ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What would you prefer for your children, conservative or liberal K-12 Education in public schools?Do not forget that after liberal "education" in public schools many children are illiterate and know nothing. BTW most of wealthy people ( democrats and liberals too ) send their children only to conservative schools. Please explain your choice and do not forget that too liberal "education" in public schools has downgraded America to one of the lowest places among other western countries.
I didn't realize there was a difference in public schools. Public schools are run by the government and in turn run by one people...there is no conservative or liberal its merely government run indoctrination centers...children don't go to school to learn they are now merely pawns in a game of life and death that most people have not woken up to.
going to a private school.
Twelve years in the public education system in Texas, coupled with 3 years of internships and observations during college. In Texas, teacher pay is heavily based on the percentage of children who pass the TAKS test every year, with only about 30% of their performance dependent upon student success on general coursework.
As a student we spent August-April preparing for the TAKS (formerly TAAS) test. During that time at least 50% of our day was focused on test taking strategies, practice tests, and "tricks" to help us answer questions we don't know the answers to. We were taught how to write to please those grading that portion (and graders were often not educators, or those with any education background to speak of...they requested volunteers to save money).
I find public k-12 schools to be mostly nonpartisan? They do not get real deep into issues that could be considered liberal or not. I suppose sex education is somewhat liberal... but other than that, they are really just learning basic stuff man.
okay.
so you were taught the material on the test, study strategies, and how to write effectively.
you're going to have to forgive me if i see this as not that bad a trade-off in return for a metric by which we can compare/contrast school, teacher, and student performance.
actually it would be called "education vouchers"
:shrug: history too; and poli sci and economics are also courses taught at the HS level.
gosh if only there were some way that the government could allow you to control the education dollars allotted to your child so that you could direct them to a school that had neither...... what would we call such a system?
NO, we weren't taught the material on the test, we were taught how to perform well w/o knowing the material (i.e. "C" is the most common answer, rule out the 2 most unlikely answers, etc).
We weren't taught how to write properly, we were taught how to write to get the best grade
No focus was placed on grammar or structure, but on what type of story/essay they wanted (i.e. "they tend to prefer if you use lots of adjectives").
Knowing how to fill in a bubble sheet is not a "study strategy". Basically, the teachers told us what the graders look for and then handed us a test booklet. The content on the test was almost never something we had covered in classes. We combed over the format repeatedly, but we didn't learn the items on the test. I distinctly remember the panic I always felt when we hit the math section. Most of the problems were like reading greek, because we hadn't covered the topics during our coursework.
Also, we could discuss the fact that the tests are still racially biased towards caucasian students.
They don't accomplish the original goal. These tests aren't designed in such a way that actually measure the academic success of the student.
The system is flawed, and basing a teacher's livelihood on how many students pass a flawed test is ridiculous.
Well, I did not take economics in High School, so I cannot speak for how they taught that. I did not take political science either, but I would imagine it would be a political science class could not have much of a lean since it is about politics itself.
History... we learned about WWII, WWI, the Depression
(yeah I know they didn't rip on FDR like you people want), and a **** ton of other wars. What is liberal about that?
A) everyone knows the "C" thing. if you had to get taught that then you had more issues than just the test.
B) if they taught you to perform the process of analysis by reduction then they were teaching you critical thinking skills, i'm cool with that too.
thats the only way you are supposed to be taught to write. would you prefer to be taught to fail?
well that is problematic, but that's the graders fault, not the test's.
well then they didn't do a very good job of teaching to the test, now, did they?
:lamo and did you burst into uproarious laughter when they tried to pass of that pile of dung?
actually it sounds to me like your teachers sucked and the test graders were problematic. I didn't see a single thing you described as negatively reflecting on the tests.
on the contrary, testing quality is a far better means (if an imperfect one) than simple longevity. tenure does little but encourage sloth and abuse.
That has to be the most elaborate non-response I have seen in a while. But it sounded clever and probably convinced those you are here to supervise.
I took both. my Econ was pretty basic; supply demand curve, what goes into GDP, etc. In my Poli Sci class I learned about federalism and the social contract. I also learned that Republicans wanted to control our personal lives, that our Republican Governor was anti-education, that George Bush was too stupid to be president, and that moving into a "living Constitution" society marked by a large and generous federal government was the logical conclusion of the Founders intent.
allow me to introduce you to an unfortunately common book assigned in history courses:
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.
also popular with the educrat crowd is Howard Zinns' "A People's History of the United States; though that is more common in the collegiate world.
i couldn't care if they rip on FDR or not; i just want them to accurately teach the history of that era as opposed to claiming that capitalism created the Great Depression and FDR "saved" us. :roll: that's like claiming that responsible lending practices created the mortgage crises and George Bush pulled us out.
You can't just put a link to some book down and say, "Welp, it's clearly a liberal biased education!"
And again, drop the whole FDR thing. He was a good president, he implemented great social programs
I think most historians agree that overall he was beneficial during one of the dark hours of the United States' history.
If you have a problem with that, I guess that's just your problem.
Every time I heard the word liberal and education put together I know the stupid FDR argument is coming out.
Why are all your posts so... so...
Wrong?
I mean there's nothing in this post that makes even remotely any sense.
Ah **** it.
All liberals are evil.
Al Gore.
Socialism.
Islam.
All evil.
You win.
You've convinced me.
Who's been ****ing with my medicine!
What would you prefer for your children, conservative or liberal K-12 Education in public schools?Do not forget that after liberal "education" in public schools many children are illiterate and know nothing. BTW most of wealthy people ( democrats and liberals too ) send their children only to conservative schools. Please explain your choice and do not forget that too liberal "education" in public schools has downgraded America to one of the lowest places among other western countries.
Depends. What exactly makes a school 'conservative' or 'liberal'?
except that when they poll "historians" inevitably what they poll is "history teachers"; which would tend to reinforce my point. You're polling people like Haymarket (who taught history - and government, for that matter); the ranks of our professors are nearly uniformly tilted leftward, and they will naturally laud FDR despite the fact that he was an economic illiterate who lengthened the Depression.
Yes, you're right.
Also, however, I would assume that it has not been nearly concluded that his actions lengthened the Depression, and is still a matter of intense debate that may never be "nearly" concluded (because universal opinion to begin with is impossible to achieve, and near conclusion would imply that there is just far less debate). I am also assuming it can possibly divide between historical generations and/or political ideology with regard to analyzing the correct course with the Great Depression.
see, now, why did you have to keep writing after you had already figured out the most important point?
The work that highlights the Presidents' role in lengthening the Great Depression is fairly recent, that is true; it's a backlash, I think, against a kind of uniformity of assumption within much of the historical field. And perhaps a rebellion by some against a similarly uniform professoriate. Poking holes in the thesis of your forebears, of course, is the traditional way to make a name for onesself.
but note the debate; which we will for ease call the anti-FDR and pro-FDR factions; the anti-FDR faction focuses on the effects of transfer payments, of the agricultural adjustment act, of the NIRA legislation's effect on wages... etc. they are uniquely focused on the economics of the debate. the pro-FDR side seems to focus on the expresed opinion of like-minded history teachers. they are uniquely focused on past polling of the debate. I would posit that the first has the long-term advantage over the latter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?