FTFA: faith-based prisons

WTF? Somebody has their bad idea jeans on.

No Test left behind

Dude, what?

I could have swore it was "no child left behind."

/Then again I dnrtfa

another program from the obnoxious jebus bush gets shot down. what? piece of shiat marvin bush might lose some money. TFB.

Public school == child abuse

mmm... pancake: Public school == child abuse

stupid.

SoothinglyDeranged
I could have swore it was "no child left behind."

what they call it and what it amounts to are two different things
submitter was using word substitution to concisely and cleverly make a point. Good jorb, submitter!

SoothinglyDeranged: Dude, what? I could have swore it was "no child left behind."

NCLB teaches to the test. It does not teach the child or improve the schools. Ask any educator, child, parent of the child, or someone who does not support the Faith Based tax subsidy.

Oh, and no need to query Jeb or Dubya. These two dimwits are basically responsible for the entire debacle. But, it did take the two of them together to get it this way.

mmm... pancake
Public school == child abuse

correct.

(suck it, Slamguy)

RanDomino: Good jorb, submitter!

THX.RanD

honestly, I'm no fan of Jeb, but it's not like students in rural florida aren't getting religious indoctrination from their public school teachers now anyway. The number of "science" teachers out there who don't believe in evolution is astounding. Vouchers aren't going to be any worse. If the kid can get a better education, so what? I'd rather have my tax money funding some catholic or baptist schools that'll at the minimum teach kids to read and write than some of the black hole public schools around here.

Longtime Lurker: honestly, I'm no fan of Jeb, but it's not like students in rural florida aren't getting religious indoctrination from their public school teachers now anyway. The number of "science" teachers out there who don't believe in evolution is astounding. Vouchers aren't going to be any worse. If the kid can get a better education, so what? I'd rather have my tax money funding some catholic or baptist schools that'll at the minimum teach kids to read and write than some of the black hole public schools around here.

A Baptist scool? "What's 2 + 2?" "Jesus" "A+"

Catholics at least accept science. They're just a bit eccentric, not full-blown crazy.

Holy shiat, "Faith-based prisons"?

I'm speechless.

You know who else liked Gov. Jeb Bush's voucher program..?



">


/fasting growing private schools in the US
//Suck it righties
///Faith Based Prisons thank Chuck Colson (WaterGate)

mmm... pancake: Public school == child abuse

stupid comment is stupid.

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: faith-based prisons

WTF? Somebody has their bad idea jeans on.

Isn't that church on Sunday?

The hate for public schools is a transparent and indirect way of attacking unions.

Charter schools in NY state were a complete failure.

They basically proved that public schools are doing a pretty good job.

wotthefark: Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: faith-based prisons

WTF? Somebody has their bad idea jeans on.

Isn't that church on Sunday?

Heh - Buh-zing!

>> //Suck it righties

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh man that is so sweet.

wotthefark: Isn't that church on Sunday?

Only if it's baptist. Seriously 8+ hours!?! I've got football to watch!

Public schools weren't that bad before NCLB. The seed of the idea of NCLB wasn't bad, but they took the idea and rammed it so hard into politics that it turned into a debacle so bad, it'll be Obama's successor before they finish fixing it.

>> Public schools weren't that bad before NCLB

Yep.

Most of the bad public schools are in poor areas. If you have a decent tax base your public school is most likely decent.

I work with people from all over the world. Lots of asians that are suppose to be so much better than american students (but really aren't)

Many times i have been told by them that they seriously underestimated just how good american students were in light of all this BS you see in the whore media about how public schools are so bad.

The whore media runs this crap cause it promotes their conservative anti-union agenda.

Fart_Machine
stupid comment is stupid.

apparently not too many farkers attended public school?

twilson2: conservative anti-union agenda.

Unions are dumb in this day and age, but unionized teachers work at private schools just as much as at public.

The press covers 'failing' schools because it makes great ratings fodder. "Iowa used to have the best schools in the nation, now we aren't in the top 10", no, it's not that, it's just that the standards have changed. It's like benchmarking a computer, a supercomputer can run huge amounts of numbers, but if you try to run Half-Life 2 on it, you'll be disappointed.

mmm... pancake: Public school == child abuse

Stupid and compliant public == conservative wet dream.

Why do liberals insist I fund their spawn's public education when I send my children to a (safe) private school. It amounts to a double tax that I have to pay.

The only fair option is to expand the voucher program to exempt me from property tax and give me a credit for the difference for the tuition.

What incentive is there to provide a meaningful education for my children if I continue to be double taxed?

/Don't get me started on liberal death tax policies to rob my children's nest egg.

>> Unions are dumb in this day and age

Yeah i know what you mean with the Bush economy being so great and everything.

Hey everybody is economically secure so why do we need unions.

The economy is so good Bush will probably win a 3rd term.

>> Why do liberals insist I fund their spawn's public education

Let the whining begin.

We're talking Olympic league here.

RandomExcess: Why do liberals insist I fund their spawn's public education when I send my children to a (safe) private school. It amounts to a double tax that I have to pay.

Because everybody pays into the public school system. My grandma pays into the Clear Lake, IA school system even though her kids went to Thornton, IA and graduated 30 years ago. It's socialism, but in this context it works. I can't imagine sending my kids to a private school (because A: I don't have the money and B: the ones around here are Christian and more than a little scary), but just because you do doesn't give you a ticket to not pay your fair share. The amount of money that you're taxed is probably a lot less than you spend on caffeinated or alcoholic beverages in a year.

RandomExcess
/Don't get me started on liberal death tax policies to rob my children's nest egg.

If you're a multi-millionaire, then quit whinging about a few thousand dollars.

Why do liberals insist I fund their spawn's public education when I send my children to a (safe) private school. It amounts to a double tax that I have to pay.

Becuase an educated populace benefits society as a whole.

Better educated populace = lower crime rate

twilson2: Yeah i know what you mean with the Bush economy being so great and everything.

Hey everybody is economically secure so why do we need unions.

What I meant was that unions were formed because industry basically worked it's workers to death, then replaced him before his body even cooled off. Most everything the unions accomplished back then is now law, minimum wage, 40 hour work week, or accepted practice like benefits. Could we go back to the way it was before, certainly, and that would be a good time for Unions to come back. I don't see why I need to pay X dollars to fund a union. I've only ever worked one union job in my life, and I was incredibly glad I didn't join the union. (They went on strike 3 weeks after I started, yes, I was a scab) Now Unions are nothing more than a old boys club.

Better educated populace = lower crime rate


What about:

Responsible students = Better educated populace

No amount of tax burden is going to make my children responsible students. That is an inner drive that is fostered by loving parents.

When you do not care what kind of student you are raising, I should not have to bear the burden of babysitting them until they end up in jail.

Then, of course, I get saddled with the incarceration burden too. It is a vicious cycle that can be broken at home with responsible parenting, not endless nanny state programs.

No amount of tax burden is going to make my children responsible students. That is an inner drive that is fostered by loving parents.

I agree with this. But it can also be fostered at school. Neither should be expected to shoulder the burden alone, which is what seems to be implied by your post.


When you do not care what kind of student you are raising, I should not have to bear the burden of babysitting them until they end up in jail.

In this case, I believe the fault again goes both ways, but more towards the schools than the parents. It is the fault of parents for not seeing the value in an education, but really, can you blame them? That education obviously didn't do them much good, so why should they lie to their kids and say an education is a good thing?

The schools need to adapt their methods and curriculum to meet the needs and interests of the students. I'm not talking about "dumbing" down. In fact, I'm talking about making it much more difficult. Asking students to evaluate, relfect, and analyze rather than sit back and be the passive regurgitators that most schools in poorer districts have turned their students into.


Then, of course, I get saddled with the incarceration burden too. It is a vicious cycle that can be broken at home with responsible parenting, not endless nanny state programs.

See my previous point about that education not doing the parents any good. I agree that it can be broken at home, but schools have to step in and help. And so, unfortunately, does the government but that's another thousand posts for another day.

RandomExcess: It is a vicious cycle that can be broken at home with responsible parenting, not endless nanny state programs.

Okay, but I don't see the connection with public schools. Private schools do not equal loving parents. Public schools do not equal loving parents either. I believe nurture has more to do with good kids than with nature, too, but your argument doesn't make sense.

The original private schools, boarding schools were the exact opposite, a place where the rich could get rid of their burden for months on end and live their life of luxury without progeny spoiling it.

RandomExcess
Responsible students = Better educated populace

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. You can't put the blame on students.

Mercutio879: Public schools weren't that bad before NCLB"

Dude, I'll take some of whatever you are smokin'!

67 Beetle: Dude, I'll take some of whatever you are smokin'!

I didn't say they were good, something had to be done, but when most teachers were saying that NCLB was horrible, they should have listened. I don't have the foggiest idea of how to fix the schools, but I'm pretty sure most politicians don't either.

RanDomino You can't put the blame on students.


Of course. Why should students bear any responsibility for their own education? We certainly cannot hold the parents responsible, either. The only answer is more taxes. Yes, the liberal solution to every problem... MORE TAXES.

If the nanny state was forced to get by on less money, it would have to be more efficient. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. As long as we let Big Government suckle at the teet of the working man, we condemn ourselves to mediocrity.

Study smart, not harder. Spend wise, not more.

Spend wise, not more.

Agreed. Schools could do SO much better with the money they have. Stop wasting money on textbooks and packaged programs. Instead, start buying actual literature. You want kids to learn how to read? Then get them stuff worth reading.

Instead, start buying actual literature

This has been an "agenda" item for years. I suppose you would start by nominating books that have been banned from the libraries. The liberal notion of literature is an affront to traditional American family values.

If you want you children to read compelling stories with meaningful characters, one need go no further than the Bible. The moral lessons required in a civil society would not be lost. It is a win-win situation.

RandomExcess: If the nanny state was forced to get by on less money, it would have to be more efficient.

Then vote for libertarians. The amount of money we spend on schooling our children through taxes is pathetic. We aren't taxed that much.

The students have to be responsible for their education, just like the teachers and the parents. If a school can't afford good teachers, it has to get mediocre ones. There are those few who aren't motivated by their paycheck, but they are rare.

My community just shot down a bond issue that would have taxed the average person $150/year. The textbooks are 5 years old, and teachers are paid squat in comparison to a city councilman, but hey, that's my $150, and if the kids can't learn because we can't get good teachers, how is that your fault?

RandomExcess: The liberal notion of literature is an affront to traditional American family values.If you want you children to read compelling stories with meaningful characters, one need go no further than the Bible

For the record, I am an atheist, and shockingly, I have no problem with a bible in public schools, as long as it's taught in a historical context, not as a religious guide.

You can't ban a book, no matter how inflammatory it may seem to you. Guns don't kill people, people do, so books don't turn people atheist or amoral, people do.

And I've got a shock to your 'traditional family values.' They DON'T EXIST. Everybody has a different set of values. My neighbors don't allow their girls to wear pants, and went a church to pray for their daughters burst appendix, BEFORE they went to the hospital. I wouldn't dream of such silliness. Leave it to Beaver is the funniest show in the world to me because a family like that would never, ever work in the real world, even back then. The Beaver's dad would have probably come home, drank a few martinis, then went to a party, drank so more, then drunkenly come home to his scantily clad wife. You may fight the fall of the illusion of traditional values, I celebrate it, maybe we can get some actual work done at improving the problems of society (racism, homophobia, etc) without having some of the populace punching at shadows.

RandomExcess: This has been an "agenda" item for years. I suppose you would start by nominating books that have been banned from the libraries. The liberal notion of literature is an affront to traditional American family values.

If you want you children to read compelling stories with meaningful characters, one need go no further than the Bible. The moral lessons required in a civil society would not be lost. It is a win-win situation.

Okay, I don't know if you were serious or not but thanks for the laugh.

Faith Based Schhols? I'm all for school choice, because well frankly I hate public school administrators. But if this money is only going to "faith based" schools, then no way.

This has been an "agenda" item for years. I suppose you would start by nominating books that have been banned from the libraries. The liberal notion of literature is an affront to traditional American family values.

Acutally, no. Well, maybe yes. The best books are the ones that get people talking. Most of what elementary kids are told to read in school today aren't worth reading in the first place, let alone talking about. Do I believe in banning books? No. But I don't have an "agenda" to bring them back into schools beyond questioning the wisdom of banning them in the first place.



If you want you children to read compelling stories with meaningful characters, one need go no further than the Bible. The moral lessons required in a civil society would not be lost. It is a win-win situation.

I agree with you on the compelling stories and meaningful characters. I wonder, though, if you and I share the same meaning as far as "meaningful" goes.

That being said, I think anyone who believes we can try to teach our children an understanding of western civilization/culture/literature and exclude the bible is just kidding themselves.

Personally, I make reference to the bible and biblical characters a good deal in my classroom. Not to prostelytize stealithily or otherwise, but simply as a point of reference.

I would welcome the chance to use the bible in the classroom for several reasons:

1) The opportunity to compare creation stories with other cultures
2) The chance to discuss character motivations
3) The chance to discuss the implications of decisions certain characters made
4) Discuss how different cultures interact
5) Discuss how people have changed over time

and that's just off the top of my head.

John Dewey: I would welcome the chance to use the bible in the classroom for several reasons:

1) The opportunity to compare creation stories with other cultures
2) The chance to discuss character motivations
3) The chance to discuss the implications of decisions certain characters made
4) Discuss how different cultures interact
5) Discuss how people have changed over time

and that's just off the top of my head.

And they do that - hell I remember reading Psalms in a New York state-approved English textbook less then 10 years ago, because it has literary quality.

What isn't cool is when it's used as a religious tool. And a lot of left-leaning people fear (and I think quite justifiably) that when the door opens, that the religious segments of society will use it as leverage to get religious instruction in public schools, funded with tax payer dollars. a give'emaninch kind of thing, and I don't doubt that's likely to happen in a lot of places.

If the religious types would just stop fetishizing their book, it wouldn't be such a big issue!

This is a fine example as of why Florida has its own Tag

RandomExcess: Why do liberals insist I fund their spawn's public education when I send my children to a (safe) private school. It amounts to a double tax that I have to pay.

The only fair option is to expand the voucher program to exempt me from property tax and give me a credit for the difference for the tuition.

What incentive is there to provide a meaningful education for my children if I continue to be double taxed?

/Don't get me started on liberal death tax policies to rob my children's nest egg.

The incentive is that your child will not live in a world of people as ignorant as their father.

RandomExcess: Why do liberals insist I fund their spawn's public education when I send my children to a (safe) private school. It amounts to a double tax that I have to pay.

90% of school funding comes from the state and local levels. There are places all over the country that are more conservative then San Fransisco is liberal. Yet, in those areas, public school is paid for by local and state funding? Is this a liberal plot? No not really. Public education is the keystone of a healthy economy.
Adam Smith, the grandfather of modern free market thinking, was a very strong proponent of a public school system.

You not getting double taxed. Everyone who owns property pays in to the local school system. I have no children, my parents don't have children in school, my grandparents don't have any children in school. If anyone has a right to complain about being taxed, it is people who do not have kids in school at all. But rather then complaining, we understand that an educated populous is important to everyone, not just the kids it directly benefits.

The only fair option is to expand the voucher program to exempt me from property tax and give me a credit for the difference for the tuition.

By that token I shouldn't have to pay at all, right? OTOH if that occurred, you as well as I know that removing funding from people who don't have children actively in school would cause the collapse of public school in general. The fact is the portion of your property tax that goes to the local system is _NOT_ a tuition, therefor its your choice to pay more or not.

Ironically every study that I have read, when you adjust for socio-economic statuses of the students, private schools are actually no better then public schools. Private schools in general do better on average because they are self selecting and so are the students. The entire voucher idea is based on the fact that private schools are inherently better at educating students. The fact is once vouchers are brought in to the picture, the entire reason why they are better, will evaporate.

What incentive is there to provide a meaningful education for my children if I continue to be double taxed?

Its called being a responsible parent. Educating your children, preparing them for the world shouldn't require incentive. The education is the incentive.

Again your not being doubled taxed anymore then I am being taxed for my non-existent children. Your paying a tax for a public school system, as I am, you just choose to pay more. If you can't afford to be "double taxed", perhaps you should put your child in public school and use half the tuition you were using for a private tutor. In all likelihood, they would likely turn out significantly better then either school system alone, and not cost as much. As for safety, your kids are in far more danger on their way to school then in school.

/Don't get me started on liberal death tax policies to rob my children's nest egg.

If you have an estate valued at more then 2 million, what the hell are you complaining about. Otherwise you don't have to worry about the estate tax.