Religious education, Public Education

[Pahoran]

By 'creating protected classes of "special" people' do you mean providing equal rights to unpopular minorities? That seems to be the common underlying meaning of that sort of argument.

No, I don't mean "providing equal rights to unpopular minorities." I mean placing supposedly unpopular minorities on pedestals and hanging "do not touch" signs on them, while turning a blind eye to mistreatment of people who aren't lucky enough to belong to one of those protected classes.

I have no problem with equal treatment; I object to special treatment.

I wasn't aware that only whites could be prosecuted under hate crime laws. How interesting!

I didn't get that from Lehi's post. However, if you replace your "could" with "are likely to" then you might be onto something.

From what I've read elsewhere, if you know a "gay" man who was beaten up for being "gay," chances are his assailant(s) were likewise "gay." But are they likely to be prosecuted for a "hate crime?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

I wasn't aware that only whites could be prosecuted under hate crime laws. How interesting!

Oh, others could be prosecuted, but as a matter of fact, they are not in any respect according to the relative frequency of the crimes in the class.

Lehi

[Walden]

But that's the point, and the whole point. Someone will control the message, and, all other things being equal, it is vastly preferable for parents (and the students themselves) to be those who control that message, rather than politicians and bureaucrats. The former are motivated by love for the student and the latter by love for power over both the student and his parents.

As noted above,"indoctrination" is a neutral term. But the crucial issue, as you pointed out, is who controls the message.

Lehi

Being married to a special education teacher, I can assure you that my wife teaches in the public school system because of her love for the students, and not the love of power over the students or the parents. She has two masters degrees and could surely make much more money in the private sector, plus not have to deal with completely irrational parents, students or administrators, but she stays in the public schools because of her love for her students.

And I'm not sure what part of the country that the anti-public school advocates on this board hail from, but I am not aware of any states in which public school attendance is mandatory.....there are private school, private study and homeschooling alternatives for everyone in this country. In fact, with the number of parent advocacy groups around anymore, and the spike in educational lawyers making a killing off of these groups, as well as the growing numbers of those being home-schooled, students actually have more rights now than at any time in modern American educational history.

Yes, I would agree that "all other things being equal" it is preferable for parents to "control the message" as you state. In a perfect society, this would be a perfect solution, but the problem is, we live in an imperfect society and rarely encounter situations where "all other things [are] equal."

In a perfect society, schools wouldn't have to teach sex education because all parents would do so with their own children at an appropriate age. Unfortunately, there are too many parents that refuse to do so, and then are aghast when their 14 year-old daughter ends up pregnant....must be the schools fault.

In a perfect society, schools wouldn't have to promote equality and tolerance, because parents would take an active role in instilling these qualities in their own children and enforcing the "golden rule" instead of handing down their own bigotries and prejudices to their children.

In a perfect society, parents would be the disciplinarians, and not the schools and teachers. Unfortunately, many parents seem to have a very difficult time instilling discipline or respect for authority within their own homes, but expect a teacher to do this with 30 students in her classroom.

In a perfect society, parents would teach their children the difference between scientific facts/evidence versus personal beliefs. This way, when the schools present data supporting scientific fact, students would be able to process and handle this information without it traumatizing their personal worldview, or that of their parents.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that society. Unfortunately, our society has a large faction of parents who fail to teach their children the truth about sex, fail to instill any discipline or respect in their own homes, fail to promote equality and tolerance, and muddle scientific fact with personal religious beliefs until one can't tell the difference between the two.

[semlogo]

No, I don't mean "providing equal rights to unpopular minorities." I mean placing supposedly unpopular minorities on pedestals and hanging "do not touch" signs on them, while turning a blind eye to mistreatment of people who aren't lucky enough to belong to one of those protected classes.

I have no problem with equal treatment; I object to special treatment.

I didn't get that from Lehi's post. However, if you replace your "could" with "are likely to" then you might be onto something.

From what I've read elsewhere, if you know a "gay" man who was beaten up for being "gay," chances are his assailant(s) were likewise "gay." But are they likely to be prosecuted for a "hate crime?"

Regards,

Pahoran

Who do you think is being put up on a pedestal?

[Pahoran]

Who do you think is being put up on a pedestal?

There is another thread discussing that question elsewhere, and I don't wish to make this into a clone of that. I simply point out that kids in school get bullied for all sorts of reasons, and I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that so-called "gay" students get bullied at any greater rate than any other kids who are smaller/richer/poorer/browner/whiter/fatter/skinnier/less athletic/more athletic/less religious/more religious than anyone else.

But who gets all the attention?

Regards,

Pahoran

[asbestosman]

Can you point to a school curriculum anywhere that presents abortion as another method of birth control?

If abortion is not mentioned, that's probably for the best. If abortion is mentioned, but not as birth control, then what is it? Murder? Also, can kids have abortions without parental consent? I thought I heard some controversy about that a few years ago, and possibly some connection between this and schools.

Here's what I found with Google:

Table 2. Percentage of sexuality education teachers in grades 7-12 who thought specific topics should be taught by a specified grade, by topic, according to year
Topic	1988	1999
<=grade 7	<=grade 12	<=grade 5	<=grade 7	<=grade 12
Abortion--factual information	45.4	98.3	6.4	41.3*	89.0***
Where to go for birth control	49.5	97.7	5.4	42.9***	88.8***
Abortion--ethical issues	36.9	91.7	5.4	37.1	84.4***

So it seems that abortion is frequently mentioned. Again, if it's not birth control, what is it? I'm sorry to say that I only see two sides to this divisive issue. If it's birth-control, you're a liberal. If it's murder, you're a conservative (and it is not really a topic of sex education, but of ethics). If you're neutral or not sure what it is, then what is the connection to sex education--uncertain? I can easily see it being discussed from a neutral standpoint in a current events / social studies class. I have a hard time seeing it as neutral in sex education.

[asbestosman]

Being married to a special education teacher, I can assure you that my wife teaches in the public school system because of her love for the students, and not the love of power over the students or the parents. She has two masters degrees and could surely make much more money in the private sector, plus not have to deal with completely irrational parents, students or administrators, but she stays in the public schools because of her love for her students.

As much as I may have my reservations with some aspects of public education, I actually do appreciate the many teachers who have helped me including my math, science, and even English teachers.

And I'm not sure what part of the country that the anti-public school advocates on this board hail from, but I am not aware of any states in which public school attendance is mandatory.....there are private school, private study and homeschooling alternatives for everyone in this country. In fact, with the number of parent advocacy groups around anymore, and the spike in educational lawyers making a killing off of these groups, as well as the growing numbers of those being home-schooled, students actually have more rights now than at any time in modern American educational history.

That's good, but we still end up paying for our kids to be educated publicly even if we decide to send them to a private school or homeschool them. If, on the other hand, we're allowed vouchers . . .

. . . but that would drain money from public education which as far as I can tell, is having enough of a struggle with their current funds.

In a perfect society, schools wouldn't have to teach sex education because all parents would do so with their own children at an appropriate age. Unfortunately, there are too many parents that refuse to do so, and then are aghast when their 14 year-old daughter ends up pregnant....must be the schools fault.

I'm with you so far.

In a perfect society, schools wouldn't have to promote equality and tolerance, because parents would take an active role in instilling these qualities in their own children and enforcing the "golden rule" instead of handing down their own bigotries and prejudices to their children.

Sure, but a warning flag was raised because of the subjective question of what is your own bigotry.

Continuing.

In a perfect society, parents would be the disciplinarians,

Yes.

and not the schools and teachers.

Okay. I grant that I want to be in charge of disciplining my children, but I don't want kids to be able to run amok just because they are at school. I expect the school to keep a reasonable amount of order and discipline. I believe they have certain lines within which they should discipline children and certain lines they should leave for me.

In a perfect society, parents would teach their children the difference between scientific facts/evidence versus personal beliefs.

And who decides what are facts and what are personal beliefs? As much as I respect and enjoy science, as much as I disagree with Intelligent Design, I don't think it's my place to tell parents that evolution is a scientific fact while Intelligent Design is a personal belief--even though I'm quite certain that such is the case.

This way, when the schools present data supporting scientific fact, students would be able to process and handle this information without it traumatizing their personal worldview, or that of their parents.

Or maybe parents could teach kids about the controversy without having to say that Intelligent Design is a belief, not a fact. They could even say Evolution is a belief. I only think it's important that they know how to communicate within the established framework if they wish to go into the field--even if they choose to oppose it.

But then, I'm also not sure how important an understanding of Neo-darwinian Evolution is to most people. It doesn't really come up in my profession. Neither does calculus despite being in a tech field. So why are we teaching kids all these things they may never use--so they all agree with the establishment? I don't think that's the case, so why?

[Mordecai]

As much as I respect and enjoy science, as much as I disagree with Intelligent Design, I don't think it's my place to tell parents that evolution is a scientific fact while Intelligent Design is a personal belief--even though I'm quite certain that such is the case.

While I'm glad you're on my side with regard to not having a totalitarian regime indoctrinating kids with political dogmas or scientific traditions, this kind of is motivating me to put up another thread on ID. I recently read Antony Flew's book, so I have more ammo. Seriously, though, I have no problem with our disagreement, as long as you're cool with school choice. Much more important issue.

[blackstrap]

I concur with Walden comparisons between a perfect world and the real one.Let me also say that a person needs to have some basic knowledge before an opinion about a topic can be expressed with any validity.

The reason many parents send their children to school is that they recognize that they have neither the time ,the inclination ,or the ability to teach all the must be taught.

Students are often taught a great many things that they will never use again. So what? The students,their parents ,the educators, know not what careers,jobs or avocations will be of interest or available in the future. It is wise to keep as many doors open for as long as possible .I suppose we could do as some countries and begin in first grade to separate sheep,goats and walrussssss .

[thesometimesaint]

The sun revolves around the earth. About twenty percentage of adult Americans believe it so we must teach it in public schools. Heavens forbid that some parent will be offended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1

[asbestosman]

While I'm glad you're on my side with regard to not having a totalitarian regime indoctrinating kids with political dogmas or scientific traditions, this kind of is motivating me to put up another thread on ID. I recently read Antony Flew's book, so I have more ammo. Seriously, though, I have no problem with our disagreement, as long as you're cool with school choice. Much more important issue.

I'm not sure I'm okay with school choice--if by that you mean that schools should get to choose whether to teach evolution or ID. I just see that there are some problems in who gets to decide what is merely opinion and what is established fact and therefore what kids will be taught in school. I'm no fan of indoctrinating children with dogma or tradition against the will of their parents. I also fail to see how teaching them ID or evolution is going to effect their careers other than which community will accept them--like 44foxtrot.

If you do start another thread on ID, I don't know whether I'll participate. Sometimes I think it's interesting, but haven't been quite as interested in the subject for a while. My biggest interest was in the statistical and mathematical interpretation of observations. It made me rethink those subjects a bit which was good, but I'm not sure I'll get much more out of it at this point.

[frankenstein]

I'm not sure I'm okay with school choice--if by that you mean that schools should get to choose whether to teach evolution or ID.

School choice is buzz words for "I want the State the pay the tuition for the private school I voluntarily send my children".

A few years the idea failed in Utah. After its failure the advocates in Utah openly contemplated backhanded/backdoor ways to override the will of the people and force "school choice" on the majority of the people who voted against it.

(side issue on school choice - in a State with state income tax, what are the chances a family is paying the same in taxes - taxes that go towards schools - as say a single person who does not want children, and elderly couple who had a gaggle of children, or a couple with no children and do not want children. If its really going to be "School choice where I spend my tax money" shouldn't a person have the "choice" to fund schools or not? Should a person have to show the money is actually "their tax dollars" that is, the person seeking a "school choice voucher" must show that they contributed sufficiently to the tax coffers)

edit to add: school choice is proclaim under the false premise that competition will improve things.

[asbestosman]

School choice is buzz words for "I want the State the pay the tuition for the private school I voluntarily send my children".

In that case I still think it's problematic. I understand the opposition people have to educational programs they won't use because it contradicts their values, but otherwise would gladly use. I wouldn't be too happy if order to, say, ride my bicycle on public roads I had to do something against my morals.

I'm not sure taking money out of the system will work. How much money at public schools is really saved by taking a kid out of it (and homeschooling / enrolling in private schools)? Note that this side-steps the question about who pays the taxes for this. I also pay taxes for things I may never use but am still glad to have around for the betterment of society, and other taxes I don't love, but accept as a compromise. The only question it raises is whether vouchers end up costing the state more than it saves by not having the individual student at public schools. If vouchers can actually save money for the public school system and help parents, then why not? That tax money is supposed to be there to help educate our children, not to indoctrinate them to the establishment, right? However, as far as I can tell, vouchers don't work quite like that.

[Tarski]

But then, I'm also not sure how important an understanding of Neo-darwinian Evolution is to most people. It doesn't really come up in my profession. Neither does calculus despite being in a tech field. So why are we teaching kids all these things they may never use--so they all agree with the establishment? I don't think that's the case, so why?

What is education? Wherein lies its value? Is it a matter of money or practicality?

How important is it that students know that the earth is round?

How important is it that students have been exposed to great literature, music and poetry?

How important is it that students know about Mozart or Einstein or Aristotle?

Evolutionary theory in among the top two or three most important intellectual achievements in history. Besides the purely scientific power inherent in that science, there is the fact that it provides a true and magnificent account of human origins placing us squarely in the the great organic change of being--the real tree of life. A person that does not know the outlines of evolution does not know who or what they are and they are left with myth and superstition.

All the money or business success in the world can't make up for the intellectual poverty of a mind that remains unexposed to, or unappreciative of, our greatest fundamental discoveries about the cosmos.

[thesometimesaint]

asbestosman:

Actually the main function of schools IS to indoctrinate our children. We WANT our children to know how to read and write of course. But also have a profound knowledge and respect for how our country was formed, its governmental structures. An informed electorate is essential to our form of government, and significant numbers of Americans have little understanding of their own government. Back in the 1960's college members would canvas whole neighborhoods trying to see who would sign the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Surprisingly few would. If you don't even know who is the present Speaker of the House, or your own representatives are in the US Congress. How on Gods' green earth can you begin to hold them accountable? If you don't know how a bill becomes law how do you know they are fibbing when Eric Cantor claims that the House of Representatives can, on its own, make law?

In today's complicated world they need firm grounding in science, and the arts. Repeated surveys of the electorate show that significant numbers of adult Americans have a very sketchy understanding of science in general, and a significant minority still believes that the sun revolves around the earth because the Bible says so.

[semlogo]

There is another thread discussing that question elsewhere, and I don't wish to make this into a clone of that. I simply point out that kids in school get bullied for all sorts of reasons, and I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that so-called "gay" students get bullied at any greater rate than any other kids who are smaller/richer/poorer/browner/whiter/fatter/skinnier/less athletic/more athletic/less religious/more religious than anyone else.

But who gets all the attention?

Regards,

Pahoran

You don't think the greater suicide rate might be indicative of greater persecution?

Then there's this:

http://www.olweus.org/public/bullying_sexual_orientation.page

[asbestosman]

But also have a profound knowledge and respect for how our country was formed, its governmental structures. An informed electorate is essential to our form of government, and significant numbers of Americans have little understanding of their own government. Back in the 1960's college members would canvas whole neighborhoods trying to see who would sign the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Surprisingly few would. If you don't even know who is the present Speaker of the House, or your own representatives are in the US Congress. How on Gods' green earth can you begin to hold them accountable? If you don't know how a bill becomes law how do you know they are fibbing when Eric Cantor claims that the House of Representatives can, on its own, make law?

Good point.

In today's complicated world they need firm grounding in science, and the arts. Repeated surveys of the electorate show that significant numbers of adult Americans have a very sketchy understanding of science in general, and a significant minority still believes that the sun revolves around the earth because the Bible says so.

So what?

I want kids to learn science. I really do. I just don't think it's worth trampling on the rights of parents in order to accomplish it, especially when I think such knowledge is of questionable applicability for an individual to navigate through life. Should we make such knowledge available? Absolutely. The question is to what degree or indeed whether they should be pushed.

[thesometimesaint]

asbestosman:

I don't believe in an all encompassing "Parents Rights". There is no facet of life and particularly science that is beyond controversy. The consequences of always deferring to the parent would make hash out of the learning of the last 3000 years.

[asbestosman]

What is education? Wherein lies its value? Is it a matter of money or practicality?

I usually hear arguments about it for money / national security. Maybe those are just talking points to get funding?

How important is it that students know that the earth is round?

How important is it that students have been exposed to great literature, music and poetry?

How important is it that students know about Mozart or Einstein or Aristotle?

Depends. I don't think it's really all that vital for navigating through life. However, I think such things are valuable enough that they should be made available--which is the case if one goes to any of the many public libraries. I'm not sure it needs to be crammed down anyone's throat through mandatory education standards.

Evolutionary theory in among the top two or three most important intellectual achievements in history. Besides the purely scientific power inherent in that science, there is the fact that it provides a true and magnificent account of human origins placing us squarely in the the great organic change of being--the real tree of life. A person that does not know the outlines of evolution does not know who or what they are and they are left with myth and superstition.

All the money or business success in the world can't make up for the intellectual poverty of a mind that remains unexposed to, or unappreciative of, our greatest fundamental discoveries about the cosmos.

That's why you are a teacher and I'm an engineer. You see a wider human beauty with knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I ask what the practical end-result is. Although I enjoy my individual knowledge for the sake of knowledge, I don't see why I should try forcing anyone else to taste it. Yet, I absolutely want to make it available to the willing. The way I see it, God doesn't force people to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life. Likewise, I don't wish to force people to partake of the fruit of knowledge.

Maybe the less we try forcing people, the more they'll be willing. Seems to work for children and teenagers. I don't think Evolution wins many religious friends when I see the occasional thread (here or elsewhere) saying that evolution is a great blow to Mormonism (mammal gods), or even to religion more generally (God is not necessary). I really don't think people are going to open their minds to science when it attacks their religious beliefs. They need to decide for themselves how to incorporate their various perceptions of the world.

[asbestosman]

I don't believe in an all encompassing "Parents Rights".

Neither do I. Parents don't have the right to harm their children whether through action or inaction. The question is, what constitutes harm? I might argue that not allowing them to be educated is harmful, but I see a slippery slope there as well.

The consequences of always deferring to the parent would make hash out of the learning of the last 3000 years.

I suspect that the majority of parents are happy to let their children learn most of the facts in science, history, the arts, etc. The few points where there is significant controversy probably wouldn't make any noticeable impact to any important decisions or contributions--other than the idea that more people might remain in the religion of their upbringing which in turn will impact policies one votes for.

[Mordecai]

School choice is buzz words for "I want the State the pay the tuition for the private school I voluntarily send my children".

As opposed to, "I want the gov't to force everyone to send their kids to the school of the government's choice, teach them whatever the government wants them to learn and force them to pay for it?" Yeah, I'll take freedom instead. You make choice and freedom sound so awful.

[Mordecai]

What is education? Wherein lies its value? Is it a matter of money or practicality?

Part of it is that a public that can think critically and rationally is better at doing their duty of voting out or in the appropriate candidates for the greatest good of the country. There is a bit of a conflict of interest here with the very government we need to control indoctrinating children, controlling who they'll vote for.

I'm not sure I'm okay with school choice--if by that you mean that schools should get to choose whether to teach evolution or ID.

Well, I will tell my kids that neo-Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of species is proven false. I would use Behe's Edge of Evolution to prove the point. I think I'd have every right to home school them, and even have more authority to do so than just being a parent, being a credentialed teacher.

Both Richard Sternberg, who is not an advocate of ID per se and Anthony Flew, a formerly renowned atheist philosopher that used to debate with C.S. Lewis, have both looked at Behe's work and agree with me on it. Would you want to stop me from home schooling kids, just because I am 100% certain that neo-Darwinism is proven to not be the primary explanation for the origin of species?

How is that different than sending them to the school of my choice, where they are taught the same? I would prefer both sides be taught, at the same time, but I would certainly say, "No, neo-Darwinism is not the primary answer for everything. It explains extremely little."

As a side note, considering the apparent popularity of neo-Darwinism among biologists, let me quote Antony Flew quoting Einstein: "The man of science, a bad philosopher makes." It's not a coincidence that it is the philosophers, like the LDS, Richard Sherlock, Antony Flew and Oxford Philosopher of Science, Stephen Meyer, that have come to the philosophical conclusion that the scientific evidence indicates intelligent design.

[frankenstein]

Yeah, I'll take freedom instead.

you mean you'll take some else money to indulge in your personal choice?

why should the tax payer have to pay for your indulgence? isn't your responsibility to provide for family?

[Mordecai]

you mean you'll take some else money to indulge in your personal choice? why should the tax payer have to pay for your indulgence? isn't your responsibility to provide for family?

I'm a tax-payer, which means they're giving my money back. Also, how is having a choice for which school to send my kids to "an indulgence." Again, you make freedom sound like a grave injustice. By the way, many private schools spend money much more efficiently than public schools. In fact, they're actually able to fire their bad teachers! ::gasp:: It'll typically save tax-payer money and when it doesn't, parents should pay the difference.

By the way, this is too easy to refute. You're doing a poor job of propagating the soft tyranny of American statism.

[caudicus]

I was going to say, from my experience, there is nothing wrong with public schools. Apparently, my high school was ranked above 99.998% of other US schools, though, so maybe its not such a great example. I suppose if the US addressed the real societal issues, it could fix most of those problems, but it is too busy tricking everyone into thinking that there is a meaningful difference between Republican and Democrat politicians.

Either way, most kids couldn't tell you where Belgium is on a map. Most don't speak any language fluently other than English (a lot of them can't even manage just English). Many students graduate and still can't read a sentence from a book out loud in a fluid manner. If you went to Denmark, you would immediately see the deficiencies in the US system, and that goes for both public and private schools. In Denmark or Belgium, it is unusual to find someone of the current generation who doesn't speak three languages.

My time at Aarhus was very enlightening, where everyone spoke perfect American English, they didn't act stupefied at the sight of chemistry reactions and they were all amazingly polite. Be it the education system or simply cultural differences, American students are at a disadvantage in the modern world. When people say, "If you don't like it, leave," I recommend you take their advice. Nearly every developed country has an obviously better standard of living. The amount of stress is so reduced when you live in a decent country, that it makes it virtually impossible to return home.

Sadly enough, idiocy in America still reaches every corner of the earth.