4 ms·

Cato's article claimed that this study showed that private schools were clearly better at educating students than private schools. My point about performance wa

Cato's article claimed that this study showed that private schools were clearly better at educating students than private schools. My point about performance was to show that the study itself says that isn't the case, based on the executive summary of the study itself. How was that silly or illogical? My point regarding special ed and alternative schools is that these programs make averge-cost-per-student and average-performance-per-student metrics incomparable between public and private schools. The statements are derived directly from the study report. How is that silly or illogical? I didn't say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful. Indoctrination--religious or otherwise--is unethical. You bring up FDR and Henry Hissinger as examples of public school indoctrination, but there are many public schools (like mine) that presented those men in an objective manner. There is no doubt that some teachers in some public schools may engadge in some kinds of (often religious, nationalistic, or otherwise political) indoctrination. However, it is something that can be identified and corrected within the public school program without changing any fundamental aspect of the public education system. The only way to rid religious schools of the indoctrination--for which they were created and which is one of their main selling points--is to close them or transfer them from religious organizations to secular organizations (which is something I fully support).

grandalf 18y ago
Cato meant better per dollar -- one can only imagine the outcome if the kids were able to keep the extra $20K per year of savings and apply it to future college tuition, room and board, travel around the world, etc. Your second point is somewhat true, but special ed represents a small enough portion of the overall population that it doesn't inflate the numbers too much. I'd argue that the public schools are by design indoctrination machines -- imagine if, say, the Taliban creates an official Taliban school, would you claim that it isn't intended to indoctrinate students in the ways of the Taliban? US Public schools are (with the exception of affluent suburban public schools) mostly just factories intended to crank out vocational workers while providing free daycare for the K-12 years so that the family can more easily sustain two breadwinners. Think about what is taught in public schools: Punctuality, obedience, spelling, phys-ed, basic math, basic reading comprehension, home-ec, government, state/local history, US history, etc. Huge emphasis is placed on sports and athleticism, and in the typical high school the "jocks" rule the halls, abusing and intimidating anyone they choose. The food served in most public schools is below the quality served in fast food restaurants, and many feature soda and candy machines in abundance. For all but the few who are extremely academically gifted, public school is little more than minimum security prison through the 12th grade, at which point most individuals either join the military or go to work at Wal-Mart.
- briansmith 18y ago
  Below, another commenter said that special education consumed 25% of the public budget. I don't know where he got that statistic, but if it is true then clearly we can't consider it to be a "small portion" of anything. The Taliban is a religious organization that indoctrinates people similar to other religious organizations. What does it have to do with public schools? Are you suggesting that public schools are not secular enough and not objective enough? If so, I totally agree with you. But, it can be fixed. Religious schools are fundamentally broken as they have indoctrination of children at their core. You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims in the rest of your message. I don't even know how to respond to them. If you have a claim with some substance then maybe I can respond to it.
  - grandalf 18y ago
    I'm not sure where the commentator got the figure that special ed is 25% of the budget. Numbers I've seen indicate that special ed students cost perhaps 3 times what regular ed students cost per year, but there are a lot fewer special ed kids in most districts. I am an atheist, fyi, but the reason I don't have a problem with parochial schools is this: Suppose an atheist like me has a kid and gets a voucher and must choose between a parochial school and a public school. I may rationally conclude that the hour spent each day on theological subjects is a worthwhile sacrifice to make in exchange for an overall superior academic environment. Yes, the hour is (in my opinion) time wasted, but in my mind it's equivalent to an hour wasted in, say, a poorly taught chemistry class. If anything, should my child be the sort of person likely to become an atheist, having to sit through a boring class about theology would likely only reinforce his atheism. I certainly don't think he'd come home from school one day and start trying to convert me.
  - jibiki 18y ago
    I think the point you keep missing here is that all education is indoctrination. Even teaching kids to think rationally is indoctrination in the rational method. It's fine to say, "I think we should indoctrinate kids only in rationality," but most people will disagree with you. There is a sort of truce in our society: people don't hate each other for holding different viewpoints (as long as those viewpoints are societally acceptable, which varies from place to place.) Part of this truce is that people are allowed to shape the beliefs of their own children. You can't say "we should never indoctrinate kids." That would be the same as saying "we should never educate kids." You can say "we should only tell kids the truth," but then, whose truth do we tell? The problem is not so simple. It's dishonest to say "no indoctrination" when what you mean is "indoctrination should be more along my lines."
catz 18y ago
> I didn't say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful. Indoctrination--religious or otherwise--is unethical. Here is a question for the voucher program. Are parent's forced to send their children to schools that is founded on a religion? Or do the parents voluntary send their children to these schools? As I understand it, parents are the legal guardians of their children. It is up to them to teach the children their value system and the religion (or no religion) of their choice. What alternative do you propose? State enforced atheism? > The only way to rid religious schools of the indoctrination--for which they were created and which is one of their main selling points- Again – were the parents forced to send their children to these schools? I don't think that it is up to you (or the state) to determine to which school a child should be sent. Also, bear in mind that as far as private tuition goes – in the university system private universities vastly outperformed public universities in quality. Also check how many of the truly great universities were found as religious schools/backed by religious groups. Would it have been better if the state did not allow private universities? (The following universities had a religious affiliation when it was founded; Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Columbia, Brown University, Dartmouth college). As for your comments about educational quality: In my country there exist a private religious schooling group. In all metrics they performed better than public schools. They did this even though they received no money form the state. A few metrics such as pass rate, teacher to pupil ratio, distinctions, drop out rate, etc... is all better than public schools (which are a mess). Children in those school actually got individual attention and academics was the focus point (they sucked in sport though). One problem they faced was this: their school fees was a little higher than government schools (since they did not have government support). Some parents who had children with learning problems or behavioural problems sent that child to the private school but kept their other child in the public school. It got so bad that they enacted a new policy – a parent must put all his children or none of them in the school. > --is to close them or transfer them from religious organizations to secular organizations (which is something I fully support). I suspect that your sentiments in private schools have nothing to do with the quality of the education and everything to do with your bigotry towards religion and religious people. You would have children learn what you feel is acceptable rather than their guardian/parent.
- briansmith 18y ago

grandalf 18y ago

Cato meant better per dollar -- one can only imagine the outcome if the kids were able to keep the extra $20K per year of savings and apply it to future college tuition, room and board, travel around the world, etc. Your second point is somewhat true, but special ed represents a small enough portion of the overall population that it doesn't inflate the numbers too much. I'd argue that the public schools are by design indoctrination machines -- imagine if, say, the Taliban creates an official Taliban school, would you claim that it isn't intended to indoctrinate students in the ways of the Taliban? US Public schools are (with the exception of affluent suburban public schools) mostly just factories intended to crank out vocational workers while providing free daycare for the K-12 years so that the family can more easily sustain two breadwinners. Think about what is taught in public schools: Punctuality, obedience, spelling, phys-ed, basic math, basic reading comprehension, home-ec, government, state/local history, US history, etc. Huge emphasis is placed on sports and athleticism, and in the typical high school the "jocks" rule the halls, abusing and intimidating anyone they choose. The food served in most public schools is below the quality served in fast food restaurants, and many feature soda and candy machines in abundance. For all but the few who are extremely academically gifted, public school is little more than minimum security prison through the 12th grade, at which point most individuals either join the military or go to work at Wal-Mart.

briansmith 18y ago
Below, another commenter said that special education consumed 25% of the public budget. I don't know where he got that statistic, but if it is true then clearly we can't consider it to be a "small portion" of anything. The Taliban is a religious organization that indoctrinates people similar to other religious organizations. What does it have to do with public schools? Are you suggesting that public schools are not secular enough and not objective enough? If so, I totally agree with you. But, it can be fixed. Religious schools are fundamentally broken as they have indoctrination of children at their core. You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims in the rest of your message. I don't even know how to respond to them. If you have a claim with some substance then maybe I can respond to it.
- grandalf 18y ago
  I'm not sure where the commentator got the figure that special ed is 25% of the budget. Numbers I've seen indicate that special ed students cost perhaps 3 times what regular ed students cost per year, but there are a lot fewer special ed kids in most districts. I am an atheist, fyi, but the reason I don't have a problem with parochial schools is this: Suppose an atheist like me has a kid and gets a voucher and must choose between a parochial school and a public school. I may rationally conclude that the hour spent each day on theological subjects is a worthwhile sacrifice to make in exchange for an overall superior academic environment. Yes, the hour is (in my opinion) time wasted, but in my mind it's equivalent to an hour wasted in, say, a poorly taught chemistry class. If anything, should my child be the sort of person likely to become an atheist, having to sit through a boring class about theology would likely only reinforce his atheism. I certainly don't think he'd come home from school one day and start trying to convert me.
- jibiki 18y ago
  I think the point you keep missing here is that all education is indoctrination. Even teaching kids to think rationally is indoctrination in the rational method. It's fine to say, "I think we should indoctrinate kids only in rationality," but most people will disagree with you. There is a sort of truce in our society: people don't hate each other for holding different viewpoints (as long as those viewpoints are societally acceptable, which varies from place to place.) Part of this truce is that people are allowed to shape the beliefs of their own children. You can't say "we should never indoctrinate kids." That would be the same as saying "we should never educate kids." You can say "we should only tell kids the truth," but then, whose truth do we tell? The problem is not so simple. It's dishonest to say "no indoctrination" when what you mean is "indoctrination should be more along my lines."

catz 18y ago

> I didn't say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful. Indoctrination--religious or otherwise--is unethical. Here is a question for the voucher program. Are parent's forced to send their children to schools that is founded on a religion? Or do the parents voluntary send their children to these schools? As I understand it, parents are the legal guardians of their children. It is up to them to teach the children their value system and the religion (or no religion) of their choice. What alternative do you propose? State enforced atheism? > The only way to rid religious schools of the indoctrination--for which they were created and which is one of their main selling points- Again – were the parents forced to send their children to these schools? I don't think that it is up to you (or the state) to determine to which school a child should be sent. Also, bear in mind that as far as private tuition goes – in the university system private universities vastly outperformed public universities in quality. Also check how many of the truly great universities were found as religious schools/backed by religious groups. Would it have been better if the state did not allow private universities? (The following universities had a religious affiliation when it was founded; Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Columbia, Brown University, Dartmouth college). As for your comments about educational quality: In my country there exist a private religious schooling group. In all metrics they performed better than public schools. They did this even though they received no money form the state. A few metrics such as pass rate, teacher to pupil ratio, distinctions, drop out rate, etc... is all better than public schools (which are a mess). Children in those school actually got individual attention and academics was the focus point (they sucked in sport though). One problem they faced was this: their school fees was a little higher than government schools (since they did not have government support). Some parents who had children with learning problems or behavioural problems sent that child to the private school but kept their other child in the public school. It got so bad that they enacted a new policy – a parent must put all his children or none of them in the school. > --is to close them or transfer them from religious organizations to secular organizations (which is something I fully support). I suspect that your sentiments in private schools have nothing to do with the quality of the education and everything to do with your bigotry towards religion and religious people. You would have children learn what you feel is acceptable rather than their guardian/parent.

briansmith 18y ago