Re: Publik Skools (was Re: Bitter Boy Jeb Doesn't Get Dream After All


PolishKnight wrote:
> In article <1136832160.304109.266870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > PolishKnight wrote:
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > PolishKnight wrote:
> > >(edit)

> > > > > The public school system in the states is a joke. Poorer students
> > > > > largely don't get a decent education and middle class homeowners
> > > > > (such as Parg's career women buddies) pay higher premiums for schools.
> > > > > So much for "free" education to help the poor!
> >
> > I have no particular objection to having the rich subsidize the poor
> > when it comes to education. Do you, Mark?
>
> Non-sequitur. The point was the system failed to address the
> needs of the poor so the issue of the "rich" subsidizing
> the poor is irrelevent.

Because we HAVE a public school system, students receive whatever
education is available to them, providing an educated populace to a
point. You and I can agree that we need more and better education for
our populace. Where we don't agree is how to accomplish that.
>
> What do you mean by "rich", by the way? Oh, yeah,
> Clinton says we're all "millionaires" (since he promised
> to only raise taxes on them :-) Apparently, the "rich"
> middle class have been permanently soured on German
> rescues. Rush Limbaugh always reminds us to thank Hillary
> Clinton for killing socialism as a mainstream agenda
> in the states.

?????? I think people are sufficiently angered by right wing takings
to think about things like outsourcing, and making the Bush's oil
friends richer, now. As to Hillary, it appears she's reinvented
herself. :-) Most people today don't see her as a threat, except for
bitter boys and NASCAR. ;-) And whether or not you like it, most
Americans want a higher level of public education for our nation's
children.

> > > > Well, I agree that more money seems to be going to the wrong things.
> > > > Schools don't need stadiums as much as they need to teach what students
> > > > can actually use.
> > >
> > > What percent of school funds go to stadiums?
> >
Whatever percentage of education that goes to sports like football is>
wasted spending,
>
> Translation: You don't know.

My point stands, Mark. If we spend that funding elsewhere, it would be
more efficiently used to help our children compete.
>
> > Mark...since people don't use those skills in their> > adult life.
>
> Football and other sports have thousands of years (back to the Olympics) educational value.

So the Chinese (now our main competitive fear) will be building
football stadiums? :-)
>
> > It would be much more beneficial to put the spending
> > where it belongs to educated our students to compete with the Chinese.
> > They don't play football like we do.
>
> ?!?!
>
> > > > > The most affordable, quality education is homeschooling
> > > > > as evidenced by them winning nearly ever academic contest
> > > > > out there.
> > > >
> > > > But they aren't Mark. Most science prizes now go to schools funded to
> > > > provide the framework. Even scolarships are geared to public
> > > > education. Most home schoolers are little freaks who don't fit within
> > > > the school system, either from the realms of fundamentalism or from
> > > > being expelled too many times.
> > >
> > > Apparently, fundamentalists and freaks kick ass the moment they're
> > > admitted to open contests. I guess some people don't like gettin'
> > > served. :-)
> >
> > Not so, Mark. In fact, if you consider averages, most of those going
> > on to higher education are not from Mormon fundamentalist polygamous
> > families who need welfare to pay their fuel bills. :-)
>
> I guess that would take a lot of mormons to comprise a majority
> of college students. :-)

Indeed. And the same thing applies to all other homeschoolers. Just
because a few geeks are mentioned does not address the freaks who go on
to do nothing.

> But then again, Mormon welfare recipients probably do a lot
> better on their standardized scores than similarly situated
> U.S. born residents of DC...

Prove it, Mark. Just because one or two geeks do well in homeschooling
does not make them competitive with public schooling on a percentage
basis. Ain't science grand?
>
> > > I doubt that many scholarships are geared towards public schools.
> > > As an added bonus, home schoolers usually have a single income
> > > earner which makes their households more eligable for
> > > need based scholarships than middle class households with
> > > dual incomes.
> >
> > But you haven't shown any proof that these kids are successful ....as a
> > percentage compared to kids who are in public school.
>
> A study of 2219 students who reported their homeschooled status on the
> SAT in 1999 showed that these students scored an average of 1083--67
> points above the national average of 1016; similarly, the 3616
> homeschooled students who took the ACT scored an average of 22.7--1.7
> points above the national average of 21 (Klicka, 2002).
>
> Granted, this is a biased source (Klicka is a homeschool advocate)
> but nobody denies that homeschooled students outperform
> publik skool students.

Yes, your source has a huge axe to grind, Mark. So why even bring up
biased stats?
Not only that, but parents teaching students to pass a test, speaks
more about teaching to the test than what those students are actually
learning. A homeschooled student getting into college that way may
not be able to compete once there.


> > And, I don't> > mind any poor kids getting govt. funding for their education, no matter
> > how many parents they have. :-) By your argument, single mothers
> > would also do quite well in that arena.
>
> Apparently, they're already doing a "bang up" job in raising kids attending inner city schools...

So, you are observing poverty as a factor in providing a good
education. Good to know.

>
> > > > > The meek shall inherit the Earth, indeed!
> > > > >
> > > > > > > However, given that these publically funded vouchers were being
> > > > > > > used for
> > > > > > > religious private schools, then I agree with the Florida Supreme
> > > > > > > Court
> > > > > > > ruling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Me too.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what? Pagan parents could send their children to "goddess" schools
> > > > > if they wanted too, yes?
> > > >
> > > > Hahahaha....what "goddess schools"; the pre-Catholics killed off all
> > > > the goddesses, destroyed their idols and worship so that today there
> > > > are not any.
> > >
> > > I thought you had claimed the goddess religions were kicking
> > > Christian ***. Thanks for re-burying them. :-)
> > >
> > Actually they are growing, and if push comes to shove, they can rally.
>
> > > > Of course, the interesting thing is that they could be
> > > > built up again, and I just don't see those religious fundies being all
> > > > that accepting. :-)
> > >
> > > I thought that the bitter boy religions were buried? :-)
> >
> > Yes. The term "rising up" means something. :-) I guess you can't
> > keep a good goddess down. :-)
>
> Yet, you argue that the Patriarchs are always just one
> "good ol' boy" step away from knocking you and the sisterhood
> down.

They are certainly insecure enough to keep trying. But today, witches
have both law and guns. :-)
>
> It's a pity both of us know that your sisterhood depends
> upon the chivalrous patronage of those same guys. :-)

Guns are good.
>
> > > > While the constitution says that the state shall not establish a
> > > > religion, it doesn't say that religion is prohibited either. Just the
> > > > opposite: The statute> was meant to protect people's religious freedoms
> > > > and not to> > > > > establish a secular, atheistic state.
> > > >
> > > > The statute is to prevent GOVERNMENT from establishing a religion which
> > > > is what happens if any religions are left out of the process, and tax
> > > > money supports those that are there. Yes, people with good minds
> > > > understand that concept.
> > >
> > > The S.C. may disagree with you in the future there. I'm sure
> > > some bittergirls will not agree with them though. I suggest
> > > they study up on the Constitution.
> >
> > Since there are more women eligible to vote, they have already taken
> > that message to heart, Mark. It is you who won't like the
> > consequences. Think Souter.
>
> My wife laughed when her liberal English instructor (who likes
> to bash Bush at every chance) asked them to write a short sentence
> describing their favorite hero. She wrote: "George W. Bush:
> Because he won. Twice!" :-)

I don't believe you, Mark. In fact, since I found your picture and
stats on the net, I wonder if you even HAVE a wife at all. How
pathetic that was to post someone else's picture in an Elvis wedding.
>
> He does have a sense of humor.
>
> > > > > > > But, I also find it disturbing that poor performance schools were
> > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > punished with a reduction in funding. How the heck do they expect
> > > > > > > poor
> > > > > > > performance schools to improve with *less* funding? That's
> > > > > > > ridiculous.
> > > > > > > What should be done is to examine *why* some schools are poor
> > > > > > > performers and
> > > > > > > then take the necessary steps to *improve* them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lessee: Schools in Indiana use a fraction of funds to better
> > > > > educate students than highly funded schools in Washington DC.
> > > >
> > > > Mark, schools in Indiana don't have immigrants who don't speak English
> > > > the way DC does.
> > >
> > > Even if this argument applied to students who are not immigrants
> > > and still perform poorly, you've opened up a fantastic opportunity
> > > for me to educate you about my immigrant great-grandparents:
> > >
> > > They were immigrants from Poland and Germany. They were also quite
> > > poor and discriminated against. They didn't speak English
> > > either and Polish/German communities existed where people could
> > > go their lives without speaking a word of English.
> >
> > Yes, my grandmother was also from Germany, and my other family members
> > from Ireland. They also bettered themselves, and learned English.
> > However, just because discrimination was allowed against....say...the
> > Irish...in the past is not incentive to continue it.
>
> Non-sequitor. The point is that immigrants who endured legal
> discrimation still bettered themselves.

Sure.
>
> > > Nonetheless, the Catholic church established inexpensive, private
> > > schools that operated for a fraction of the cost of an inner
> > > city public school. When students completed the courses, they
> > > were able to speak English at today's college level (along with
> > > their own native German or Polish) AND speak a second foreign
> > > language AND Latin. They also knew calculus, accounting,
> > > and HIStory.

??? Some did; some didn't. I still don't see how that is relevant.
> >
> > I don't really know much about Catholic schools per se. I'm assuming
> > they're just as good or better than most public schools, even now.
> > And, certainly people who can afford it can send their students there.
>
> My point is that the schools are actually cheaper to run than> private schools.
>
> > I'm not against religious schools in any way.
>
> Yeah, your very first post on this thread indicates that. :-)

My post isn't critical of religious schools, but rather critial of
govt. support of such.
>
> However, they should> not be funded by taking away from public education,
>
> If you don't like publically funded religious schools, you only need not vote for them.
>
> The Supreme (1 More) Men in Black may decide.

Yes. I'm leaving this country because I don't like the witch hunt
tactics, but even men in black have to follow stare decisis, Mark.
Think Souter.
>
IMO. Educating our> masses is what has served to make us an amazing
country, Mark.
>
> So maybe the leftist teachers' unions should try doing that. :-)

Smart people tend to be liberal. So what?

>
> > The same holds true for European nations. However, they seem to have a
> > better handle on funneling students into courses for which they are
> > best suited. I think that places them in a better position.
>
> Hmmm, you mean the same Europe with the sluggish economy
> and dismal socialist employment numbers?
>
Europe has been around a long time, Mark, much longer than the US. And
they may know a few things the US will start to understand very soon.
:-) The US has acted like a spoiled brat, Mark. Europe sees that and
smiling, moves on. They are not jealous of the US. They don't want
our culture.

> > > The amount of time dedicated to religious studies was probably very small.
> > > Maybe a few hours a week or so. After all, the Bible isn't a very large book.
I would also add that there are religious studies in public
universities such as> eastern mythology.
> >
> > Actually, I don't like to talk about self aggrandizement, but I also
> > attended a religious university. Surprised? :-) Altho I had read the
> > Bible twice before attending college, I was very interested and took
> > courses in both Old and New Testament. Surprised again?
>
> More like skeptical. You've made up lots of stories that conflicted
> with other ones before.

Well, I'm leaving the NG, and this is true. Call it a deathbed
confession, if you like.
:-) I also have no vested interest in lying here. There's no debate
reason TO lie.
And, the conflicts you think you've seen in the past does not mean I
lied. Perhaps you just remembered incorrectly. The one story I did
make up completely (now that I'm leaving) are my pizza making skills.
I borrowed that from another postor. :-) I thought it amusing.
>
> > However, I > learned enough during that time, to determine that Christianity didn't
> > fit into my view of the world, and, after studying philosophy, and
> > psychology, decided that I was actually an agnostic. Much later, I
> > attended a non-religious institution to furthur my studies.
>
> And wound up working as a legal secretary and later at> a menial fast-food job.

If it makes you comfortable to think that, be my guest.

> Amazing. I'm impressed if what you're saying is true although perhaps not in the way you intend.

Ok.
>
> > > > Surely you're able to understand why it would cost more to educate
> > > > non-English speakers from poverty, over little white bitter twitters
> > > > born with silver spoons?
> > >
> > > In theory, it should cost less since silver-spooners would
> > > demand higher comfort standards.
> >
> > We were not talking about yachts again, Mark. :-) We were talking
> > just education.
>
> Indeed. Apparently, Indiana has a lot of yachts. :-) Homeschoolers must own a lot too.
>
> > BTW, did you know there is an amazing cruise you can
> > take to Costa Rica where you can also take a real estate course. :-)
> > No....I'm not retiring there either. :-)
>
> Real estate is not something I would want to get into for at
> least another two years.

Your loss. Did you know that in every economy, real estate is a good
investment IF you know where to invest? :-)

>
> regards,
> PolishKnight

.