Kansas School Board chief: Schools peddle porn!

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Traianvs

No it's not your right to educate them as you see fit. Of course liberals will say hey it's my kids and all, but that's plain egocentric thinking.

While I doubt that it's only liberals who would say "hey it's my kids and all," that's beside the point. What's egocentric about that stance? I have my beliefs and values, I think that those beliefs and values are good for me, my family, and good for society in general, and I want to pass them on to my children. I didn't have my children for the benefit of the state or everyone else. Even if it is egocentric, what's wrong with it? Egocentrism drives capitalism. Egocentrism drives people to improve their lots in life.

Education must lead to a state where the person educated will be able to think independently, will have a rationale and have a notion of history, sciences and other subjects based on proven research.

That still doesn't tell me why the state should have any superior right to determine my child's education than I should have. Further, given the state of public schools, at least in the US, why should I believe that the state can do this any better than I can?

It'd sure be nice if teaching methods in the public schools were "based on proven research," but they are very much subject to the latest educational fads. I'll give you an example. Every year, public school teachers are required (at least in Arkansas) to do inservice hours. Every year, my wife would bring home stories of what the latest "advances in education" were. In about 2001 or 2002, the speaker at the inservice gave a presentation in which the teachers were told that students brains were like water glasses and, if you tried to put too much in, any excess would just spill out. Thus, this speaker, who either had a doctorate in education or was working on her dissertation (I forget which), told them that schools should work out curricula in which students should take a break at least every 10 minutes, and work on non-academic projects during the break. Does this theory really need to be debated? Or can we agree that it's garbage?

So you can't say you don't want evolution educated in class because frankly that's not in accordance with what is known in science today.

So education must be be objective, and parents have no right to say that children must be educated their way because their view is almost always biased by religious or other influences.

My initial post, though, dealt with the question of a state-approved curriculum for home schooling. I agree that creation and intelligent design have no place in a science class. And education is more than just science. My point, though, is that the state does not have a superior right to determine my child's education than I do. The question of "what is known in science today" is of dubious value with respect to the question of whose right and responsibility it is to teach children. For example it was once "known in science" that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

I'm not an educational historian, and I'd invite anybody in this field to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but . . . My understanding of the public school system is that it didn't develop until at least the 18th or 19th century. That's not to say that there weren't universities and other education institutions in existence long before that, but the rights and responsibilities for the basic education of children has traditionally rested with the parents.

Finally: you pay for education, but so do people who don't have kids. So basically everyone should have the right then to decide what's being taught at school. Would you agree to that?

Again, my problem is with the state's right to mandate or approve a curriculum in a home-schooling situation.

And in the end, everyone has different a opinion on various matters so it would be impossible to come to a concencus anyway. I would not accept religious fundies to impose their twisted **** upon education programmes, and then what will happen... as nobody accepts the other person's view...? So the best thing is that not the parents decide what is being taught

Again, state-approved curriculum, home-schooling situtation. But within the arena of public schools, your logic is that because people can't come to a concensus, that the decision should be taken away from the parents? (Correct me if I'm not reading that correctly).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GameGeek
The question of "what is known in science today" is of dubious value with respect to the question of whose right and responsibility it is to teach children. For example it was once "known in science" that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

No, it didn't. "Science" didn't determine either the world to be flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. This was popular myth. Both were shown to be wrong by science, however--even before the solidification of the scientific method (the notion that most people believed the world to be flat when Columbus sailed is a myth).

Evolution has endured as mainstream, established scientific fact for well over one hundred years now. It is one of the most well-established facts in science, and is at the core of modern biology. It's certainly not a "fad."

Beyond that, ID is not scientific, and it is religious. It's simply Creationism given a new sheen to try and sell it to more people. But it has no empiric evidence that supports it, and relies on a supernatural entity for it to be true. That alone invalidates it as science, and it therefore has no place in a science classroom. Public schools shouldn't be indoctrinating kids with religious concepts, after all, and that's precisely what ID is.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, it didn't. "Science" didn't determine either the world to be flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. This was popular myth. Both were shown to be wrong by science, however--even before the solidification of the scientific method (the notion that most people believed the world to be flat when Columbus sailed is a myth).

Perhaps I used a bad example, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the point regarding rights and responsibilities for the education of children. Science later proved the theories that I mentioned wrong, but do you dispute the claim that, at one time, it was taught, as fact, that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth?

Perhaps part of the problem with my flat earth and earth-centered universe example lies in the fact that, back when such theories were believed, there was a much thinner conceptual division between science and theology than there is today. But that's a discussion for another day.

Regardless, how does this affect my theory that the state has no right to mandate or approve a curriculum that I would choose to teach my children in a home-schooling environment? Do you contend that the things taught in public school science classes are necessarily correct?

Evolution has endured as mainstream, established scientific fact for well over one hundred years now. It is one of the most well-established facts in science, and is at the core of modern biology. It's certainly not a "fad."

I never called evolution a fad. I said that public school system is influenced by the latest fads in the education field. Some of those fads are matters of substance (what's being taught), and some are matters of methodology (how it's being taught).

Beyond that, ID is not scientific, and it is religious. It's simply Creationism given a new sheen to try and sell it to more people.

Correct. Ive never claimed otherwise. But if you assume for a moment that a majority of voters could buy into the "ID is scientific" argument, doesn't that lend credence to my objection to the state being allowed to control the curriculum that I teach my children in a home-school environment?

But it has no empiric evidence that supports it, and relies on a supernatural entity for it to be true. That alone invalidates it as science, and it therefore has no place in a science classroom.

And that has what to do with my objection to the state mandating or approving a curriculum that I teach my children at home? Particularly if we're talking about the curriculum as a whole, rather than focusing on science?

Public schools shouldn't be indoctrinating kids with religious concepts, after all, and that's precisely what ID is.

Again, I don't see what that has to do with my objection to the state mandating or approving a curriculum that I teach my children in the home-schooling environment.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker

If I pay a doctor to tell me what I want to hear, he better tell me what I want to hear or refund my money.

Are you sure you mean 'doctor' as in general practitioner, and not psychiatrist or plastic surgeon ?


I've asked my friend (a g.p. of many years standing) and he's said that many patients frequently want to hear they're going to be perfectly well, but just occasionally he has to do his job and tell them they're ill.

He's crazy like that.



Of course then there are the hypochondriacs. Should he tell them what they want to hear too ?

[Berzerker]

The doctor example was someone else's "analogy", of course we want to hear the truth even if it s painful. The point is if I pay someone to teach my kid, and I dont like what they are teaching, it is my right to discontinue the lessons.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The doctor example was someone else's "analogy", of course we want to hear the truth even if it s painful. The point is if I pay someone to teach my kid, and I dont like what they are teaching, it is my right to discontinue the lessons.

But you aren't paying for one on one tutorials in the public school system.

If you want your child to imbibe religion instead of science find a private school that will accommodate or home tutor them.

That too is your choice.


And if you don't like paying taxes, then I suggest you withhold the portion of them that you think contributes towards a child's education.

After all, principled pacifist anti-war activists have done the same.


Of course I have no problem with people wanting their children to grow up ill-educated, it's the notion of them inflicting their religious stupidity on the rest of the populace that disagrees with me.

[Az]

I've decided to stay away from serious discussions, but...

Of course I have no problem with people wanting their children to grow up ill-educated,

umm, molly?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
I've decided to stay away from serious discussions, but...

Of course I have no problem with people wanting their children to grow up ill-educated,

umm, molly?

Providing they're Americans. And they don't get elected to public office....

Of course this is the country that elected someone who consulted astrologers and believed he'd photographed Nazi death camps, despite not having served in the European theatre of war.










(C'mon, Az, you knows fo' sho' I done be joshin' .)

[Az]

I am wayyyy tired... Sorry Molly.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
I am wayyyy tired... Sorry Molly.

You clearly need to chill out with the cool refreshing vibes of the latest Boards of Canada release...

http://www.warprecords.com/artists/news.php?artist=boc

[Az]

thanks!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
thanks!

Verily, your cup runneth over with milk and honey.




(That's religiously approved non-scientific personal choice tax free libertarian milk and honey, which haven't undergone any of those pesky interfering state controls checking for bovine tuberculosis and other contaminants... )

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Verily, your cup runneth over with milk and honey.




(That's religiously approved non-scientific personal choice tax free libertarian milk and honey, which haven't undergone any of those pesky interfering state controls checking for bovine tuberculosis and other contaminants... )