Gay indoctrination...

[Larry Gude]

I don't know that...

Why is that so important to include in a school curriculum?

...I'm just not petrified of people pursuing happiness as they see fit. Especially when I can do the same. Especially when you can, as well, and pursue having them removed.

Most of the anti's on here see gays as sick, diseased human beings, not people who are just 'different'. You know it and I know it. That doesn't make it right for the school board to go over board or for gays to step on ANYONE else's rights, but, you can at least acknowledge what they face; ostrization.

Overall, from what I see, our public schools will take kids pretty far; about as far as they and their parents want them to be working for. The reason kids graduate ignorant is not because of the schools or the gay agenda. It's because of the kids and their parents expectations of them.

 

[This_person]

If they give you a voucher, the private school will no longer be private.

We should start that new thread!

How is it no longer private? It's just using the funds that the state determined were necessary for the education. Any additional costs for any other portion of the teaching would be born by the parents. And, the private schools are still required to meet the same minimum educational standards the public ones are, so spending the same funds for the same education seems perfectly fine.

Or, are you suggesting the teacher's unions and public school management has made it actually bloated and unnecessarily expensive, and the money could be spent for the same minimum standards and more if run efficiently?

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

Slavery? Voted out by Constitutional Amendment

Women's suffrage? Voted out

Religious exclusion? Never allowed in the first place

Ethnic exclusion? Voted out

We, the People of the United States of America, fixed those problems. Not, They, the School Board that Knows Better Than You.....

...let's pick some nits, shall we? You don't think slavery or suffrage or racism or sexism where part of vigorous debate and conversation in schools over those years? As for religion never being excluded, perhaps you're just talking about Christianity? Ask some Jews or Mormons about tolerance in the US over our history.

 

[kmw1123]

It's actually quite outrageous for a school board to tell us what to teach or not teach our kids. Any place I've lived, they're elected individuals to uphold the community standards, and if the community doesn't like what's being taught (outside the state or federally required curriculum, which can be handled at those levels), it should change. Optional education is good. Optional education that goes against the community standards is bad.

I wouldn't say the hell with school altogether, but let me use the voucher if you're going to teach outside my standards.

Community standards change all the time. There was a time when it went against community standards for white kids and black kids to go to the same school. It was even against the standards for them to use the same water fountain and restroom. The federal government has taken steps to protect the rights of homosexuals and their lifestyles. The state is just taking steps to make sure that those rights are upheld. Your rights are also being protected since your children are not being forced into that portion of the class. The idea of teaching ethics in public school is not a new one. Just because there wasn't a class on tolerance during integration in the 60's and 70's doesn't mean that maybe there should have been. Classes on multiculturalism is a requirement for a teaching degree because it is something we deal with every day. Think of all the things that are taught in social studies classes. Slavery and why it ended. Women's suffrage. The Holocaust. Communism vs. Democracy. The reasons for the war in Iraq. There are so many different things that deal with what's right and wrong and the ethics and morals that surround them. Homosexuality may not be what many would consider the "natural" way, but it is out there and the government has made sure that it is not going away. All the school system wants to do is make sure that kids are prepared for how to deal with it when they come across it so they don't get in trouble later on. It's not about some secret agenda about turning kids gay. And I doubt seriously that three 45 minute lessons (if you choose to let your kid take them) will affect whether or not kids grasp the concept of spelling and simple math. Since you seem to be interested in data, take a look at the MSA scores. We're not doing so bad after all.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let's just say...

Or, are you suggesting the teacher's unions and public school management has made it actually bloated and unnecessarily expensive, and the money could be spent for the same minimum standards and more if run efficiently?

...some damn fine private education can be had for less than $10k a year.

 

[awpitt]

Ironicaly - it *SAVES* money most of the time, because public schools cost more per pupil than many private schools charge.

That's because private schools don't have to deal with all of the challenges that the public schools have to deal with. They get to pick and choose who gets in and who doesn’t which is not the case with public schools. If a kid in private school is unruly, they can kick'm out and send them to the public schools. If a kid is learning disabled, the private school doesn't have to deal with it if they don’t want to. They usually end up in the special education program in the public schools. Parent volunteerism and involvement is much higher in private schools than at public schools. In fact, some private schools make parent involvement a condition of a kid being admitted. Heck the public schools even pay for transporting kids to their private schools, in St. Mary’s at least. I don’t know about other counties. Bottom line, it’s not “apples to apples” when comparing the per pupil costs of private schools and public schools.

 

[SamSpade]

Or, are you suggesting the teacher's unions and public school management has made it actually bloated and unnecessarily expensive, and the money could be spent for the same minimum standards and more if run efficiently?

I do think that, although maybe not specifically for the reasons you mentioned. For example, the private schools with which I've been to or have been familiar with don't provide some amenities that public schools largely do. A few private schools I went to had no buses - some had few sports programs. I'm sure there are other things out there - I did know of a few people who worked part-time at private schools teaching math and science, but they didn't have backgrounds in education.

What's amazing to me is when you compare the state's cost per pupil, it usually far surpasses the charges typically required by a comparable private school. In some jurisdictions, the state actually SAVES money by issuing vouchers, because of this. Say it costs them 8,000 per pupil to educate a student. They issue a voucher for say, 5000. The parents pick up another thousand and send their kid to a parochial school for 6,000. The state now has saved 3000 bucks AND has one less student in the system. Moreover, the new child in the private school gets a better education.

The largest objection I ever hear is that the process doesn't support teachers or schools, somehow missing the idea that point is to educate students, no matter the process.

 

[awpitt]

We should start that new thread!

Yes, it's a very interesting subject.

How is it no longer private?

Because when they receive voucher money, they're receiving public tax dollars.

 

[SamSpade]

That's because private schools don't have to deal with all of the challenges that the public schools have to deal with. They get to pick and choose who gets in and who doesn’t which is not the case with public schools. If a kid in private school is unruly, they can kick'm out and send them to the public schools. If a kid is learning disabled, the private school doesn't have to deal with it if they don’t want to. They usually end up in the special education program in the public schools. Parent volunteerism and involvement is much higher in private schools than at public schools. In fact, some private schools make parent involvement a condition of a kid being admitted. Heck the public schools even pay for transporting kids to their private schools, in St. Mary’s at least. I don’t know about other counties. Bottom line, it’s not “apples to apples” when comparing the per pupil costs of private schools and public schools.

Some of what you've mentioned I commented on in a later post. Private schools I went to - you got your own transportation, I don't know St Mary's.

And the thing is about discipline - you're right, but whose fault is that? When I went to private schools - I split my time about evenly as a kid - if you were unruly or a discipline problem they could rightly kick your azz. You could get kicked out, and you'd have paying parents *FURIOUS* with you. Pubic schools are saddled with bureacratic crap that the private ones don't have to. It seems to me there was a time when kids DID get expelled from public schools.

And again, you're right about parental involvement - a parent wanting to go the extra mile to place their child in private school is ALREADY more engaged in their child's education. At least, if they can afford it. Vouchers are intended for poorer parents who have no choice in the matter, and overwhelmingly they're in favor of such programs. So that's true - and a consequence of having involved parents is better education - and lowered costs.

But my main reason for favoring it is, it's been shown to work with measurable, quantifiable results. I'm at heart a pragmatist, not an idealist. If it works, we should do it.

 

[This_person]

Community standards change all the time.

As do school curriculum, what's your point?

The federal government has taken steps to protect the rights of homosexuals and their lifestyles. The state is just taking steps to make sure that those rights are upheld.

Who's arguing against upholding the rights of homosexuals? Again, what's your point?

Just because there wasn't a class on tolerance during integration in the 60's and 70's doesn't mean that maybe there should(n't) have been.

Nor, ma'am, does it mean there should have been one. What's your point?

Think of all the things that are taught in social studies classes. Slavery and why it ended. Women's suffrage. The Holocaust. Communism vs. Democracy. The reasons for the war in Iraq.

Did the conversation really sink that low? Are you really equating teaching the facts of the Holocaust with teaching acceptance of homosexuality?

There are so many different things that deal with what's right and wrong and the ethics and morals that surround them. Homosexuality may not be what many would consider the "natural" way, but it is out there and the government has made sure that it is not going away. All the school system wants to do is make sure that kids are prepared for how to deal with it when they come across it so they don't get in trouble later on.

And, to do that, they need three (or, five by that new math) sessions of 45 minutes each to talk about "respect, empathy, acceptance", and a video demonstration of how to put on a condom? Come on, it's obviously more than that.

It's not about some secret agenda about turning kids gay.

Of course not, that's one of those dumbazz things I suggest you learn to laugh at instead of take so seriously.

And I doubt seriously that three 45 minute lessons (if you choose to let your kid take them) will affect whether or not kids grasp the concept of spelling and simple math. Since you seem to be interested in data, take a look at the MSA scores. We're not doing so bad after all.

You seem to confuse me with others that are not in agreement with these classes. While I think three (or, five by that new math) 45 minute classes do not represent a serious impact overall on the school curriculum, I think the concept of three (or, five) classes here, three/five there, and pretty soon you start talking about some serious time. I agree the MSA's overall don't look too bad, and several of the Southern Maryland schools made the honor roll with a recent rankings of schools. As someone in my 40's, remembering what school was like and seeing what it's like for my kids, that scares me for our future.

 

[SamSpade]

Because when they receive voucher money, they're receiving public tax dollars.

I see this as a minor nit. For one thing, I know of no private school where the bulk of their revenue is channeled through a voucher program.

And to take the example further, it makes every program where the government doles out dollars as a subsidy of some private enterprise. I don't see food stamps as an example of government support of grocery chains.

 

[This_person]

That's because private schools don't have to deal with all of the challenges that the public schools have to deal with.

I don't think you meant it this way, but that's kind of the thrust of this thread. Stop taking on stuff you don't have to, public schools!

They get to pick and choose who gets in and who doesn’t which is not the case with public schools. If a kid in private school is unruly, they can kick'm out and send them to the public schools.

Public schools can't expel unruly kids when it gets to be too much?

If a kid is learning disabled, the private school doesn't have to deal with it if they don’t want to.

Ah, but there are private schools out there that will. Most parents can't afford those, though. Hmm, how could we help them afford it?

Parent volunteerism and involvement is much higher in private schools than at public schools. In fact, some private schools make parent involvement a condition of a kid being admitted. Heck the public schools even pay for transporting kids to their private schools, in St. Mary’s at least. I don’t know about other counties. Bottom line, it’s not “apples to apples” when comparing the per pupil costs of private schools and public schools.

So, the parents are allowed to pick and choose the standards of their private school, but not their public school. Okay.

 

[This_person]

Because when they receive voucher money, they're receiving public tax dollars.

No, the parents are receiving the dollars for the education that would be provided by the school system, and using that money for the same educational requirements elsewhere. It's not semantics, but an important distinction.

 

[kmw1123]

I still have yet to see a valid reason for not allowing the curriculum change. It is an optional thing available for those that want it and not mandatory for those that don't. I wouldn't even count the condom video as part of this debate because that's for both heterosexuals and homosexuals (excluding lesbians) and that's a whole other topic for debate. It's not taking any time away from reading, math, and other subjects because it's covered during sex ed, so that's not an issue.

 

[kmw1123]

Public schools can't expel unruly kids when it gets to be too much?

Nope, by law, if that child has an Individual Education Plan (IEP), they cannot miss more than 10 days of school due to in-school suspension or out of school suspension. This is thanks to that wonderful No Child Left Behind act. This act also ensures that a student cannot be held back if they have an IEP. Only if the parents beg and plead will a student with an IEP be held back to have another chance to learn skills they missed the first time. We also don't hold back students who miss a ton of school. The state hasn't enforced truancy laws and there have been multiple cases where a student has missed 40 or more days and no one prosecutes the parents.

 

[Larry Gude]

Government...

But my main reason for favoring it is, it's been shown to work with measurable, quantifiable results. I'm at heart a pragmatist, not an idealist. If it works, we should do it.

...should always be about ideals.

Many, many things would 'work' including slavery and banning gays from public life. It all depends on what your ideals are and how they fit within the context of our national ideals of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

 

[This_person]

I still have yet to see a valid reason for not allowing the curriculum change. It is an optional thing available for those that want it and not mandatory for those that don't. I wouldn't even count the condom video as part of this debate because that's for both heterosexuals and homosexuals (excluding lesbians) and that's a whole other topic for debate. It's not taking any time away from reading, math, and other subjects because it's covered during sex ed, so that's not an issue.

I still have yet to see a valid reason for having the curriculum change.

Would you see a state's interest value in an opt-in course on Intelligent Design? On Respect and Empathy for Persecuted Christians? On Virginity, Your Only Safe Option?

One of the huge problems with how this course is being presented is the lack of alternative views. Yes, I know, people deny the Holocaust, but I don't think this is quite that black and white, do you?

 

[This_person]

Nope, by law, if that child has an Individual Education Plan (IEP), they cannot miss more than 10 days of school due to in-school suspension or out of school suspension. This is thanks to that wonderful No Child Left Behind act.

Missed the point entirely. Unruly - expelled. Not "how long can they be put in in-school suspension?". Or, are you saying the No Child Left Behind Act says that if a student brings a knife to school the third time, she can't be expelled?

 

[This_person]

...should always be about ideals.

Many, many things would 'work' including slavery and banning gays from public life. It all depends on what your ideals are and how they fit within the context of our national ideals of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

His comment was about school vouchers. How is it outside of our national ideals to provide a parent with educational options?

 

[awpitt]

I see this as a minor nit. For one thing, I know of no private school where the bulk of their revenue is channeled through a voucher program.

And to take the example further, it makes every program where the government doles out dollars as a subsidy of some private enterprise. I don't see food stamps as an example of government support of grocery chains.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. I guess the main difference would be that grocery chains aren't involved with teaching. What is a Catholic or other religious school receives public funding in the form of vouchers? Does that constitute public funding of religion? I just wonder how this will be looked at if it ends up in court some day.