Whe are some people so opposes to Private Schools?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I guess so, after all we ordain women.

Also I never converted, I was baptized when I was about a month old.

[A18]

Well, there you go, then.

[J.R. Brown]

I don't get it.  Private schools are amongst the biggest pet-peeves of the more liberal posters here.  Why do they hate private schools so much?

Personally I think it is because most private schools are of a religious nature and most hardcore liberals hate relgion, especially Christianity.  Liberals would rather have children go to secular public institutions and corrupt their faiths, than let them ave free-choice in schooling.

That's just my opinion though.  Am I wrong liberals?  Is there another reason why you all seem to hate private schools?

I don't hate religion and Christianity. I don't like some of the hypocrisy, but I have a strong belief in God and praise him and his son for dying for our sins. Guess what. I'm a liberal. I voted for John Kerry and promote higher taxes to fund social programs, especially programs to help the impoverished people of this country. I would call that liberal and Christian. I don't mind giving a little bit of my earnings to help people who aren't as blessed as I am. I can see where you get that though there are a lot of liberal non-believers and they are a lot more vocal than liberal Christians.

I don't have anything against private schools. They are excellant academic institutions. I think funding public schools is important. Not everyone can afford the high prices of private institutions. The public school system is horrendous in this country. The structure of the system and some of the curriculum is outdated and needs some revamping.

[angus]

I was against private school "vouchers" for a long time for classic reasons.  Money taken from those schools who most need it; given to those who least need it; etc.  In general, it was a redistribution of wealth from the many to the few.  Not unlike the lottery.  I should say that recently I have come around to the idea of "school choice" since I think the fact that competition breeds success outweighs all other arguments. 

As for the racist argument, now common boys and girls we're just being silly.  Of course many white parents want their children to go to school with other white children.  And this certainly isn't a regional phenomenon.  And it certainly isn't limited to whites.  I have had several former girlfriends of japanese descent who hailed from the Norther New Jersey area whose parents sent them all the way across the Hudson river to attend private japanese schools.  Also, in many parts of the world it is common for parents to enjoy insular culture- and race-oriented education.    I'm not one of them, of course, and have always enjoyed mixing it up, and hope my son feels the same way as he grows older.  (though I do hope he learns of condoms and treats women better, etc.)  But generally you're being very naive or immature if you object to the fact that some folks do not prefer to subsume their children in multicultural environs.

Nowadays I'm much more of a rightist, but not quite to the extreme of Libertarianism.  I believe that if you can afford a private school, and want your children to attend one, I can think of no constitutional reason not to allow it.  But, on the other hand, I do believe public schooling is a legitimate function of the state, and certainly our society benefits in the long run by requiring children to attend some school.  Private better, but if they can't afford it, then we have a duty to ourselves and to our society to prepare them for the world in a public school.  Tracking okay with me too.  Anyone down with tracking?

[angus]

I brought up tracking as I feel it may be acutely relevant to the thread, and because I used the term at a departmental meeting at the university where I work a few weeks ago.  They all looked at me as though I'd lost my head.  Goddamned groupthinking yuppie "liberals" can't think for themselves.  If my son wants to be a lawyer one day, it makes sense to me to start preparing him for that as soon as possible.  If he wants to be an auto mechanic, then that comes as soon as possible too.  I'm not saying we go to the German or Japanese system of public schooling, and in fact, the Japanese whom I've talked to say they're coming around to the American way of that as they see its advantages, but I will say that the basic model of tracking makes economic sense.

[opebo]

I brought up tracking as I feel it may be acutely relevant to the thread, and because I used the term at a departmental meeting at the university where I work a few weeks ago.  They all looked at me as though I'd lost my head.  Goddamned groupthinking yuppie "liberals" can't think for themselves.  If my son wants to be a lawyer one day, it makes sense to me to start preparing him for that as soon as possible.  If he wants to be an auto mechanic, then that comes as soon as possible too.  I'm not saying we go to the German or Japanese system of public schooling, and in fact, the Japanese whom I've talked to say they're coming around to the American way of that as they see its advantages, but I will say that the basic model of tracking makes economic sense.

I wanted to note that tracking isn't about whether the youth wants to be a lawyer or an auto mechanic, it is about the class he comes from.  Of course if we are going to allow the US to be a completely class-stratified society, as is apparentely the case, then we might as well recognize it in education.

[angus]

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.

[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.

[angus]

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

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

What? That's what being a Democrat is really about. Backroom deals, inside connections, inside trading, no access to educations, and untold billions passed tax free from generation to generation are not compatable with a meritocracy.

Allowing anyone regardless of who they are born to and who they know growing up to make it if they're smart enough is compatable with a meritocracy.

Statistics show that the US was much more of a meritocracy a few decades ago (back when taxes on the rich were high). A much smaller fraction of people born poor become rich today than then.

[angus]

No.  Limiting small business by regulating their wastes "from cradle to grave" doesn't promote maximization of efficiency.  Promoting welfare and offering the promise of a better life doesn't promote independence.  What President Bush calls the "soft bigotry of low expectations" certainly doesn't promote equality.

What I'm saying is that I was also fed that sanctimony, from about age zero to 30, about the Democrats being the party of meritocracy.  It's bullsh**t.  Grow up.  The democrats offer a solution that would like to be a state solution (as some OECD nations have) but isn't quite.  In fact, it offers a compromise between the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism.  If you offered straight socialism, I might go for it.  I have often offered its praises on this forum.  But no.   You have to take the worst of all possible worlds.  No doubt, the abject failings of nationalism and laissez-faire are on display for the world to see.  But what do you offer in return?  Failing schools.  Wealthy and corrupt union bosses.  A medical-care system that sucks up 15% of our aggregate GDP and leaves 41 million out of luck.  41 million out of luck I have no problem with.  That's just poor genetic luck, baby.  But to give a man the high hard one without having the common courtesy of giving him a reach-around is just rude.  As I've said before, the socialists I respect.  They at least have some clue.  I don't agree with them, but I respect them.  But what I see in the DNC is a meaningless grasp of the politically correct.  Bad news.  You wanna lose some more?  fine.  it.  Don't listen to intransigent swing-voting assholes like me.  We're just fine with a GOP majority.   Yeah, they suck too, but not as bad as the Democrats.  They at least have the balls to offer some fresh ideas and alternatives.  Vouchers.  Privatizatin.  you name it.  maybe it's a bad idea.  Maybe they're all bad ideas.  But I see a nation in need of some changes.  And if your party won't offer any, I'll look to one that will.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So are you in favor of increased sicknesses from air pullution and other things that regulation help decrease?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My high school was in an ultra liberal town, and was very good. Probably 40% of the students had gotten college credit from at least 1 AP exam before they graduated. 85% went onto college.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Compare that to countries with socialized medicine, like Canada.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm anti-politically correct, and a lot of Republicans seem to be pro-politically correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The wrong change is worse than no change. And the Democrats have plenty of proposals, but in case you hadn't noticed, Republicans control the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court, and the media doesn't like to cover the real issues, especially from a Democratic perspective, so the Democrats are kind out of of luck with doing anything with their proposals.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Have not always been? That's an understatement. None of you have explained to me how a massive transfer of untaxed wealth from generation to generation is a meritocracy. 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.

What do you define as an original idea? The Democrats have had many ideas since 1965. Do you not consider very many ideas to be original? Ideas like invading random countries aren't original, you know.

Obviously some some of the education problems are culturally, we don't value learning as culture. This seems to be more of a problem in conservative areas, but yes it's still a problem in liberal areas.

As for causes of poverty, I'd say two big ones are lack of good paying  jobs and unaffordable health care, neither of which the Republicans have done anything to fix. The solution for health care is single payer, but that would upset the HMO lobbyists.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[A18]

There are other Republicans besides Bushes, you know. Reagan wasn't exactly born rich.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

We didn't just elect anyone like that President, and I was responding to this nonsense. Anyone who thinks getting rid of the estate tax will help us be more of a meritocracy is crazy.

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