEORY of evolution? Once again, free speech and educational debate being repressed because it doesn't fit their agenda. See where I am going with this? Intelligent design doesn't exist because God doesn't exist, nor should schools have religion in it at all. Except muslim teachings are the current favorite, to show our tolerance and understanding (anything but Christian!). Ann Coulter's book had seveal chapters on why liberals put so much emphasis on evolution. I suggest reading it and see if she makes sense. She may not pull punches, but she is no dummy, and certainly thought provoking.


As for limiting speech, not at all. I just wouldn't DEFEND hatespeech or sickos. Those that do, are doing so for a reason. In my opinion, it is for a larger cause that they support. Finally, I think those that live for free speech are the ones that spew vile and hatred the most. So I guess it is self serving. Notice how Coulter, Malkin, Hannity getshouted down from activists who apparantly, don't support their right to freedom of speech. Funny how it is always conservative ideas they just can't seem to support freedom of speech for.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I support doing what is good for America. I think those that wish to broadly define speech and privacy are agenda driven.

Who ever mentioned privacy here? Privacy arguments are derived from the 4th amendment...not the 1st.

Can't teach creationism as science? How much science is involved with the THEORY of evolution?

The same amount as is involved with the Theory of Gravity... Except the Theory of Gravity has far less evidence than the Theory of Evolution. Gravity is far harder to prove.

Once again, free speech and educational debate being repressed because it doesn't fit their agenda. See where I am going with this? Intelligent design doesn't exist because God doesn't exist, nor should schools have religion in it at all.

Intelligent design is a prefectly acceptible religious theory. It's not a scientific theory. That's why it CAN be taught in reigion class, but not science class.

Finally, I think those that live for free speech are the ones that spew vile and hatred the most. So I guess it is self serving. Notice how Coulter, Malkin, Hannity getshouted down from activists who apparantly, don't support their right to freedom of speech. Funny how it is always conservative ideas they just can't seem to support freedom of speech for.

Those who would shout them down don't support Free Speech though...that's the difference.

Those of us who respect the Consitution are willing to let slimeballs like NAMBLA, the KKK, or even David Horowitz continue to speak.

I find all of them to be sick and disgusting, but I defend their right to speak.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Intelligent design is one of two competing beliefs on mankind's existence. Not teaching it with evolution in school would directly contradict what is being taught in homes and churches across the US. It seems interesting to have evolution taught as fact, while not mentioning what a large portion of society actually believes to be true. At the very least, perhaps it would be fair to state that evolution is one theory, while mentioning that others disagree with that. Is it the job of schools to indoctrinate or provide an education with competing viewpoints. This is exactly why liberals want freedom from religion, as it gets in the way of how they want society to think. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion being directly supported by, or controlling the government. All a red herring, and another example of how the constitution is being interpretated liberally. Which is why it HAS to be a living document. You never know when it needs to be broadened to advance liberalism.

Even David Horowitz? The man exposing institutional bias in colleges? Yes, he is a real evil man. I can see why the elite don't like him.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Intelligent design is one of two competing beliefs on mankind's existence. Not teaching it with evolution in school would directly contradict what is being taught in homes and churches across the US.

AGAIN...I did not say it could not be taught. I said it is not science.

It seems interesting to have evolution taught as fact, while not mentioning what a large portion of society actually believes to be true. At the very least, perhaps it would be fair to state that evolution is one theory, while mentioning that others disagree with that.

The entire study of evolution talks about the unknowns within the theory. But it's science not "belief".

Is it the job of schools to indoctrinate or provide an education with competing viewpoints.

Evolution is a scientific theory not a religious belief.

Intelligent design is a reglious belief not a scientific theory.

So you teach evolution in science class and Intelligent Design in religion class. It's that simple.

Even David Horowitz? The man exposing institutional bias in colleges? Yes, he is a real evil man. I can see why the elite don't like him.

He exposed very little. In fact, he attacked Caroline Higgins at Earlham College. He criticized Higgins and Earlham for classes that focus on peace and social justice movements and for encouraging students to apply the ideas they learn about in class in the local community

Earlham College is a Quaker school which embodies pacifism. Caroline Higgins is a pacifist professor. Her classes would NEVER EVER agree with any form of harm by one human being upon another. And a key theme in Quakerism is peace and social justice.

Horowitz has made it his work to TRY TO BRING DISGRACE UPON MY RELIGION AND MY SCHOOL.

HE IS SCUM OF THE WORST KIND.

I cannot begin to explain the pain his words caused many Quakers. His attacks upon my religion are UNFORGIVABLE. His attacks upon my school are LIES.

Jesus may forgive him, but I hope he burns in hell.

 

[Shark Attack]

I think that this point has been brought up several times by LOVEMYIRISH, but hasn't been getting through.

First off, a theory is more solid than just some random notion. A theory has been tested, several times, by studies independent of each other, and all have reached the same conclusion. It may have been tested rigorously and never proven wrong, but it's almost never named a law.

Secondly, in order to be a Scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. The falsified theory of Evolution is that creatures don't adapt to outside stimuli. The falsified ID theory is that there is no God. You can prove that Evolution is wrong, it's physically impossible to prove that there is no God.

As such, both theories are fine and acceptable, but one is science, and one is religion.

Also, where are you getting that we're teaching Muslim faith in public schools? We teach the history behind Islam, behind Judaism, behind Zoroastrianism, Buddhisim, Sikhism, Daoism, and yes, even Christianity, but none of these religions are pushed on anyone, and nor should they be. They don't read the bible in class, but they don't read the qu'ran, the torah, or anything besides the basic tenants of each religion.

JUST BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE US IS CHRISTIAN DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CONTROLS THE US.
THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY CANNOT BE FORCED UPON THE MINORITY. The Senate stands to protect the rights of the minority from the despotic tendency of the majority.

 

[Shark Attack]

And about advancing liberalism about freedom from religion? Well, if you read the first amendment, I don't think that even the most literal interpretation can deny what it says...

The US cannot and will not abide by a state religion, and combining public education with religion is exactly that.

Catholic schools exist, and no one is complaining about what they're teaching, so private schools can teach whatever they want, but just leave public schools alone.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I think that this point has been brought up several times by LOVEMYIRISH, but hasn't been getting through.

First off, a theory is more solid than just some random notion. A theory has been tested, several times, by studies independent of each other, and all have reached the same conclusion. It may have been tested rigorously and never proven wrong, but it's almost never named a law.

Secondly, in order to be a Scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. The falsified theory of Evolution is that creatures don't adapt to outside stimuli. The falsified ID theory is that there is no God. You can prove that Evolution is wrong, it's physically impossible to prove that there is no God.

As such, both theories are fine and acceptable, but one is science, and one is religion.

Those who want to believe what they will are never going to understand what Science means...they are trying to create their own unique and misguided version.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I think that this point has been brought up several times by LOVEMYIRISH, but hasn't been getting through.

First off, a theory is more solid than just some random notion. A theory has been tested, several times, by studies independent of each other, and all have reached the same conclusion. It may have been tested rigorously and never proven wrong, but it's almost never named a law.

Secondly, in order to be a Scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. The falsified theory of Evolution is that creatures don't adapt to outside stimuli. The falsified ID theory is that there is no God. You can prove that Evolution is wrong, it's physically impossible to prove that there is no God.

As such, both theories are fine and acceptable, but one is science, and one is religion.

Also, where are you getting that we're teaching Muslim faith in public schools? We teach the history behind Islam, behind Judaism, behind Zoroastrianism, Buddhisim, Sikhism, Daoism, and yes, even Christianity, but none of these religions are pushed on anyone, and nor should they be. They don't read the bible in class, but they don't read the qu'ran, the torah, or anything besides the basic tenants of each religion.

JUST BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE US IS CHRISTIAN DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CONTROLS THE US.
THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY CANNOT BE FORCED UPON THE MINORITY. The Senate stands to protect the rights of the minority from the despotic tendency of the majority.

So, what you are saying is that only one viewpoint is taught as fact. because that is what is going on today. It is possible to teach something that has a basis in religion, when did that ever become so awful? It seems that the crusades, and the inquisition are brought up in history class, to show how awful Christianity is. I guess that part of religious history is ok.

Actually, the majority does tend to rule the US. That is called democracy..the will of the people. However, no one is trying to control thought (except for liberals), all most of us want is to have it presented as a competing 'theory'. Which can be justified by putting it in historical context, as it was virtually the only belief for many of mankind, at the time. I have a hard time understanding why that sounds so unfair.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

And about advancing liberalism about freedom from religion? Well, if you read the first amendment, I don't think that even the most literal interpretation can deny what it says...

The US cannot and will not abide by a state religion, and combining public education with religion is exactly that.

Catholic schools exist, and no one is complaining about what they're teaching, so private schools can teach whatever they want, but just leave public schools alone.

That argument is used alot, as it is frequently wrong. If you look at the intent of the founders, that statement does not fly. Again, that is why those on your side want a living document, so that you can pretty much use it anyway you see fit. We don't have a state religion. Mentioning a commonly held belief in school, while comparing it to another, hardly fits that description.
I would luv to leave public schools alone, problem is that we can't. It is becoming a liberal haven of indoctrination (against Christianity and conservatives), and used to promote the sexualization of kids, and homosexuality. Of course, the only thing they don't do, is teach the three R's.

 

[Shark Attack]

Only one viewpoint is being taught, i wouldn't say as fact but as the prevalent theory today, but again, you cannot teach religion in a science classroom for the clear and obvious point that religion isn't science! I have no problem with there being a religion class in which students learn about different religions and so fourth, and no religion is without it's atrocities, the inquisition and crusades among many for the christians, biblical jews sacked cities, raped women, and tore out fetus' and threw children from the walls. Muslims raided and pillaged and many within the elite structure were corrupt. No religion is really mark free from things like this. I was taught these things in a public high school, i see no bias towards or against any particular religion.

I've mentioned and gone into detail about how Intelligent Design is not, BY DEFINITION, Science. It's a fine belief, and a belief that was held by most of the Christian world for centuries, but it belongs in a religion class, not a science class. I'm not going to repeat myself a third time as to why Intelligent Design is not science. It's possible to teach things that have a basis in religion, but not in a science classroom.

As to the intent of the founders? Most of the founders were not Christian, they were Deists at best, Atheists at worst. They understood that people came to America for religious freedom, not to have other ideologies shoved down their throats. If America is about "majority rules" then explain the Senate, which was created to protect the minority from the majority. I'm not against "god" in the pledge of allegiance, i'm not against an academic discussion concerning personal religious beliefs, but I'm vehemently against promoting religious doctrine in our public schools. To me, that crosses a boundary between church and state. Yeah, i know there's nothing written about separation of church and state, but that's frequently wrong, if you look at the intent of the founders, and the precedent for nearly every court decision on the topic.
I don't believe that public schools is used to promote the sexualization kids, through I'm assuming health classes and sex education. That's like saying we're promoting violence by teaching the history of wars, or promoting anorexia by teaching them about it. Abstinence-only education is dangerous, and knowledge never hurt anyone.
As to promoting homosexuality? I have never heard of a public school system promoting homosexuality in their curriculum.

As to the thre R's, well, I've graduated from a public school system, I can read, I can write, and I can to 'rithmatic pretty well, along with a solid foundation in history and fine arts.

I just want to reiterate that great, I.D. and creationism can be taught in a historical frame of mind, or a religious frame of mind, but it is not science, and has not been science for over 200 years by the very definition of science.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Only one viewpoint is being taught, i wouldn't say as fact but as the prevalent theory today, but again, you cannot teach religion in a science classroom for the clear and obvious point that religion isn't science! I have no problem with there being a religion class in which students learn about different religions and so fourth, and no religion is without it's atrocities, the inquisition and crusades among many for the christians, biblical jews sacked cities, raped women, and tore out fetus' and threw children from the walls. Muslims raided and pillaged and many within the elite structure were corrupt. No religion is really mark free from things like this. I was taught these things in a public high school, i see no bias towards or against any particular religion.

I've mentioned and gone into detail about how Intelligent Design is not, BY DEFINITION, Science. It's a fine belief, and a belief that was held by most of the Christian world for centuries, but it belongs in a religion class, not a science class. I'm not going to repeat myself a third time as to why Intelligent Design is not science. It's possible to teach things that have a basis in religion, but not in a science classroom.

As to the intent of the founders? Most of the founders were not Christian, they were Deists at best, Atheists at worst. They understood that people came to America for religious freedom, not to have other ideologies shoved down their throats. If America is about "majority rules" then explain the Senate, which was created to protect the minority from the majority. I'm not against "god" in the pledge of allegiance, i'm not against an academic discussion concerning personal religious beliefs, but I'm vehemently against promoting religious doctrine in our public schools. To me, that crosses a boundary between church and state. Yeah, i know there's nothing written about separation of church and state, but that's frequently wrong, if you look at the intent of the founders, and the precedent for nearly every court decision on the topic.
I don't believe that public schools is used to promote the sexualization kids, through I'm assuming health classes and sex education. That's like saying we're promoting violence by teaching the history of wars, or promoting anorexia by teaching them about it. Abstinence-only education is dangerous, and knowledge never hurt anyone.
As to promoting homosexuality? I have never heard of a public school system promoting homosexuality in their curriculum.

As to the thre R's, well, I've graduated from a public school system, I can read, I can write, and I can to 'rithmatic pretty well, along with a solid foundation in history and fine arts.

I just want to reiterate that great, I.D. and creationism can be taught in a historical frame of mind, or a religious frame of mind, but it is not science, and has not been science for over 200 years by the very definition of science.

Soo....you can teach religious history in school...my thoughts exactly
If there are only TWO theories of mankinds beginning, DON'T YOU THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST MENTION ONE OF THEM. Again, I'm not saying intelligent design should be taught to student. It would seem FAIR to simply put a paragraph in to say that there are those who believe differently. What are you afraid of ?????? BTW-doesn't it seem strange that sex belongs in school but not historically relevant topics that happen to involve religion??? (yuck)

Actually, there are many who think schools are promoting sexuality and homosexuality. Do some research and you'll find examples of such. Condom demonstrations in class, speakers who discuss sex in graphic detail, homosexuality is pushed by classes designed to understand them and become more 'tolerant'.

I think schools have no problem intruding on other people's personal thoughts and beliefs, except when it comes to keeping religion FROM America.

 

[Shark Attack]

Soo....you can teach religious history in school...my thoughts exactly
If there are only TWO theories of mankinds beginning, DON'T YOU THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST MENTION ONE OF THEM. Again, I'm not saying intelligent design should be taught to student. It would seem FAIR to simply put a paragraph in to say that there are those who believe differently. What are you afraid of ?????? BTW-doesn't it seem strange that sex belongs in school but not historically relevant topics that happen to involve religion??? (yuck)

Actually, there are many who think schools are promoting sexuality and homosexuality. Do some research and you'll find examples of such. Condom demonstrations in class, speakers who discuss sex in graphic detail, homosexuality is pushed by classes designed to understand them and become more 'tolerant'.

I think schools have no problem intruding on other people's personal thoughts and beliefs, except when it comes to keeping religion FROM America.

There are many theories of the origins of mankind, but only one of them is a scientific explanation. If you want to teach Intelligent Design, then what about "Creation Science" from way back when, or the core of religious freedoms - equal treatment in government - we would have to therefore mention Scientology's creation story (aliens), Hinduism (Brahman splits into two, converges into one, and everything's created), Islam - in which man is created from mud, etc. Even just mentioning that there are others and explaining what each is would take awhile, too long for a class that shouldn't have anything to do with religion. You learn about world religions in history or religion classes, not Science classes. What am I afraid of? I'm afraid of science being overrun by religion and stagnating for another thousand years under the iron grip of the church. Remember all those people who were put to death on the suggestion that there were other worlds, or that the earth revolved around the sun? There's much to fear from religious intrusion on to science. Science is defined as explaining natural phenomena by natural causes. Religion by it's nature is super-natural, and isn't science, and I think that mixing them has dire consequences and the historical record backs me up on this one. Sure, mention ID, mention whatever, just don't teach it. The problem is that it's a bit too salient to introduce at a middle school or high school level. Parents flip out if say, they're catholic and a scientologist world-view is being explained, much more so that if a catholic world-view is being explained.

Again, abstinence only education is a very dangerous thing, and while ignorance hurts a lot of people, very knowledge rarely does. Some kids are going to have sex whether you like it or not, so what harm does it do to give them information so they can stay safe? I don't think that demonstrating how a condom works promotes sex, kids aren't THAT impressionable! Otherwise they'd come out of high school with very weird notions from the books they read in English class, and the movies they watch outside of school. As to the classes designed to teach about homosexuality and make it more acceptable and tolerated, I haven't heard about these, but maybe you know more on the topic than I do.

In order to preserve religious tolerance and freedom, I think that it's justified to "keep religion from America". Not all religions are the same, and in order to make sure that none are discriminated against, none can be given special treatment, and thanks to the dynamic duo of congress and our president, his No-Child-Left-Behind Act has never been properly funded (don't point fingers at the dems, they just got here). I'd be in favor of creating maybe a world religions class, to cover all sorts of different religions, however, in order to add that to a curriculum, schools need money. Money that they desperately are crying out for right now, and many of them are left wanting. $9,000 per student, $189,000 per soldier right now.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Soo....you can teach religious history in school...my thoughts exactly
If there are only TWO theories of mankinds beginning, DON'T YOU THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST MENTION ONE OF THEM. Again, I'm not saying intelligent design should be taught to student. It would seem FAIR to simply put a paragraph in to say that there are those who believe differently. What are you afraid of ??????

The Creation Story should be taught in religion class. Evolution should be taught in science class.

However, there is no competing theory to Evolution. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, thus mentioning any competing theory in a science textbook is not applicable since there are no competing scientific theories to Evolution.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

AAAAh, two against one? No fair!

I feel what you're saying, one can make an argument that sex ed is for the public good. Also, for the most part, religion has very little place in public education. I just think that going overboard in a zealous attempt to 'ban' it, is a mistake also.
As far as education funding goes, it has never been higher, and frankly, our schools desparately need to have accountability. God knows the school systems provide very little of that.
Our country was founded on with religious principles in mind. To say that religion has no place in public society is rediculous. Going from separation of church and state has been taken to the extreme already, to go beyond that even more, is ignoring our history.

It seems the more crap we see on tv, movies, and music, the more our society becomes more secular, the more our schools attempt to make our kids 'sexually aware' and homo-friendly (tolerant), the worse our society becomes. At the same time, our kids coming out of public schools can barely fill out a job application. Perhaps NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND is something that is sorely needed. The problem is that people on the left love to criticize that program, bitch about global warming, the Iraq war, and REFUSE TO OFFER SOLUTIONS. It is a shame that we can't teach people to be tolerant of religion, or our soldiers, or people who disagree with them, or perhaps how to spell.
Congratulations to those who have worked so hard to fight religion, values, and education reform, as far as the effect goes.... you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

AAAAh, two against one? No fair!

I feel what you're saying, one can make an argument that sex ed is for the public good.

If Sex Ed focuses on keeping kids HEALTHY and reminds kids that abstinence is 100% safe...I am fine with it. Because expecting 16 year olds not to be intimate is delusional.

Also, for the most part, religion has very little place in public education.

I am not so sure about that. I think religion is VERY important because it shows how each cultural civilization developed. Our values are very different from Chinese values based on many things, religion being a BIG reason.

I fully support teaching kids about the cultural differences that exist, ESPECIALLY when religion is involved. Religion is a motivator like nothing known to man...politics change with the decades...but religions drive societies.

I just think that going overboard in a zealous attempt to 'ban' it, is a mistake also.

Teaching about the major religions is KEY in a young person's development. Without that teaching we will never achieve any form of cultural awareness.

If kids learn about Islam and how it affected the middle east NOW, they will be more likely to approach Middle Eastern issues with a clear viewpoint.

I have only learned about this stuff since college... The Sunni-Shia divide was unknown to me at age 21. But at at 35, I am watching a small civil war play out around that divide. Wow!

Our country was founded on with religious principles in mind. To say that religion has no place in public society is rediculous. Going from separation of church and state has been taken to the extreme already, to go beyond that even more, is ignoring our history.

Religion was important in our founding, inasmuch as our fear of government promoting it came into play. Jefferson was obviously one of the harshest critics of Religion that we know of...and he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

It seems the more crap we see on tv, movies, and music, the more our society becomes more secular, the more our schools attempt to make our kids 'sexually aware' and homo-friendly (tolerant), the worse our society becomes.

I think we are more aware of the problems. Kids at age 18 TODAY read better, do math better, and have a deeper understanding for science than kids 60 years ago. However, global competition makes us more critical of what we don't know, rather than appreciative of what we do know.

In the 50's you only needed a high school education to begin working in manufacturing as a Manufacturing Manager. Now, I would expect no less than an MBA and 5 years experience.

Times change, so do requirements.

At the same time, our kids coming out of public schools can barely fill out a job application.

US literacy rates have not dropped in the last 50 years...but we care more when someone drops out... (or we notice more) Probably because the more "menial" jobs don't pay what they used to. Guys working a checkout line could actually live on that 50 years ago. Now you will starve and you need another person in the family working as well.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

There are alot of private schools today. There is a big difference in graduates of those and from public schools. It seems that we are lowing our standards of education, just to simply get students to learn the basics. Literacy is wonderful, so is being able to think, write well, and formulate coherant thoughts.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

There are alot of private schools today. There is a big difference in graduates of those and from public schools. It seems that we are lowing our standards of education, just to simply get students to learn the basics. Literacy is wonderful, so is being able to think, write well, and formulate coherant thoughts.

Well of course there is a difference...they kick out kids who do poorly.

In fact, a buddy of mine who was VP of the board of his Christian school just pulled his kid out. His son has ADD and the teachers told him point blank that they cannot help him, so he needs to go to public school.

I went through the Public school system and we had a lot of kids who came to Public school from Private school. They do poorly and get kicked out.

That way the Public schools are able to teach only those who do well (for one reason or other). It's a self-fulfilling prophecy:
- All our kids are good workers
- All our kids have good grades

Well duh, you kicked out the bad ones.

That does not tell me they teach better, it tells me they weed out the ones with bad scores.

My PUBLIC high school in Minnesota had the State's highest SAT scores consistently...higher than the expensive private schools. Why? Parents in the community cared enough to make sure their kids paid attention in school and valued their education.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

They DO NOT kick out kids who do poorly in subject material. If you have seen evidence of this, it is few and far between. What they really do, is hold them back a grade. They kick out kids who have behavioral issues. Such as fighting, cheating, weapons, etc. I have been involved with many a private school (six), and not one did that which you say.

There are some great public schools in cincinnati. They are all in affluent areas where they get nice schools and teachers, and parents DON'T need to spend the money for a better school.

Public schools suffer because of the low expectation, giving no homework, not requiring text books, allowing study halls instead of taking 6 classes. It is babysitting time, not college prep. I know this because I have taken the time to find out about our local school.

I wish I was wrong, but I'm not. The teacher's union is more worried about protecting teachers and their turf, than about the kids' education. How important do we place childrens education, when the only way a teacher can get fired (virtually), is to have sex with a student. Accountability is the answer, not more money.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

They DO NOT kick out kids who do poorly in subject material. If you have seen evidence of this, it is few and far between. What they really do, is hold them back a grade.

I have seen tons of it. For instance at the college level (like ND) you get kicked out if your grades fall too low and many private high schools and elemtary schools do this as well. The more elite they are, the more they do this...

 

[Shark Attack]

A lot of really good points being brought up, one thing needing to be addressed though.
Funding may be at an all time high, that means nothing. Put it into perspective and it's not enough for the times.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Money is not the answer, it is about parents, teachers, and students.
Parents:
Make sure kids are dressed appropriately for learning.
Make sure kids go to school
Spend time with them on homework
Have a home that is happy and not one of chaos
Teachers:
Have high expectations for students
Use textbooks
Assign homework
Students:
Be organized and prepared
Keep cell phones and ipods out of school
Do homework and study

If all this were being done consistently, there would be a lot fewer problems.....IF!
Washington DC gets a ton of money, and the educational results there are AWFUL. Things need to change socially, and at school, for real improvements to occur.

 

[Shark Attack]

That leaves the huge problem of student to teacher rations unsolved.

Without money, schools can't hire teachers.

Without enough teachers, you have enormous class sizes.

Without small class sizes, students don't get as much individual attention.

Without individual attention, students who are having problems in class will have a very difficult time catching up and education cannot be catered to fit different learning personalities (visual learners, etc).

In high school in an AP class which is supposed to be a college level course, we had a student teacher ratio of 35:1. In past years with better funding, it was about 12:1.

Without a sufficient number of teachers per students, there's a sharp decline in the quality of education being provided.

Yes, there needs to be a good foundation at home, yes, there shouldn't be a lot of distractions IE cell phones and ipods at school, yes, there should be some sort of a dress code, but I don't care if you have the best teachers in the country, if you give them an hour out of the day to teach 30+ kids something, I can guarantee you that the grades in that class would be lower than if you had an average teacher and a class a third of that size.

Some schools are even struggling to buy enough textbooks for each student, which results in textbooks that are seriously outdated, or students sharing textbooks. It shouldn't be left almost exclusively up to individual communities to ensure that their public school systems are providing a solid education.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Money money money, we went that route already, and nothing changes. I guess good 'ol fashioned hard work doesn't sell votes.

 

[Shark Attack]

It takes a combination of the two. One without the other isn't any good i guess

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I understand what you are saying. It just seems that private schools can operate on a shoestring budget and get great results. It is not just about the education, but about the environment they allow on campus. I think public schools are lacking a mindset of "we are here to work and get things accomplished" and I see it firsthand all the time.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I understand what you are saying. It just seems that private schools can operate on a shoestring budget and get great results. It is not just about the education, but about the environment they allow on campus. I think public schools are lacking a mindset of "we are here to work and get things accomplished" and I see it firsthand all the time.

Private schools operate on tight budgets, but their per head budgets can be far, far higher.

I just sat on the board of a small private school for the last 3 years. When you looked at the tuition, it was only about $6,500/head...but when you added in the donations, etc...it was WAY higher.

The two areas where small Private Schools save money:
1) Overhead
2) Teacher Pay (you get far higher teacher turnover though, since you pay like crap)

Large Private schools are a different breed...they have a highercost structure as Public Schools.

In fact, if you were to use Oregon as an example, you would find that the 3 big private schools in the area have tremendously high costs as relate to Public Schools:
Jesuit H.S., Catlin Gable, and Oregon Episcopal School.

Catlin Gable runs $20,900/year for High School...

At that school you will also need:
Books (new book price*) $300 - $800
Laptop Computer $1,500 - $3,000

Jesuit is half the price:
$8,950

However, they are not nearly as good as Catlin Gable and they are HEAVILY funded through fundraisers, etc. I am not sure if they get money from the local Diocese though.