A key committee in Alabama's House of Representatives has pushed through a bill requiring teachers and students at all of the state's public schools to spend 15 minutes every morning in Christian prayer, even though a majority of legislators present say they opposed the measure.
Alabama, of course, is a churchin' state, ranked the "2nd most religious state" behind its neighbor, Mississippi. Alabama is also home to Roy Moore, the state Supreme Court chief justice who fought to keep a massive stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the state court building.
But that stand seems lukewarm next to the current House measure's planned compulsion of religion among captive pupils. The bill passed through the chamber's education policy committee late last week, according to the Montgomery Advertiser:
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, chairwoman of the committee, said she heard more votes in favor of the bill.
"It's what I heard as chairman," she said.
Only McClurkin and one other Republican on the panel actually voted "aye" on the bill. Two Republicans and one Democrat insist they said "no" to the bill in the voice vote; three legislators weren't even present for the vote. The House's clerk told the Advertiser that "the chairman of each committee has the discretion to decide the outcome of a voice vote."
McClurkin also voice-voted through a bill "that would allow students to initiate prayer in school and express their religious views in their schoolwork."
The sponsor of that bill told the Advertiser: "Every bit of this bill is already legal. It's just that no one knows it's legal."
What is this, Iran?!? As a proud libertarian I am appalled at this religious dictatorship and attempt to brainwash children into State-approved religious practices.
would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Could they do 0 minutes if they wanted and still count it?
Actually, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. There were official State churches for nearly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
But, it is pretty stupid thing to do. I understand that they're trying to counter the atheist/gay/anti-christian stuff in society but this isn't the way you go about doing it.
It will never pass the house, and if it does, it'll be struck down by the Supreme Court of Alabama. I'm one of the "churchin" people and I don't believe in forcing prayer on students.
Passing a committee that may or may not be led by a loon is not the same as passing the full house. This will go nowhere.
Breotan wrote: Actually, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. There were official State churches for nearly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
But, it is pretty stupid thing to do. I understand that they're trying to counter the atheist/gay/anti-christian stuff in society but this isn't the way you go about doing it.
How would you suggest countering the atheist/gay/anti-christian stuff in society? I have some atheist/gay/anti-christians that keep ruining my lawn and would love some tips.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Woops, sorry. I have rabbits. Rabbits keep ruining my lawn.
Any help would still be appreciated.
But, it is pretty stupid thing to do. I understand that they're trying to counter the atheist/gay/anti-christian stuff in society but this isn't the way you go about doing it.
Countering a shift in society by enforcing religious doctrine mandated by The State and taking away personal freedom is certainly not liable to help matters. Alabama's government is behaving like a dictatorship.
Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
This doesnt seem much worse than whats already normal in your odd country haha. It probably wont happen (but who knows, its america...)
Swastakowey wrote: Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
This doesn't seem much worse than whats already normal in your odd country haha. It probably wont happen (but who knows, its america...)
Americans are American, acknowledging that every morning is dear to some of them and by a series of degrees less offensive to me as a Libertarian than being forced, or worse still having my children forced, to adhere to a religion that isn't mine. It's as bad as Communism or Fundamentalist Islam!!
Swastakowey wrote: Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
I pledge allegiance. To the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the Republic. For which it stands. One nation. Under God. Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all!
Breotan wrote: Actually, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. There were official State churches for nearly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
But, it is pretty stupid thing to do. I understand that they're trying to counter the atheist/gay/anti-christian stuff in society but this isn't the way you go about doing it.
I so hope that this gets passed so Alabama will lose all their federal education money and my district will wind up with more. Receipt of certain kinds of federal aid is dependent upon being a secular establishment (i.e. education money). While non-secular private schools can indirectly benefit from federal money, they are not allowed to be recipients. An entire state declaring themselves christian and all schools requiring christian prayer would violate federal requirements and place the entire state's federal funding at risk.
So, Alabama, please go off the rails on the crazy train so I can have more federal dollars in my school district.
This one:
McClurkin also voice-voted through a bill "that would allow students to initiate prayer in school and express their religious views in their schoolwork."
Is making the rounds in Oklahoma too; it's one of those form laws being pushed by one of the big conservative organizations.
Swastakowey wrote: Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
I pledge allegiance. To the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the Republic. For which it stands. One nation. Under God. Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all!
Stuck for life
Most of us can repeat the pledge.
I think you're referring to the National Anthem... even musicians flub it.
Swastakowey wrote: Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
This doesnt seem much worse than whats already normal in your odd country haha. It probably wont happen (but who knows, its america...)
We were forced to chant "Dia agus Mhuire dhuit, a Múinteoir!" whenever a teacher entered the room, as kids. Translates as "God and Mary be with you, Teacher" and is the traditional response after "Dia dhuit!" (god be with you).
I'm scarred for life, obviously.
But yeah, the idea that they'd lose their federal funding for 15 minutes of prayer is hilarious. I doubt it'll get far.
Swastakowey wrote: Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
I pledge allegiance. To the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the Republic. For which it stands. One nation. Under God. Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all!
Stuck for life
Most of us can repeat the pledge.
I think you're referring to the National Anthem... even musicians flub it.
Still weird that it's a thing, but I can't judge- our school system (at home in Ireland) is allowed to discriminate against anyone who doesn't uphold a "catholic ethos"- openly gay, atheist or protestant teachers can be fired.
The UK has Faith Schools which have similar exemptions.
America is not the only place with weirdness in the schools.
From kindergarten through graduate school, I was never once forced or even asked to pledge my allegiance to anything during school. It never even happened around me.
Now in Boy Scouts, we pledged to all kinds of things all over the place.
Swastakowey wrote: Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
I pledge allegiance. To the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the Republic. For which it stands. One nation. Under God. Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all!
Stuck for life
Most of us can repeat the pledge.
I think you're referring to the National Anthem... even musicians flub it.
I find national anthems boring in general I don't understand why America hasn't given their's a facelift and embraced the Jimi Hendrix version.
Ouze wrote: As soon as some kid asks his teacher to be excused so they can go wash their feet and ask which direction Mecca is, this will be the end of it.
Why?
In fact, I'm pretty this is already done in some public schools.
Ouze wrote: As soon as some kid asks his teacher to be excused so they can go wash their feet and ask which direction Mecca is, this will be the end of it.
Why?
In fact, I'm pretty this is already done in some public schools.
Because Fox News will run a special on OBAMA'S FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sponsoring SHARIA LAW IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Are your kids being converted to Muslims???
All powerful Lord, as our Nation struggles through the difficulty of winter, we realize that there are forces greater than ourselves. In all things, we are more successful when we humble ourselves before You and each other.
Bless those who have been adversely affected by ice, snow, and cold. May the kindness of strangers and goodness of all Americans quickly restore our Nation to wholeness and holiness.
Bless the Members of this Chamber. May those who serve in this body continue to do so with honor, patience, and genuine care for all Members. Give them wisdom, give them joy in their office, and give them the lasting memory that they have served their country well.
We ask all this in Your Holy Name.
Amen.
Nothing's as fiscally conservative as passing legislation that is clearly unconstitutional and then spending many, many taxpayer dollars defending it in court, losing all the way.
welshhoppo wrote: Exactly why do you pledge to the flag everyday? Always confused me.
Because the only way to beat the Reds and win the Cold War is to... do exactly the same thing the Reds are doing by having all the kiddies recite a loyalty oath daily?
Nothing's as fiscally conservative as passing legislation that is clearly unconstitutional and then spending many, many taxpayer dollars defending it in court, losing all the way.
Not true. Tyrannical, yes, but not a dictatorship. Dictators are essentially one-man rule.
What we have here is more like a cult (think Jim Jones) where the elected officials are bending to the dogma of their evangelical constituents. Heck, some of those representatives are probably true believers themselves.
And again America continues to fixate on things that just aren't important. "On noes! School prayer again! We must makes the childrens speak to God all the time otherwise the gays will cause more cyclones and terrorism!"
Hey guys: Your economy is fethed. Get your damned priorities straight and deal with that first.
Yes I realise I'm conflating several things in that mock-quote above, but these are some of the day-to-day minutia that America seems utterly unable to move past.
A key committee in Alabama's House of Representatives has pushed through a bill requiring teachers and students at all of the state's public schools to spend 15 minutes every morning in Christian prayer, even though a majority of legislators present say they opposed the measure.
Alabama, of course, is a churchin' state, ranked the "2nd most religious state" behind its neighbor, Mississippi. Alabama is also home to Roy Moore, the state Supreme Court chief justice who fought to keep a massive stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the state court building.
But that stand seems lukewarm next to the current House measure's planned compulsion of religion among captive pupils. The bill passed through the chamber's education policy committee late last week, according to the Montgomery Advertiser:
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, chairwoman of the committee, said she heard more votes in favor of the bill.
"It's what I heard as chairman," she said.
Only McClurkin and one other Republican on the panel actually voted "aye" on the bill. Two Republicans and one Democrat insist they said "no" to the bill in the voice vote; three legislators weren't even present for the vote. The House's clerk told the Advertiser that "the chairman of each committee has the discretion to decide the outcome of a voice vote."
McClurkin also voice-voted through a bill "that would allow students to initiate prayer in school and express their religious views in their schoolwork."
The sponsor of that bill told the Advertiser: "Every bit of this bill is already legal. It's just that no one knows it's legal."
What is this, Iran?!? As a proud libertarian I am appalled at this religious dictatorship and attempt to brainwash children into State-approved religious practices.
So we're ignoring that little clause of "Separation of Church and state" now?
Also, the news site is gawker. I thought they were a really sensationalist website that posted a lot of crap. Are they a trust worth source for this?
A key committee in Alabama's House of Representatives has pushed through a bill requiring teachers and students at all of the state's public schools to spend 15 minutes every morning in Christian prayer, even though a majority of legislators present say they opposed the measure.
Alabama, of course, is a churchin' state, ranked the "2nd most religious state" behind its neighbor, Mississippi. Alabama is also home to Roy Moore, the state Supreme Court chief justice who fought to keep a massive stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the state court building.
But that stand seems lukewarm next to the current House measure's planned compulsion of religion among captive pupils. The bill passed through the chamber's education policy committee late last week, according to the Montgomery Advertiser:
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, chairwoman of the committee, said she heard more votes in favor of the bill.
"It's what I heard as chairman," she said.
Only McClurkin and one other Republican on the panel actually voted "aye" on the bill. Two Republicans and one Democrat insist they said "no" to the bill in the voice vote; three legislators weren't even present for the vote. The House's clerk told the Advertiser that "the chairman of each committee has the discretion to decide the outcome of a voice vote."
McClurkin also voice-voted through a bill "that would allow students to initiate prayer in school and express their religious views in their schoolwork."
The sponsor of that bill told the Advertiser: "Every bit of this bill is already legal. It's just that no one knows it's legal."
What is this, Iran?!? As a proud libertarian I am appalled at this religious dictatorship and attempt to brainwash children into State-approved religious practices.
So we're ignoring that little clause of "Separation of Church and state" now?
Also, the news site is gawker. I thought they were a really sensationalist website that posted a lot of crap. Are they a trust worth source for this?
A key committee in Alabama's House of Representatives has pushed through a bill requiring teachers and students at all of the state's public schools to spend 15 minutes every morning in Christian prayer, even though a majority of legislators present say they opposed the measure.
Alabama, of course, is a churchin' state, ranked the "2nd most religious state" behind its neighbor, Mississippi. Alabama is also home to Roy Moore, the state Supreme Court chief justice who fought to keep a massive stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the state court building.
But that stand seems lukewarm next to the current House measure's planned compulsion of religion among captive pupils. The bill passed through the chamber's education policy committee late last week, according to the Montgomery Advertiser:
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, chairwoman of the committee, said she heard more votes in favor of the bill.
"It's what I heard as chairman," she said.
Only McClurkin and one other Republican on the panel actually voted "aye" on the bill. Two Republicans and one Democrat insist they said "no" to the bill in the voice vote; three legislators weren't even present for the vote. The House's clerk told the Advertiser that "the chairman of each committee has the discretion to decide the outcome of a voice vote."
McClurkin also voice-voted through a bill "that would allow students to initiate prayer in school and express their religious views in their schoolwork."
The sponsor of that bill told the Advertiser: "Every bit of this bill is already legal. It's just that no one knows it's legal."
What is this, Iran?!? As a proud libertarian I am appalled at this religious dictatorship and attempt to brainwash children into State-approved religious practices.
So we're ignoring that little clause of "Separation of Church and state" now?
Also, the news site is gawker. I thought they were a really sensationalist website that posted a lot of crap. Are they a trust worth source for this?
whembly wrote: I know that... I'm being snarky. The separation of church and state is a judicial construct. There's no "clause" like that in the founding documents.
Establishment clause is usually cited.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (IIRC, don't quote me on it)
Prayer is an establishment of religion.
whembly wrote: I know that... I'm being snarky. The separation of church and state is a judicial construct. There's no "clause" like that in the founding documents.
Establishment clause is usually cited.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (IIRC, don't quote me on it)
Prayer is an establishment of religion.
This deserves its own thread... But re-read that... You'll see what I mean.
I pledge allegiance. To the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the Republic. For which it stands. One nation. Under God. Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all!
Stuck for life
It seems to me to be liberty and justice for all as long as you pray to who I say, when I say and as long as i tell you to do it! Anyone who doesn't is an Islomunist.
I'm so glad you guys are flying the flag of freedom for the world. Alabama seems to be such a hotbed of repression reduction. I'm starting to think when god created the world 6000 years ago alabama was the opposite side of the world to the garden of eden because I think we are still waiting for the tree of knowledge apple to make it there.
whembly wrote: I know that... I'm being snarky. The separation of church and state is a judicial construct. There's no "clause" like that in the founding documents.
Establishment clause is usually cited.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (IIRC, don't quote me on it)
Prayer is an establishment of religion.
This deserves its own thread... But re-read that... You'll see what I mean.
I know what you mean. It says congress. I have had arguments with people about this before. But as I always say:
"I respect your opinion and your right to have it. You're just wrong."
whembly wrote: I know that... I'm being snarky. The separation of church and state is a judicial construct. There's no "clause" like that in the founding documents.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: What is this, Iran?!? As a proud libertarian I am appalled at this religious dictatorship and attempt to brainwash children into State-approved religious practices.
You misspelled "socialist."
It won't get through the full House, and it'll be around for all of five minutes before the courts strike it down if it does.
Interesting that in another thread where people were talking about the 2014 election being the Republicans to lose, and that it would take something as boneheaded as the 2012 rape comments to lead to a defeat. I think more than a few Republicans read that and thought 'challenge accepted'.
sebster wrote: Interesting that in another thread where people were talking about the 2014 election being the Republicans to lose, and that it would take something as boneheaded as the 2012 rape comments to lead to a defeat. I think more than a few Republicans read that and thought 'challenge accepted'.
Swastakowey wrote: Arent you guys forced to pledge allegance to your flag every morning, coming from someone in a country where we half heartedly sing the national anthem once a week in primary school (then never again) and most people barely know the first part of our anthem you guys seem very extreme as it is.
I pledge allegiance. To the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the Republic. For which it stands. One nation. Under God. Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all!
Stuck for life
We had to pledge allegiance to the Texas flag. Suck it commies!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: We were forced to chant "Dia agus Mhuire dhuit, a Múinteoir!" whenever a teacher entered the room, as kids. Translates as "God and Mary be with you, Teacher" and is the traditional response after "Dia dhuit!" (god be with you).
I'm scarred for life, obviously.
But yeah, the idea that they'd lose their federal funding for 15 minutes of prayer is hilarious. I doubt it'll get far.
Holy crap, the Irish are singing Klingon. Hold me, I'm scared.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again America continues to fixate on things that just aren't important. "On noes! School prayer again! We must makes the childrens speak to God all the time otherwise the gays will cause more cyclones and terrorism!"
Hey guys: Your economy is fethed. Get your damned priorities straight and deal with that first.
Yes I realise I'm conflating several things in that mock-quote above, but these are some of the day-to-day minutia that America seems utterly unable to move past.
Aussie talk. The only thing keeping ten thousand tanks from invading you is your killer drop bears and anti amphibious great white sharks. One day we'll get you my pretties, you and your little dog too!
It would appear that this flavor of click-bait gets the most eyeballs.
Well, considering some of MGS's recent posts I'm not too surprised .
Could you expound on this?
Sorry, having looked though your posting history I confused you with someone else in the microwaved kitten thread although this statement "We're a virus mutation away from full extinction, sooner or later, then the world can repopulate the niches we've made vacant with new and exciting
species, although hopefully without ever again producing something so utterly douche-like as the human being" from the sea world thread comes across as pretty silly to me. So I am wrong for the most part and apologize.
What is stopping them from refusing? The second a school decides to take action against a child for not praying, their parents can just pursue legal action and the whole thing falls apart.
I was that kid who didn't say the 'under god' part of the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary school. It's not hard to just refuse and refuse to be swayed. 15 minutes is a long time too. Who prays that long, besides alcoholics and people in prison?
sebster wrote: Interesting that in another thread where people were talking about the 2014 election being the Republicans to lose, and that it would take something as boneheaded as the 2012 rape comments to lead to a defeat. I think more than a few Republicans read that and thought 'challenge accepted'.
(Too lazy to start another "Republican says stupid thing" thread)
I suspect the RNC is sending out memos to evreyone in the party saying "Please be good, just for 12 months. And if you're from one of those states, please, please don't say anything to the media for the next 12 months. Please."
Don't know why you edited. The part you took out what responsible for the title, not the Gawker. They had something completely different.
I typed out several arguments that were significantly less kind and, as a result, retroactively deleted any statement that could be construed as impolite.
I like posting here, and so try to play by the rules.
sebster wrote: Interesting that in another thread where people were talking about the 2014 election being the Republicans to lose, and that it would take something as boneheaded as the 2012 rape comments to lead to a defeat. I think more than a few Republicans read that and thought 'challenge accepted'.
A key committee in Alabama's House of Representatives has pushed through a bill requiring teachers and students at all of the state's public schools to spend 15 minutes every morning in Christian prayer, even though a majority of legislators present say they opposed the measure.
Alabama, of course, is a churchin' state, ranked the "2nd most religious state" behind its neighbor, Mississippi. Alabama is also home to Roy Moore, the state Supreme Court chief justice who fought to keep a massive stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the state court building.
But that stand seems lukewarm next to the current House measure's planned compulsion of religion among captive pupils. The bill passed through the chamber's education policy committee late last week, according to the Montgomery Advertiser:
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, chairwoman of the committee, said she heard more votes in favor of the bill.
"It's what I heard as chairman," she said.
Only McClurkin and one other Republican on the panel actually voted "aye" on the bill. Two Republicans and one Democrat insist they said "no" to the bill in the voice vote; three legislators weren't even present for the vote. The House's clerk told the Advertiser that "the chairman of each committee has the discretion to decide the outcome of a voice vote."
McClurkin also voice-voted through a bill "that would allow students to initiate prayer in school and express their religious views in their schoolwork."
The sponsor of that bill told the Advertiser: "Every bit of this bill is already legal. It's just that no one knows it's legal."
What is this, Iran?!? As a proud libertarian I am appalled at this religious dictatorship and attempt to brainwash children into State-approved religious practices.
So we're ignoring that little clause of "Separation of Church and state" now?
Also, the news site is gawker. I thought they were a really sensationalist website that posted a lot of crap. Are they a trust worth source for this?
Now where is that clause written again??
The First Amendment?
Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious
EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.
sebster wrote: Interesting that in another thread where people were talking about the 2014 election being the Republicans to lose, and that it would take something as boneheaded as the 2012 rape comments to lead to a defeat. I think more than a few Republicans read that and thought 'challenge accepted'.
Ouze wrote: As soon as some kid asks his teacher to be excused so they can go wash their feet and ask which direction Mecca is, this will be the end of it.
Why?
In fact, I'm pretty this is already done in some public schools.
Because Fox News will run a special on OBAMA'S FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sponsoring SHARIA LAW IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Are your kids being converted to Muslims???
.
ROFL. Now we guess which part of the population is more likely to believe such hogwash without question or evidence. =]
On the original topic, it makes a lot of sense to make school prayer mandatory. In young years indoctrination is very powerful and many people's religion or politics are simply copy pasted from their parents. From a recruiting point of view it is smart to get them while they are young and gullible. It is much easier to push through political or religous agendas when the demographics shift in your favour. What better characteristics than unquestioning faith and loyalty could a politician ask for in their voter base?
require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
So, if I am reading this correctly, the teachers will read a prayer used as an opening prayer by either the House or the Senate. Though it would be good if some explanation as to the historical significance of that prayer (what was going on in the world/country which prompted it) was given, the fact remains, they are not compelling any child to pray at all, nor are they really praying. They are reading historical record.
Is it silly? A waste of resources/time? Perhaps.
Is it forced prayer? Not if the part I quoted is accurate.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why not satisfy the requirement by reading 15 minutes of heavy goods vehicle tachograph regulations, then?
Not sure there are cases in the congressional record of that being used to open the daily business at the House or Senate. Perhaps you can find some.
There are more historically significant things to read if the true intent of the law was to impart historic/cultural knowledge. I think we all know the real intent of this proposed law. Sadly, I don't think the Alabama legislature is willing to give up the 100's of millions that the state receives in federal education aid not to mention federal school lunch aid in order to push this agenda.
welshhoppo wrote: Exactly why do you pledge to the flag everyday? Always confused me.
because the day you don't is the day the commies win
HL has the right of it. Durn commies!
"The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. "
To quote all of my Louisiana kin "fething Alabama."
Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious
EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.
Sorta messing with ya....
President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he would keep the Government out of the Church... note that he didn't say he'd advocate to keep the Church out of the Government.
People seems to think Prez Jefferson was a raging atheist... he was far from that... even wrote these words in 1781 that now appear on his memorial in D.C.: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" What do you think he meant by that?
The “separation of church and state” originated in that U.S. Supreme Court’s 1947 decision of Everson v. Board of Education. What's funny is that this decision references a private letter Jefferson wrote as President in 1802, where he said:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
He's refering to Congress and not state legislatures.
As a whole, Jefferson was referring to the fact that the establishment clause to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church. The founders obviously didn't want a repeat of the Church of England.
He was also such a "States Rights" guy, he said that the whole matter of religion should (or is) left by the Constitution to the States in one of his inaugural address.
So, when someone says "we're ignoring the 'separation clause' " I'd like to ask where that is... because, I know it doesn't exist in the way people sometime thinks it does.
Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself religious... as I don't go to church. But, I'm not an atheist either... so, not sure what that makes me. But I find these topics interesting.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. When he wrote about "God" he wasn't talking about the Christian God but the generic concept of God. He wrote the "Jefferson Bible" in his later years by cutting with a razor and pasting sections of the bible. Arguably, Jefferson believed in God but God to him was nature so daedalus is correct, the allegorical God.
When he created his bible, he removed all of the "mysticism" from the bible and made it a natural work about teachers and learning.
"In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense." - Letter from Jefferson to Adams.
Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious
EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.
Sorta messing with ya....
President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he would keep the Government out of the Church... note that he didn't say he'd advocate to keep the Church out of the Government.
Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious
EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.
Sorta messing with ya....
President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he would keep the Government out of the Church... note that he didn't say he'd advocate to keep the Church out of the Government.
...
...
Does that make it all right?
I think it's morally wrong for these Bakers to refuse good money from gay couples.
Just like I think it's morally wrong for the government to compel the bakers to provide a service they do not wish.
EDIT: wrong thread.
Too many tabs open and already snooker'ed daedalus.
I think it's morally wrong for these Bakers to refuse good money from gay couples.
Just like I think it's morally wrong for the government to compel the bakers to provide a service they do not wish.
It's not a good situation. No one should be compelled to perform a service they don't wish to. On the other hand, for situations where the only pharmacist in 50 miles is a die hard nutter (I think I'm using the term properly) who won't sell people birth control under any circumstances, I feel the opposite way.
Any situation where there's a question of "I hold you to my personal beliefs" vs "I compel you do something in spite of your personal beliefs" sucks.
Not really. If I were a teacher I would not be particularly happy at being forced to recite delusional drivel for 15 minutes that I should be teaching children something worthwhile. You want to put prayer in school? Don't force people who don't believe in your super special imaginary friend to deliver your material to a bunch of children who may not believe in your super special imaginary friend either...
The only time religion should be brought into education is when studying comparative religion, or when it is relevant to a history lesson (where it should be as context to historical discussion, rather than be taught).
Other than that, school should be about learning things that are real, so religion has absolutely no place crossing the threshold.
Not really. If I were a teacher I would not be particularly happy at being forced to recite delusional drivel for 15 minutes that I should be teaching children something worthwhile. You want to put prayer in school? Don't force people who don't believe in your super special imaginary friend to deliver your material to a bunch of children who may not believe in your super special imaginary friend either...
The only time religion should be brought into education is when studying comparative religion, or when it is relevant to a history lesson (where it should be as context to historical discussion, rather than be taught).
Other than that, school should be about learning things that are real, so religion has absolutely no place crossing the threshold.
The text of the bill:
Section 1. At the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which such class is held shall, for a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes, instruct the class in the formal procedures followed by the United States Congress. The study shall include, but not be limited to, a reading verbatim of one of the opening prayers given by the House or Senate Chaplain or a guest member of the clergy at the beginning of a meeting of the House of Representatives or the Senate. - See more at: http://openbama.org/bill/9679/text#sthash.mWdjl6Cj.dpuf
Again Silly? Waste of time/resources? Perhaps. Is it forcing children to pray? Not really.
And having an Imam recite a Muslim prayer over the school intercom every morning wouldn't be forcing anybody to pray either, but it would probably shut down a law like this pretty quickly.
d-usa wrote: And having an Imam recite a Muslim prayer over the school intercom every morning wouldn't be forcing anybody to pray either, but it would probably shut down a law like this pretty quickly.
It wouldn't be complying with this law either, so it would be hard for that scenario to shut down this law.
I suspect some teacher will find a prayer delivered by an Iman to congress, and if so, should use it as the teaching point for the day.
Not really. If I were a teacher I would not be particularly happy at being forced to recite delusional drivel for 15 minutes that I should be teaching children something worthwhile. You want to put prayer in school? Don't force people who don't believe in your super special imaginary friend to deliver your material to a bunch of children who may not believe in your super special imaginary friend either...
The only time religion should be brought into education is when studying comparative religion, or when it is relevant to a history lesson (where it should be as context to historical discussion, rather than be taught).
Other than that, school should be about learning things that are real, so religion has absolutely no place crossing the threshold.
The text of the bill:
Section 1. At the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which such class is held shall, for a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes, instruct the class in the formal procedures followed by the United States Congress. The study shall include, but not be limited to, a reading verbatim of one of the opening prayers given by the House or Senate Chaplain or a guest member of the clergy at the beginning of a meeting of the House of Representatives or the Senate. - See more at: http://openbama.org/bill/9679/text#sthash.mWdjl6Cj.dpuf
Again Silly? Waste of time/resources? Perhaps. Is it forcing children to pray? Not really.
It is forcing the teacher to read out the prayer, which was my point. The rest of my post was talking about religion in schools, being a slight OT from the original post but certainly well within the bounds of the discussion.
I see rebel flags, chicken fried steak, lots of poor folk, and no one speaks Spanish.
No chicken fried steak in Texas?
I know its scary. Its getting difficult to get half decent chicken fried steak outside of East Texas. Goodies still makes its 2/3 plate sized "small" and full plate sized large one. Mmmm chicke fried steak...
I see rebel flags, chicken fried steak, lots of poor folk, and no one speaks Spanish.
No chicken fried steak in Texas?
I know its scary. Its getting difficult to get half decent chicken fried steak outside of East Texas. Goodies still makes its 2/3 plate sized "small" and full plate sized large one. Mmmm chicke fried steak...
Hmmmm... Country Fried Steak is like one of the ultimate comfort food.
Oh... and also the St. Louis Pork Steaks. (if you haven't tried THAT, you don't know what you're missing)
I know its scary. Its getting difficult to get half decent chicken fried steak outside of East Texas. Goodies still makes its 2/3 plate sized "small" and full plate sized large one. Mmmm chicke fried steak...
Chicken and waffles is more common up here, but chicken fried steak is still available.
Have you considered breaded pork tenderloin? I hear there is a reasonably large Eastern European community in Texas.
Imagine a pork chop, bone in, from pork shoulder. The proud citizens of St. Louis usually barbecue them, though I like to use a sauce made of chili garlic sauce, soy sauce, and apricot preserves when I'm making my own.
Easy E wrote: That 15 minutes should be used for standardized testing prep! We don't have time to waste on stupid prayers. We have testing dollars to earn!
This is the most truthful thing posted on Dakka Dakka in a long time, sadly.
"Earn those standardized test $$$, you lazy teachers! Dance!" - Politicians everywhere.
Da Boss wrote: So, wait, do they make teacher's pay dependent on the number of hours of testing the kids get?
That's a terrible idea.
No.
Many of the School District's fundings comes from the Federal Government. As such, the politician thinks it's a great idea that in order to get these fundings, the students must take and score well on standardized tests.
As such, the curriculum is often "teach the kids to take this test"... rather than simply to "teach the kids".
kronk wrote: Schools that do well get more funding.
Schools that do poorly get less funding, giving them fewer resources to raise their standards.
Winning!
It doesn't work that way. Except for Race to the Top which was competitive, federal and state money is doled out on a formula basis depending upon a variety of factors. Currently, I am unaware of any state that uses test scores as a factor in funding their State Aid formula.
It usually works the opposite, and often in an unweildy manner. An example is the concept of "School Improvement". If your school performs poorly on whatever ranking system your state has (it used to be AYP, now it's AMOs), under the auspices of the ESEA Flexibility Waiver, you stand to be designated as a Priority or Focus School. These designations depend on a few factors which will vary a bit according to the state's waiver application but in general Priority schools are your bottom 5% schools and Focus schools are those schools with under-performing subgroups (African American, ELL, IEP).
So your school receives a designation due to poor academic performance, federal regs require a heftier investment of federal dollars in these schools to help them improve; this is accomplished by requiring more Title I money to be pumped in and qualifies the school to receive federal SIG funds (School Improvement Grant). What actually happens is that this requries districts to funnel Title I funds away from other Title I schools in the district to these underperforming schools where, more often than not, many of the under-performing kids have either moved away or onto a different school (i.e. from elementary to middle school).
If you're still awake and curious about federal funding and public education, just ask, it's what I do for a living.
You're right and your wrong. I just checked with the TEA and they use similar data points to those used in Oklahoma. They primarily use what's called a weighted ADA (average daily attendance). Districts have required reporting periods throughout the school year wherein they report the numbers of students and then disaggregate that number into subgroups to determine funding. The subgroups usually most heavily weighted are free/reduced lunch count, Special Education count and Bilingual/ELL count. Some states include a number of other factors which might include the number of students who are in GT (Gifted and Talented) programs which would encapsulate the test score angle to an extent.
The biggest factors that affect State Aid are going to be district tax collections as the state will reduce district allocations by a like amount to account for the district's additional income. Texas' looks like this: Funding Element 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 Basic Allotment $4,765 $4,950 $5,040 Equalized Wealth Level (EWL) 1 $476,500 $495,000 $504,000 EWL 3 $319,500 $319,500 $319,500 Guaranteed Yield Level 1 $59.97 $59.97 $61.86 Guaranteed Yield Level 2 $31.95 $31.95 $31.95 Regular Program Adjustment Factor 0.9800 1.0000 1.0000 (RPAF) Target Revenue Adjustment Factor 0.9235 0.9263 0.9263 (TRAF) •$330 million to be distributed on a per ADA basis next year as one-time assistance for TRS costs (SB 1458). Estimated allocation of $67.55
Edit: That said, there might be a secondary allocation of funds to high-performing schools (i.e Blue Ribbon Schools) which is not tied to the basic state aid formula.
Not sure if you're messing with me right now or serious
EDITing for clarity. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I thought that this was a major thing covered in the First Amendment and then Thomas Jefferson clarified on it. It's been a while since I took US history though so I might be getting some of this wrong.
Sorta messing with ya....
President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he would keep the Government out of the Church... note that he didn't say he'd advocate to keep the Church out of the Government.
People seems to think Prez Jefferson was a raging atheist... he was far from that... even wrote these words in 1781 that now appear on his memorial in D.C.: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" What do you think he meant by that?
The “separation of church and state” originated in that U.S. Supreme Court’s 1947 decision of Everson v. Board of Education. What's funny is that this decision references a private letter Jefferson wrote as President in 1802, where he said:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
He's refering to Congress and not state legislatures.
As a whole, Jefferson was referring to the fact that the establishment clause to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church. The founders obviously didn't want a repeat of the Church of England.
He was also such a "States Rights" guy, he said that the whole matter of religion should (or is) left by the Constitution to the States in one of his inaugural address.
So, when someone says "we're ignoring the 'separation clause' " I'd like to ask where that is... because, I know it doesn't exist in the way people sometime thinks it does.
Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself religious... as I don't go to church. But, I'm not an atheist either... so, not sure what that makes me. But I find these topics interesting.
The more you know! Thanks man, The way it was covered in high school was that it was a definite part of the constitution.
That's what I get for going to a public high school
agnosto wrote: Not really since they nearly all prove as equally inept as the feds at it.
Oh, well I guess they better get back to wasting their time legislating for schools to read out prayers read by congress.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, much?
I'm very jaded in the matter. I have seen bill after bill work its way through my state legislature. Each one started as a well-meaning "adjustment" to public education but ended in nothing more than increased confusion and bureaucracy.
Witness Oklahoma's Teacher and school accountability law; it's currently in its...what now? 4th iteration. The legislature in its infinite wisdom has tinkered with it so much that we now have schools that are severely under-performing winding up with high grades and other schools that are greatly improving actually decreasing in grades in the A-F system. One school in my district increased test scores in reading by 12% and math scores by 6% but somehow dropped from a "C" school to a "D" school. In small, rural districts there are not enough students in certain subgroups to be disaggregated for testing (i.e. those on IEPs) so they naturally get a boost in the overall grade. Several universities have completed studies on the formula and informed both the Oklahoma State Department of Education and the State Legislature that there is no real science behind the results and that the whole thing should be rethought if we're to actually get meaningful results; nope, we'll have none of that.
Then there's the 3rd Grade Retention law (the reading sufficiency act) with its host of ills. Then the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness law....
On and on. Combine this with the fact that Oklahoma funds schools at a miserable rate and that the legislators don't bother to speak to educators or researchers before passing these laws and you have a mess. Even the feds stepped in when they decided to drop out of PARCC without a plan of what next and USDE had to step in and ask for a plan by a certain deadline because the OSDE hadn't even bothered to produce and RFP to find a testing vendor.
agnosto wrote: I'm very jaded in the matter. I have seen bill after bill work its way through my state legislature. Each one started as a well-meaning "adjustment" to public education but ended in nothing more than increased confusion and bureaucracy.
Hey, I work in state education (vocational & tertiary) and spend days every week working through out own state system, so you don't have to tell me about well meaning systems that don't quite get there
So, there's the State dabbling in Education.
Thing is, the State isn't dabbling in Education. It is the public education system. There's some federal money, but the thing is run at the state level.
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling', but only improved state management of public education.
agnosto wrote: Not really since they nearly all prove as equally inept as the feds at it.
Oh, well I guess they better get back to wasting their time legislating for schools to read out prayers read by congress.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, much?
I'm very jaded in the matter. I have seen bill after bill work its way through my state legislature. Each one started as a well-meaning "adjustment" to public education but ended in nothing more than increased confusion and bureaucracy.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma. There is your problem right there. That is why you ae jaded about state government.
Well yeah, some people do pine for a return a return to the utopian society before public education. But I'm not in the mood for that conversation, again, and would much rather discuss something sensible.
Ok, I feel like I have to be "that guy" right now. I'm calling this a hoax. I have been looking all over and I can;t find ONE actual news station/company/website that covers it, I have only found it on Pro-atheism sites. Would it not make sense that the Pro-Christian sites would be all over this too? and yes, it is un-constitutional.
sebster wrote: So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',
Sure it can.
How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us
Abolish public schools. Use that money for vouchers.
And then the vouchers will be whittled down over time. The rich will go to good schools and the poor to crap schools. I've seen this movie before. Vouchers work if they can only be used for another public school.
sebster wrote: So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',
Sure it can.
How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us
Abolish public schools. Use that money for vouchers.
And then the vouchers will be whittled down over time. The rich will go to good schools and the poor to crap schools. I've seen this movie before. Vouchers work if they can only be used for another public school.
Abolishing public schools would disproportionately effect the poor, and be more expensive n the long run. Private schools are expensive, and that's what those vouchers would be for. It would cost the people more than what the public schools cost in tax dollars. The government is needed. It gives us things like a military, and agencies that protect citizens (FEC, FCC, EPA, ect.). Without the government we would not have lots of roads, bridges, infrastructure, the internet, ect.
The school I send my daughter to costs me under 7k for the year. And the average SAT scores and graduation rates, and acceptance into college rates are a LOT higher than the county schools.
well you are quite lucky. The only private school around where I live is the woodstock day school. These are it's costs.
Nursery School/Preschool 5 full days: $10,500.00 / 5 half-days: $6,562.50
4 full days: $8,500.00 / 4 half-days: $5,250.00
3 full days: $7,875.00 / 3 half-days: $3,937.50
Kindergarten: $12,600.00
Grades 1-6: $14,550.00
Grades 7-12: $16,200.00
16K a year for high school.
Also the fact that do you really think there are that many private schools in the middle of the great plains where there can be nothing but fields for 30 miles have many private schools or the money to pay for it.
The private school my daughter goes to is in very rural Georgia. I'm confident if it can exist and expand as it has over the last few years that the great plains area could manage as well. The school pulls in kids from several surrounding counties. It is over 30 miles from my house to the school. I'm not sure what your point about the distance or rural areas is.
Of course, everyone who knows anything about American History knows that the time before public schools was an educational renaissance that has not been equalled before or since!
Co'tor Shas wrote: Abolishing public schools would disproportionately effect the poor, and be more expensive n the long run. Private schools are expensive, and that's what those vouchers would be for.
Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.
You know Frazz, I suspect, just like college tuition, once private school tuition was subsidized by the Feds prices would adjust to match the subsidization.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Abolishing public schools would disproportionately effect the poor, and be more expensive n the long run. Private schools are expensive, and that's what those vouchers would be for.
Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.
And, of course, the cheapest options would be just as good an education as the best options, just like in the rest of the free market! Thus creating an entirely equal playing field for the children of the poor to compete in that same market with the skills they acquire in these 'bargain price' schools...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: And, of course, the cheapest options would be just as good an education as the best options, just like in the rest of the free market! Thus creating an entirely equal playing field for the children of the poor to compete in that same market with the skills they acquire in these 'bargain price' schools...
So we'd be no worse off than the current public school system, in other words.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."
Every single morning for thirteen years. If I didn't feel like doing anything in school that day I'd just refuse to stand for the pledge and I'd be sent to In-School Suspension for the rest of the day to sleep in a room that could only be opened from the outside.
dogma wrote: Nor would the state lack a presence in education. So, quite honestly, I don't see the point.
It would have a ridiculously smaller presence. Handing parents vouchers and letting them send their kids where they want is considerably different than establishing a department of education, certifying teachers, mandating curricula, etc.
It would have a ridiculously smaller presence. Handing parents vouchers and letting them send their kids where they want is considerably different than establishing a department of education, certifying teachers, mandating curricula, etc.
There's no reason to assume that the state could not make vouchers conditionally available on the basis of staff, curriculum, or other more obscure factors*. Hell, regarding curriculum, it already does that by way of grants (what vouchers essentially are), and scholarships.
*Can a voucher be applied to a school that does not teach abstinence, or to one which teaches sex-ed? Or even to one that teaches science in a certain way? These would all be significant political issues in the pursuit of a voucher system, if it were being honestly considered. And they all involve the involvement of the state.
dogma wrote: There's no reason to assume that the state could not make vouchers conditionally available on the basis of staff, curriculum, or other more obscure factors*. Hell, regarding curriculum, it already does that by way of grants (what vouchers essentially are), and scholarships.
The state could do that, yes. The state could also continue right along with public education. My suggestion was that they do neither of those things, but instead simply provide vouchers.
And then the vouchers will be whittled down over time. The rich will go to good schools and the poor to crap schools. I've seen this movie before. Vouchers work if they can only be used for another public school.
Another option is open enrollment, whereby you can enroll in any school you can realistically get to on a daily basis, as opposed to only schools within the district you're located.
The state could do that, yes. The state could also continue right along with public education. My suggestion was that they do neither of those things, but instead simply provide vouchers.
The rapid transition from a public school system to a fully private one would create a significant logistical problem.
Additionally, I suspect that the quality of education at large private schools is not significantly better than that at large public schools.
Take it a step further Seaward, privatise the military too. Let the people who want foreign interventions pay for it themselves!
Teaching in a private school, I think a lot of what makes them "better" is simply that the cohort of students that goes to them is different to the cohort that attends public schools, and they have greater abilities to kick kids out if they are disruptive. Public schools serve the entire public, which includes antisocial and crazy kids/parents.
I mean, it's way nicer for me to work in a private school (heh, I always laugh when I hear privatisation advocates talking about how easy public sector workers have it- go teach in a public school, smartass). I'm way less stressed and I get to teach to a much nicer audience. I'm very happy in my job. But when it comes down to it, that would not be the case if you made EVERY school private. You'd essentially be damning kids whose parents didn't care about them, or didn't care about education, or those who were just unsuccessful in life. No public system is perfect, but not everything should be privatised, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Heh heh, actually, the more I think about it, the more hilarious (in a very dark way) it would be. I think I will become an advocate of the US privatising it's schools.
The funny thing about privatization of education is that once you start enrolling all the low performing kids in the private schools, they start to look like the public schools. What do you expect, the underachievers are just going to wake up and start caring about their education because they're in a private school?
If there are no public schools, the government is just going to hand money out and not care about testing suddenly? The thing is, private schools don't have to utilize state testing, they can use their own or generic testing that's not Norm-referenced; amazing how those results can come out..
Also, they're not beholden to educating EVERY child, so they can stick those low achievers in the back of the class and forget about them and then tell them not to show up on test day. Sound familiar? It should, that's what was happening before the ESEA was created.
We could do what they do in Japan and just stop mandatory education at the end of Middle-School and then shuttle the best and brightest off to college prep high schools while everybody else goes to a trade/arts school. Cause applying to high schools like people in the US do to colleges is the best way to get everyone on the same educational footing...
Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote: Seperation of church and state should apply here, since its a public school and all.
Should also apply to your banknotes.
From the other side of the ocean, the US seem to have one foot in the future, one foot in the past.
Already been on the moon, but will still stick to the imperial system, the 2nd amendment and refer to God whenever possible.
To be fair, it's a diverse country. In a lot of the cases, the people doings certain things on that list are almost mutually exclusive of the set of people doing the others.
CptJake wrote: Private schools are not always expensive.
My county spends $7,503 per year per student.
The school I send my daughter to costs me under 7k for the year. And the average SAT scores and graduation rates, and acceptance into college rates are a LOT higher than the county schools.
You need to account for the selective nature of private schools. The biggest impact is the quality of households who are willing to spend money on private education - those households are going to place more value on education and give more support to their kids than the average household.
Then consider the nature of expenses in public schools - the average kid is fairly cheap. Sits there among 20 something other kids and quietly listens or daydreams while the teacher talks, and the resources needed by the average student... well they aren't cheap but they aren't much of a chunk out of that $7,500 a year. Then consider troubled kids, either ones with learning difficulties or behavioural problems. The extra hours from teachers and specialists poured in to those kids are a huge drain on resources. Not saying we shouldn't spend that money because we should, but just pointing out that it represents a massive chunk out of the education budget, and it's an expense that private schools generally don't have to wear. The private schools that do tend to specialise in kinds with issues, and they are really, really expensive schools.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.
For a guy who loves free market rhetoric, it's weird that you've never read any economics. Competition isn't just a word that you can just throw out there, you actually need to look at an individual market and assess whether the necessary elements for effective competition exist. In education, there is the problem that parents lack strong information about which schools are best for their kids (as opposed to which schools have the kids that test best), kids can't just jump from school to school based on which is performing best at any given moment, and schools are not differentiated just on price but services, culture and a whole range of other factors.
So, no, you can't just say 'competition' and 'safely say that costs would go down'. I don't mean to alarm you, but there's a fair chance that right now Adam Smith is dragging himself from his grave and beginning a long journey to wherever you are, just to stand in front of you and yell very loudly 'at least fething read my book'.
Seaward wrote: Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.
For a guy who loves free market rhetoric, it's weird that you've never read any economics. Competition isn't just a word that you can just throw out there, you actually need to look at an individual market and assess whether the necessary elements for effective competition exist. In education, there is the problem that parents lack strong information about which schools are best for their kids (as opposed to which schools have the kids that test best), kids can't just jump from school to school based on which is performing best at any given moment, and schools are not differentiated just on price but services, culture and a whole range of other factors.
So, no, you can't just say 'competition' and 'safely say that costs would go down'. I don't mean to alarm you, but there's a fair chance that right now Adam Smith is dragging himself from his grave and beginning a long journey to wherever you are, just to stand in front of you and yell very loudly 'at least fething my book'.
You mean Fountainhead didn't cover everything you need to know?
