Monday, January 29, 2007
Schools, Home-Schooling, New Orleans and Choices
My good friend, Patrick Armstrong, at writes about public schools, home-schooling and Catholic school all pulled together by the situation in New Orleans. His claim that racism was starting point for private schools and home-schooling shows the liberal bias towards everything governmental and demonizing that which is not.
Public schools have failed for a long time in many ways as you will see if you read the Wikipedia entry. This part of the entry actually cites research of illiterate mothers in Africa. "illiterate tribal mothers in Africa produced children who were socially and emotionally more advanced than typical western children, by western standards of measurement." I doubt that racists would point to African mothers as a positive example.
The flight from public schools has been due to poor education and lack of responsiveness to parents, the public at large and, to a lesser degree, the removal of any form of religion in schools.
My oldest daughter home-schools two of her kids because she did not like the public schools. Academically, her efforts seem to be quite successful so far. BTW - they tend to be libertarian politically, and attend an Unitarian Church. They have network of home-schoolers with whom they share teaching, materials, field trips, etc.
I think that liberals don't like home-schooling because it is not government controlled. Liberals believe and insist that government is the solution to all our problems. Obviously not you, but many liberals also hate the idea that any "government" money might go to a religious organization for any purpose. (I put quotes around government because any money the government has comes from us. It's our money.)
I wonder how many religious colleges get government money via all the grants, scholarships, etc the students get. Just about all, I'd say. So why not high schools and elementary schools? Right now private schools have to perform to attract students. Public schools don't. Many of their students don't have a choice.
Liberals love giving women the choice to kill those students before the students are born but, obviously, liberals want to control your choices. In Massachusetts, a pharmacist doesn't have the choice of whether or not to sell the morning-after pill. Liberals don't believe doctors and hospitals should have the choice whether or not to perform abortions. So much for choice unless it's to kill your unborn child.
Give all students a choice of where to go to school and see what happens.
Now, my other point (question), how come the Catholic schools are able to take in so many students while the public school aren't? Did the parochial schools receive less damage or what? Or, as many people that send their kids to private schools or home-school them believe, is the government just less competent?
The movement towards private schools and vouchers and white – flight and home-schooling may have their roots firmly planted in the anti-integration soil of the past 40 years. But as of today that movement has gained most of its ground not from the inherent racism of its birth - as many liberal pundits insinuate...It appears that liberals and Democrats like to create myths by calling others racist, etc., too. While Wikipedia may be flawed there is not a single mention of racist roots in the Wikipedia entry for home schooling. But, of course, it's always handy to put some sort of nasty handle on those that disagree with us.
Public schools have failed for a long time in many ways as you will see if you read the Wikipedia entry. This part of the entry actually cites research of illiterate mothers in Africa. "illiterate tribal mothers in Africa produced children who were socially and emotionally more advanced than typical western children, by western standards of measurement." I doubt that racists would point to African mothers as a positive example.
The flight from public schools has been due to poor education and lack of responsiveness to parents, the public at large and, to a lesser degree, the removal of any form of religion in schools.
My oldest daughter home-schools two of her kids because she did not like the public schools. Academically, her efforts seem to be quite successful so far. BTW - they tend to be libertarian politically, and attend an Unitarian Church. They have network of home-schoolers with whom they share teaching, materials, field trips, etc.
I think that liberals don't like home-schooling because it is not government controlled. Liberals believe and insist that government is the solution to all our problems. Obviously not you, but many liberals also hate the idea that any "government" money might go to a religious organization for any purpose. (I put quotes around government because any money the government has comes from us. It's our money.)
I wonder how many religious colleges get government money via all the grants, scholarships, etc the students get. Just about all, I'd say. So why not high schools and elementary schools? Right now private schools have to perform to attract students. Public schools don't. Many of their students don't have a choice.
Liberals love giving women the choice to kill those students before the students are born but, obviously, liberals want to control your choices. In Massachusetts, a pharmacist doesn't have the choice of whether or not to sell the morning-after pill. Liberals don't believe doctors and hospitals should have the choice whether or not to perform abortions. So much for choice unless it's to kill your unborn child.
Give all students a choice of where to go to school and see what happens.
Now, my other point (question), how come the Catholic schools are able to take in so many students while the public school aren't? Did the parochial schools receive less damage or what? Or, as many people that send their kids to private schools or home-school them believe, is the government just less competent?
Comments:
<< Home
Well, I can see what side of the issue you agree with.. :)
The overwhelming beginnings of private schools and vouchers movements that I was exposed to all have statistical ties to whenever the Brown V BOE Topeka decision was enforced in their areas. It demonstrates enough to me that there were many of the roots, back in those days, as the 'segregation now, segregation tommorrow, segregation forever' attitude did not just vanish overnight. While I do accept that many parochial and home schooled individuals existed even before then, that is my overall opinion and I believe it. That is a historical and academic argument, however, that does not deal with today's realities.
While you may disagree with my opinion, I thought you'd agree that many on my side of aisle incorrectly point to racism as the reason for the school choice movement of today.
The main point I make (and you chose the correct quote as I make this) is that it does not matter where the movement came from: today, and in the immediate past, people are sending their kids to parochial schools, demanding vouchers, charter schools and the homeschool revolution is in full swing because the public schools, in many areas, are not providing a sufficient product for some parents.
And like I said, what may have begun as an ideological issue has become a competency issue. My problem with the way many folks on my side of the aisle deal with this is to point out the ideological roots of the school-choice movement rather than deal with that movement's current realities, which are serious grievances not about who someone's children go to school with, but about what kind of education someone's children are getting at school.
I thought you'd agree with that, too.
As far as the damage assessments, there is some merit into the less damage argument, but not much. Both systems had schools that remained dry, both systems had schools that sat under 20 feet of water. I don't have and exact proportional damage assessment, but it amazes me that any system was able to send any children to school at all for some time.
The Archdiocese of New Orleans has always had a strong school system (so strong that they have their own football league, I believe) based on the history of New Orleans itself. But even if the damage was equal, all things considered, the ANO was able to get repairs done and teachers back into the schools at a much faster rate than the two government run school systems. One of the only factors I can think of is scale: as ANO had a smaller school system than the NOPS.
The overwhelming beginnings of private schools and vouchers movements that I was exposed to all have statistical ties to whenever the Brown V BOE Topeka decision was enforced in their areas. It demonstrates enough to me that there were many of the roots, back in those days, as the 'segregation now, segregation tommorrow, segregation forever' attitude did not just vanish overnight. While I do accept that many parochial and home schooled individuals existed even before then, that is my overall opinion and I believe it. That is a historical and academic argument, however, that does not deal with today's realities.
While you may disagree with my opinion, I thought you'd agree that many on my side of aisle incorrectly point to racism as the reason for the school choice movement of today.
The main point I make (and you chose the correct quote as I make this) is that it does not matter where the movement came from: today, and in the immediate past, people are sending their kids to parochial schools, demanding vouchers, charter schools and the homeschool revolution is in full swing because the public schools, in many areas, are not providing a sufficient product for some parents.
And like I said, what may have begun as an ideological issue has become a competency issue. My problem with the way many folks on my side of the aisle deal with this is to point out the ideological roots of the school-choice movement rather than deal with that movement's current realities, which are serious grievances not about who someone's children go to school with, but about what kind of education someone's children are getting at school.
I thought you'd agree with that, too.
As far as the damage assessments, there is some merit into the less damage argument, but not much. Both systems had schools that remained dry, both systems had schools that sat under 20 feet of water. I don't have and exact proportional damage assessment, but it amazes me that any system was able to send any children to school at all for some time.
The Archdiocese of New Orleans has always had a strong school system (so strong that they have their own football league, I believe) based on the history of New Orleans itself. But even if the damage was equal, all things considered, the ANO was able to get repairs done and teachers back into the schools at a much faster rate than the two government run school systems. One of the only factors I can think of is scale: as ANO had a smaller school system than the NOPS.
homeschooling without tests without competency tests for parents, is a bad idea.
i know one woman, who isnt very smart, she has 3 kids 4,2 and new born, she wants to keep those kids at home and homeschool them, she has no computer, she doesnt have any friends. in her case its a very bad idea.
but its all about choice, they have the right to choose it, but is it best for them.. because the morning after pill, and abortions are more prevelant, doesnt mean we should ban them for the sake of the children..
i wish there wasnt as many abortions, i prefer prevention, prevention is the KEY, but if it does happen, then you need the choice. if all kids were allowed to be born, then there would be more violence towards these kids, as the people who didnt want them in the first place, are forced to have them, they will resent the kids, and attack them.
back to homeschooling, if a parent can show they can teach their child properly, then i am all for it, but if a racist person only teaches pro nazi history, then i would question it. or only pro black, or.. any lessons that just show one side (including religious teaching)
i know one woman, who isnt very smart, she has 3 kids 4,2 and new born, she wants to keep those kids at home and homeschool them, she has no computer, she doesnt have any friends. in her case its a very bad idea.
but its all about choice, they have the right to choose it, but is it best for them.. because the morning after pill, and abortions are more prevelant, doesnt mean we should ban them for the sake of the children..
i wish there wasnt as many abortions, i prefer prevention, prevention is the KEY, but if it does happen, then you need the choice. if all kids were allowed to be born, then there would be more violence towards these kids, as the people who didnt want them in the first place, are forced to have them, they will resent the kids, and attack them.
back to homeschooling, if a parent can show they can teach their child properly, then i am all for it, but if a racist person only teaches pro nazi history, then i would question it. or only pro black, or.. any lessons that just show one side (including religious teaching)
Patrick - I do agree with this:
My problem with the way many folks on my side of the aisle deal with this is to point out the ideological roots of the school-choice movement rather than deal with that movement's current realities, which are serious grievances not about who someone's children go to school with, but about what kind of education someone's children are getting at school.
Basically, I only disagree that the roots of private schools and home-schooling are founded in racism. Yes, there are some people who do it based on those reasons, but the overall movement did not and does not, quality education, religion, and emotional health drive more people in this area.
Additionally, I believe that some private schools, probably more so in the South, partly got their start because of racism. You tie this to Brown vs BOE, which did make a big difference. But was it racism or was because parents didn't want their kids shipped 20 miles across town to go to school rather than the closest school?
Knoxville, TN was in a unique position at this time. Courts ruled it had a true neighborhood school system and busing was not ordered. After Brown, schools were attended by children of whatever race lived in its district. 15 or 20 years later Knoxville City and Knox County schools merged. Then busing was declared necessary. Private schools popped up all over town, especially in the wealthy areas. The response was to busing more than to racial make up of the school although it's easy to claim racism as a cause because of the correlation, but correlation does not imply causation is a basic rule of statistics.
I can't remember why busing ended, but public schools in Knoxville have been in a funk ever since.
In my experience, schools (public and private) don't respond well to the wishes, requests, demands, etc. of parents. With choice students and parents could more easily find a school that suited their needs and wants.
My problem with the way many folks on my side of the aisle deal with this is to point out the ideological roots of the school-choice movement rather than deal with that movement's current realities, which are serious grievances not about who someone's children go to school with, but about what kind of education someone's children are getting at school.
Basically, I only disagree that the roots of private schools and home-schooling are founded in racism. Yes, there are some people who do it based on those reasons, but the overall movement did not and does not, quality education, religion, and emotional health drive more people in this area.
Additionally, I believe that some private schools, probably more so in the South, partly got their start because of racism. You tie this to Brown vs BOE, which did make a big difference. But was it racism or was because parents didn't want their kids shipped 20 miles across town to go to school rather than the closest school?
Knoxville, TN was in a unique position at this time. Courts ruled it had a true neighborhood school system and busing was not ordered. After Brown, schools were attended by children of whatever race lived in its district. 15 or 20 years later Knoxville City and Knox County schools merged. Then busing was declared necessary. Private schools popped up all over town, especially in the wealthy areas. The response was to busing more than to racial make up of the school although it's easy to claim racism as a cause because of the correlation, but correlation does not imply causation is a basic rule of statistics.
I can't remember why busing ended, but public schools in Knoxville have been in a funk ever since.
In my experience, schools (public and private) don't respond well to the wishes, requests, demands, etc. of parents. With choice students and parents could more easily find a school that suited their needs and wants.
Glad that's the quote you agree with, because (as I see it) that's one of the things that is preventing public education from responding well to the wishes of parents. It is like a bunker mentality, in many ways, from those on my side, who tend to defend even the things in public schools that are not working as part of their defense of public education on the whole.
As to our obviously conflicting beleifs of the roots of the 'school choice' movement, I can't argue your opinon. If that's how things were in Tennessee, that's how they were. I trust what you are saying is true, and it ain't really your motivations or opinions I'm questioning. My experiences were wildly different, which led me to believe, with strong faith, in my estimation of the matter.
As to our obviously conflicting beleifs of the roots of the 'school choice' movement, I can't argue your opinon. If that's how things were in Tennessee, that's how they were. I trust what you are saying is true, and it ain't really your motivations or opinions I'm questioning. My experiences were wildly different, which led me to believe, with strong faith, in my estimation of the matter.
To the best of my knowledge and memory, what I said is true. Busing had a very short life span in Knoxville and, as in many places, was wildly unpopular. Sending your kids across town to places you're not familiar with is scary.
The only thing that bothered me about you post, and I don't think I addressed it clearly, is that I felt the racism bit was put out there too readily and too casually. Too many people are seeing racism where it isn't, such as in the use of the word "niggardly" or "sniggering" as Ann Althouse found out today.
I first realized how bad this paranoia was when listening to a black female cultural diversity trainer for Proctor & Gamble. She claimed that if you locked the doors to your car while she was standing on the corner you had committed a racist act. Now, I always lock my car doors because that's what my parents taught me to do so that the doors would be less likely to accidentally open. Sometimes I don't remember to do so until I've already started driving. If I stop for a traffic light and there is a black lady on the corner, I repeatedly unlock and lock my doors just for meanness. :-)
I think we need to be much more careful about how and when we play the racism card. It's been needlessly and unfairly played so often now that many of us just roll our eyes when we hear it. Charging someone with racism has lost almost all of its meaning except in the most extreme cases. People who are truly victims of racism are being hurt by the ludicrous charges so often made nowadays.
The only thing that bothered me about you post, and I don't think I addressed it clearly, is that I felt the racism bit was put out there too readily and too casually. Too many people are seeing racism where it isn't, such as in the use of the word "niggardly" or "sniggering" as Ann Althouse found out today.
I first realized how bad this paranoia was when listening to a black female cultural diversity trainer for Proctor & Gamble. She claimed that if you locked the doors to your car while she was standing on the corner you had committed a racist act. Now, I always lock my car doors because that's what my parents taught me to do so that the doors would be less likely to accidentally open. Sometimes I don't remember to do so until I've already started driving. If I stop for a traffic light and there is a black lady on the corner, I repeatedly unlock and lock my doors just for meanness. :-)
I think we need to be much more careful about how and when we play the racism card. It's been needlessly and unfairly played so often now that many of us just roll our eyes when we hear it. Charging someone with racism has lost almost all of its meaning except in the most extreme cases. People who are truly victims of racism are being hurt by the ludicrous charges so often made nowadays.
in the UK we cant use the word blackboard, its a chalkboard(usually a black coloured material), we cant use the words nit pick, as people assume it means a racist comment. (anti black)
you have a black history month, no white history months. (people assume it would mean the KKK), when white people get attacked by asian groups, its not termed a racist attack, yet if its an asian person attacked by white people.. it is..
the home schooling is prone to only teaching your own beleifs, right or wrong, you are only ever given one side to look at (unless the parents are smart and clever), schools can teach more even sided things. but even thats open to abuse (the feminisation of school)
you have a black history month, no white history months. (people assume it would mean the KKK), when white people get attacked by asian groups, its not termed a racist attack, yet if its an asian person attacked by white people.. it is..
the home schooling is prone to only teaching your own beleifs, right or wrong, you are only ever given one side to look at (unless the parents are smart and clever), schools can teach more even sided things. but even thats open to abuse (the feminisation of school)
mercurior - ain't political correctness great?
I believe a parent has the right to teach their children their own children their values, right or wrong. Schools can more even sided but schools under the influence of the heavy influence of political correctness don't. Indeed, schools often are only interested in teaching on side of many issues.
I believe a parent has the right to teach their children their own children their values, right or wrong. Schools can more even sided but schools under the influence of the heavy influence of political correctness don't. Indeed, schools often are only interested in teaching on side of many issues.
yes, but it must be tempered with a wider knowledge.. if i had kids i would want them to question my beliefs and make up their own minds.. a few parents dont give the kids that opportunity, thats what i object too.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
