Whe are some people so opposes to Private Schools?

[dazzleman]

no, I hate private schools because all of them in Mississippi exist for one reason:  to keep out black people.  The racist people who go to them are so arrogant also.

Funny, but up here that's the purpose of suburban public schools....regional differences I guess.

[dazzleman]

no, I hate private schools because all of them in Mississippi exist for one reason:  to keep out black people.  The racist people who go to them are so arrogant also.

Funny, but up here that's the purpose of suburban public schools....regional differences I guess.

We must not live in the same North.

Dazzleman is correct.  Here on Long Island Catholic schools are usually much more integrated than public schools because most LI communities are segregated.  Cathjolic schools take in people from a wide range of areas and neighborhoods and are thus more diverse racially and economically than most public schools.  Out of the hundreds of communities in Nassau county only a handful are mixed.  My catholic high school was probably 75-25 white-black which is close to the actual ration in Nassau. Of course the school was not representative of the high Jewish population in Long Island for obvious reason. Although I did have a Jewish friend whose little brother went to Catholic school- go figure

patrick1, I have observed the same thing near me with Catholic schools.  Because they are not limited to a single community, they have a far greater degree of ethnic and racial diversity than public schools.

The public schools in my town are LILY white, because the town is.  That is the pattern around here.  The suburban towns are almost fully white, and the schools reflect that.  Meanwhile, the cities are a mix of white and other races, but very few whites who live there send their kids to public school, so the public schools are almost completely non-white.

Only in Catholic schools do the races really mix to any appreciable degree in most parts of the northeast.

[dazzleman]

wow, you have no complaints about having to wear stupid uniforms and being told how evil masturbation is at school?

and of course, there's something many Catholic schools do which is in my view the single worst thing any school can do: segregate by gender.

No, I do not have any complaints on establishing myself as an individual through who I am as a person rather than what person's   name is on my clothing.   As for masturbation you will be surprised to learn that the topic does not come up nearly as often as in does in your Atlasia posts.

I second that.  I was never told that masturbation was bad.  And like patrick1, I went to Catholic school for most of the time.

[dazzleman]

Did you read my posts?  I'm not familar with any non-racist private schools.  Now I haven't investigated the private schools outside of my state, but really...why should I?  Every private school I come in contact with is racist, and therefore I hate their existence.

Then you should qualify your opinion to say you hate private schools that discriminate based on race.

I don't know of any private school near me that does discriminate based on race.  On the contrary, many make an effort to have an ethnically diverse student body.  In addition, in this section of the country, black parents who value education for their children very often choose private schools, even more than white parents, because blacks are much more likely than whites to live in areas with substandard public schools.

In the north, private schools, particularly parochial schools, are generally far more integrated than public schools.  It's an interesting contrast with the south.

[dazzleman]

I was only thinking of the children - the poor, defenseless children at the mercy of religious parents, indoctrinating them into their sick cults.  I don't know that individual rights and freedoms necessarily extend to the right to own/abuse your child.  Obviously at some point we must extend individual rights and freedoms to that child, at the expense of tyrannical parental power.

I long ago discerned a very touching concern for children on your part.  I know how deeply interested you are in children having the proper family structure so that they can be raised properly.  It could be said to be your life's avocation.....

[dazzleman]

well, that's a legitimate point when the hubris is ignored.  still, as I recall, we chose, at the end of the seventh grade I think, whether we wanted to do a "liberal arts" or "scientific" or "vocational" track.  And the word "track" hadn't yet become politically incorrect.  we're approximately of the same vintage, didn't you have some options such as this in your public school?  i.e., although only two years of mathematics may have been required to graduate, you could have chosen a track beginning in the 8th grade starting with Algebra I that would have taken you through Calculus in the 12th.  These are chosen by the student in conjunction with advisors and parents.

I don't think there's anything wrong with tracking.  With a one-size-fits-all approach to public education, we effectively dumb down the top of the group in order to conform with those on the bottom.

It is not about class, but academic ability.  To the extent that academic ability is inherited, class may, or may not, be reflective of academic ability.

I think that students should be tracked to the highest level of their academic ability.  I wouldn't expect a 7th grader to be able to make an intelligent choice between becoming a lawyer or an auto mechanic, but that student should be tracked according to his ability.

By high school, certain students who can't handle the academic track, or are disinterested and not putting forth effort, can be put on a more vocational track.  This makes it better for everyone involved.

[dazzleman]

no doubt about it.  meritocracy.  that's how I see what being a Republican is really about.

I agree.  It will never be perfect, but we should give it our best shot.

[dazzleman]

I agree with angus that the Democrats are not the party of the meritocracy that they claim to be.  Republicans in the past have not always been either, but they should be.

jfern mentions the greater probability or remaining in poverty today than in the past, and it is true.  But the cause is that the nature of poverty has changed, from an economic condition that afflicted many people to a condition brought about more by destructive behavior patterns, and is therefore much more deeply entrenched than the earlier version of poverty.

Things like the GI Bill were the best of what the Democratic party has offered.  It helped create much more of a meritocracy than existed before.  Today it is not so easy to raise up those without education, because their is a deeply entrenched culture and values problem that must be addressed first.  It is the 10,000 pound elephant in the living room that nobody wants to acknowledge.

As far as the Democrats having ideas, I'd love to hear them.  The Democrats haven't truly had an original idea since about 1965.

[dazzleman]

Actions speak louder than words. You elected an inside trader who only got anywhere because of his daddy President. He only got Cs in college.. That says all you need to know about the Republican party.

You realize that you just gave a pretty good description of the Kennedys, if you tweak a couple of details.  The advantage that comes from being born into a powerful family is not a partisan thing.  Both parties have had self-made men as presidents, and both have had scions of great wealth and privilege, so don't make it into a partisan thing.

Do you think that the drug-addled Kennedy kids who got expelled from 5 schools during their high school careers really met the admission requirements for Harvard?  Get serious.

[dazzleman]

Actions speak louder than words. You elected an inside trader who only got anywhere because of his daddy President. He only got Cs in college.. That says all you need to know about the Republican party.

You realize that you just gave a pretty good description of the Kennedys, if you tweak a couple of details.  The advantage that comes from being born into a powerful family is not a partisan thing.  Both parties have had self-made men as presidents, and both have had scions of great wealth and privilege, so don't make it into a partisan thing.

Do you think that the drug-addled Kennedy kids who got expelled from 5 schools during their high school careers really met the admission requirements for Harvard?  Get serious.

There are other Democrats besides the Kennedy's, you know.  Clinton had a pretty humble upbringing and was a Rhode's scholar.

Read my post.  As I said, both parties have examples of presidents who were born to privilege, and others who were not.  You first made this a partisan issue, not me buddy.