cheetah

I think this is exactly the problem. A lot of people, especially conservatives, don't like being told what should be taught to their kids/what the funds should be spent on. They are big on local control. I think local control is important to address the particular issues of a locality (i.e. limited english proficiency is rampant in certain areas and MUST be addressed to enable education), but we'd have to make certain things untouchable, like evolution, for instance, and even sex ed, I think. That is something that is common to every human, and doesn't rest on the number of english proficient, disabled, rich or poor you have. Maybe they'd just have to decide what's of limits for local control and what's not. I think it like what Grey Davis recently did (don't know enough about it to be sure). It's not perfect, and the core of it all is budget cuts, but one aspect (the aspect I think I like), is that they are going to stop mandating for every district, from the State level, what percentage of money should be spent on certain things at school. So, there won't be mandates about how much is spent on transportation vs. lunches, vs. some extracurricular stuff, I think. I think there are still mandates about in class stuff. If that's not his plan, it should be.

Everyone believes that just throwing more money at schools is not going to be the solution, though. Why is this? I think it can help in both ways. 1. to get resources to schools that do not have them and 2. to pay the teachers higher salaries in orer to attract better teachers to the poorer schools, hopefully. I can see, obviously, that with more money comes the chance of abuse. but, hey, we like to throw money at the military and no one has a problem with that!

Loren Pechtel

[B]Originally posted by cheetah
I think this is exactly the problem. A lot of people, especially conservatives, don't like being told what should be taught to their kids/what the funds should be spent on. They are big on local control. I think local control is important to address the particular issues of a locality (i.e. limited english proficiency is rampant in certain areas and MUST be addressed to enable education), but we'd have to make certain things untouchable, like evolution, for instance, and even sex ed, I think. [/QUOTE]

I don't think local control is needed if the national rules are written properly to address things like areas with a lack of English. "Local control" is just a ruse to slip in Christian prudery.

Aerion

The list you mentioned above is all well and good, but the problem is that lots of people disagree on what areas should be regulated. Personally, I agree 100% with the list you mentioned, but if you polled 100 people, you'd get a bunch of different lists.

I also strongly disagree with teaching English as a second language in this country. If I moved to a country where English is not spoken, I would consider it my duty to learn the language of my adopted country. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who immigrate to the United States to learn English. Speaking English should be a requirement for citizenship as well.

Celsus

Hi cheetah

You have probably hit my #1 gripe of all time. Fuck the military. People! People! Let's give the money where it can be productively spent. The only danger is of course, that the funds must be regulated so that they are well spent in areas where people might not necessarily want them spent (evolution, sex ed. as we've already been through). The other thing is in focusing more on social education - choices about life, the universe and everything, get far too little emphasis in modern curricula. That's why, positive as the sciences are, education should also focus on the moral and ethical dimension of living. If we can show the value of humanistic creeds such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, people aren't going to be so oblivious in participating in an unfair world.

Dale

What do you all think of my Letter to the Editor?

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"Religious freedom" is defined in Black�s Law Dictionary as: Within Constitution (First Amendment) embraces not only the right to worship God according to the dictates of one�s conscience, but also the right to do, or forbear to do, any act, for conscience sake�

Black's defines "act" as: Denotes external manifestation of actor�s will� In its most general sense, this noun signifies something done voluntarily by a person; the exercise of an individual�s power; an effect produced in the external world�

Black's defines "Conscience" as: The moral sense; the faculty of judging the moral qualities of actions, or of discriminating between right and wrong�

The establishment and maintenance of state school systems force the children of heavily taxed parents who do not have sufficient money left to pay for schools of their choice or the time and talents to homeschool their children to be inculcated with the values and opinions of teachers of arbitrary religions and world views. Fifty years ago I was required to learn from teachers I did not respect. They held different visions than I concerning how I should live my life here on earth. The lack of a robust educational marketplace resulted in my spending most of my best learning years immersed in activities that violated my moral code. Consider the suffering of logger's children being forced to endure tree-hugging environmental camps or the terrible anguish of future engineers eager to develop their mathematical and design skills being frustrated for equity�s sake and the good possibility that their teachers do not enjoy and appreciate difficult intellectual efforts.

Hence government schools violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Fortunately an increasing number of students and parents are creating richer learning environments where learners can exercise their inalienable right to develop their own consciences and futures. They are employing their own tutors, practicing self-directed learning, and using the rapidly developing tools of the Information Age. Eventually the benefits of separating school and state will be obvious and available to everyone.
=============
References:
"Compelling Belief: The Culture of American Schooling," Stephen Arons, 1986
"Short Route to Chaos: Conscience, Community, and the Re-Constitution of American Schooling," Stephen Arons, 1997.
http://mantle.sbs.umass.edu/alee/legal/Arons/arons.htm
Stephen Arons, Professor
Department of Legal Studies
217 Hampshire House, UMass/Amherst
Phone: 413-545-3536 / Fax: 413-545-1640
Email: [email protected]

Loren Pechtel

The Bible says not to allow a witch to live. By this standard there should be no punishment for killing one.

Likewise there should be no punishment for a Muslim who kills an infidel that stands in the way of advancing the Islamic faith.

Dale

Sorry but I do not understand your point. Are you saying that it is a good idea having government employees educate future citizens in government schools?

trunks2k

The US has no official language, the vast majority of us just happen to speak it, that is why we cannot make speaking english a requirement for citizenship.

Loren Pechtel

I pointed out a couple of consequences of the position you espoused.

Dale

Are you saying that I did not quote Blacks correctly?

What is the thread here? I thought we were discussing "Education inequalities(K-12)" and my post implied that none of us are equal so government schools should be out of here.

Sorry, I normally discuss these fundamental and important issues with Bible Thumpers and/or libertarians. I was wondering what *new* ideas I might learn from a group of Infidels like me. Well, actually, I am a Sinusoidalist but that is another thread.