[rock_show_host]

I think it's probably not productive for me to continue with this argument right now. I'm taking things too personally, and I feel like we're just talking past each other. I'm sorry for getting so heated.

I'll end by acknowledging that I'm not a parent and you are -- I'm sure that, as confident as I am about some of these issues now, my views will look a lot different when I hopefully have children someday. Wherever I come down on this particular question, I just hope and pray that I can know my kids well enough to do what's best for them.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Strawman, is that you? Do I really need to spell out that separation of church and state dictates that even if your teacher is a believer, the worldview of the materials and environment cannot be construed as religious. Absence of deity in that separation leads to a world that is functionally atheistic across the subjects.

Division is religious? You made the claim that the public school curriculum is functionally atheistic. I'm simply asking you to support your statement with facts rather than what Bill thinks. It shouldn't be too hard. I provided the English Language Acquistion (which includes Social Studies) standards as well.

No, it isn't a stretch at all. When you totally separate church and state, there is a suppression of free expression for any form of religion via the wall of separation, whether it be Christianity, Islam, or baby sacrificing. But in the absence of any religion, you are promoting a worldview. You know, that one without a deity?

Not necessarily, as, again the plethora of Christians that have successfully navigated the public school system for 200 years would attest, plus the plethora of Christian expression across the school system.

You are saying that schools and teachers allow free expression of religion? Funny, I was under the impression prayer was forbidden to be teacher led which actually would be an example of free expression.

Your impression is wrong. If the teacher leads a prayer as part of the curriculum or educational activity, that's not allowed, because A). there's nothing particularly educational about it and B). the state doesn't get to do that. A teacher is free to lead a public prayer at an FCA meeting in the gym, for example.

But again, why are is a teacher leading prayer in math class (or any class), if not as an exercise in power?

I disagree. I notice that a moral code exists that is fairly uniform and very different than previous generations In other words, it is coming from somewhere else.

About 50 years of developmental theory and research suggest otherwise. What makes you think parents' moral codes aren't as depraved as their children's?

You are saying that no parent tries to do what is best for their child.

You are lying. Couch it in whatever terms you like, but the reality is that a lot of parents do try to do what is best for their child. Even if you decide they all do otherwise.

Huh? That isn't what I said at all. What I said is that reducing education down to a consumer choice isn't a good thing, and if you're thinking in those terms, then yes, you're not doing what's best for your child, you're doing what's best for the parent, which isn't the same thing at all.

I'm not saying every single parent in the world is doing this; I'm not saying YOU are doing this. I'm saying SOME parents do this, even SOME Christian parents do this. All I'm arguing for is for parents to use some insight, rather than knee-jerk silliness.

But the simple fact is, if you have kids not doing their homework, and getting subsequent poor grades, and getting held back, congratulations, you just sabotaged your child in the way our system functions.

Then that's what happens; you made the value choice. There are consequences for actions. And again, I think you are wildly bifurcating the ability of parents and children and teachers to A). balance demands of time B). communicate to one another and C). do things together. It isn't one or the other; doing homework doesn't mean you shut down all communication between the two. And while I can see a HS student in AP classes doing 6 hours or more of homework, the time when children are really relying on their parents to shape moral foundation isn't going to have that amount of homework.

Based on...

let's see below.

Neither are you.

No, but I'm relying on actual research in moral and educational developmental theory, and not my experience. I'm able to generalize because I know what the studies and research have shown, and not simply generalizing based on discreet, non-normalized experiences.

The point you quoted was that in the past few years changes have happened to education. The public schools you went through have changed. The world is not static.

No it isn't; then again, I did just finish grad school with a degree in education in December... So I'm pretty up-to-date in what's generally happening in educational theory and practice. And indeed, the world is not static. So why are you relying on your own experience to make generalizations about US public schools that is, at best, already prejudiced by a bizarre assertion that church/state separation is necessarily atheistic... Not agnostic, not neutral, but antagonistic towards belief?

Frankly, you are trying to vilify everybody who doesn't hail a broken system as ideal. You know what, that sits real ill with me.

That's absurd, and you know it. I haven't vilified anyone, and I would ask you to either provide explicit times where I have, or not repeat that accusation.

And to think teens and christian teens as an aggregate whole are doing fine is really something I find quite ridiculous.

Based on what, exactly? How on earth do you measure their "fineness?" I keep make references to the Christian on CGR who, by their own admission have said they've come through "just fine." Perhaps they haven't and they're lying? Perhaps there's some kind of decadent, baby-eating, kittens-in-woodchippers sub-Christian cult made up of ex-Public School kids. I don't know of it though, so I feel like I'm missing out.

What's clear is that you haven't engaged with my primary word of caution... Which is all it is, since I could not care less about whether a kid is homeschooled or sent to parochial school, or educated by baboons in Rwanda. Whatever the choice is, you have to make the choice based on the child's needs, and not the projected needs of the parent. If you find that "vilifying," then, well... What else is there to say?

[Dwight Schrute]

we homeschool our two oldest children (9 and 11) due, mostly in part, to the rotten school system around us and the nightmare stories we are told by parents of public school students that attend said districts. our decision began when we were looking around for the best scenario for my autistic daughter, and the news broke out that at the local elementary school, a boy raped an autistic boy in the restroom. the district learned about it, then covered it up. it blew up in the news big time. that made the decision for us. not a place I wanted to send my kids, period. we tried private school, which didn't work because it couldn't go at our childrens' speed or level. my daughter (who turns out isn't autistic) was done before everyone else and as a reward had to help other kids do their work. long story short, the only way we felt we could teach our children at a speed and level of individual attention that they would thrive at was homeschool. I went to a public school and had a rough time. my wife went to a private christian school and also had a rough time. ultimately it came down to what is best for our kids. they get exposure to other kids, for better or worse. they grow, enjoy life, and aren't freaks. and they don't get raped in the bathroom. win/win.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Division is religious? You made the claim that the public school curriculum is functionally atheistic. I'm simply asking you to support your statement with facts rather than what Bill thinks. It shouldn't be too hard. I provided the English Language Acquistion (which includes Social Studies) standards as well.

In a very concrete sense, you are cherry-picking. Is there a deity involved in division normally? No. Are their moral and religious undertones in other subjects? Yes! History, science, philosophy and any form of teaching that consists of making any form of value judgments.

But then again, I recognize that school is not just math class.

Or are you seriously making an argument that since math does not require moral values, no subject does?

Not necessarily, as, again the plethora of Christians that have successfully navigated the public school system for 200 years would attest, plus the plethora of Christian expression across the school system.

Using your logic, Bonhoeffer did good theology under Naziism, therefore naziism is conducive to Christianity.

All what you are saying shows is that there have been Christians who did well.

Your impression is wrong. If the teacher leads a prayer as part of the curriculum or educational activity, that's not allowed, because A). there's nothing particularly educational about it and B). the state doesn't get to do that. A teacher is free to lead a public prayer at an FCA meeting in the gym, for example.

IOWs I was right in that the learning environment is to be kept a-religious. Point B is my point. Thank you for agreeing with it.

But again, why are is a teacher leading prayer in math class (or any class), if not as an exercise in power?

English please? Seriously, not exactly sure what you are asking
Prayer was not my point, and a strawman. However, since you are bringing this up. Let's take history for example. Why is it bad that we broke treaties with Native Americans? Why is racism wrong? All of history is lined with moral judgments. We have good guys and we have bad guys, the why we view them as such nationally often are very skewed.

American Revolution: Good or bad?

About 50 years of developmental theory and research suggest otherwise. What makes you think parents' moral codes aren't as depraved as their children's?

1) 50 years is a very small sample, and one which would suggest that the sample is going to be from children conditioned in public schools, which means the data would be rather inconclusive to determine whether the same mode of development would occur in a different environment.
2) I have spent enough time around children to know that most adults think a bit more about the consequences of their actions. Not always, but as a very general rule. A kid is more apt to unprovoked punch out a kid for being weird looking for having glasses. I have never seen anyone over about 6 do that.

Huh? That isn't what I said at all. What I said is that reducing education down to a consumer choice isn't a good thing, and if you're thinking in those terms, then yes, you're not doing what's best for your child, you're doing what's best for the parent, which isn't the same thing at all.

I'm not saying every single parent in the world is doing this; I'm not saying YOU are doing this. I'm saying SOME parents do this, even SOME Christian parents do this. All I'm arguing for is for parents to use some insight, rather than knee-jerk silliness.

Actually you said this,

Fundamentally, the choice of schools has more to do with the parent's reflection of what they want to be seen as (projecting their identity is the counseling phrase) than any educational benefit. Ask yourself... Am I choosing option A because this is what's best, or is it because I'm the type of person who would choose option A?

It was unqualified. If you were referring to a specific subset with that qualification, I would agree.

Then that's what happens; you made the value choice. There are consequences for actions. And again, I think you are wildly bifurcating the ability of parents and children and teachers to A). balance demands of time B). communicate to one another and C). do things together. It isn't one or the other; doing homework doesn't mean you shut down all communication between the two. And while I can see a HS student in AP classes doing 6 hours or more of homework, the time when children are really relying on their parents to shape moral foundation isn't going to have that amount of homework.

Maybe what pissed me off was I have seen a lot of little kids, (noticeably all in the same state, which is more than likely quite relevant) basically in a constant panic to finish homework, acting like the AP student, but in 3rd grade. I think we can agree that that scenario is screwed up. And when kids are operating on a day late, buck short mentality you do remove the vast majority of parental interaction.

No, but I'm relying on actual research in moral and educational developmental theory, and not my experience. I'm able to generalize because I know what the studies and research have shown, and not simply generalizing based on discreet, non-normalized experiences.

In other words, because you believe you are right, and I am wrong.

Simple fact is, you are, whether you want to say so or not, relying on your own experience. Last time I checked education is an experience. I actually, while I haven't taken a vast number of courses in educational theory have taken a few myself.

However, discreet, non normalized experiences show what can occur. Those instances are not meaningless. I don't view them as what will occur, but what can occur in a system malfunction. Once you have seen them occur, you can't ignore them. You can go ivory tower, but the simple fact is that US schools have not fared so well in the last decade.

Even where I live there are a large number of school closures and increasing class size. I live in an area with good schools.

No it isn't; then again, I did just finish grad school with a degree in education in December... So I'm pretty up-to-date in what's generally happening in educational theory and practice. And indeed, the world is not static. So why are you relying on your own experience to make generalizations about US public schools that is, at best, already prejudiced by a bizarre assertion that church/state separation is necessarily atheistic... Not agnostic, not neutral, but antagonistic towards belief?

I am making this wild assertion, that when you remove God from the ethics and teaching of subjects requiring a moral judgment, functionaly you have created a system that is atheistic. Atheistic means, not hostile to God, which would require belief in a deity to be hostile to, but rather, without God.This isn't a bizarre assertion. You separate church and state, you get a set function, education, that is devoid of church. Without religious morals, you cannot have subjects such as history taught in a vaccum. You need a system that says Nazis are bad. If you are left with that separation in place, this system legally has to be atheistic. Otherwise, you would be left attempting to teach history as a disinterested outsider which no human is capable of being!

That's absurd, and you know it. I haven't vilified anyone, and I would ask you to either provide explicit times where I have, or not repeat that accusation.

Reread what you actually wrote earlier. I don't think now it is what you meant to say, but it is what you wrote.

Based on what, exactly? How on earth do you measure their "fineness?" I keep make references to the Christian on CGR who, by their own admission have said they've come through "just fine." Perhaps they haven't and they're lying? Perhaps there's some kind of decadent, baby-eating, kittens-in-woodchippers sub-Christian cult made up of ex-Public School kids. I don't know of it though, so I feel like I'm missing out.

What's clear is that you haven't engaged with my primary word of caution... Which is all it is, since I could not care less about whether a kid is homeschooled or sent to parochial school, or educated by baboons in Rwanda. Whatever the choice is, you have to make the choice based on the child's needs, and not the projected needs of the parent. If you find that "vilifying," then, well... What else is there to say?

You feel that teens in America are getting a good moral background and are fine? I can give you the address of some churches where I have worked at with the youth. I have had many conversations with kids for years and the aggregate situation sucks!

[Rainer.]

Perhaps we could all just agree that all schools generally lie on a continuum from physically/morally/spiritually/academically safe to dangerous, and there is simply differences of opinion on 1) where on the continuum the "average" school lies and 2) at what point on the "safe" end of the continuum we would be okay with sending our children.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Perhaps we could all just agree that all schools generally lie on a continuum from physically/morally/spiritually/academically safe to dangerous, and there is simply differences on 1) where on the continuum the "average" school lies and 2) at what point on the "safe" end of the continuum we would be okay with sending our children.

That sounds like a fair statement to me.

[funkStrat_97]

Well this turned out to be quite the topic. Me and the Mrs. still don't see eye-to-eye on this (at least not yet) but for me, this is more of a question of financial viability of paying for private school vs. free* public schools. For my wife, it's a matter of private schools being a safer and academically superior environment that is worth the cost. Ultimately, the private/home schooling vs. public education debate is only a highlight the differences in our view when it comes to finances. Now, I'd hate to have to "pull rank" on her so to speak, but I think she needs to shift her views closer to mine. Not that I have the perfect solution, but we would do so much better if we worked together in this area. And we have suffered some setbacks behind this too. For example; some of you may have seen posts where I mentioned that I used to have a '97 U.S. Lone Star Strat. Well, it became a casualty of our financial struggles (hopefully this year, I'll be replacing it - as has been said many times; do not sell instruments to make ends meet unless there is no other viable option available).