Hyerdahl wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > In article ,
> >  "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> > > mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> (edit)>
>
> > Public education is a huge boondoggle which was intended to
> > ensure that poor children would have a chance but
> > instead resulted in 40% of elementary school children failing
> > basic reading and math standards.
>
> I see public education as a way to uplift society to new levels of
> understanding, by maintaining an educated middle class.  It not only
> provides opportunity for middle class students, but as we improve it,
> it uplifts our entire society.  So, you seem to see the education
> 'glass' as being half empty, while I see it as being half full.  :-)

HAHAHAHAHA!

You do start out well, don't you?  My whole point is that the
middle class are precisely the ones escaping the public schools
by homeschooling their kids or spending big bucks on real estate
to send them to "public" schools in the suburbs.

Not only has public education not done anything for the middle
class, it's also helped to suburbanize the country and
create urban sprawl.

> > This is because education has been less about educating
> > children and more about feeding leftist teachers unions
> > and providing a babysitting service for single mothers.
>
> I have recently had an opportunity to visit some of my local schools
> and was unpleasantly surprised at the low levels of expectations
> teachers have for todays students.  I tend to agree with you that
many
> teachers treat the classroom like a babysitting job.  The students
are
> not respectful and many of them don't pay attention.  However, I
> dissagree with you that this is a service for single mothers.

Ok, career mothers too.  :-)

> IN fact,
> I have not once met a child in school who said he came from a test
> tube.  :-)

Who gestates these children again? :-)  It looks as if men
do serve one basic biological purpose: As someone to blame
for when children in women's primary care are neglected...

> That women are no longer accepting 100% responsibility for
> doing the unpaid work, does not give you the right to categorize
> children as a woman's obligation.

If they don't want the unpaid work, then they needn't have
children.  Yes?

In the meantime, the whole system is going into the crapper
and taking mostly single mothers' children with 'em.

> I can assure you, that if you ever
> have children of your own, the courts would hold you just as
> accountable as your alleged wife.  :-)

Maybe the courts will be changing in the near future.  :-)

>  It's also sought to lower academic standards in favor
> > of a diversity racial agenda.
>
> When you teach TO the middle class, you take your middle class where
> you find it, but that has less to do with education and more to do
with
> that MUCH NEEDED immigration policy I recommended in the last post.

Indeed.  The middle class appears to need to be found by
educators following them around as a form of tax revenue...

I've said this before: Your agenda is a poor one.  Literally.
Other than government wonks and celebs living in Malibu,
the rest of your buddies who are living in slubs are aging
and dying off.

> > The children of mostly conservative parents generally
> > wind up going to districts out in the suburbs or
> > home schooling.
>
> Actually, most children of wealthy parents are NOT home schooled at
> all, but rather, attend expensive private schools for people of
wealth.

Actually, I didn't say otherwise.  I said "generally" and
didn't discuss wealthy children who would clearly go
to private schools if that best suited them.

>  The children of home-schooled children are often middle to lower
class
> and their reasons for home schooling are usually to limit what their
> children learn rather than to extend it.

Yeah, limiting what children learn apparently has them
leading all the academic competitions.

I was watching kids Jeopardy and half of the kids were
homeschooled.  What is the proportion of home schooled kids
to the rest of the population?

>  It may surprise you to learn
> that one of my own children was home-schooled for his junior school,
> year.  I did something unusual that year;  I took him to another
> country, and educated him by using the school materials we had from
his
> teacher, coupled with the foreign libraries, museums and cultural
> opportunities.   We spent two months there, and then, when we
returned
> home, my son was able to take other classes at a local college for
the
> remainder of his HS junior credits.
> I guess what I'm trying to explain here, is that people have a
variety
> of reasons for educational choices.

Indeed.  And it's the private sector supplying them.  Decent public
schools, when they are available, come at a huge cost
in the form of property taxes that make it more difficult
for the middle class.

> Most students who are home
> schooled, IMO miss out on the kinds of socializing that is important
in
> school.

I guess those kids who got shot at Columbine feel good at
not missing out...

> If you cannot get along with others in school, how reasonable
> is it to expect that you will get along in work?

Good point.  Kids should start learning how to go through
the metal detector early so they can get to work on time...

Seriously: High schools often teach kids the wrong social
lessons and are nothing like how people are expected
to behave at a civilized workplace.

> AND there are things
> done in school that cannot be accomplished alone, i.e. football,
choir,
> etc.

"choir?"  Ever hear of church?

Also, nothing is stopping homeschooled children from forming
their own football teams.  Indeed, I have a friend who homeschools
her kids and their athletic regimen is far more demanding
than their H.S. including karate class, dance, and going to the Y.

>  I'd like to see schools become more community oriented to provide
> each student the same funding packet...to be used as best suits that
> student.  In that regard, if a student was a budding artist, they
could
> take their necessary courses like English, Math, History, etc. and
then
> CHOOSE how to spend their other credits, perhaps in art courses at a
> local college.

Why not just let the student's parents keep their money and
spend it how they like, period?

> That way, people who had children involved in gang
> problems, could remove their child from school and place him in a
> setting where there were no gangs.

Ironically, the opponents to school vouchers are not only
teachers unions, but also suburban parents who DON'T want
inner city parents bussing their kids to their schools.

> Or, it could be spent on some home
> schooling plus some schooling.  Suppose you have a boy who wants to
> play football, but prefers to be home taught.  His parents could
teach
> English and History and Math at home;  he could test out, and spend
the
> rest of his time on the local football team.
>
> Next time, let's talk about ideas on HOW schools should teach.
> Whachasay?

How about this: You can have your schools teach how you think
they should and I think people should be able to choose
the school they want to go to (or any) or just not have
kids at all and save the money.

In the meantime, illegals flood the schools.  I love socialism.
If you don't like your money being spent on illegals in
schools, why don't you vote to cancel these social programs? :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/24/05 1:05:15 AM ---