B
Liberal bias in America's schools....
- Thread starter Gop guy
- Start date
Gop guy
Member
- Thread starter
- #22
GOP.. you sound like it is an atrocity to not have anything in defense of President Bush.. Did they have anything in defense of John Kerry? Supporting John Kerry? I would think that any non offensive material that was put there whether it was right or left would not be torn down. I would try it, and if it was then you can be angry if it is torn down. But by assuming it would be.. wtf?
You don't seem to understand, the faculty at my school are AGING HIPPIES.
There was nothing in defense of President Bush, just a bunch of radical shit from Moveon.org.
It would be torn down, liberals are all for free speech, until someone question THEM.
THE RIGHT IS RIGHT
You don't seem to understand, the faculty at my school are AGING HIPPIES.
There was nothing in defense of President Bush, just a bunch of radical shit from Moveon.org.
It would be torn down, liberals are all for free speech, until someone question THEM.
THE RIGHT IS RIGHT
mattskramer
Senior Member
I did not read all of the posts. I think that schools should be privatized and that attendance should be optional. We should return "school tax" to the taxpayers. By doing so, people would be more able to afford to send their children to the school of their choice.
For the poor, there would be local private schools. Home-schoolers would be able to teach local kids from their homes. Private scholarships would exist. Industry may provide gifts and grants to assist in the education of future prospective employees.
We would no longer have these religious and political fights and debates. Those who want God and creationism emphasized would teach their children God and creationism and/or send their children to schools that emphasize it. Atheists and those who don't want any mention of God would be free have their children educated without reference to God.
Those with a supposed conservative philosophy would be free to take their kids to conservative schools - Liberals may take kids to liberal schools. Those wanting strict behavior and discipline may take their kids to schools that severely punish or expel "troublemakers". Those who don't consider formal education to be important would be free to educate their children naturally at home.
For the poor, there would be local private schools. Home-schoolers would be able to teach local kids from their homes. Private scholarships would exist. Industry may provide gifts and grants to assist in the education of future prospective employees.
We would no longer have these religious and political fights and debates. Those who want God and creationism emphasized would teach their children God and creationism and/or send their children to schools that emphasize it. Atheists and those who don't want any mention of God would be free have their children educated without reference to God.
Those with a supposed conservative philosophy would be free to take their kids to conservative schools - Liberals may take kids to liberal schools. Those wanting strict behavior and discipline may take their kids to schools that severely punish or expel "troublemakers". Those who don't consider formal education to be important would be free to educate their children naturally at home.
I hate to be the voice of realism here..... but it won't work. Schools are already massively subsidized at the local, state, and federal levels. The school tax refund will not even come close to financing the education of your kid. Your idea was tried already in Europe and America into the 1800's. The "little house on the prairie" one room schools were the first attempt at public schooling. Before that most people were home schooled or not educated at all unless they were a member of the nobility. For all it's flaws, our public education system is the model for the world, because it works. Please don't flame me with a million "Johnny can't read" examples. I am not saying that it isn't damaged and flawed.
Again, the reality of the situation is that total privatization would lead to exemplary schools in some areas and nothing or next to nothing in others. The fights regarding religion, left, right, liberal, conservative, republican, or democrat would continue even worse. Each side would be polarized fully instead of having been exposed to opposing views. As you entered the world, you would be identified with what your school or lack of school brought with you. A cracker from the deep south who went to the KKK sponsored local school would always hate blacks. Of course a "Local Boy" from Hawaii who goes to the school sponsored by the island sovereignty movement would be indoctrinated to hate all haoles. I don't want you to think I am bashing for fun. I was thinking on posting a possible fix to the education system. I'll finish the reading and try to post soon, so you can tear my ideas up as well.
C
CrazyLiberal
Guest
Sir Evil-Really I thought Republicans respected teachers more. They strike because they do need a raise, they may have summers off, but being a teacher is one of the most demanding and hectic jobs possible. I was a teacher's assistant for half a year, I quit because I just couldn't take it. Don't pass it off as easy and overpaided (hah any teacher you tell they were overpaided would slap you) until you try it.
5stringJeff
Senior Member
Great idea.
GOP guy, did you put something up? Tell us that you did, then tell us how it went!
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 515
- 48
- Banned
- #28
Yeah. gop guy. what'd you do? what'd you do?
mattskramer
Senior Member
Pengwinn - I guess that we will agree to disagree.
If public schools are so heavily subsidized, it just means that so much more money can be returned to the individual tax payer. Also related to cost savings: So many public school classes today teach political indoctrination and basket weaving (unnecessary subjects for a student intent on a career having nothing to do with politics or baskets). By privatizing schools, some may decide to specialize, resulting in less cost for the student and his family. Another economic point: I'm relatively poor, but if my neighbor would be willing to teach my child (assuming I have one) the neighbor and I can negotiate tuition and perhaps even barter. I think that private donations, home schools, charity schools, and the like will also help the poor receive an education.
There will be some relatively balanced private schools but some schools might not be politically or racially extreme (such as your KKK example). Those families that don't like exposing their children to such extremes will not allow their children to attend. The schools will not be able to compete. They will not get any money. Therefore they will die. It is called competition in a relatively free market. This is certainly different from many schools today. If public schools do poorly, they can simply call on government to give them more money. There is relatively little accountability on skill, merit, or subject matter. I think that it is ultimately up to each individual parent to decide how and what their child is taught.
Finally, consider the statistical fact that on average, private schools outperform public schools on many dimensions.
If public schools are so heavily subsidized, it just means that so much more money can be returned to the individual tax payer. Also related to cost savings: So many public school classes today teach political indoctrination and basket weaving (unnecessary subjects for a student intent on a career having nothing to do with politics or baskets). By privatizing schools, some may decide to specialize, resulting in less cost for the student and his family. Another economic point: I'm relatively poor, but if my neighbor would be willing to teach my child (assuming I have one) the neighbor and I can negotiate tuition and perhaps even barter. I think that private donations, home schools, charity schools, and the like will also help the poor receive an education.
There will be some relatively balanced private schools but some schools might not be politically or racially extreme (such as your KKK example). Those families that don't like exposing their children to such extremes will not allow their children to attend. The schools will not be able to compete. They will not get any money. Therefore they will die. It is called competition in a relatively free market. This is certainly different from many schools today. If public schools do poorly, they can simply call on government to give them more money. There is relatively little accountability on skill, merit, or subject matter. I think that it is ultimately up to each individual parent to decide how and what their child is taught.
Finally, consider the statistical fact that on average, private schools outperform public schools on many dimensions.
Pengwinn - I guess that we will agree to disagree. Hi, I am Phil, Was the n in front of the g a typo or a pun?
If public schools are so heavily subsidized, it just means that so much more money can be returned to the individual tax payer. I respectfully must ask, how? How do we determine who gets the money? Local school systems receive money from higher government sources. Where will that go? Also, not all residents are paying into the schools. Most states use property taxes and lottery proceeds to fund education.Also related to cost savings: So many public school classes today teach political indoctrination and basket weaving (unnecessary subjects for a student intent on a career having nothing to do with politics or baskets). By privatizing schools, some may decide to specialize, resulting in less cost for the student and his family. I agree totally about unneeded classes. I agree with the theory of specialty schools. I have heard of "Engineering" high schools. Another economic point: I'm relatively poor, but if my neighbor would be willing to teach my child (assuming I have one) the neighbor and I can negotiate tuition and perhaps even barter. I think that private donations, home schools, charity schools, and the like will also help the poor receive an education. Good luck. I believe this is where the idealist and the realist have a different picture about how well the public will band together to help each other
There will be some relatively balanced private schools but some schools might not be politically or racially extreme (such as your KKK example). Those families that don't like exposing their children to such extremes will not allow their children to attend. The schools will not be able to compete. They will not get any money. Therefore they will die. It is called competition in a relatively free market. This is certainly different from many schools today. It would only take one school funded by the KKK in a strategic section of LA (LOWER ALABAMA). Since district lines would blur, it could attract a capacity crowd. Or the Louis Farrakhan school in Compton.If public schools do poorly, they can simply call on government to give them more money. There is relatively little accountability on skill, merit, or subject matter. I think that it is ultimately up to each individual parent to decide how and what their child is taught. Absolutely true on all points.
Finally, consider the statistical fact that on average, private schools outperform public schools on many dimensions. I also believe this.
If public schools are so heavily subsidized, it just means that so much more money can be returned to the individual tax payer. I respectfully must ask, how? How do we determine who gets the money? Local school systems receive money from higher government sources. Where will that go? Also, not all residents are paying into the schools. Most states use property taxes and lottery proceeds to fund education.Also related to cost savings: So many public school classes today teach political indoctrination and basket weaving (unnecessary subjects for a student intent on a career having nothing to do with politics or baskets). By privatizing schools, some may decide to specialize, resulting in less cost for the student and his family. I agree totally about unneeded classes. I agree with the theory of specialty schools. I have heard of "Engineering" high schools. Another economic point: I'm relatively poor, but if my neighbor would be willing to teach my child (assuming I have one) the neighbor and I can negotiate tuition and perhaps even barter. I think that private donations, home schools, charity schools, and the like will also help the poor receive an education. Good luck. I believe this is where the idealist and the realist have a different picture about how well the public will band together to help each other
There will be some relatively balanced private schools but some schools might not be politically or racially extreme (such as your KKK example). Those families that don't like exposing their children to such extremes will not allow their children to attend. The schools will not be able to compete. They will not get any money. Therefore they will die. It is called competition in a relatively free market. This is certainly different from many schools today. It would only take one school funded by the KKK in a strategic section of LA (LOWER ALABAMA). Since district lines would blur, it could attract a capacity crowd. Or the Louis Farrakhan school in Compton.If public schools do poorly, they can simply call on government to give them more money. There is relatively little accountability on skill, merit, or subject matter. I think that it is ultimately up to each individual parent to decide how and what their child is taught. Absolutely true on all points.
Finally, consider the statistical fact that on average, private schools outperform public schools on many dimensions. I also believe this.
I was assigned this book by a teacher, believe it or not. He only assigned parts of it, but I recently re-read the entire thing. It is by far my favorite book and epitiomizes to me what it means to be a productive member of society.
I take Rand very seriously. If more people lived their lives the way Galt, Rearden, Dagny etc., lived their lives the world would be a better place. I think most people have this idea that these characters are only about themselves and the right to their money. When, in actuality they are realy, simply about fairness.
I realy don't understand what you mean about Rand forgetting about people. Rand would not have a problem with people helping people. She has a problem with people saying you are obligated and required to help them.
That's a bold statement. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it can't work for me. I simply don't see how it is possible for you to make this statement. The people who followed her philosophy (i.e. Galt) were happy and though it is fictional her characters aren't that unrealistic. Maybe you didn't try hard enough.
Sorry, but you're just asking for a response here. According to Rand, there is usually only one reasonable solution to problem thus the right solution. So if reason = right, how can knowing what is right not make you happy? On what basis do you make this statment?
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #33
Ok, here's my solution Cop Guy, if you want more conservative ideas in shcools, become a freakin teacher. You want more conserative professors? Here's an idea, instead of becoming a cop or a businessman or a flunky for corrupt CEO's, become a professor. DUh.
007
Charter Member
The simplest solution is "home school". On the average home schooled kids are smarter and better adjusted than public schooled kids. Probably because of the lack of distractions, no peer pressure, and the absence of liberal teachers teaching kids things that contradict what they're parents are trying to teach them at home.
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #35
I'd believe average home schooled kids are smarter than average public school kids. But better adjusted? I've known some home schoolers, and they're all pretty weird. I think, sadly, the best option is a private school, unless you happen to live in a place where the public school is in the upper 10%, the rest of the public schools just aren't worth didly. We pay teachers crap, go figure.
mattskramer
Senior Member
pegwinn - I was rushing to create the post. When I typed your name I did a typo.
Tax money can be returned to the people. "Local school systems receive money from higher government sources" Where do the higher government sources got its money? It is a matter of following the trail and reversing it. If the government can create such a complex and convoluted tax system, surely it can figure out how to reverse the process. Local systems can do likewise.
"Where will that go? Also, not all residents are paying into the schools. Most states use property taxes and lottery proceeds to fund education."
The money will go back to the taxpayer (directly or indirectly). Everyone pays school tax (indirectly if not directly). I live in an apartment, so I don't pay property tax. My landlady pays the property tax. Part of the property tax goes to support public schools. When property tax increases, the cost (at least to a tiny degree) is passed on to me in the form of higher rent.
Tax money can be returned to the people. "Local school systems receive money from higher government sources" Where do the higher government sources got its money? It is a matter of following the trail and reversing it. If the government can create such a complex and convoluted tax system, surely it can figure out how to reverse the process. Local systems can do likewise.
"Where will that go? Also, not all residents are paying into the schools. Most states use property taxes and lottery proceeds to fund education."
The money will go back to the taxpayer (directly or indirectly). Everyone pays school tax (indirectly if not directly). I live in an apartment, so I don't pay property tax. My landlady pays the property tax. Part of the property tax goes to support public schools. When property tax increases, the cost (at least to a tiny degree) is passed on to me in the form of higher rent.
I'd like to see a model of the privatized school system in a small state. Say Hawaii or Maine or RI. Honestly I have my doubts about how well it would work, but it has enough merit to try on a small scale to gather the data.
Until then, my last kid is going to public school because I like the school. And whenever the teachers/school admin cross a line I visit them openly and loudly both during the school day and during the PTA meetings.
Until then, my last kid is going to public school because I like the school. And whenever the teachers/school admin cross a line I visit them openly and loudly both during the school day and during the PTA meetings.
mattskramer
Senior Member
If and when I have a child, I will never send him to public school, even though I will be practically be paying tuition twice to send him to private school (public school tax and private school tuition). Doesn't it tell you something when parents, while paying public school tax are willing to also pay private school tuition to have their children attend private school.
Check out these stories:
http://www.schoolchoicecommittee.com/stories/index.html
Here is a link for those who like statistics:
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
B
Big D
Guest
Liberal School Teacher:
http://www.wpmi.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=DF803DB9-CDCB-4A24-8C0D-851EAD80ACC7
http://www.wpmi.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=DF803DB9-CDCB-4A24-8C0D-851EAD80ACC7
Similar threads
New Topics
-
BREAKING VIDEO – Tom Homan Hints That Arrests Of Democrats Haboring Ilegals Is Incoming- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 3
-
Shocking and Disturbing New Audio of Abrego-Garcia's Wife Leaks, Paints Democrats Further Into a Corner
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 1
-
-
Another Fifth Column Judge, Fernandez Rodriguez, subverts the legislative intent of the Alien Enemies Act
- Started by johnwk
- Replies: 8
-
