2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Yeah, my daughter's fourth grade class was so homogenous.   Maybe those higher income groups focus on different priorities and maybe that is why they are higher income.

 

 

 

 

Anecdotes aren't evidence. And it's nice to know you think poor people just don't work hard enough and haven't earned a better life. That's certainly not an incredibly common and classist stereotype. 

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

 Or are you arguing many Christians don't believe in or take Genesis seriously? 

 

 

Well, Blast Processing sounded kind of made up.

32 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

And here I thought you were confused about the problems we were trying to point out.  Maybe you understood what those articles were getting at more than you let on.

 

Those problems don't exist in all public schools or districts, and they do exist in some private schools as well. The point is that being public schools, specifically, is not the cause as some of you seem to be suggesting.

 

32 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Also, in case you missed it the first time: School choice isn't about getting higher-income families into better schools.  We're already there.  It's about getting other families in as well.  The only thing it affects in my case is potentially whether we move to the burbs to escape the Akron tax burden, particularly since my wife works remotely for a company in Dallas (with no municipal income tax), so she'd completely escape muni income tax if we went out to one of the townships.  That would be inconvenient for me because I rather like urban life (there's a reason I've been on these boards for so long, after all), but it's a much higher-stakes issue for families that don't have my options.

 

And again, most kids will never have access to private schools regardless if the policies you're pushing allow a few more in. So all that your solutions are doing is making those problems worse for most. If you truly wanted to help the most kids, you would be for investing in better public schools and communities- neither of which conservatives tend to support. It's very much the same divide the Left and Right has on crime. 

 

 

39 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Anecdotes aren't evidence. And it's nice to know you think poor people just don't work hard enough and haven't earned a better life. That's certainly not an incredibly common and classist stereotype. 

 

Stereotypes aren't evidence either.    And no one said anything about working hard, but about priorities.

13 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

You keep thinking this is about people agreeing with me and it's not. The only thing I look down on is using religion to control the lives of people who do not share that religion. Again, it's not atheists banning books. It's not atheists threatening gay and trans rights. It's not atheists leading the charge against abortion rights. It's not atheists outraged over pronouns or gender identity. Etc

You say this, but your actions and other statements contradict that.  "Again its not atheists threatening gay and trans rights. Its not atheists leading the charge against abortion rights. Its not atheists outrages over pronouns or gender identity" as you state.

 

But in reality it is. You say this, but someone who does not seem to agree with your point on gender pronouns needs to be shouted down into oblivion. Someone who does not agree with saying certain matters are better taught in the home than in a general school setting is treated as a racist or homo=phobic without even considering the context of their viewpoint.  In one breath you or others who claim to be progressive speak of the wonders of diversity but as soon as someone has a diverse opinion that is contrary to their own, they get shot down. 

 

Getting back to schools, can you see why there are a lot of parents who are upset? Do you understand why some, even very educated and mainstream individuals who would not be considered "fringe right wing" by normal people have lost faith in the educational system and choose (via vouchers or their own means) to educate their children in a different environment. The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. The goal of society is to create an educated group of people who are capable of some level of problem solving and analytical thinking and can come to their own conclusions from their perspective. 
The one argument I hear from those who are big proponents of the public schools are often from teachers unions who are seeking to consolidate power. The more monopoly power they have the more they can influence the debate. That should not be what the goal of education is about and it is unfortunate that it has been coopted the way it has in a way that at times is detrimental to the children. 

50 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Stereotypes aren't evidence either.    And no one said anything about working hard, but about priorities.

 

What priorities are different, then? Poor people don't prioritize the attempt at a better life?

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

Poor people don't prioritize the attempt at a better life?

 

Quite often they do not.  I have a huge amount of experience working with and managing people who didn't graduate from high school.  They make fun of you for reading books on your lunch break instead of playing cards.  They make fun of you for having a boring car or (gasp!) riding a bike to work instead of living under the crushing debt of a truck payment.  They make fun of you for volunteering for overtime, working a second job, etc.  

 

 

 

LOL at the teachers union comment. Y’all hate every union except for the one that kills people. @jonoh81bless you for going back and forth with these self described “moderates” who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, but will take the first handout for their kids religion class and school.
 

What a bummer.

 

 

Edited March 21, 20232 yr by Clefan14

^^Aren't those just examples of s-hitty people being s-hitty? 

 

Interesting conversation overall.

 

On the one hand, I don't blame parents wanting their kids to avoid schools where far too many violent, loudmouth, and otherwise proudly antisocial thugs ruin it for everyone. It seems like some, let's call them enablers, are more concerned with providing context for the s-hitty kids' behaviors rather than worrying about what happens to those whose educations are ruined to no fault of their own.

 

Public school or not, false cries of racism or not, disruptive kids need to go. This s-hit sure doesn't happen in Europe or Asia, and it shouldn't be so accepted here.

 

And second, if a parent doesn't want his/her child being "indoctrinated" with an understanding of racial histories and sexual/gender orientation, then they can always homeschool their kids. Otherwise, they need to shut the f-k up with their false outrage, false fear, and gleeful scapegoating of gay and trans kids and whatever they think woke means. The need for a boogeyman, validated by the conservative movement, is pathetic, obvious, and happens generation after generation.

 

Edited March 21, 20232 yr by TBideon

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You say this, but your actions and other statements contradict that.  "Again its not atheists threatening gay and trans rights. Its not atheists leading the charge against abortion rights. Its not atheists outrages over pronouns or gender identity" as you state.

 

?? I'm not seeing the contradiction. Perhaps you could elaborate.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

But in reality it is. You say this, but someone who does not seem to agree with your point on gender pronouns needs to be shouted down into oblivion. Someone who does not agree with saying certain matters are better taught in the home than in a general school setting is treated as a racist or homo=phobic without even considering the context of their viewpoint.  In one breath you or others who claim to be progressive speak of the wonders of diversity but as soon as someone has a diverse opinion that is contrary to their own, they get shot down. 

 

That makes no logical sense. Criticism of a position is free speech. I am exercising that right. Criticism is also not the same as legislation, which is what we're talking about. 

 

Maybe because attacking trans people or banning AA studies or dogwhistling about urban violence/immigrants are objectively bigoted and racist things. I didn't create the defintions, I'm just pointing out how obviously they fit the rhetoric.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Getting back to schools, can you see why there are a lot of parents who are upset? Do you understand why some, even very educated and mainstream individuals who would not be considered "fringe right wing" by normal people have lost faith in the educational system and choose (via vouchers or their own means) to educate their children in a different environment. The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. The goal of society is to create an educated group of people who are capable of some level of problem solving and analytical thinking and can come to their own conclusions from their perspective. 

 

Sure, I can understand that. What I'm arguing is that the decline in public education is by design, and pulling more funding from public schools to prop up yet more private options for the privileged is just another example of that ongoing process. 

 

If that's the goal of society, or the Right, then explain how making public education- the only option for that most people will ever have- worse is somehow in line with that goal? You logically can't, and that's why there's so much gaslighting about saving kids from bad schools. 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The one argument I hear from those who are big proponents of the public schools are often from teachers unions who are seeking to consolidate power. The more monopoly power they have the more they can influence the debate. That should not be what the goal of education is about and it is unfortunate that it has been coopted the way it has in a way that at times is detrimental to the children. 

 

See, this is exactly what I mean by the decline being by design. Conservatives have been attacking public schools, their teachers and administrations for decades, propping up a narrative that they're being run by fat cat unions who don't care about education. You've been defunding them, refusing to invest in the local communities, making their jobs more dangerous with guns and crime, putting their student populations into greater poverty and inequality, and on top of that, demonizing them incessantly. I ask myself what it would look like if conservatives were actively trying to destroy public education completely, and I can't think of anything they could do differently that they've already not been doing. 

Edited March 21, 20232 yr by jonoh81

18 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Quite often they do not.  I have a huge amount of experience working with and managing people who didn't graduate from high school.  They make fun of you for reading books on your lunch break instead of playing cards.  They make fun of you for having a boring car or (gasp!) riding a bike to work instead of living under the crushing debt of a truck payment.  They make fun of you for volunteering for overtime, working a second job, etc.  

 

 

 

 

You could've just said "Poor people are lazy and socially inept, and so have it coming" and there would've been no difference in the tone of this post. 

 

Also and again, anecdotes aren't evidence.

Edited March 21, 20232 yr by jonoh81

26 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

What priorities are different, then? Poor people don't prioritize the attempt at a better life?

 

They don't get to. When they are pushed so far down on Maslov's Heirarchy of Needs by poverty there isn't as much opportunity to work on academics or betterment of their position. 

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

?? I'm not seeing the contradiction. Perhaps you could elaborate.

My point is, you obviously do not agree with the religious take on abortion/etc. But instead of recognizing it as a viewpoint that you disagree with, in many cases, those on the progressive side (and I do not want to necessarily implicate you directly) act like the other side's viewpoint, which they disagree with has no merit or value and must be shut down.  They preach diversity and in the next breath try and shut down thought diversity.  Very much of what you rail against on the conservative right, is celebrated by the left when they shut down that viewpoint. 

The point is that both viewpoints can coexist but much of the progressive side does not actually believe in the tolerance and diversity, they claim to espouse.

 

8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Maybe because attacking trans people or banning AA studies or dogwhistling about urban violence/immigrants are objectively bigoted and racist things. I didn't create the defintions, I'm just pointing out how obviously they fit the rhetoric.

Criticism and dialogue are great tools to foster the conversation. It is when you seek to try and shut down the other side by demagoguing them and seeking to diminish their humanity. I agree that there are a lot of people on the right who clearly do not understand many of the issues that happen with immigrants, violence against gay individuals and racism in society. At the same time, treating their perspectives as inferior because they do not agree with your viewpoint only shows your own closemindedness and inability to coexist with different viewpoints. For example,  Maybe, just maybe, some of the AA studies classes should not be taught in public schools? Maybe they should? Maybe there is matter that is inappropriate and some of the conservative activists you lambast are justified in their opinions? To act like there is no debate in the matter clearly shows a lack of understanding on a complex issue and to completely dismiss the group standing against it as a bunch of dumb bigots just glosses over the flaws of your own argument.

 

15 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Sure, I can understand that. What I'm arguing is that the decline in public education is by design, and pulling more funding from public schools to prop up yet more private options for the privileged is just another example of that ongoing process. 

 

If that's the goal of society, or the Right, then explain how making public education- the only option for that most people will ever have- worse is somehow in line with that goal? You logically can't, and that's why there's so much gaslighting about saving kids from bad schools. 

This is actually a policy position. The problem too often, both right and left, is that too many people are trying to equate a moral component to a policy matter. That stokes anger and emotion. It is good for politics but bad for policy. 

 

I think there is certainly an argument to be made around funding in public schools. To one extent, schools and teachers have become de-facto parents and babysitters in some areas, especially inner city districts. Teachers are being asked to get more and more involved in their children's lives because the parents are absent or indifferent. To that end, surely funding is something that should be discussed. There are many more services schools are being asked to provide beyond traditional education but they may not be funded to serve that purpose.

 

On the other hand, there is certainly a policy decision that, at least for some districts, they receive more and more money but they are not producing the returns and outcomes desired. Maybe money may not be the answer and trying something different is the answer. One thing about the public school system, good/bad/ or indifferent is that it is pretty homogenous. While there are variations between states, most districts teach children the same material and the same way (yes, some offer Montessori programs and such, but overall education is fairly homogenous). Not all children respond the same way. Public schools in general, are not set up to change methodology quickly or easily. There is a lot of red tape in the process. There is certainly a legitimacy to the argument that throwing more money at public schools is not the answer and providing funding for other options like private, catholic and charter schools makes a lot of sense since not every student learns the same way, and AFTER ALL, isn't the goal about creating the best outcome for the child? If it is about the child's best interest, then shouldn't the education money spent on them actually be tied to them? It seems like the child is what often gets lost in the whole education debate. 

25 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

See, this is exactly what I mean by the decline being by design. Conservatives have been attacking public schools, their teachers and administrations for decades, propping up a narrative that they're being run by fat cat unions who don't care about education. You've been defunding them, refusing to invest in the local communities, making their jobs more dangerous with guns and crime, putting their student population into greater poverty and equality, and on top of that, demonizing them incessantly. I ask myself what it would look like if conservatives were actively trying to destroy public education completely, and I can't think of anything they could do differently that they've already not been doing. 

To your point, certainly, there is a lot of hyperbole in the conservative argument. However, the perception often comes out of frustration from an entrenched bureaucracy.  When you completely dismiss the argument and debate, groups like the teachers unions often miss valid points and overlook areas where they are failing. Oftentimes, especially in bureaucracies, there is an air of infallibility amongst leadership. When you convince yourself that everything you do is perfect and right, you often set yourself up for a hard fall later on. Many unions, by completely dismissing some of these groups instead of trying to engage in dialogue are making matters worse and missing parts where they can find common ground and actually seek to create better results. 

48 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Quite often they do not.  I have a huge amount of experience working with and managing people who didn't graduate from high school.  They make fun of you for reading books on your lunch break instead of playing cards.  They make fun of you for having a boring car or (gasp!) riding a bike to work instead of living under the crushing debt of a truck payment.  They make fun of you for volunteering for overtime, working a second job, etc.  

 

 

 

 

Insistence on monoculture due to lack of education within their peer group. Inability to deal with ambiguity and unfamiliar situations. 

7 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Public schools are extremely reluctant to embrace the concept of addition by deletion. 

 

So, the best thing for society is to "delete" disruptive kids?!?

 

Look, I can completely understand the reluctance to put your kids in a school where some number of kids are disrupting learning for everyone.  But I disagree that just kicking kids -- KIDS -- to the curb is the best that society can do.  Those kids need help.  And it's clear that troubled kids are not getting enough of the right kind of help to deal with their disruptive behavior.

 

And yes, we need to move away from every-kid-should-go-to-college that is causing a lot of problems.  In fact, I believe that we need to completely re-think how we do education in this country.  Starting with funding public schools based on the economic status of the student population.  https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/ohio-researcher-proves-yet-again-that-test-scores-measure-primarily-family-income/

 

But one of the greatest achievements of the public school system in the U.S. is that it took this great "melting pot" of people from all over the world, with different beliefs and cultures, and brought the kids together in one place.  I don't think we would be as tolerant of people who are different from us if we all segregate into different schools, and while I agree that not every kid is the right fit for a particular school, if we give everyone a voucher and say they can choose their own schools they're going to self-segregate even more so than they do today.

Over the past 40 years Right Wing think tanks have gotten extremely adept at manipulating the crap out of people who don't go to college while having much less effect on those who did. So there is still an argument for high college attendance rates.

54 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

My point is, you obviously do not agree with the religious take on abortion/etc. But instead of recognizing it as a viewpoint that you disagree with, in many cases, those on the progressive side (and I do not want to necessarily implicate you directly) act like the other side's viewpoint, which they disagree with has no merit or value and must be shut down.  They preach diversity and in the next breath try and shut down thought diversity.  Very much of what you rail against on the conservative right, is celebrated by the left when they shut down that viewpoint. 

The point is that both viewpoints can coexist but much of the progressive side does not actually believe in the tolerance and diversity, they claim to espouse.

You might feel "shouted down" when you express your anti-abortion views, but you're not just expressing a difference of opinion when you insist on banning abortion for everyone.  Catholics are free to insist that Catholics not have abortions.  Go ahead.  But if you say no one else can have abortions because of your opinion, then this isn't just "a viewpoint" we are failing to politely disagree about. 

 

Similarly, I don't care if you want to send your kids to private school.  I just don't want public money going to an institution that isn't held to the same rules as public schools -- including the requirement to admit and educate every student.  If you're picking only the best students from the best families for your school and excluding the rest, then you shouldn't get the public's money.  "Public" should mean "all are welcome."

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think there is certainly an argument to be made around funding in public schools. To one extent, schools and teachers have become de-facto parents and babysitters in some areas, especially inner city districts. Teachers are being asked to get more and more involved in their children's lives because the parents are absent or indifferent. To that end, surely funding is something that should be discussed. There are many more services schools are being asked to provide beyond traditional education but they may not be funded to serve that purpose.

 

On the other hand, there is certainly a policy decision that, at least for some districts, they receive more and more money but they are not producing the returns and outcomes desired. Maybe money may not be the answer and trying something different is the answer.

After acknowledging that school districts in poor communities need more resources, you then argue that districts should receive less funding if they don't produce.  I would agree that we should evaluate programs for continuous improvement, and make changes when things aren't working. 

 

This not a great analogy, but you can't say "alternators keep failing -- we need to spend less money building alternators" and expect to get better alternators.  Maybe you need to find a different way to make alternators, not give up on having alternators.  Yes, ONLY adding money doesn't solve any problem.  But often that "doing something else" costs more than what is being done currently.

 

When accounting for family education and wealth, private school students do no better than public school students.  This is particularly apparent in charter schools.  https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/11/03/state-report-cards-should-be-a-wakeup-call-for-ohios-charter-voucher-hawks/

So why spend money on charter schools?  Or divert money from public schools to vouchers for private schools?

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, TBideon said:

^^Aren't those just examples of s-hitty people being s-hitty? 

 

Interesting conversation overall.

 

On the one hand, I don't blame parents wanting their kids to avoid schools where far too many violent, loudmouth, and otherwise proudly antisocial thugs ruin it for everyone. It seems like some, let's call them enablers, are more concerned with providing context for the s-hitty kids' behaviors rather than worrying about what happens to those whose educations are ruined to no fault of their own.

 

Public school or not, false cries of racism or not, disruptive kids need to go. This s-hit sure doesn't happen in Europe or Asia, and it shouldn't be so accepted here.

 

And second, if a parent doesn't want his/her child being "indoctrinated" with an understanding of racial histories and sexual/gender orientation, then they can always homeschool their kids. Otherwise, they need to shut the f-k up with their false outrage, false fear, and gleeful scapegoating of gay and trans kids and whatever they think woke means. The need for a boogeyman, validated by the conservative movement, is pathetic, obvious, and happens generation after generation.

 

LOL I think of all our regular current events posters, you’re by far the least predictable. 😂 That was a rollercoaster. 
 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

So, the best thing for society is to "delete" disruptive kids?!?

 

Look, I can completely understand the reluctance to put your kids in a school where some number of kids are disrupting learning for everyone.  But I disagree that just kicking kids -- KIDS -- to the curb is the best that society can do.  Those kids need help.  And it's clear that troubled kids are not getting enough of the right kind of help to deal with their disruptive behavior.

 

And yes, we need to move away from every-kid-should-go-to-college that is causing a lot of problems.  In fact, I believe that we need to completely re-think how we do education in this country.  Starting with funding public schools based on the economic status of the student population.  https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/ohio-researcher-proves-yet-again-that-test-scores-measure-primarily-family-income/

 

But one of the greatest achievements of the public school system in the U.S. is that it took this great "melting pot" of people from all over the world, with different beliefs and cultures, and brought the kids together in one place.  I don't think we would be as tolerant of people who are different from us if we all segregate into different schools, and while I agree that not every kid is the right fit for a particular school, if we give everyone a voucher and say they can choose their own schools they're going to self-segregate even more so than they do today.

 

And I can understand the reluctance to cut losses when the “losses” are human rather than financial.  I can even admire the optimism, even if I also consider it naive and unwarranted, in holding to the position that the kids disrupting the learning environment for everyone else are just one more expensive and time-consuming intervention away from being positive contributors.  I’m sure there are even anecdotes that would qualify as success stories.  But the stats aren’t favorable—and I think it shows a visibility bias, caring more about the disrupters because they’re loud and visible than the others around them suffering in silence, trying to stay off the radar of those who may be merely disruptive one day but active threats the next.

 

As for the melting pot notion: Even if that were undeniably true (and there’s a fair amount of evidence going the other way—the melting pot is sometimes more of an overheated pressure cooker), are you suggesting that public schools are on the average better melting pots than private ones, and if so, that that would furthermore stay so in a universal EdChoice world? 
 

Even by the shallow metrics of multiculturalism, I’d stack SVSM and Hoban up against most other high schools their size in the state.  I personally don’t care about that, but others seem to.

 

The far more important issue is that the melting pot concept requires heat, some kind of energy, to melt the ingredients together, or it’s just a salad bowl.  Our now thoroughly secularized public schools deny themselves one of the greatest forces for building commonality across ethnic and linguistic lines—religion.  They’re currently attempting to fill that void by elevating wokeness to a kind of pseudo-religion. I wouldn’t exactly say it’s going well.  They’re so dogmatically committed to “tolerance” at this point that they’re tolerating the inmates running the asylum. 

A lot of this anti-public school rhetoric comes from the fact that really rich guys see all this activity going on at schools without monetization and see the multi-million dollars spent each year by school districts that is unavailable for them to get in on the action. This drives them insane. I actually think far more self-made rich guys are on the autism spectrum than we think because we think of businesspeople as social creatures while those on the spectrum are stereotyped as not. This makes them go to their think tank and lobbyist buddies to come up with ways for them to jump in on this activity.

2 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

The far more important issue is that the melting pot concept requires heat, some kind of energy, to melt the ingredients together, or it’s just a salad bowl.  Our now thoroughly secularized public schools deny themselves one of the greatest forces for building commonality across ethnic and linguistic lines—religion.  They’re currently attempting to fill that void by elevating wokeness to a kind of pseudo-religion. I wouldn’t exactly say it’s going well.  They’re so dogmatically committed to “tolerance” at this point that they’re tolerating the inmates running the asylum. 

 

Sports. Music. Common tasks. Proximity. Familiarity. All proven to bring people together.

Just now, GCrites80s said:

A lot of this anti-public school rhetoric comes from the fact that really rich guys see all this activity going on at schools without monetization and see the multi-million dollars spent each year by school districts that is unavailable for them to get in on the action. This drives them insane. I actually think far more self-made rich guys are on the autism spectrum than we think because we think of businesspeople as social creatures while those on the spectrum are stereotyped as not. This makes them go to their think tank and lobbyist buddies to come up with ways for them to jump in on this activity.

Most private schools are nonprofits. As I noted above, most Catholic schools (by far the largest group of private schools) don’t even cover their own costs and are subsidized by the donations to the Church. 

They want that to change. Also keep in mind that at American non-profits 1-2 people are still allowed to get rich or else there wouldn't be nearly as much NGO activity here.

Edited March 22, 20232 yr by GCrites80s

1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Sports. Music. Common tasks. Proximity. Familiarity. All proven to bring people together.

Private schools have all of those things. 
 

Though I question whether “proximity” alone “brings people together” in any more than the literal sense. 
 

And “familiarity breeds contempt” is a cliche for a reason. I doubt I’d be so bearish on public schools if I hadn’t attended them my whole life. 

^Well that was when Pataskala was still "Pat-a-skalla" and was "full of hillbillies" according to local stereotypes LOL

30 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

A lot of this anti-public school rhetoric comes from the fact that really rich guys see all this activity going on at schools without monetization and see the multi-million dollars spent each year by school districts that is unavailable for them to get in on the action. This drives them insane. I actually think far more self-made rich guys are on the autism spectrum than we think because we think of businesspeople as social creatures while those on the spectrum are stereotyped as not. This makes them go to their think tank and lobbyist buddies to come up with ways for them to jump in on this activity.

 

You make a great point, I think. Many private schools, after all, are hardly altruistic institutions. They exist to make money. They're businesses. Exclusion of certain types of students, then, is good for business.  This just furthers the argument, IMO, for focusing more on improving public schools. 

 

Also, Catholic schools do charge tuition, so it's a little curious to hear that they're not essentially run as a business. So the argument then is that private schools get to charge for their services like any private business, but also deserve public subsidies despite not being open to the general public. Essentially having their cake and eating it too.

Edited March 22, 20232 yr by jonoh81

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

My point is, you obviously do not agree with the religious take on abortion/etc. But instead of recognizing it as a viewpoint that you disagree with, in many cases, those on the progressive side (and I do not want to necessarily implicate you directly) act like the other side's viewpoint, which they disagree with has no merit or value and must be shut down.  They preach diversity and in the next breath try and shut down thought diversity.  Very much of what you rail against on the conservative right, is celebrated by the left when they shut down that viewpoint. 

The point is that both viewpoints can coexist but much of the progressive side does not actually believe in the tolerance and diversity, they claim to espouse.

 

Whether I agree with the religious take on abortion is irrelevant, because I am not legislating my view for all like the religious side is. I have consistently maintained that choice is the only truly neutral position as it allows everyone to make the determination about what is right on abortion *for themselves*. The problem, of course, is that the pro-birth crowd doesn't just want to make that choice for themselves, they are foisting their position onto everyone else whether we like it or not. That's the difference, and something conservatives consistently don't seem to understand. The only equivalency would be if I supported legislation that forced pro-birth people to have abortions against their own beliefs. 

 

You keep bringing up how the Left is always talking about diversity, but you clearly don't understand what they mean by it. Diversity of thought is great, but simply having a lot of viewpoints does not mean all of those viewpoints are going to be factually correct or otherwise defensible. A neo-Nazi believing that Jews shouldn't exist is certainly part of the overall diversity of thought, but hardly something that should exist without extreme criticism. Tolerance is a good thing, but it also shouldn't be limitless. Trans people should not be tolerant of viewpoints that they are child molesters, for example. Racial minorities should not be tolerant of racism. 

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Criticism and dialogue are great tools to foster the conversation. It is when you seek to try and shut down the other side by demagoguing them and seeking to diminish their humanity. I agree that there are a lot of people on the right who clearly do not understand many of the issues that happen with immigrants, violence against gay individuals and racism in society. At the same time, treating their perspectives as inferior because they do not agree with your viewpoint only shows your own closemindedness and inability to coexist with different viewpoints.

 

Except someone's right to live a life free from discrimination for a biological condition is superior to someone's right to choose to be an bigot based on that condition. It just is. Notice that my criticism of the Right is not based on their race or sex or ethnicity or sexuality or anything along those lines. It's based on things they actively choose to say and do. Why shouldn't gay people view individuals attacking them as inferior? Aren't you really just saying that they should take it and do nothing in response?

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

For example,  Maybe, just maybe, some of the AA studies classes should not be taught in public schools? Maybe they should? Maybe there is matter that is inappropriate and some of the conservative activists you lambast are justified in their opinions?

 

But those classes weren't canceled based on their actual merits after a deep, thoughtful conversation about their content. And I don't think I have to point out how historically problematic it is that a white guy is doing it. 

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

To act like there is no debate in the matter clearly shows a lack of understanding on a complex issue and to completely dismiss the group standing against it as a bunch of dumb bigots just glosses over the flaws of your own argument.

 

I never said there was no debate to be had, only that none took place. And what's to debate in removing references to Rosa Park's race? Her race is a critical piece of the entire story. The only reason to remove it is to whitewash history, so the reasons to remove AA AP classes are likely no more complicated than that. 

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

This is actually a policy position. The problem too often, both right and left, is that too many people are trying to equate a moral component to a policy matter. That stokes anger and emotion. It is good for politics but bad for policy. 

 

But there are sometimes moral considerations to policy, so that can't entirely be ignored. The real problem is not that morality is considered in policy, but that certain moral positions actively promote discriminatory viewpoints that harm people. 

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

I think there is certainly an argument to be made around funding in public schools. To one extent, schools and teachers have become de-facto parents and babysitters in some areas, especially inner city districts. Teachers are being asked to get more and more involved in their children's lives because the parents are absent or indifferent. To that end, surely funding is something that should be discussed. There are many more services schools are being asked to provide beyond traditional education but they may not be funded to serve that purpose.

 

Teachers wouldn't have to be doing all of that if we were willing to invest in communities. For example, the only reason teachers are facing things like mass shootings is both because we have some of the most lax gun laws in the world combined with near total disinvestment in urban neighborhoods for more than half a century, almost specifically because many of those neighborhoods are minority-majority or because they are too poor to have any lobbying power. So many urban public school issues are tied directly to a general disinterest in building better communities. Instead, the only thing that's really happened since the 1950s has been subsidizing the escape of more privileged individuals. 

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

On the other hand, there is certainly a policy decision that, at least for some districts, they receive more and more money but they are not producing the returns and outcomes desired. Maybe money may not be the answer and trying something different is the answer. One thing about the public school system, good/bad/ or indifferent is that it is pretty homogenous. While there are variations between states, most districts teach children the same material and the same way (yes, some offer Montessori programs and such, but overall education is fairly homogenous). Not all children respond the same way. Public schools in general, are not set up to change methodology quickly or easily. There is a lot of red tape in the process. There is certainly a legitimacy to the argument that throwing more money at public schools is not the answer and providing funding for other options like private, catholic and charter schools makes a lot of sense since not every student learns the same way, and AFTER ALL, isn't the goal about creating the best outcome for the child? If it is about the child's best interest, then shouldn't the education money spent on them actually be tied to them? It seems like the child is what often gets lost in the whole education debate. 

 

You said it yourself, teachers and schools are expected to do more and more all the time, so they're basically treading water. And the solution cannot be just money for schools, as I've already said. But certainly, taking more money away from them is definitely not going to produce positive results. Public school teaching is already a s**t show because policy has made it a largely miserable, unrewarding experience that is only going to make the current teacher shortages even worse, just as other conservative policy is now doing to medical personnel shortages. 

 

The goal is to create the best outcome for all children, though, not just some, which is all diverting funds to private schools will accomplish. 

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

To your point, certainly, there is a lot of hyperbole in the conservative argument. However, the perception often comes out of frustration from an entrenched bureaucracy.  When you completely dismiss the argument and debate, groups like the teachers unions often miss valid points and overlook areas where they are failing. Oftentimes, especially in bureaucracies, there is an air of infallibility amongst leadership. When you convince yourself that everything you do is perfect and right, you often set yourself up for a hard fall later on. Many unions, by completely dismissing some of these groups instead of trying to engage in dialogue are making matters worse and missing parts where they can find common ground and actually seek to create better results. 

 

But who exactly is judging their failures? It seems to be mostly non-educators who have no idea what the challenges actually are, but still have enormously strong viewpoints to throw about at school board meetings. Educators have been essentially screaming for years what the issues are and where their struggles lie, and the only response they've been getting is a lot of grief and accusations of malfeasance. Unions aren't the problem. 

 

Edited March 22, 20232 yr by jonoh81

4 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Starting with funding public schools based on the economic status of the student population.  https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/ohio-researcher-proves-yet-again-that-test-scores-measure-primarily-family-income/

 

This is ridiculous.   Let's keep making excuses instead of demanding excellence from parents and kids. 

 

By age 8 or 9 I remember having the idea that I absolutely needed to know what every word meant and have the ability to read the densest books.  If I didn't understand the meaning of a word and couldn't read the densest literature and technical writing, it meant there were better-educated people out there, and I was vulnerable to being tricked.

 

My dad kept a dictionary in the car and called out words.  My brother and I had to find and read the definitions aloud to all in the car.  We would then imagine situations in which the word could be used.  This went on for several years.  Not surprisingly, I had the best standard test scores in my grade of 105 students, despite being a year younger than many of them.  

 

A dictionary costs $10.  

 

Immigrants from India and East Asia are absolutely smoking the native black and poor white population because their family life is centered around English, science, math, and self-discipline. 

 

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

You make a great point, I think. Many private schools, after all, are hardly altruistic institutions. They exist to make money. They're businesses. Exclusion of certain types of students, then, is good for business.  This just furthers the argument, IMO, for focusing more on improving public schools. 

 

Also, Catholic schools do charge tuition, so it's a little curious to hear that they're not essentially run as a business. So the argument then is that private schools get to charge for their services like any private business, but also deserve public subsidies despite not being open to the general public. Essentially having their cake and eating it too.

 

There are a small number of private operators of charter schools where there will be a few people able to make real money.  They operate on the franchise model, essentially, so no one school makes that much money but they operate networks of schools and profit from scale.  So maybe you can technically get away with saying "many."  But overall, you'll see more six-figure salaries in public schools than in private ones.  The base salary of the Akron Public Schools superintendent, who was recently forced out of office, was $228,200, so it's not like the people at the top of public school systems are financially hurting, either.  We've thrown mountains of money over the past multiple generations at public schools, with every failure being cited as proof that an even bigger mountain of money will be needed next time, rather than as proof that more fundamental structural changes are needed (e.g., the ability to to "exclude certain types of students," not because it's good for business but because it's good for the rest of the students).  

 

As for Catholic schools charging tuition but also being subsidized by both private and public money, and not being open to all comers: That's exactly the model of Ohio's public schools ... at the postsecondary level.  The Ohio State University has a massive endowment (including my own modest contributions), plus state support, plus the ability to charge tuition, plus the ability to pick who it admits.  It very much is run "as a business," but not a for-profit business.  People tend to forget that nonprofits more often than not are businesses--all charities are nonprofits but not all nonprofits are charities.  As for the fact that Catholic schools are private nonprofits instead of public ones, well, the same could be said not only of private colleges (which also get various forms of public money), but for a great many other private businesses that receive public money to provide all kinds of services at reduced cost to the end-user.

 

As I noted upthread, the administrative overhead at my kids' school is nearly nonexistent.  And even the principal isn't making any more than a middle-class income.  The average Catholic school principal in Ohio makes around $62k.  And I'm sure you're aware that the teachers make considerably less than their public school counterparts.  There are certain shared services that are handled at the diocesan level, things like school lunch purchasing and vendor management and the like, but that's a pretty small overlay shared among 107 schools, and the people up there aren't making much, either.  (Heck, even the bishop makes very little in spending money, though that's admittedly understating the case because of the residence and other resources that come as part of the job.)

 

I think that at some level, you're well aware that Catholic schools, and most other religious schools, really aren't in it for the money.  Your real objections to them are ideological based on the content of the coursework, first and foremost the religious instruction, but probably also the less ideologically charged curriculum in secular subjects, too, since you're less likely to find woke history and similar postmodern revisionist folderol in Catholic schools.  What distresses you isn't the possibility that we're secretly cynical unbelievers just milking all the gullible doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and corporate mangers for as much of their hard-earned money as we can.  What distresses you is the knowledge that we aren't, and that large numbers of high-income professionals are willing to pay over and above their property taxes to ensure that their children have not just a top-tier STEM education, but also one that defends both the eternal and timeless truths of the Church about both human nature and flourishing and the history of Western civilization (including its Christian heritage) that are emphatically rejected by modern secularism, particularly its most censorious woke commissars.  And that even more people might want just such an education for their kids if the bite of double-dipping were removed or reduced.

1. The Ohio State University is not a religious school.

2. The Catholic church is a business. Any money they make from education is gravy.

3. Separation of Church and state?

 

8 hours ago, Gramarye said:

What distresses you is the knowledge that we aren't, and that large numbers of high-income professionals are willing to pay over and above their property taxes to ensure that their children have not just a top-tier STEM education, but also one that defends both the eternal and timeless truths of the Church about both human nature and flourishing and the history of Western civilization (including its Christian heritage) that are emphatically rejected by modern secularism, particularly its most censorious woke commissars. 

I'm pretty sure Western civilization started before Christ. But I also believe, along with all the censorious woke commissarts, that dinosaurs are older than 6,000 years. Also, wasn't Christ a pretty woke dude?

8 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

There are a small number of private operators of charter schools where there will be a few people able to make real money.  They operate on the franchise model, essentially, so no one school makes that much money but they operate networks of schools and profit from scale.  So maybe you can technically get away with saying "many."  But overall, you'll see more six-figure salaries in public schools than in private ones.  The base salary of the Akron Public Schools superintendent, who was recently forced out of office, was $228,200, so it's not like the people at the top of public school systems are financially hurting, either.  We've thrown mountains of money over the past multiple generations at public schools, with every failure being cited as proof that an even bigger mountain of money will be needed next time, rather than as proof that more fundamental structural changes are needed (e.g., the ability to to "exclude certain types of students," not because it's good for business but because it's good for the rest of the students).  

 

Lots of existing business models don't make much money, but are still businesses. I'm not sure the level of income changes the defintion of what a business is. 

Again, you claim that throwing money at public schools is not the answer, but you haven't given any actual alternative except to take money away, which will absolutely not help and almost definitely cause them harm. So you're not interested in improving public schools or finding out the real reasons why they have issues. You're stimply advocating for a select few to be able to leave them.

My opposition is not necessarily to the concept of private schools, it's in the promotion of their success coming at the premeditated downfall of public schools.  

 

8 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

As for Catholic schools charging tuition but also being subsidized by both private and public money, and not being open to all comers: That's exactly the model of Ohio's public schools ... at the postsecondary level.  The Ohio State University has a massive endowment (including my own modest contributions), plus state support, plus the ability to charge tuition, plus the ability to pick who it admits.  It very much is run "as a business," but not a for-profit business.  People tend to forget that nonprofits more often than not are businesses--all charities are nonprofits but not all nonprofits are charities.  As for the fact that Catholic schools are private nonprofits instead of public ones, well, the same could be said not only of private colleges (which also get various forms of public money), but for a great many other private businesses that receive public money to provide all kinds of services at reduced cost to the end-user.

 

And I have massive issues with the way colleges and universities are run too. I am against any exclusionary model using public funding regardless of who is doing it. And we've seen just how bad this model is for students just from how many students have to take out predatory loans. So no, my ire for this is not reserved exclusively for private schools, and I don't think your argument of "well they're doing it, so it's ok" is all that strong. And I would say that there's an added problematic layer for private religious schools versus colleges because public funding is going to the teaching of specific religions, which at least OSU isn't engaged in.

 

8 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

As I noted upthread, the administrative overhead at my kids' school is nearly nonexistent.  And even the principal isn't making any more than a middle-class income.  The average Catholic school principal in Ohio makes around $62k.  And I'm sure you're aware that the teachers make considerably less than their public school counterparts.  There are certain shared services that are handled at the diocesan level, things like school lunch purchasing and vendor management and the like, but that's a pretty small overlay shared among 107 schools, and the people up there aren't making much, either.  (Heck, even the bishop makes very little in spending money, though that's admittedly understating the case because of the residence and other resources that come as part of the job.)

 

I actually think teachers deserve more pay for what they generally put up with, not less. CCS teachers are all very much middle class as well. You can say that some administrators are making too much, but I think that's a very subjective position. What exactly is the monetary value of an educator, or someone who runs an entire district, when the value of education to society is very high?

 

8 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

I think that at some level, you're well aware that Catholic schools, and most other religious schools, really aren't in it for the money.  Your real objections to them are ideological based on the content of the coursework, first and foremost the religious instruction, but probably also the less ideologically charged curriculum in secular subjects, too, since you're less likely to find woke history and similar postmodern revisionist folderol in Catholic schools.  What distresses you isn't the possibility that we're secretly cynical unbelievers just milking all the gullible doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and corporate mangers for as much of their hard-earned money as we can.  What distresses you is the knowledge that we aren't, and that large numbers of high-income professionals are willing to pay over and above their property taxes to ensure that their children have not just a top-tier STEM education, but also one that defends both the eternal and timeless truths of the Church about both human nature and flourishing and the history of Western civilization (including its Christian heritage) that are emphatically rejected by modern secularism, particularly its most censorious woke commissars.  And that even more people might want just such an education for their kids if the bite of double-dipping were removed or reduced.

 

It doesn't matter if they are or aren't in it for the money. Public schools aren't in it for the money either. The point is that one shouldn't be able to cannibalize the other. Private institutions with exclusionary practices shouldn't receive public funding, period. That goes for Catholic schools, charter schools or "public" universities. That is what my ideological objections are primarily based on. It all creates more economic and class divisions and more haves and have nots based on existing privilege. Frankly, if you have to steal money from public schools to be successful, those "large numbers" of successful, high-earning people should probably be ponying up a lot more cash. 

 

I don't actually care that some private schools are religious. People are free to believe in whatever they want. I also don't really care if religious people actually believe anything they're peddling in said schools. People are free to be gullible, too. Beyond schools, my only real objection to religion and religious people is how often they are completely unable to apply those beliefs only to their own personal lives rather than to the greater public that wants nothing to do with them. Women shouldn't be without abortion rights based on narrow religious views that most people don't share. Trans people shouldn't be banned from sports or other things based on a religious or otherwise misunderstanding or incorrect view of what sex and gender are. And so on and so forth. So no, I don't care that you're religious, I don't care that Catholic schools exist. I care whether either of those things is going to affect the rights I have or the ability to live my own life based on my own set of moral values rather than the ones you want to impose on me. 

Edited March 22, 20232 yr by jonoh81

There's actually a minor threat being made by some at OSU to take it private due to anti-intellectual antics in the Statehouse since only around 8% of its revenue comes from the state. In the '70s it was over 20%.

26 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

1. The Ohio State University is not a religious school.

 

Didn't say it was.  What difference does that make here?

 

29 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

2. The Catholic church is a business. Any money they make from education is gravy.

 

See above.  The Church does not make money from education.  The Church subsidizes its schools, not the other way around.

 

30 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

3. Separation of Church and state?

 

Is not affected or violated by public money going to religious organizations for valid public purposes, including education, no more than it is violated by the also-large amounts that flow from the government to Catholic Charities for immigration support, refugee resettlement, and similar public purposes.  Or, for that matter, from Catholic hospitals accepting reimbursement from generally-available public health benefits programs for services they do perform, even if there are other services that such hospitals will not perform due to moral objections that other hospitals can and do perform and get paid for based on the same programs.

 

36 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

I'm pretty sure Western civilization started before Christ. But I also believe, along with all the censorious woke commissarts, that dinosaurs are older than 6,000 years. Also, wasn't Christ a pretty woke dude?

 

Also see above.  You have to not only lack knowledge, but fill in that lack of knowledge with deliberately hostile and biased assumptions, to think that the kinds of people who send their kids to Catholic schools want their kids taught young-earth creationism.

 

The original proponent of the expanding-universe/"Big Bang" theory was a Catholic priest.

49 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

I'm pretty sure Western civilization started before Christ. 

 

My proto-woke Catholic high school used C.E. and B.C.E. rather than AD and BC. 

 

 

53 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Also, wasn't Christ a pretty woke dude?

 

How dare you gender them.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Lazarus said:

This is ridiculous.   Let's keep making excuses instead of demanding excellence from parents and kids.

Bully for you.  Glad your parents were willing and able to help, and you were willing and able to get the most out of it. 

 

But what if the parents are uneducated, don't understand the value of education, or are just crappy parents who don't give @#$% about their kid's education?  Are you suggesting that society gains nothing from attempting to help those kids, that the expense of the attempt just isn't worth it?  That seems to be Gramarye's position.

 

14 hours ago, Gramarye said:

And I can understand the reluctance to cut losses when the “losses” are human rather than financial.  I can even admire the optimism, even if I also consider it naive and unwarranted, in holding to the position that the kids disrupting the learning environment for everyone else are just one more expensive and time-consuming intervention away from being positive contributors.  I’m sure there are even anecdotes that would qualify as success stories.  But the stats aren’t favorable—and I think it shows a visibility bias, caring more about the disrupters because they’re loud and visible than the others around them suffering in silence, trying to stay off the radar of those who may be merely disruptive one day but active threats the next.

 

Just more fuel for the school-to-prison-profit pipeline?

21 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Just more fuel for the school-to-prison-profit pipeline?

 

There have to be better ways of keeping kids out of prison that don't involve compromising the educational environment for students that want to go there to learn actual academic subjects, not learn merely how to stay out of the way of the disruptors (and their increasingly-common encounters with the police on school grounds, not just with impotent school administrators).  Even if I'm wrong, well, if those dangerous individuals are headed on the school-to-prison pipeline anyway, the rational course of action, the one that does the most good for the most people, is to cut the losses and remove those disruptive influences from the school environment earlier and at least let the responsible students enjoy the benefits of an improved learning environment for as many person-semesters as possible.  Again, the real difference between us from the post you responded to is our optimism (or lack thereof) in how much upside we can expect if we continue to pour massive resources into behavior management, and the opportunity cost of doing so with those resources.

22 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Didn't say it was.  What difference does that make here?

I guess my point was who cares if its subsidized with public money since it's a public school. The real difference in that whole part of your argument is that postsecondry school is entirely optional. K-12 public school districts don't get to pick and choose their students; they have an obligation to educate all children in their district. Catholic shcools do not have that obligation. 

 

30 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

See above.  The Church does not make money from education.  The Church subsidizes its schools, not the other way around.

The Church can afford to subsidize the schools without public funds. I never said the schools were subsidizing the Church.

35 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Is not affected or violated by public money going to religious organizations for valid public purposes, including education

But that education isn't public. If they took in any kid who wanted to attend, regardless of religious affiliation or whatever else they base admittance on, then that would be a different story, right? A public school is open to the general public, while a Catholic school is not.

 

38 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Also see above.  You have to not only lack knowledge, but fill in that lack of knowledge with deliberately hostile and biased assumptions, to think that the kinds of people who send their kids to Catholic schools want their kids taught young-earth creationism.

The same can be said for those who assume and assert that the history of Western Civilization is ignored or demonized or whatever by secular schools, or those who only seem to care about the Catholic contributions to Western Civlization. This begs the question: Is learning about other civilations a bad thing? Hint: its not.

26 minutes ago, Foraker said:

But what if the parents are uneducated, don't understand the value of education, or are just crappy parents who don't give @#$% about their kid's education? 

 

Yeah they're screwed.  When I began teaching I was optimistic that I'd be able to help these people, but I don't think that I did.  

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Again, the real difference between us from the post you responded to is our optimism (or lack thereof) in how much upside we can expect if we continue to pour massive resources into behavior management, and the opportunity cost of doing so with those resources.

Some kids just are not wired for school, and I think we all understand that. But a lot of these "disruptors" are acting out not because of their resistance to learning, but myriad social issues, including poverty, hunger, broken homes, etc. Saying "F 'em" and not providing any help isn't going to do any good whatsoever.

 

Perhaps the answer isn't more money, but a rethinking of what is provided when we talk about a public education. More emphasis on vocational training for those so inclined (which would obviously include some disruptors) would help. So would providing breakfast, lunch, and dinner for those who need it (hey, thats sorta like three hots and a cot, which should appeal to those in favor of the school-to-prison-profit pipeline /s). I think schools should be open for 18-24 hours a day, and should be a place of refuge and support. 

On 3/22/2023 at 11:08 AM, Ineffable_Matt said:

I guess my point was who cares if its subsidized with public money since it's a public school. The real difference in that whole part of your argument is that postsecondary school is entirely optional. K-12 public school districts don't get to pick and choose their students; they have an obligation to educate all children in their district. Catholic shcools do not have that obligation.  ...

 

But that education isn't public. If they took in any kid who wanted to attend, regardless of religious affiliation or whatever else they base admittance on, then that would be a different story, right? A public school is open to the general public, while a Catholic school is not.

 

So, first, as you can see from my discussion with @Foraker (which goes back several pages now), I recognized this disparity and it's why I acknowledged an asterisk over the point that public schools actually have, and spend, more money per pupil than private schools do, especially at the K-8 level.  The budget per capita is larger, but a large part of it also gets eaten up by ancillary services.

 

Some of those services are entirely worthy and I have no problems with them, and in fact, Catholic schools theoretically can take advantage of them, too, they just have less need to.  IEPs are an example, and to some extent, I think the free-and-reduced-price lunch program is an example, though I'm not even 100% sure if public schools account for that on their books in the first place (not sure if it stays entirely within the Department of Agriculture).

 

You, he, and I all agree that private schools have a structural advantage because they don't have an obligation to educate all children; they can focus on the ones that actually want to be there (or at least whose parents want them to be there, which certainly counts for something).  The difference is that I (a) would be more than happy to extend that same structural benefit to public schools, and (b) in the meantime, since I recognize that I've lost that argument, want to get more serious students out of the schools burdened by that structural disadvantage.  Your argument is that private schools have an unfair advantage that they shouldn't (EDIT: or at least that should disqualify their students from EdChoice eligibility); mine is that public schools have an unfair disadvantage that they shouldn't.

 

On 3/22/2023 at 11:08 AM, Ineffable_Matt said:

The Church can afford to subsidize the schools without public funds. I never said the schools were subsidizing the Church.

 

You said "any money they make from education is gravy."

 

The money they make from education is negative.

 

On 3/22/2023 at 11:08 AM, Ineffable_Matt said:

The same can be said for those who assume and assert that the history of Western Civilization is ignored or demonized or whatever by secular schools, or those who only seem to care about the Catholic contributions to Western Civlization. This begs the question: Is learning about other civilations a bad thing? Hint: its not.

 

Again betraying not only a lack of knowledge about what private schools teach, but an almost eagerness to fill those voids with hostile assumptions.  When I talk about anti-Christian animus upthread, this is one manifestation (of many) that I mean.

 

Sight unseen, I'll stack Hoban or SVSM's best in world civ against the best not just of Akron Public, but of any suburban public school in Summit County you care to name.

 

The point isn't to learn nothing about non-Western civilizations.

 

It's to learn why ours is better. 😎

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

There have to be better ways of keeping kids out of prison that don't involve compromising the educational environment for students that want to go there to learn actual academic subjects, not learn merely how to stay out of the way of the disruptors (and their increasingly-common encounters with the police on school grounds, not just with impotent school administrators).  Even if I'm wrong, well, if those dangerous individuals are headed on the school-to-prison pipeline anyway, the rational course of action, the one that does the most good for the most people, is to cut the losses and remove those disruptive influences from the school environment earlier and at least let the responsible students enjoy the benefits of an improved learning environment for as many person-semesters as possible.  Again, the real difference between us from the post you responded to is our optimism (or lack thereof) in how much upside we can expect if we continue to pour massive resources into behavior management, and the opportunity cost of doing so with those resources.

 

Yes, it's called democratic socialism and investment in communities. So an automatic non-starter for the Right. 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

Yeah they're screwed.  When I began teaching I was optimistic that I'd be able to help these people, but I don't think that I did.  

 

 

 

 

Teachers are largely at the mercy of local, state and national policy. And most policies coming out now are downright hostile to teachers and public education, as well as to the communities they serve. 

5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Yes, it's called democratic socialism and investment in communities. So an automatic non-starter for the Right. 

 

Without looking up the source, your thoughts on this?

 

Quote

 

... wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. ... it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection. ...

 

On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. ...

 

In the last place, employers and workmen may of themselves effect much, in the matter We are treating, by means of such associations and organizations as afford opportune aid to those who are in distress, and which draw the two classes more closely together ...

 

The most important of all are workingmen's unions, for these virtually include all the rest. History attests what excellent results were brought about by the artificers' guilds of olden times. They were the means of affording not only many advantages to the workmen, but in no small degree of promoting the advancement of art, as numerous monuments remain to bear witness. Such unions should be suited to the requirements of this our age - an age of wider education, of different habits, and of far more numerous requirements in daily life.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

There have to be better ways of keeping kids out of prison that don't involve compromising the educational environment for students that want to go there to learn actual academic subjects, not learn merely how to stay out of the way of the disruptors (and their increasingly-common encounters with the police on school grounds, not just with impotent school administrators).  Even if I'm wrong, well, if those dangerous individuals are headed on the school-to-prison pipeline anyway, the rational course of action, the one that does the most good for the most people, is to cut the losses and remove those disruptive influences from the school environment earlier and at least let the responsible students enjoy the benefits of an improved learning environment for as many person-semesters as possible.  Again, the real difference between us from the post you responded to is our optimism (or lack thereof) in how much upside we can expect if we continue to pour massive resources into behavior management, and the opportunity cost of doing so with those resources.

I think we all agree that disruptive students need to be removed from classrooms quickly.   Where we seem to disagree is that you are suggesting that keeping most of those kids out of trouble is a lost cause, and I suggest that giving up on kids is both immoral and more expensive for society in the long run.

 

The question then is what to do with the disruptive kids once they are removed from the classroom, and I suggest that we need to find a way for them to get their issues addressed by someone suited to that particular task of helping the kid to not be disruptive and allow the teacher to teach and the remaining students to have an opportunity to learn.  A child psychologist/counselor/social worker (or all of the above) is better suited to that task than most teachers.  And if the parents are not going to be there to go to bat for them, they need an adult to mentor them, guide them, advocate for them, and encourage them in their education.

 

1 hour ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Some kids just are not wired for school, and I think we all understand that. But a lot of these "disruptors" are acting out not because of their resistance to learning, but myriad social issues, including poverty, hunger, broken homes, etc. Saying "F 'em" and not providing any help isn't going to do any good whatsoever.

 

Perhaps the answer isn't more money, but a rethinking of what is provided when we talk about a public education. More emphasis on vocational training for those so inclined (which would obviously include some disruptors) would help. So would providing breakfast, lunch, and dinner for those who need it (hey, thats sorta like three hots and a cot, which should appeal to those in favor of the school-to-prison-profit pipeline /s). I think schools should be open for 18-24 hours a day, and should be a place of refuge and support. 

Absolutely agree. 

 

But what does someone who has actually been a teacher suggest?  I hope that this statement is just reaffirming what I said above -- teachers generally are not the best people to be focusing their attention on the disruptors.

 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

Yeah they're screwed.  When I began teaching I was optimistic that I'd be able to help these people, but I don't think that I did. 

12 hours ago, Gramarye said:

but also one that defends both the eternal and timeless truths of the Church about both human nature and flourishing and the history of Western civilization (including its Christian heritage) that are emphatically rejected by modern secularism, particularly its most censorious woke commissars.

 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

Again betraying not only a lack of knowledge about what private schools teach, but an almost eagerness to fill those voids with hostile assumptions.  When I talk about anti-Christian animus upthread, this is one manifestation (of many) that I mean.

I would say you are doing the same with secular, public schools. I say this as a graduate of a Blue Ribbon public school: trust me, the curriculum was almost entirely focused on Western civilization and primarily focused on white Christians. There was not a pervasive Anti-Christian sentiment, period. 

 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

The point isn't to learn nothing about non-Western civilizations.

 

It's to learn why ours is better. 😎

I'm pretty sure you're joking, but would we be having this silly internet back and forth without the concept of Zero (a decidedly not-Western contribution to civilization)?

Poll question: Do you support children learning Arabic numerals?

2 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

I would say you are doing the same with secular, public schools. I say this as a graduate of a Blue Ribbon public school: trust me, the curriculum was almost entirely focused on Western civilization and primarily focused on white Christians. There was not a pervasive Anti-Christian sentiment, period. 

 

Things have changed since we graduated, unless you're a much more recent graduate than I'm currently thinking you are.

16 hours ago, Gramarye said:

LOL I think of all our regular current events posters, you’re by far the least predictable. 😂 That was a rollercoaster. 
 

 

And I can understand the reluctance to cut losses when the “losses” are human rather than financial.  I can even admire the optimism, even if I also consider it naive and unwarranted, in holding to the position that the kids disrupting the learning environment for everyone else are just one more expensive and time-consuming intervention away from being positive contributors.  I’m sure there are even anecdotes that would qualify as success stories.  But the stats aren’t favorable—and I think it shows a visibility bias, caring more about the disrupters because they’re loud and visible than the others around them suffering in silence, trying to stay off the radar of those who may be merely disruptive one day but active threats the next.

 

As for the melting pot notion: Even if that were undeniably true (and there’s a fair amount of evidence going the other way—the melting pot is sometimes more of an overheated pressure cooker), are you suggesting that public schools are on the average better melting pots than private ones, and if so, that that would furthermore stay so in a universal EdChoice world? 
 

Even by the shallow metrics of multiculturalism, I’d stack SVSM and Hoban up against most other high schools their size in the state.  I personally don’t care about that, but others seem to.

 

The far more important issue is that the melting pot concept requires heat, some kind of energy, to melt the ingredients together, or it’s just a salad bowl.  Our now thoroughly secularized public schools deny themselves one of the greatest forces for building commonality across ethnic and linguistic lines—religion.  They’re currently attempting to fill that void by elevating wokeness to a kind of pseudo-religion. I wouldn’t exactly say it’s going well.  They’re so dogmatically committed to “tolerance” at this point that they’re tolerating the inmates running the asylum. 

Using religion to build commonality only works if everyone is the same religion, unless the point is coersion of those who have minority or no religions.  Which is of course what most of us non Christians believe to be indeed the point.  You guys can't just live in peace with those who don't believe as you do.  Intolerance is at the very base of your religion.

1 minute ago, Gramarye said:

 

Things have changed since we graduated, unless you're a much more recent graduate than I'm currently thinking you are.

Now you've gone and made me feel really old lol, Olmsted Falls class of 2000. FWIW, my BIL teaches AP and regular history at Solon High School. He's Polish Catholic, and I've not once heard him lament the demonization of Christ in the classroom. Teaching to the test, however, is another, and much more important, story.

11 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 … Your real objections to them are ideological based on the content of the coursework, first and foremost the religious instruction, but probably also the less ideologically charged curriculum in secular subjects, too, since you're less likely to find woke history and similar postmodern revisionist folderol in Catholic schools.  What distresses you isn't the possibility that we're secretly cynical unbelievers just milking all the gullible doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and corporate mangers for as much of their hard-earned money as we can.  What distresses you is the knowledge that we aren't, and that large numbers of high-income professionals are willing to pay over and above their property taxes to ensure that their children have not just a top-tier STEM education, but also one that defends both the eternal and timeless truths of the Church about both human nature and flourishing and the history of Western civilization (including its Christian heritage) that are emphatically rejected by modern secularism, particularly its most censorious woke commissars.  And that even more people might want just such an education for their kids if the bite of double-dipping were removed or reduced.

 

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Also see above.  You have to not only lack knowledge, but fill in that lack of knowledge with deliberately hostile and biased assumptions, to think that the kinds of people who send their kids to Catholic schools want their kids taught young-earth creationism.

 

The original proponent of the expanding-universe/"Big Bang" theory was a Catholic priest.

 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

…Again betraying not only a lack of knowledge about what private schools teach, but an almost eagerness to fill those voids with hostile assumptions.  When I talk about anti-Christian animus upthread, this is one manifestation (of many) that I mean.

…

 

You are complaining about “woke” in public schools. I don’t know what you specifically mean by this, but it is quite clear that most people complaining about woke are just upset by seeing people different from them, and seeing people face accountability for bad behavior that they historically would have gotten away with. Most of those complainers clearly have no idea what’s actually happening in public schools - how many actually believe the complete fantasy of kitty litter boxes for children who identify as cats? To me, complaining about “woke” in schools, and then complaining that people don’t know what is actually taught in Catholic schools, is contradictory. The idea that “woke” is some main focus of public schools is fantasy. Sorry if you don’t like that more people are trying to make an efforts to be nicer to other groups of people in modern society. 

 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

Sight unseen, I'll stack Hoban or SVSM's best in world civ against the best not just of Akron Public, but of any suburban public school in Summit County you care to name.

 

The point isn't to learn nothing about non-Western civilizations.

 

It's to learn why ours is better. 😎

This comment is so gross. So many of our challenges and policy failures are a result of American Exceptionalism as an idea. The whole idea that “America is the greatest” is what makes it so hard to adopt proven, best in class policies from the rest of the world. Let’s just be honest - here’s what’s good (ease of starting a business; immigrant assimilation; belief in meritocracy; high median income), here’s what’s ok (decent public schools in most communities; lower corruption than many places); here’s what’s bad (collective healthcare outcomes and costs; public transportation in most of the country; boring suburbs, etc.) compared to other developed countries.

 

We need to constantly be evaluating what government entities and policies around the world are most effective and work to implement them here. Claiming “ours is best” undermines these efforts.

 

15 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Poll question: Do you support children learning Arabic numerals?

 

I can attest that most people don't understand Roman Numerals, which is unfortunate when you're hiring in an industry that makes widespread use of them:

 

M = thousand

CM = hundred weight

MSI = thousand square inches