Why public schools are bad

[Mr. D]

Stace,

As I said, who are you trying to convince, me or yourself? I think the lady doth protest too much! When the issue is just simply, different strokes for different folks, I'm behind it 100%. My life has not been lived by the norm of society, but some human needs in rleationships don't change with fads and technology. Your irritation leads me to believe you have your own questions.

Be happy!

 

[Kelzie]

Stace,

As I said, who are you trying to convince, me or yourself? I think the lady doth protest too much! When the issue is just simply, different strokes for different folks, I'm behind it 100%. My life has not been lived by the norm of society, but some human needs in rleationships don't change with fads and technology. Your irritation leads me to believe you have your own questions.

Be happy!

She's not irritated. You said something that was against what she believed and she replied. That's how these forums work. It doesn't mean she's trying to convince herself, or that she's upset.

 

[Stace]

She's not irritated. You said something that was against what she believed and she replied. That's how these forums work. It doesn't mean she's trying to convince herself, or that she's upset.

Thank you, Kelz. You're absolutely right.

Stace,

As I said, who are you trying to convince, me or yourself? I think the lady doth protest too much! When the issue is just simply, different strokes for different folks, I'm behind it 100%. My life has not been lived by the norm of society, but some human needs in rleationships don't change with fads and technology. Your irritation leads me to believe you have your own questions.

Be happy!

Again, I don't need to convince myself. I know what I believe in. That's the whole purpose of debate - to explain your stance to others. You seem to be missing my point completely, which is why I have tried to go to such lengths to explain my point of view here. I'm not irritated in any way, other than at the fact that you seem to be trying to belittle my viewpoint.

 

[Mr. D]

Stace,

If it appeared I belittled your viewpoint that was not intended. Of course you are correct that being married or not being married does not create or prevent a permanent life long commitment, but I question whether "avoiding" the cultural norm has no meaning. It is a "choice" that has meaning in a relationship and in our society. I think you are avoiding that reality. Certainly I support your right to make that choice, but it still has consequences to family and children in our society. My only point was to get you to consider that not getting married contrary to our cultural norms does have a meaning that comes from some basis inside. There is a point to that choice.

I've made my point so I'm done.

Best wishes and a happy life,

 

[Stace]

Stace,

If it appeared I belittled your viewpoint that was not intended. Of course you are correct that being married or not being married does not create or prevent a permanent life long commitment, but I question whether "avoiding" the cultural norm has no meaning. It is a "choice" that has meaning in a relationship and in our society. I think you are avoiding that reality. Certainly I support your right to make that choice, but it still has consequences to family and children in our society. My only point was to get you to consider that not getting married contrary to our cultural norms does have a meaning that comes from some basis inside. There is a point to that choice.

I've made my point so I'm done.

Best wishes and a happy life,

Kind of hard to support my right to that choice, as I am legally married and have been for three years! My point is that unless you specifically tell people, they have no clue as to whether or not you're legally married....which means that it *should* have no bearing on how others see your relationship, and if it already doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to anyone else? It's none of their business. You think that if someone doesn't want to enter into a legal marriage, that there must be something wrong, but that is often not the case. It's oftentimes something more along the lines of the fact that the legal aspect of marriage doesn't mean anything without feeling it in your heart, and the heart is the important part in all of this, not the legalities and not what society thinks/expects.

 

[Axismaster]

The truth of the matter is that even when the Bible is talking about marriage, it is talking about a committed relationship, not a mark on a piece of paper.

 

[Mr. D]

It's oftentimes something more along the lines of the fact that the legal aspect of marriage doesn't mean anything without feeling it in your heart, and the heart is the important part in all of this, not the legalities and not what society thinks/expects.

I absolutely agree! I assume our discussion was never about what society wants. I don't much care. It's only how it affects the family I'm concerned with. If the family does well, the country will do well.

Question: Based on your philosphy, why did you get married? Why was it worth the bother?

 

[XShipRider]

4. Teachers can only do so much. It is up to the students to WANT to learn, and up to the parents to be involved in their child's academic life. It is also up to the community to provide the proper funding to keep quality teachers and to purchase the necessary learning tools. Why do you think private schools have this supposed edge over public schools? Because at $11,000 a year per child in tuition, they can afford the things they need.

Please let me know where that private school is... I'd like to enroll my kids.
We're spending 10,998 per pupil in my school district and they're asking
for more. Of that 10,998 it breaks down as follows:

Salaries and materials - 56%
Operations support - 19%
Pupil support - 13%
Administrative - 10%
Staff support - 2%

Don't ask me what any of that means 'cause I have no idea. But there's
your 11K in a nutshell.

The new levy request had "salary adjustments" listed as one of the factors
which would be affected if the levy didn't pass. Why didn't they just put
"Teacher salary raises?" Obviously they knew that the majority of parents
reading their levy request wouldn't understand the terminology. Why?
Because 90% or better were products of the public education system.

My take: Get rid of Federal and State funding for schools. You'd have
chaos at first but eventually people would fund their local schools and
teachers would be held accountable.

 

[Stace]

Please let me know where that private school is... I'd like to enroll my kids.
We're spending 10,998 per pupil in my school district and they're asking
for more. Of that 10,998 it breaks down as follows:

Salaries and materials - 56%
Operations support - 19%
Pupil support - 13%
Administrative - 10%
Staff support - 2%

Don't ask me what any of that means 'cause I have no idea. But there's
your 11K in a nutshell.

I'm not sure of how it all breaks down out here, but from the most recent data I can find, from the 2001-2002 school year, my county (which is mostly made up of just my city, anyway....so all of the schools around here work under the county) spent $4,079 per student. And that's not even adjusted to account for the higher costs incurred by special needs students. $2,473 of that is for operational needs; the other $1,606 is cited as being "capital spending".

My school district serves over 123,000 students. They have a budget of $979 million. Now, I'm sure those numbers for spending per student is a little different now, but working just with that....They're using half of their budget just on students. But it still doesn't even come close to matching up with what the local private schools have to work with.

The new levy request had "salary adjustments" listed as one of the factors
which would be affected if the levy didn't pass. Why didn't they just put
"Teacher salary raises?" Obviously they knew that the majority of parents
reading their levy request wouldn't understand the terminology. Why?
Because 90% or better were products of the public education system.

Because salary adjustments do not necessarily equal raises. My local school district, in their budget for the current school year, actually cut their spending on salary adjustments, but it didn't change the pay rate of the staff.

My take: Get rid of Federal and State funding for schools. You'd have
chaos at first but eventually people would fund their local schools and
teachers would be held accountable.

Federal funding, maybe. My local school district only receives 7% of their revenue from Federal funding, anyway. You can't cut state funding, because many states have very poor communities that just wouldn't be able to keep up with their richer counterparts. My district receives 58% of their funding from the state. Which leaves 35% of their funding from local revenue. My city is a terrific blend of rich and poor families....local funding could probably be increased, but then again, some families probably coouldn't keep up with it at the rate our district is growing.

 

[BodiSatva]

We live in an extremely liberal area north of San Francisco...and one of the terms that bugs the crap out of me is wehn my wife introduces me to another couple and says that this is Judy and her "Partner", Jim. What the hell is a "Partner"?

Well yes...it CAN be a spouse, but it can also be a business or domestic partner.

"It's only how it affects the family I'm concerned with"

Well,

Legally married is legally married. Once a couple gets legally married, a transition takes place. I know couples that were together for ten years and thought that it was like being married...they then got legally married for various reasons and could not believe that, though nothing else changed in their lives; kids, money, home, jobs, etc...

THEIR LIVES WERE PROFOUNDLY ALTERED.
The family is affected distinctly.

"why did you get married? Why was it worth the bother?"

this is like answering a question about kids to a person who has none. The oerson asking might catch a glimpse, but will not understand. There is no way to understand this without experiencing it. No person can understand what it is like to have kids...if it is worth the "bother" unless they have experienced being a parent. I can take it another step...no parent can understand what it is like having a child almost die or actually die if in fact they have not experienced it themselves.

It is not a bother...to even ask it in that manner denotes an almost total lack in the ability to understand...basing it on the negative initially...

 

[Stace]

I absolutely agree! I assume our discussion was never about what society wants. I don't much care. It's only how it affects the family I'm concerned with. If the family does well, the country will do well.

And you can be a family without being married. Just to put another spin on it...I'm closer to a lot of my friends than I am to my blood family...I consider my friends to be more my family than most of the family I was born into. Just because my friends aren't my blood relatives, or even related to me through marriage, does that make them any less significant in my life? Nope.

Question: Based on your philosphy, why did you get married? Why was it worth the bother?

Because it was something I wanted to do, something my husband and I wanted for ourselves. There is nothing about "my philosophy" here. If I had some sort of "philosophy" about this, then I would think that NO ONE should get married, now wouldn't I? No, I am just very open minded and accepting of what others choose to do with THEIR lives. What's right for me isn't necessarily right for them, and vice versa.

 

[Mr. D]

Stace,

I admire your independence. Getting married or not is not the issue with me either. It is commitment and responsiblity to one's children and spouse. You sound like a neat person. Believe me, I know what you mean about being closer to some friends than family! I like you better than two or three of my relatives, and we're strangers! :lol:

See you around the forum!

Be happy Stace,

 

[XShipRider]

Federal funding, maybe. My local school district only receives 7% of their revenue from Federal funding, anyway. You can't cut state funding, because many states have very poor communities that just wouldn't be able to keep up with their richer counterparts. My district receives 58% of their funding from the state. Which leaves 35% of their funding from local revenue. My city is a terrific blend of rich and poor families....local funding could probably be increased, but then again, some families probably coouldn't keep up with it at the rate our district is growing.

I'm on the same page with you here... but I am impelled to counterpoint.
Why does the NEA and teacher's unions scream bloody murder when federal
spending on education is frozen, cut or the annual rate of increase reduced?
If they're only getting 7%, for sake of argument let's go with 10%, to begin
with then why all the hoopla for a lousy 10%?

Yes, we're talking billions nationwide. But that's exactly the point. Leave it
up to the individual states to make up the rest. I firmly believe ridding
ourselves of federal requirements and mandates would free up many of
the school systems' funds to better serve the local population.

The problems started when the federal government started making
demands and requirements on school systems. Once these mandates
started coming down the pike local control was all but history.

 

[Mr. D]

Federal mandates are often a pain, but how many areas let their schools deteriorate was a crime before federal involvement.

After 31 years of teaching I'll tell you if we would (1.) support education so that students left school with state of the art technical skills with employers waiting we'd save the extra expense many times over on social problems, welfare and prisons. (2.) Parents need to instill the value for education, self discipline and responsiblity in our students so they take advantage of the education that is available! Schools can't replace parents!

Asian immigrant's children find a way to excel in our "terrible" American schools! What's their trick? See #2 above!

 

[XShipRider]

Schools can't replace parents!

You are correct, of course. In loco parentis has been warped from
taking care and charge of your kids temporarily to taking control of
your kids.

I couldn't agree with you more. Parents need to be given back, sorry as
that sounds, control of their kids. The government has all but removed
the parent from the picture by mandating what educational topics be taught.
In essence, the government is dictating social mores, sexual education
and religious beliefs (or the removal thereof) across the entire country
rather than allowing local dictates through our elected school
board members.

As for deterioration, the federal mandates should be limited to
infrastructure management not curriculim management.

 

[goligoth]

so..........how did marriage get brought up? I have an extrodinarily hard time believing that marriage is the problem with public schools.....

maybe the problem with public schools is our inability to stay on topic about what is wrong with the public schools....

 

[Stace]

I'm on the same page with you here... but I am impelled to counterpoint.
Why does the NEA and teacher's unions scream bloody murder when federal
spending on education is frozen, cut or the annual rate of increase reduced?
If they're only getting 7%, for sake of argument let's go with 10%, to begin
with then why all the hoopla for a lousy 10%?

My guess would be that perhaps some districts receive more federal funding than others. I tried to look up that information for my old school district (the one that I actually attended school in 5 years ago), but it wasn't available.

Yes, we're talking billions nationwide. But that's exactly the point. Leave it
up to the individual states to make up the rest. I firmly believe ridding
ourselves of federal requirements and mandates would free up many of
the school systems' funds to better serve the local population.


The problems started when the federal government started making
demands and requirements on school systems. Once these mandates
started coming down the pike local control was all but history.

I don't think federal mandates are necessarily a bad thing, they're designed to keep kids across the nation on a level playing field in some areas. However, programs like Bush's No Child Left Behind are a sham.

 

[Stace]

You are correct, of course. In loco parentis has been warped from
taking care and charge of your kids temporarily to taking control of
your kids.

I couldn't agree with you more. Parents need to be given back, sorry as
that sounds, control of their kids. The government has all but removed
the parent from the picture by mandating what educational topics be taught.
In essence, the government is dictating social mores, sexual education
and religious beliefs (or the removal thereof) across the entire country
rather than allowing local dictates through our elected school
board members.

As for deterioration, the federal mandates should be limited to
infrastructure management not curriculim management.

Actually, we were more discussing the fact that too many parents are simply not as involved in their chilren's schooling as they used to be. They look at schools as a sort of free daycare service. It's not that control has been taken away...it's been given away.

 

[Stace]

so..........how did marriage get brought up? I have an extrodinarily hard time believing that marriage is the problem with public schools.....

maybe the problem with public schools is our inability to stay on topic about what is wrong with the public schools....

If you look back at post #70, and perhaps a few posts before that one, you'll understand how the topic was brought up. :smile:

 

[XShipRider]

so..........how did marriage get brought up? I have an extrodinarily hard time believing that marriage is the problem with public schools.....

maybe the problem with public schools is our inability to stay on topic about what is wrong with the public schools....

Marriage? You just did. I certainly did not.

I merely referred to "parents" as the collective mother and father responsible
for the child. I did not take a stand on that issue, nor was any intended.
Parents means exactly that, both parents regardless of marital status NEED
to be involved in the child's education.

 

[XShipRider]

...like Bush's No Child Left Behind are a sham.

You'll get no argument here.

 

[JOHNYJ]

My guess would be that perhaps some districts receive more federal funding than others. I tried to look up that information for my old school district (the one that I actually attended school in 5 years ago), but it wasn't available.



I don't think federal mandates are necessarily a bad thing, they're designed to keep kids across the nation on a level playing field in some areas. However, programs like Bush's No Child Left Behind are a sham.

Most states have had balancing programs created to balance poor and rich districts. They never seem to work quite right so they are usualy an on going controversy.
Even with increased support its amazing how little good money often does.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I guess the question is, if a man and a woman decide to have a child why are they not willing to make a permanent commitment of marriage to give the child the stability living permanently with their father and mother. If you don't think that is critical to a child, you are in denial. I suspect the answer is that many just do what they want to do with not enough concern for the needs of the children they will have. Many people now have children just because they want to, not because it will be best for the child. My wife and I would have never had a child until we were sure we were permanently commited to our relationship and willing to work out problems for the good of the child. We waited until we were financially and emotionally stable before having children! That seems old fashion today in a culture of "I want it now"!

I'm surprised to hear that you think marriage is a permanent commitment. I'm sure you know the stats on this. Over 50% of marriages in America end in divorce, the rate is even higher for second marriages.

In an ideal world I'd agree with your statement, but things aren't always that cut and dry.

 

[BodiSatva]

You are correct, of course. In loco parentis has been warped from
taking care and charge of your kids temporarily to taking control of
your kids.

The school system really has no ability to control kids in a manner that would be more controlling than the parent can be. This sounds a bit conspiracy oriented.

Who would you like to have creating the educational curriculum? Elected officials? They seem barely able to run local government...is it wise to also give them a mandate over curriculum?

I couldn't agree with you more. Parents need to be given back, sorry as that sounds, control of their kids

If a parent does not have control over their kids, they are simply horrible parents. Even those parents that seem to be of little influence to their kids ahve become so do to personal choices and NOT do to government control leverage.

I am tired of bad parents bitching about their inability to understand what it takes to be a good parent.

The real issue here is one of people NOT accepting responsibilty. This is a nation of blame and fault, with little to no ownership of choice. The State can develop a curriculum by appointed officials, it is up to the people to watch over these appointees and notify their elected officials when they are upset with the appointees handling of curriculum.

 

[BodiSatva]

I am equally tired of people tossing out "divorce rates" to in an attempt to justify why marriage may not work.

My uncle has been married and divorced four times.
My uncle is a loser.
Not because of the divorces, he just is.

I am married and we are extremely happy.
We have been through a lot and understand that life is difficult.
We will not get divorced...
Just like my parents did not get divorced...
Both of my grandparent’s marriages did not end in divorce...

But using that stupid logic, the "divorce rate" of my family that is mentioned here is 50%.

What is the need for marriage then?
Obviously marriage is flawed and all it takes is two loving caring adults to raise a child.
This is flawed.
Marriage promotes more stability literally and figuratively

Here are some stats...

But lets look at some influences though...

Age...

Age Women Men
--------------------------------------------------
Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7%
20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%
25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%
30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%
35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%

http://www.divorcepeers.com/statistics.htm

Children...

“Sociologists believe that childlessness is also a common cause of
divorce. The absence of children leads to loneliness and weariness and
even in the United States, at least 66 per cent of all divorced
couples are childless.”

http://www.goacom.com/goatoday/2001/oct/perspective.html

“couples with children have a slightly lower rate of divorce than
childless couples.”

http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/marriage_myths.html

Thinking that a commitment is not more permanent than not making a commitment is weird...

Political Correctness and the Homosexual Agenda brandished by the Gay Mafia is attacking morality on all fronts. Their goal is to undermine society and destroy marriage.

Is that ridiculous?