-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Separation of School and State
- Thread starter Dragoon68
- Start date
I agree, but too many fear this. At the very least, one should be allowed to write off the cost of tuition from one's income tax. </font>[/QUOTE]Why do they fear it? It's because they know the majority of people would prefer to fund an educational system that is more responsive to thier needs rather than government schools they aren't. They stand to loose control and that's something government bureaucrats really fear. It gets in the way of their "benefits for votes" schemes.
State-run schools had been in exisence prior to the Constitution, as well as private-run schools. In fact, Thomas Payne in the late 1790's suggested the first voucher system. There have been state-mandated education standards since the early 1800's.
Smarter, no. Do they tend to be better educated? Yes.
It depends on the grade level, but in California, it costs an average of about 7000 for a public school pupil. It costs an average of about 5000 for private school. Private schools k-12 tend to cost less than public schools. Interestingly, at the college years, the opposite is true.
Standards for graduation and promotion are the same regardless of public or private education (k-12). But there's been sufficient concern about union control over the teaching industry in this state. In fact, Gov Schwarzenegger, in an attempt to control state spending, has taken on the unions head on, has gotten quite beat up by them.
One of the problems with the private school system is that teachers don't get paid much, yet often do more work. Many private school teachers end up leaving the private system in favor of the public system which offers more consistent pay and benefits.
Who says it can't? It's an oft-heard mantra, but real cases are few and far between. I'm sure you've heard the stereotype of the inner-city school and kids bringing in weapons. Yet, the most severe cases of school violence occur in small towns like Littleton, CO.
I don't know about other states, but the school districts have openly said that they shouldn't be forced to do the INS's job. I actually see their point. Certainly, I can't think of a single private school that check's a person's immigration status.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Yep, purdy much.
You should give till it hurts, why do you ask, is it hurting?
Less than we're being told I reckon.
Private schools are for training rich kids, public schools are for training the masses that the rich kids are expected to be able to control in the future.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Nine out of 10 school nurses agree that students on psychotropic drugs are less apt to disturb others.
C'mon they're kids, they go where the parents go, so what the parents voilated the law in coming here? Enrolling the kids into 12 or 13 years of school is a good indication the parents aren't planning to stay.
Because the Federal Dept. of education says so...silly.
How to be good global citizens?
Depends on whether you want your posterity to grow up to be outstanding citizens and leaders among their peers in business and politcis and live righteous wholesome lives and provide a postive value to the community or be outstanding waiting to be hired by a global corporate monopoly to "manufacture burgers on an assembly line" for the outstanding citizens and leaders among their peers in business and politics that have proven time in and time out they cannot live righteous wholesome lives and can only destroy or regulate the postive values created by others.
Actually, the majority of resistence to vouchers is from bible belt Christians who fear government control over the private school system via vouchers (the whole "you cannot serve two masters" thing). </font>[/QUOTE]That's an interesting angle I'd not considered before! Perhaps it is a factor in the way it might be administered. You can bet the government would want to attach many strings to a "voucher" program to keep control.
How about just letting the tax payers write their check to either the government school or the private school with no strings whatsoever? I wonder fears that would generate.
Proposed voucher systems would provide vouchers for any acredited private school. Personally, if it's not acredited, the state has no business subsidizing it via vouchers. Just my $.02.
Besides, what parent would actually allow their kids to attend an unacredited private school? I mean, c'mon, parents, you're shelling out thousands in tuition.
It depends on what "no strings whatsoever" means. If it means having no minimum state standards for promotion/graduation, then I wouldn't favor it. Look at the multitude of unacreditted diploma mills are are willing to dole out fake educations and degrees for the right dollar amount. Just ask Kent Hovind ("Dr Dino) about that.
Good discussion, Johnv!
My point is that public schools have increasingly acted and been viewed as "government" verses "public". At one time I feel they were considered to be more of a quasi government locally controlled cooperative venture for the common good of local citizens. The community seemed to have "everything" to say about "their" school. Now they seem to be considered more a part of the "state" in every sense of the law and are tightly controlled by the federal and state governments.
Smarter, no. Do they tend to be better educated? Yes.</font>[/QUOTE]That's what I figured! So then, that must mean that the quality of private schooling is better than government schooling. It seems that the return - education - on the investment - tuition - is much better from a private school. Why else would people want to pay extra for it?
State-run schools had been in [existence] prior to the Constitution, as well as private-run schools. In fact, Thomas Payne in the late 1790's suggested the first voucher system. There have been state-mandated education standards since the early 1800's.</font>[/QUOTE]I understand the concept that public schools have been around a long time. Part of the homesteading of public land included reserving a portion of land in each township for a public school. Several of my ancestors were heavily involved in setting up, teaching, and administering some early public schools.
My point is that public schools have increasingly acted and been viewed as "government" verses "public". At one time I feel they were considered to be more of a quasi government locally controlled cooperative venture for the common good of local citizens. The community seemed to have "everything" to say about "their" school. Now they seem to be considered more a part of the "state" in every sense of the law and are tightly controlled by the federal and state governments.
Smarter, no. Do they tend to be better educated? Yes.</font>[/QUOTE]That's what I figured! So then, that must mean that the quality of private schooling is better than government schooling. It seems that the return - education - on the investment - tuition - is much better from a private school. Why else would people want to pay extra for it?
Private agencies could establish and accredit secondary schools just like they do higher educational institutions. The people that really know what's needed are the consumers - the employers who have need of the skills - of the educated public. Most employers are very much in tune to the bogus "diploma mills" you mention. The government really doesn't have all that much to offer in this realm. In fact, they seem to get fooled by bogus credentials from time to time don't they? The government is nothing but "overhead" to the public best concerned with providing a framework of justice, providing for the defense of the nation, and protecting our borders. People own the skills and employers own the jobs. Together they can figure out what's needed and those with the right drive will go get it. Parents need to be responsible - success or failure - for their children's education until those children get old enough to do so for themselves. Those that don't want to lean a skill will do even worse in a government school and "grow up" expecting that same government to provide for them.
Who says it can't? It's an oft-heard mantra, but real cases are few and far between. I'm sure you've heard the stereotype of the inner-city school and kids bringing in weapons. Yet, the most severe cases of school violence occur in small towns like Littleton, CO.
</font>[/QUOTE]In this case, I was focusing more on basic class room discipline that facilitates an orderly environment for learning rather than outright senseless violence such as the Littleton, Colorado incident. By "discipline" I do not mean harshness - I mean that necessary to establish and maintain order for the purpose at hand.
Teachers no longer have the ability to maintain basic discipline in the classroom of government schools. Nearly any school teacher can attest to that. Not only is corporal punishment virtually eliminated but even verbal reprimand is severely restrained. Many teachers work in fear of some of their students. A reason is that the government has it's "standards" for what constitutes discipline. It is grossly confused with all kinds of "political correctness" and "psychology" that eliminates the ability for execution of good judgment. Since the educational process in a government school is an "entitlement", the parents of misbehaving students don't care as much about discipline as they do extending the impact of their own "rights" and "entitlement" crusades.
A student who puts fear into a teacher belongs in reform school if any school at all. They are likely to be future criminals and should not be permitted to deter from the good education of others. Their continued attendence only establishes potetional "role models" for younger students. It becomes a game to test the system for how far one can push the limits.
As for the Littleton, Colorado incident, it is unfortunate that some of the school teachers or administrators were not armed and able to terminate the violence inflicted by the deranged students. These "little boys", who were fully responsible for the violence, deserved to die like the animals whose role they assumed whether in a public school, in a home invasion, or a bank robbery.
[ September 26, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Dragoon68 ]
Magnetic Poles
New Member
One minor correction . . .
Littleton is not really a typical small town. It is part of metropolitan Denver, a suburb if you will. I don't advocate teachers armed to the teeth, but in the Columbine incident, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department was too busy hiding outside and not going in, even after the violence had been stopped for hours.
Littleton is not really a typical small town. It is part of metropolitan Denver, a suburb if you will. I don't advocate teachers armed to the teeth, but in the Columbine incident, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department was too busy hiding outside and not going in, even after the violence had been stopped for hours.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Now you're saying that we shouldn't have state universities? No U of Michigan, no Wisconsin, no U of NC, no NC State, no U of CA, no GA Tech, etc. These are all excellent colleges and much cheaper than private colleges.
buckster75
Member
John that is an interesting take on the resistance to vouchers. I live in this belt and never heard of it (not saying it is not true) I always thought it was resisted because you know there are going to be better (more expensive) schools which will get the best teachers and you can just follow where that would go. segregation, discrimination....so on and blah blah. I think this because I have seen already the best teachers here moving to the private schools because thay don't want to be in the out of control public school system which has become come a place for the thugs to drop off, pick up, their drugs , guns etc.
Now you're saying that we shouldn't have state universities? No U of Michigan, no Wisconsin, no U of NC, no NC State, no U of CA, no GA Tech, etc. These are all excellent colleges and much cheaper than private colleges. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure, nearly all alumni and alumna of a given university believe they went to a great school. There are many universities with relatively - meaning compared to what's available - good academic programs. I don't disagree with that. Some students just think their university is great because of their football team alone. Many believe they receive a solid education.
Ask any group of graduates - high school or college - basic questions about reading, writing, mathematics, history, geography, government, etc. and tell me how impressed you are relative to what they should know and be able to do.
I'm saying private schools - including government ones that could be privatized - would be better because they wouldn't be under government control. A lot of the curricula of universities is devoted to studies that perpetuate the faculty agenda as opposed to providing useful knowledge for the students. Ask students is professors spend time teaching them or spend time researching and writing books. Ask students if most of their instruction comes from graduate assistants. Maybe that's why fresh graduates have to learn how to do a "real" job after spending four to five years "learning". Ask any college graduate ten years into their career how much of what they "learned" is "used" in their work. Academia calls it a "well rounded education" that "demonstrates the ability to learn". Many hard working people are so convinced that's the case at all. The programs of study could be much better and much less expensive. They're just not as "great" as government educators want us to believe.
Tuition to any college or university is hardly "cheap" these days. One reason public universities may seem cheaper is that part of their funding is hidden in an assortment of taxes. Another reason private schools are more expensive is because people are willing to pay for it - and they don't get the same tax support - because they believe they're going to get more for their money. Some just go for the "name" and can afford it. The curricula problem is the same.
By default, a public institution (school, prison, public utility, etc) is governmental in nature, with the privileged and responsibilities thereof.
I suggest you sit in on a local school board meeting or two. You'll find that those folks are typically grass-roots dedicated community-minded people. They don't always get the glry they deserve.
At present, that trend has some truth to it, but due in part to the fact that many private schools have access to the money of affluent families. If all schools were privatized, that divide likely may not exist.
Are you kidding? I know several parents who send their kids to the most expensive schools because it's a status symbol. Sad but true, and it's more common than we want to admit.
O
OCC
Guest
Why must we complain about everything? *sigh*
Smarter, no. Do they tend to be better educated? Yes.</font>[/QUOTE]The most important factor is certain moral values or ethics.
Those who see themselves as legitimately entitled to the wealth of others will not emphasize that their children prepare to provide for themselves.
O
OCC
Guest
Actually...the whole nation is entitled to the wealth of others. It's called taxes. Most law abiding citizens I believe, WOULD teach their children to provide for themselves, pay their taxes, etc.