Publishers Resist Pressure to Undermine Evolution Coverage in Texas Science Textbooks

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

michael22


Well, if it just the money you are worried about and don't want to change the tax structure (not my solution, obviously), why not just allow the already allocated funds to go to home or private schooling and eliminate public school altogether?

We spend an average of $10K to 15K per child here in Massachusetts, that seems to be more than enough.
reply to post by greencmp
 


Well it's not the money at all. Right now, homeschooling parents are self-selecting, so of course they're going to excel at it. And wealthy people (most of whom are well-educated to begin with) can afford private school, which has access to the best teachers, because there is this lower pool of public school teachers who want to make more money. (Right now, private school has a farm system.) For most rich kids, the having of smart parents is a profoundly relevant predeterminant to the raising of intelligent kids who go to good colleges. So you're looking at beautiful data under perfect circumstances.

I'd just like for this to go slowly, because there is a flattening of opportunity that comes with a decent level of access to a fairly inadequate K-12 education. Burning that down, tossing aside all learned lessons, and starting anew seems reckless at best. We're trying new models for homeschooling, and "private school" is not a monolith. I'm with you, a little.

I'll leave you with this unsupported assertion: there are public schools that outperform private schools in student outcomes.

By the way, how do you define student outcomes? [sets bear trap, puts leaves over it, whistles indifferently]

I am a bit confused, what are you saying exactly?

That there is no better way to spend $15,000 for a child's education than on public school?




posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   


I am a bit confused, what are you saying exactly?

That there is no better way to spend $15,000 for a child's education than on public school?
reply to post by greencmp
 





Well it's not the money at all.


And now I'm a bit confused. I wrote a whole thing. Please see above.
edit on 20-10-2013 by michael22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

michael22


Well, if it just the money you are worried about and don't want to change the tax structure (not my solution, obviously), why not just allow the already allocated funds to go to home or private schooling and eliminate public school altogether?

We spend an average of $10K to 15K per child here in Massachusetts, that seems to be more than enough.
reply to post by greencmp
 


Well it's not the money at all. Right now, homeschooling parents are self-selecting, so of course they're going to excel at it. And wealthy people (most of whom are well-educated to begin with) can afford private school, which has access to the best teachers, because there is this lower pool of public school teachers who want to make more money. (Right now, private school has a farm system.) For most rich kids, the having of smart parents is a profoundly relevant predeterminant to the raising of intelligent kids who go to good colleges. So you're looking at beautiful data under perfect circumstances.

I'd just like for this to go slowly, because there is a flattening of opportunity that comes with a decent level of access to a fairly inadequate K-12 education. Burning that down, tossing aside all learned lessons, and starting anew seems reckless at best. We're trying new models for homeschooling, and "private school" is not a monolith. I'm with you, a little.

I'll leave you with this unsupported assertion: there are public schools that outperform private schools in student outcomes.

By the way, how do you define student outcomes? [sets bear trap, puts leaves over it, whistles indifferently]



I am a bit confused, what are you saying exactly?

That there is no better way to spend $15,000 for a child's education than on public school?


michael22


I am a bit confused, what are you saying exactly?

That there is no better way to spend $15,000 for a child's education than on public school?
reply to post by greencmp
 





Well it's not the money at all.


And now I'm a bit confused. I wrote a whole thing. Please see above.
edit on 20-10-2013 by michael22 because: (no reason given)

Is there some benefit to 'flattened opportunity' from 'inadequate K-12 education'?

Is it too soon to change or is there some advantage to slowing down the conversion from public school?

It seems to me that the only people who want to maintain the status quo are the teacher's unions.

I really am trying to understand your post and I infer that you don't feel comfortable getting rid of public schools but, I am working on interpreting your reasoning. I realize that you don't want to lower taxes which would be my preferred solution.

If taxes are not lowered then, I don't understand how rich or poor has anything to do with it. I am simply proposing the reassignment of funds already allocated and making the most of that money for the best possible education.

If parents cannot or will not home school, then private school seems entirely appropriate.
edit on 21-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Schools teach science.
Churches don't.

I don't think the concern of these folks is about which is right and which is wrong.
I think they're scared that eventually Little Johnny will learn enough to question much of the bull# he's been taught via his Sunday-indoctrinations.





new topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join