Self-Serving Liberal "Facts"

[initforme]

Nothing wrong with vouchers as long as

1). You will accept ALL behaviorally challenging students no matter how disruptive they are. They cannot be removed from the educational setting for ANY circumstance. In return some high performing students will be taken out of the voucher school to make room for them thus raising the test scores for some other school.
2). They are forced to take all the mandated tests that so many of my fellow conservatives are in love with.
3). They provide free breakfast and lunch for those kids that qualify. Kids are victims of lack of parenting.
Theres a start

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing wrong with vouchers as long as

1). You will accept ALL behaviorally challenging students no matter how disruptive they are. They cannot be removed from the educational setting for ANY circumstance. In return some high performing students will be taken out of the voucher school to make room for them thus raising the test scores for some other school.
2). They are forced to take all the mandated tests that so many of my fellow conservatives are in love with.
3). They provide free breakfast and lunch for those kids that qualify. Kids are victims of lack of parenting.
Theres a start

" You will accept ALL behaviorally challenging students no matter how disruptive they are."


Nonsense.


That's what we have today.


Actions have consequences.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments of this Union rest excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.”
P. 268 U. S. 535.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters - 268 U.S. 510 (1925) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center




2. The ‘school choice’ movement began to grow in the 50’s, when economist Milton Friedman, in a 1955 article ”The Role of Government in Education,” suggested that government “give each child…a specified sum to be used for his general education; the parents would be free to spend this sum at a school of their own choice, provided it met certain minimum standards…”
The Father of Modern School Reform - Reason.com

 

[Daktoria]

Nobody said children had to only be educated by the government. Their family and church and neighborhood educate them as well.

However, there are instances where children exist in dysfunctional families where atheism and social decay prevail. They need education in order to learn about their rights and how to independently make a living.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not sure if that's exactly what's being argued there by liberals.

What's really being argued is people aren't statistics, but if some conservatives want to treat people like they're statistics in having to conform to popular practical traditional norms within a certain degree a variation, and only being valuable if they're monetarily useful, then liberals might as well counter-balance them by playing number games back at them.

There's also a matter that more authority figures in schools makes it easier for students to be kept in line, and this is something conservatives should sympathize with since they agree that public schools are out of control with behavioral issues. Likewise, there are so many conservative who insist on using authority figures in the first place to discipline children rather than taking a graceful approach through heritage instead.

You seem clueless about conservatives....and I should have let your post go after "I'm not sure if that's exactly what's being argued there by liberals."

It was the hermeneutic key to the rest of the post.


Let me speak for this conservative:

Vouchers....free will for those using education.

It certainly worked well as the G.I. Bill.....

Conservatives shouldn't support vouchers because they contradict family values.

Every family in society does not live in or near a successful community, so lots of children would end up getting bussed to school districts which are long distances away. Likewise, the parents of those children would struggle to represent their children's interests in PTA meetings nevermind faculty meetings in case of disciplinary, scheduling, or extracurricular activity issues.

The free market has its place, but there are foundations that do not get privatized when it comes to living in a civil republic.

If you were a libertarian, I'd try to persuade you otherwise, but you're not, so I don't think I have to go there.

"Conservatives shouldn't support vouchers because they contradict family values."

Absurd.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem clueless about conservatives....and I should have let your post go after "I'm not sure if that's exactly what's being argued there by liberals."

It was the hermeneutic key to the rest of the post.


Let me speak for this conservative:

Vouchers....free will for those using education.

It certainly worked well as the G.I. Bill.....

Conservatives shouldn't support vouchers because they contradict family values.

Every family in society does not live in or near a successful community, so lots of children would end up getting bussed to school districts which are long distances away. Likewise, the parents of those children would struggle to represent their children's interests in PTA meetings nevermind faculty meetings in case of disciplinary, scheduling, or extracurricular activity issues.

The free market has its place, but there are foundations that do not get privatized when it comes to living in a civil republic.

If you were a libertarian, I'd try to persuade you otherwise, but you're not, so I don't think I have to go there.

"Conservatives shouldn't support vouchers because they contradict family values."

Absurd.

Conservatives shouldn't support vouchers because vouchers represent an expansion of government spending,

something conservatives often at least pretend to be opposed to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taking students out of one teacher's class and putting them into another doesn't change average class size.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The irony here, of course, is the author of this thread bombarding us with 'scientific' theories,

and academic studies...

...that being the same author who in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief.

btw, what's the average size of a homeschool class? You know, homeschooling, whose devout believers are quick to tell you is the best education EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The irony here, of course, is the author of this thread bombarding us with 'scientific' theories,

and academic studies...

...that being the same author who in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief.

btw, what's the average size of a homeschool class? You know, homeschooling, whose devout believers are quick to tell you is the best education EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You, as is your wont, are starting off the day with a lie.....

...Jeremiah 13:23: the leopard can't change his spots.


"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."

Darwinism.
The belief championed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels....and folks like you, who don't understand science.
No proof....therefore based on faith.



And speaking of proof,

"...You know, homeschooling, whose devout believers are quick to tell you is the best education..."

Homeschoolers achieve higher grades than public school students.

 

[Daktoria]

I'm not a Marxist, and I agree that Marx has problems such as social Darwinism in his conception of species-being and historical materialism.

I just can't be bothered to discuss Marx with someone who dismisses another's idea as absurd without even considering the underlying justification.

To be honest, I actually get the impression that the author is hiding behind feminism right now from how feminism has tolerated women hiding behind having bad manners from the deconstruction of objective morality which has supposedly oppressed women through patriarchic, religious, western civilization.

Maybe that's why she's dismissed criticisms of family values out of hand so easily.

I guess that's why she's focusing on the free market too. It's the consumerism of free markets which has enabled feminism so much through its deconstruction of social fabric by advertising decadence.

The same force is actually effective in the public education system as well. Students who come from households already related with the flows of wealth in society get spoiled, win popularity contests, and socially alienate everyone around them.

Maybe that's why she supports vouchers so much. She wants students from unrelated households to be pressured to associate with related households in order to reinforce the popularity contest and social alienation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The irony here, of course, is the author of this thread bombarding us with 'scientific' theories,

and academic studies...

...that being the same author who in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief.

btw, what's the average size of a homeschool class? You know, homeschooling, whose devout believers are quick to tell you is the best education EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You, as is your wont, are starting off the day with a lie.....

...Jeremiah 13:23: the leopard can't change his spots.


"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."

Darwinism.
The belief championed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels....and folks like you, who don't understand science.
No proof....therefore based on faith.

Science has proven that the account of creation and the timeline of events in Genesis cannot possibly be true, therefore the creationist theory you believe in has been eliminated as an explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth.

Remind me where you acknowledged that?

Homeschoolers achieve higher grades than public school students.

Can you prove that your children receive higher grades that non-homeschooled children, once you reduce the pool of the latter down to where they are comparable in all ways needed for an apples to apples comparison to your children?

Or wasn't your proclamation meant to be demonstrably factual?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Google 'homeschooling individual attention' and you will quickly find that one of the top reasons homeschoolers (which includes the author of this thread) give in their assertions of the merits of homeschooling

is the ability of the student to receive more individual attention.

Logically, based on the premise of this thread, the homeschooling OP doesn't herself believe that any such claim by homeschoolers has any merit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The irony here, of course, is the author of this thread bombarding us with 'scientific' theories,

and academic studies...

...that being the same author who in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief.

btw, what's the average size of a homeschool class? You know, homeschooling, whose devout believers are quick to tell you is the best education EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You, as is your wont, are starting off the day with a lie.....

...Jeremiah 13:23: the leopard can't change his spots.


"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."

Darwinism.
The belief championed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels....and folks like you, who don't understand science.
No proof....therefore based on faith.

Science has proven that the account of creation and the timeline of events in Genesis cannot possibly be true, therefore the creationist theory you believe in has been eliminated as an explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth.

Remind me where you acknowledged that?

Homeschoolers achieve higher grades than public school students.

Can you prove that your children receive higher grades that non-homeschooled children, once you reduce the pool of the latter down to where they are comparable in all ways needed for an apples to apples comparison to your children?

Or wasn't your proclamation meant to be demonstrably factual?

Did you change the subject because I identified you as a liar?


Good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not a Marxist, and I agree that Marx has problems such as social Darwinism in his conception of species-being and historical materialism.

I just can't be bothered to discuss Marx with someone who dismisses another's idea as absurd without even considering the underlying justification.

To be honest, I actually get the impression that the author is hiding behind feminism right now from how feminism has tolerated women hiding behind having bad manners from the deconstruction of objective morality which has supposedly oppressed women through patriarchic, religious, western civilization.

Maybe that's why she's dismissed criticisms of family values out of hand so easily.

I guess that's why she's focusing on the free market too. It's the consumerism of free markets which has enabled feminism so much through its deconstruction of social fabric by advertising decadence.

The same force is actually effective in the public education system as well. Students who come from households already related with the flows of wealth in society get spoiled, win popularity contests, and socially alienate everyone around them.

Maybe that's why she supports vouchers so much. She wants students from unrelated households to be pressured to associate with related households in order to reinforce the popularity contest and social alienation.

"Maybe that's why she's dismissed....."


The reason?

Because you're an idiot.


You must lose arguments with inanimate objects.

 

[Daktoria]

2+2=4

You're an idiot.

We got a winner....

Next time you want to call someone stupid, make sure you explain what's right first.

Otherwise, you come off like someone who's obstructing consensus by denying the obvious and asserting the inane...

...which is a classic liberal trick anyway. They tend to do this when denying things like free will as a justification for individual responsibility, calling those who believe in free will stupid without explaining how personal action takes place.

 

[Daktoria]

Google 'homeschooling individual attention' and you will quickly find that one of the top reasons homeschoolers (which includes the author of this thread) give in their assertions of the merits of homeschooling

is the ability of the student to receive more individual attention.

Logically, based on the premise of this thread, the homeschooling OP doesn't herself believe that any such claim by homeschoolers has any merit.

To be fair, homeschooling isn't entirely unjustified.

Society can be crude, nasty, and brutish. Heck, there are lots of liberals in public education who complain about the bullying they endure from conservative counterparts who anti-intellectually believe in rugged individualism.

A homeschooled environment secures someone from this bullying. As long as the student has secondary influences, it really isn't a bad idea.

The problem is when homeschooled students have nothing else going for them. Then, they become socially alienated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."


Did you change the subject because I identified you as a liar?


Good.

Are you accusing me of lying when I said this about you?

"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."

On November 14th you said this:

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

So, tell me. Where's the lie?

Link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/324330-on-the-disparity-of-species-5.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

Google 'homeschooling individual attention' and you will quickly find that one of the top reasons homeschoolers (which includes the author of this thread) give in their assertions of the merits of homeschooling

is the ability of the student to receive more individual attention.

Logically, based on the premise of this thread, the homeschooling OP doesn't herself believe that any such claim by homeschoolers has any merit.

To be fair, homeschooling isn't entirely unjustified.

Society can be crude, nasty, and brutish. Heck, there are lots of liberals in public education who complain about the bullying they endure from conservative counterparts who anti-intellectually believe in rugged individualism.

A homeschooled environment secures someone from this bullying. As long as the student has secondary influences, it really isn't a bad idea.

The problem is when homeschooled students have nothing else going for them. Then, they become socially alienated.

To be fair, I never said or implied any such thing.

The point was, if it needs repeating, is

1. the author of this thread is a homeschooler

2. the author of this thread is making a class that the merits of smaller class size are mythical

3. homeschoolers frequently tout the small 'class size', if I may call it that for emphasis, that homeschooling affords as one of its most important advantages.

4. 1, 2, and 3, in combination, are mildly amusing.

that was my point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Question for the OP,

if class size is less important than the quality of the teacher,

wouldn't it be better to have your child in a class of 35 taught by a top notch teacher,

than to have that child being schooled by you?

 

[regent]

Expecting our school systems to be healthier than the communities from whence they draw their students is, of course, asinine.

Now seriously, PC.

You do not already know this?

Seems you are oblivious of the results from poor Asian communities....or the turn of the century Jewish communities on NY's Lower East Side.

Somehow Liberal folks have perfected selective memory.

What is imperative is the immediate removal of Liberals and Progressives from any contact with decisions about education.

Seriously.




1. Progressives claimed that intelligence was so fixed, and so important, that it had to be the basis for keeping certain races from entering the country, and to suppress the reproduction of races already living here.


2. Almost synonymous with 'the Progressive Era' is the idea that science was the basis for the ideas behind it. The impetus for the scientific views was the huge European immigration, especially the shift from Northern and Western Europeans, to Southern and Eastern Europeans. Unhappiness with the way these new waves looked, or behaved, scientists leapt to explain how inferior they were! For same, came the efficient manner of dealing with these problems. The start was the accumulation of data on crime rates, disease rates, mental test scores, school performance.

a. 100,000 soldier were tested during WWI, and those of English, German, and Irish ancestry scored considerably higher than those of Russian, Italian, and Polish.
Brigham, "A Study of American Intelligence," (1923), p. xx.

b. Carl Brigham, authority on mental tests, and creator of the College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Test- claimed that the Army test 'disproved the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent.'
Brigham, Ibid, p. 190.

c. Black children in Youngstown, Ohio, scored higher than children of Polish, Greek, and other immigrants there.
Pinter and Keller, "Intelligence Tests of Foreign Children," Journal of Educational Psychology,(April 1922), p. 215.

d. What to do with these 'facts'?
For progressives and liberals, "theirs was the vision of the anointed as surrogate decision- makers....[including] an expanded role for government and an expanded role for judges to re-interpret the Constitution so as to loosen the restrictions on the powers of government."
Sowell, "Intellectuals and Race," p. 26.






3. Progressives used the fact that groups with lower IQs tended to have large families as a reason for eugenics, i.e., that over time, this would lower the national IQ. Actually, research in more than a dozen countries showed that the average performance on IQ tests rose substantially- by a full standard deviation or more- in a generation or two.
James R. Flynn, "The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains 1932-1978, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 95, pp. 29-51; and Flynn, "Massive Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Really Means," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 101, pp. 171-191.




Here's a fact for you: the size of the font is unrelated to the veracity of your post....as proven above.

One would hope that with the new year, I will see an improvement in the content of your posts.


On the bright side, you may continue to count on me for the education you so sorely lack.

Seriously.

So the solution seems to be allow only Asians or Jewish kids from the lower east side to go to our schools. Good idea.