.

[Mudinyeri]

Well, it seems that I've struck a nerve with some by suggesting that public school could, in any way, be positive. My views have been labeled as "extremist." That gave me a good laugh. By espousing perhaps the most middle of the road view, i.e. it depends on the child, the parents and the school, someone with a far less balanced view has labeled me as an extremist. The height of hubris! "My way is the only way. You disagree so you must be labeled as an extremist." Irony of ironies.

 

[Kersh]

If money were not an issue, my first choice would be Christian schooling. Second choice would be public. Last resort is homeschooling.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Teachers.

Because we teach children how to think independently and critically? It is not my job as a teacher to spread values or "pit against students". My job is to teach them material and enhance their skills as learners. Teacher who do spread unwanted values to their students or pit themselves against students are not acting in the best way for their students.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not all teachers. Probably not most. Just enough for these stereotypes and fears to exist.

Has any only here said anything about all, most or many teachers? This is what shuts down discussion.

Well, it seems that I've struck a nerve with some by suggesting that public school could, in any way, be positive. My views have been labeled as "extremist." That gave me a good laugh. By espousing perhaps the most middle of the road view, i.e. it depends on the child, the parents and the school, someone with a far less balanced view has labeled me as an extremist. The height of hubris! "My way is the only way. You disagree so you must be labeled as an extremist." Irony of ironies.

Extremist in essentially saying that homeschool parents keep their kids on leashes. It was arrogant, as well. I wish I had a better vocabulary, but I was dropped off at the government-run educational factory where I didn't learn much. I've had to spend much of my adult life catching up, but whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so there's another plus for the GRS.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Extremist in essentially saying that homeschool parents keep their kids on leashes. It was arrogant, as well. I wish I had a better vocabulary, but I was dropped off at the government-run educational factory where I didn't learn much. I've had to spend much of my adult life catching up.

I spent all but my senior year in a similar "factory." As I mentioned earlier, I finished up in a church school that utilized home school curriculum. I sought out learning so I learned a lot ... in both places. I learned a lot at the very restrictive and conservative Bible college that I attended. I also learned a lot at the state and private universities that I attended. I took personal responsibility for my learning. I didn't wait for someone to zip open my head and pour in knowledge nor did I take anything that I was taught at face value after about age twelve.

Moreover, I never said that home school parents keep their kids on leashes. I was talking about public school attendance, not home school attendance. It's understandable that your obvious bias led to your transference of the topic. That often happens in cases of extremism. Bias also limits learning.

Returning to our regularly scheduled program ... it depends on the child, the parents and the school. In virtually every situation an opportunity may be seized. Alternatively, one can laments one's circumstances and lie back on them as an excuse.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Moreover, I never said that home school parents keep their kids on leashes. I was talking about public school attendance, not home school attendance. It's understandable that your obvious bias led to your transference of the topic. That often happens in cases of extremism. Bias also limits learning.

↑
Me: Homeschooling your children is like not letting them ride a bike?!

You: Yes.

Me: Leash

You: I was taking about something else.

 

[Kersh]

Has any only here said anything about all, most or many teachers? This is what shuts down discussion.


Extremist in essentially saying that homeschool parents keep their kids on leashes. It was arrogant, as well. I wish I had a better vocabulary, but I was dropped off at the government-run educational factory where I didn't learn much. I've had to spend much of my adult life catching up, but whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so there's another plus for the GRS.

I also "was dropped off at the government-run educational factory", but I learned plenty. I eventually graduated cum laude from law school. I know of homeschooled and private schooled kids with similar accomplishments. I also know of students in all three camps who either never went to college or dropped out. I've not seen much correlation.

 

[blackribbon]

Should we eliminate public school, mandatory education, and free education then? Should we go back to the days where a parent has to pay to educate a child and if you can't afford it, the kid doesn't get to go to school?

 

[Kersh]

Should we eliminate public school, mandatory education, and free education then? Should we go back to the days where a parent has to pay to educate a child and if you can't afford it, the kid doesn't get to go to school?

I'd like to see the church step up and provide affordable Christian education. But, since that is happening only in small doses, I think that public education is the best that many of us can afford for our children.

 

[blackribbon]

I'd like to see the church step up and provide affordable Christian education. But, since that is happening only in small doses, I think that public education is the best that many of us can afford for our children.

How would this be done? We would all have to step up and give more money to the church. So we give to the church or the people actually using the school pay tuition. Teachers at Christian school already tend to get paid a lot less than other teachers and do it without as nice of benefits, so that side doesn't leave much wiggle room.

 

[Kersh]

How would this be done? We would all have to step up and give more money to the church. So we give to the church or the people actually using the school pay tuition. Teachers at Christian school already tend to get paid a lot less than other teachers and do it without as nice of benefits, so that side doesn't leave much wiggle room.

I agree that we all should give more to the church. We are called to give generously. I believe that if every Christian gave biblically (that is with gladness and generosity), then the church would be able to accomplish amazing things. I say this not exempting myself from the challenge of giving this way. I believe that we should all strive to give as though we love Jesus more than we love our money.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Should we eliminate public school, mandatory education, and free education then? Should we go back to the days where a parent has to pay to educate a child and if you can't afford it, the kid doesn't get to go to school?

Well, you are jumping to conclusions there. With the decrease in property and other taxes, everyone would have much more money to spend as they wish. Public schools are inefficient and wasteful, but that's a story for another day.

Should not parents care for their own children? Is it unreasonable to expect you to arrange for your kids meals and shelter?

It's lovely when other people foot the bill, I know, but is it fair? Is it fair that childless people pay to educate someone elses children?

Lastly, our welfare state encourages irresponsibility. Every man should take responsibility for his own actions. Want a house? Pay for it. Want kids? Pay for their needs.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How would this be done? We would all have to step up and give more money to the church. So we give to the church or the people actually using the school pay tuition. Teachers at Christian school already tend to get paid a lot less than other teachers and do it without as nice of benefits, so that side doesn't leave much wiggle room.

It can be done. My wife and I gave support help a single mother's child get a Christian school education. It was a one-time deal, but we moved away from the church and contact with her. The church managed the $$

 

[Paidiske]

So is the issue where our children will get the best education, or who will pay for it?

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of a community providing specialised teaching to its children, paid for by tax. It's an investment in the future of that community. (If we want to beef about "things my taxes pay for that I don't like," bombing the middle east is much higher up my gripe list than educating a child out of poverty will ever be).

 

[blackribbon]

Well, you are jumping to conclusions there. With the decrease in property and other taxes, everyone would have much more money to spend as they wish. Public schools are inefficient and wasteful, but that's a story for another day.

Should not parents care for their own children? Is it unreasonable to expect you to arrange for your kids meals and shelter?

It's lovely when other people foot the bill, I know, but is it fair? Is it fair that childless people pay to educate someone elses children?

Lastly, our welfare state encourages irresponsibility. Every man should take responsibility for his own actions. Want a house? Pay for it. Want kids? Pay for their needs.

I did pay for my kids. However, I am concerned about the kids who have crappy parents or are in situations where there really isn't any money for a private education. Before 1918 and mandatory education and free education became a social responsibility, these kids went to work at ages even down to very young ages. Do you really think only the wealthy should receive a basic education? Should we return to our past?

Are Christians responsible for helping others or just taking care of themselves?

 

[blackribbon]

It can be done. My wife and I gave support help a single mother's child get a Christian school education. It was a one-time deal, but we moved away from the church and contact with her. The church managed the $$

You paid for 12 years of education for this child?

 

[grandvizier1006]

So is the issue where our children will get the best education, or who will pay for it?

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of a community providing specialised teaching to its children, paid for by tax. It's an investment in the future of that community. (If we want to beef about "things my taxes pay for that I don't like," bombing the middle east is much higher up my gripe list than educating a child out of poverty will ever be).

As I said before, some homeschooling families will get together and teach their children in a "co-op". That sounds like a "community providing specialized teaching to its children" to me (this, of course, only works when you have enough like-minded people to start with).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I did pay for my kids. However, I am concerned about the kids who have crappy parents or are in situations where there really isn't any money for a private education. Before 1918 and mandatory education and free education became a social responsibility, these kids went to work at ages even down to very young ages. Do you really think only the wealthy should receive a basic education? Should we return to our past?

Are Christians responsible for helping others or just taking care of themselves?

You add so much drama that it difficult to have a discussion with you. I actually want the best for all people rich and poor, and personal responsibility is the way to achieve that, not hand outs, as we can easily see from what we have done to ruin generations of lives of those who have been made dependent on Uncle Sam for what they should take care of themselves.

We have people in perpetual poverty now. And, we do because of all of the nanny-state nonsense. Wanna stop girls from having 3 kids out of wedlock? Don't give her a section 8 condo with central AC as a reward for it.

One doesn't have to be rich to educate children. Are you rich? I'm not. Also, less taxes to pay for government schools would mean more money for all.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

So is the issue where our children will get the best education, or who will pay for it?

Both, isn't it?

Is the issue how I can get the best house, or how can I get the best house that I can afford to pay for?

Socialism has been in the air we breathe for so many years, but if you stand back and take a deep breath, you might be able to imagine a world in which people pay for goods and services that they desire for themselves and their children.

 

[blackribbon]

You add so much drama that it difficult to have a discussion with you. I actually want the best for all people rich and poor, and personal responsibility is the way to achieve that, not hand outs, as we can easily see from what we have done to ruin generations of lives of those who have been made dependent on Uncle Sam for what they should take care of themselves.

We have people in perpetual poverty now. And, we do because of all of the nanny-state nonsense. Wanna stop girls from having 3 kids out of wedlock? Don't give her a section 8 condo with central AC as a reward for it.

One doesn't have to be rich to educate children. Are you rich? I'm not. Also, less taxes to pay for government schools would mean more money for all.

Drama? Are you saying my points have no merit? I guess I don't see life as being quite so black and white as you seem to want it to be. The ideal doesn't exist so we have to find the best option for the situations that we are stuck with. I think that most girls that have babies out of wedlock aren't really doing it to get a crappy cheap condo...I think they probably don't have good role models and are looking for love...they probably need someone to show them how God loves them unconditionally. But I guess, putting babies out on the street is another option.