Which is preferable: Secular Education or Theocracy?

reply to post by wildtimes

That sounds like a religious ideology to me.

Why do you oppose the nature of man? We can only be what we are, yet you strive for something more... something just.

You are not your own god, but if you were, then so too, is everyone else. If divine justness is a delusion, then so too is your desire for peace and prosperity...

So... why should we listen to your delusions, if you out-right say they are delusions?

Do you understand my earlier post, now?

Edit:
I just saw your other post. You are essentially saying it is our nature, as social creatures, to strive for justness, yet you fail to see that that sense of justness is nothing but delusions, if there is no true right or wrong, as set forth by divinity.

You want what is best for society, but what is best is a delusion, if there is no best, no right, no wrong. All of your moral principles start off on the foundation of all of them being false.

If my moral principles mean nothing, then neither do yours. They are equally baseless delusions.

reply to post by wildtimes

Do you prefer a Theocracy with the Christian Religion being one of the 'fundamentals' of education?

No, of course not. But I agree with ketsuko that parents should be given a choice -- I have the means to send my grandkids to whatever school I want, but I'm betting that most of the parents in that zombie producing school in the video don't, and have no choice but to send their kids to the local indoctrination center, disguised as an elementary school.

I want choice, but I want choice for everyone, not just those who can afford it.

And that, in a nutshell, is what us "right wing nuts" (even though I'm a centralist ) have against Common Core and so-called Progressive education.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Why do you oppose the nature of man? We can only be what we are, yet you strive for something more... something just.

If you truly believe this then you are part of the problem. Mankind could be so much more if we only tried, but it is people such as yourself that oppose us moving forward and becoming better for it. Why are you so against progress?

I see this argument as equivalent to "We are evil so why try to be good?". Why try to be good? Because it's the right thing to do. Why try try to strive for something more? Because it's what we should do.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Obviously, I do not believe that.

It was to illustrate the ludicrousness of his dogma.

reply to post by adjensen

I want choice, but I want choice for everyone, not just those who can afford it.

So do I!

And that, in a nutshell, is what us "right wing nuts" (even though I'm a centralist ) have against Common Core and so-called Progressive education.

But, why? What is it about "Progressive Common Core education" that you perceive as negative?
Obviously there is a disparity between "wealthy district" schools and "low-income" schools. I'd like to see that end.

I don't see a problem with every student in every location in the USA getting a standard education - the same curriculum that every school uses in terms of the basic academics. That is what Progressives are working for....

an END to the 'only those who can afford it get better educations.'

My kids went to public schools - my daughter excelled, and earned a scholarship to a major private university. Now, I will heartily admit that my ex (their father) and I CHOSE to send them to the school district where he lives, because it was a better school system. Better results. Better taxpayer base.

Had my kids had equal opportunities for learning in the district where I live, I might have kept them here.

What I'm fighting for is that my less-affluent neighbors can send their kids to a school just as good as the one my kids went to - and fortunately we had a choice - living in two different districts....

But why should the kids in my zip code get a 'worse' education than where my kids went (in a neighboring zip code)?

This is what "Progressives" are trying to achieve - EQUALITY of public school education, so that regardless of zip code, the kids will get equivalent educations. Now, whether the kids are motivated to succeed or participate is a different matter - and, in my opinion and experience - and is based on the education of the PARENTS.

Having said that, It's a myth (a nasty myth, IMO) that "all public schools suck." Like you, I went to public schools, so did my parents, so did my kids; now, we did not live in the 'urban core', but in fairily affluent counties -that I freely admit, and am thankful about it)......

SOME public school districts suck..yes. They lose their funding for substandard "outcomes". But we have to factor in the chaos, poverty, criminal activity, and stress levels of those NEIGHBORHOODS when we consider 'outcomes.'


I worked in the inner core with school kids for a couple of years -- both public school and Catholic school kids - together, in the same group, from the same neighborhood (in the district that later lost accreditation). THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE in outcomes - the girls from the Catholic school were JUST AS misbehaved as the public school kids. Which points where? Back to home, stress levels, environment, crime rates, poverty, etc.

Had there been 'equal pay' - or hell, even additional "hazardous work" pay! - to the teachers in those urban schools, THEN the schools could actually 'compete.' They would also remove the 'artificial boundaries' of "good neighborhood" vs "bad neighborhood."

But a poor district is not funded well enough to hire excellent teachers....
therefore, the kids in the ghetto don't get as quality an education as those where property taxes are higher.

It's a form of segregation - and I think it's wrong.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Wait. What???!
Here is what I said:
The end of suffering, oppression, disenfranchisement, and the achievement of equality.

That sounds like a religious ideology to me.

It does? To me, it sounds like a humanist ideology; it's what social workers do. Fight for everyone's dignity, survival, and potential.

wildtimes
So - so far, no one opposed to secular education has answered what they think "Progressives" are trying to do

I'll take a stab at it....

Progressives won't stop until uttering the word "God", painting a picture of Jesus, or wearing a cross around your neck in school will get you suspended or sent to a counselor for a healthy dose of atheist brainwashing and some pills.

That's how I see it anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.

reply to post by adjensen


Just for clarification, that video you put up. Is that something you are saying is good or bad, and what reasoning?

It seems pretty cool to me, a lot more fun and interesting than the sit down and shut up method I went through as a kid. I am only 2:42 in so far.

reply to post by Bone75

Progressives won't stop until uttering the word "God", painting a picture of Jesus, or wearing a cross around your neck in school will get you suspended or sent to a counselor for a healthy dose of atheist brainwashing and some pills.

No. That's not it.
Now, may I ask where you got this 'idea' of what they want?

That's how I see it anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I'm sorry to say it, but you're wrong.

If you'd like actual information about the "Progressive" movement - I can probably point you to some sources.

But, since this is 'how you see it', I need to know "where" you heard this, and "why" you believe it. I can't fight a phantom rumor if I don't know what source it's coming from.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

It was to illustrate the ludicrousness of his dogma.

Again, what??? I took your post in the same way that 3NL did....
so, we're all evil sinners and deserve nothing?

What is 'ludicrous' about my goals, and why do you call it 'dogma'? And, btw, I'm a "she."

reply to post by TKDRL

Just for clarification, that video you put up. Is that something you are saying is good or bad, and what reasoning?

It seems pretty cool to me, a lot more fun and interesting than the sit down and shut up method I went through as a kid. I am only 2:42 in so far.

I don't merely think it bad, I think it horrific, an example of groupthink and indoctrination in action.

How is shouting at your "partner" learning? How is regurgitating what the leader teacher is telling you, loudly, immediately and without thinking, or you get a "frowny" and have to groan, going to encourage people to be anything but zombies? How is doing everything as a group and not disagreeing or questioning what one is being told a good thing?

Anyone who thinks that is anything but an effort to mould kids into the people that the government wants them to be needs to wake the heck up.

reply to post by adjensen


I totally agree, it's pretty abhorrent to me as well. In fact, I'd say the school system as a whole was set up from the get-go to turn children into zombies who are taught not to question authority. The pledge of allegiance is one example, where kids are told to stand up every day and take an oath to a concept that they have no true understanding of.

Sadly, the system is so ingrained in our society people actually see it as good and normal.

reply to post by wildtimes

But, why? What is it about "Progressive Common Core education" that you perceive as negative?

Because a) I think that some parents have a legitimate beef with the things being taught in some public schools and do not have the means to do anything about it and b) when has the government ever done anything consistently more efficient than the private sector could do, when left to its own devices? They're good at waging war and passing laws, and that's about it.

Here's a solution to your concern about "religion creep" -- establish a system of vouchers, where every taxpayer can, for free, send their kid to any school that they want. That would end, overnight, any efforts at religious education in public schools, because the "religious nuts" would use their vouchers to send their kids to a private school that caters to religious nuts.

But they'll never let that happen, because it scares the hell out of them to lose that level of control.

(And before someone pipes up with "No! It's because of separation between church and state!", it is not, because allowing people to send their kids to the school of their choice, which may or may not be religious, is not the establishment of a religion or the prohibition of the free exercise of religion.)

reply to post by adjensen

How is shouting at your "partner" learning? How is regurgitating what the leader teacher is telling you, loudly, immediately and without thinking, or you get a "frowny" and have to groan, going to encourage people to be anything but zombies? How is doing everything as a group and not disagreeing or questioning what one is being told a good thing?

Im actually dealing with this kind of thing with my GF as you know...

DO you think its a good thing in any education system where the answer to almost every question is "God did it"?

I realise you attended public schools so im sure you don't... but honestly have you seen some of the answers in "Catholic school" tests?

they border on insanity...

People should have a choice as to where they school their children... but I don't believe its very healthy to avoid a practical approach to science and replace it with a book from ancient times as the end all be all of education...

Perhaps im a bit off topic here though

reply to post by adjensen


6 minutes in so far, and all I can tell so far is that the teacher seems to be turning a powerful learning method into an energetic game. Something fun and interesting rather than bland and boring. The best teachers in my experience were the ones that turned learning into a game. The teacher that got me started with my love of math did it in forms of games.

Same with my high school social studies teacher, although his games was more in the form of jeapordy type games, like more "grown up and sophisticated games". The prizes for winning were raffle tickets, and every other friday raffles were held, with prizes that were school related. The big money prize raffle was at the end of the year, I won a scientific calculator, that was cool.

Anyways, the point is, kids don't naturally learn the sit down and shut up way. That way is outdated, people coming up with new and different ideas should be applauded in my book.

reply to post by Akragon


Show me an example of a "Catholic test" that you think is ridiculous, as the only ones that I have seen are from Fundamentalists, not Catholics. Studies have consistently shown that parochial schools are more effective and are academically superior to public schools, generally due to smaller class sizes.

reply to post by wildtimes

If the picture I painted is incorrect, I'd like you to set me straight. If I'm wrong then show me how. Don't just tell me I'm wrong and threaten me with knowledge. That's no fun.

adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

Show me an example of a "Catholic test" that you think is ridiculous, as the only ones that I have seen are from Fundamentalists, not Catholics. Studies have consistently shown that parochial schools are more effective and are academically superior to public schools, generally due to smaller class sizes.

You may just be right actually... I should have said fundy schools instead of catholic...

My bad

reply to post by adjensen


Hey, d, I just watched your video, and followed to its sources "Whole Brain Teaching"....
this is a fringe movement, and I agree with you that it is disturbing.

But it is NOT part of the public school curriculum or methods.
I was interested that the kids were so 'willing' to follow the directions, and impressed with how they were able to 'relay the lesson' to their neighbor; but obviously I can see the "drone creation" agenda.

This is the 'source' of what this young woman was doing:
www.wholebrainteaching.com...

At first, I thought perhaps it was a drama class....
it was clear the kids were excited and cooperative. But, NO!, I am opposed to the 'ideology' of the "teacher always being pleased."

Where did you find this? It's not what our current "secular schools" do - and appears to be just another "gimmick" that will prove short-lived.

reply to post by Bone75


What would you like me to present?

The Progressive; since 1909

History and Mission
The Progressive is a monthly leftwing magazine of investigative reporting, political commentary, cultural coverage, activism, interviews, poetry, and humor.

It steadfastly stands against militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, and the disenfranchisement of the citizenry.

It champions peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy. Its bedrock values are nonviolence and freedom of speech.

This one is wiki: Progressivism

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.[11] It also caused the development to progressive education.

Political parties such as the Progressive Party were organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism was embraced in the administrations of American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[12] Moreover, in Europe and Canada, the term "progressive" has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name "progressivism" despite being considered centre-right or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union.

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal". Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. In the U.S. in particular, the term "progressive" tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat, which is scarcely used in American political language.[citation needed]

The reason for this confusion in the U.S. might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the center-left Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic."[25]

I linked the "Center for American Progress" for you above.
Does that help?