"Science" textbook for Christian schools can't even explain electricity

[dreadgeek]

A friend posting this link on her FB wall: http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/christian_4th_grade_school_textbook_tries_to_expla in_electricity_gives_up/

The thing that terrifies me is that this is allegedly a *science* book! Here is the scary part:

"Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and hear and feel only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists think that the sun may be the source of most electricity. Others think that the movement of the earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many ways to bring it forth.

How would you have to change the way you get ready for school if you did not use electricity?"

Okay, the lies stack up fast and furious in that little excerpt.

1) It is simply not true that scientists don't know what electricity is or where it comes from. In fact, we DO know what it is. An electric current is caused by charged particles.

2) While the sun *does* produce moving charged particles it is NOT the *direct source* of electrical currents on this planet. We do not get electricity 'from' the sun. What happens is that the sun transfers energy to the Earth in the form of sunlight. That energy goes into, for instance, making plants grow. Plant-eating animals eat the plants and are, in turn, eaten by meat-eating animals or they die of other causes. Over sufficiently long amounts of time, the bodies of the fallen get turned into oil and we then drill the oil and use that to make electricity.

3) It is *also* true that the movement of the Earth--specifically the fact that the core of our planet is a core of liquid iron and nickel which is spinning which creates a current (yet more charged particles) which creates the magnetosphere that surrounds the planet and keeps the solar wind (those charged particles coming from the sun) from stripping away our atmosphere. But we don't get electricity from *motion* of the planet.

4) We can't experience electricity directly? If you believe that you've NEVER experienced static electricity (more charged particles) or you've never been on a hill top during a thunderstorm or you've never walked underneath a high-tension power line or you've never inadvertently shocked yourself. All of those are examples of directly experiencing electricity.

Now, lest someone way "yes but we can't see electricity" let me just cut that off quickly. Electricity is just light that is out of the wavelength our eyes are capable of detecting. If there had been ANY need for our ancestors to have developed the ability to see outside of a very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum we would have those senses. Light is the same *kind* of 'stuff' as electricity, it's just that our eyes evolved to detect visible light but not, for instance, radio waves.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Ugh. THIS is why I have a problem with private Christian schools. (same goes for homeschooling)

There has to be a fucking minimum standard for education, and there clearly is not.

[Quintease]

Christian Science books? :blink: :simplelaugh: :huhlaugh: :superfunny:

[dreadgeek]

Christian Science books? :blink: :simplelaugh: :huhlaugh: :superfunny:

Oh, the chapter on the moon is just FANTASTIC! Did you know that the reason why the moon is dark on one side is so that it isn't too bright for nocturnal animals and plants? LOL

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

This is what happens when the ignorant are put in charge of education. Scares the crap out of me.

[Corkey]

Christian Science books? :blink: :simplelaugh: :huhlaugh: :superfunny:

It's an oxymoron...:vigil:

[imperfect_cupcake]

Is there no government standard test that the kids have to take each year to progress? Do they not have a government agency like OFSTED http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/ to grade each school on how they are performing, regardless of it being private or public??

Purpose of OFSTED

Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. We report directly to Parliament and we are independent and impartial. We inspect and regulate services which care for children and young people, and those providing education and skills for learners of all ages.

Every week, we carry out hundreds of inspections and regulatory visits throughout England, and publish the results on our website. To find an inspection report (for a school - my edit), go to the Find an inspection report page.

The aim of all this work is to promote improvement and value for money in the services we inspect and regulate, so that children and young people, parents and carers, adult learners and employers benefit.

[Linus]

Is there no government standard test that the kids have to take each year to progress? Do they not have a government agency like OFSTED http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/ to grade each school on how they are performing, regardless of it being private or public??

Purpose of OFSTED

Problem is there is no national standard in the US that I've been able to determine. In Canada, each province sets the standard but it's pretty rigorous to keeping religion out of making decisions on books unless they are religious class (there are a lot of Catholic school boards and such).

The book is published by Bob Jones University, a Protestant Christian university out of South Carolina.

I think the fact that religious schools are allowed to push this out as acceptable is what is unfortunate. Religion, for those who believe and want to study it, has, IMO, it's place in a religious class. It should not be allowed, however, to transverse over to non-religious classes.

[Dominique]

I hope this isn't a derail. The city of Pittsburgh puts its school board meetings on the public television channel. So while I sit and watch and listen, I am using the lap top to check the credentials of our school board members. Some are very qualified. Without going into what each brings to the table, not one was a former teacher. I found that alarming. And how about this. One was a high school drop out. It did not say if he picked up a GED along the way. But still......what does this say about public schools?
So as to not make it a sweeping statement, I'll add in my city?

These are elected positions.

[Abigail Crabby]

My daughter attended a Christian School from grades 1 - thru 8.

She was never fed this drivel.

She learned the same georgraphy, history etc etc ad nauseum as did her cousins that attended the local public school, yes her faith was also explored on several levels as well, that's why I enrolled her there. To be sure she saw both sides of everything. Being Christian I wanted her to know that in my opinon that God has a hand in everything.

To say that all Christian schools teach this adgenda is IMHO predjudical and ludicrous. It's like saying all Preachers picket soldiers funerals.

Of course this is my opinion,and I don't support what I've read this particular school teaches, and no one in my family would attend such a school.

[dreadgeek]

My daughter attended a Christian School from grades 1 - thru 8.

She was never fed this drivel.

She learned the same georgraphy, history etc etc ad nauseum as did her cousins that attended the local public school, yes her faith was also explored on several levels as well, that's why I enrolled her there. To be sure she saw both sides of everything. Being Christian I wanted her to know that in my opinon that God has a hand in everything.

To say that all Christian schools teach this adgenda is IMHO predjudical and ludicrous. It's like saying all Preachers picket soldiers funerals.

Of course this is my opinion,and I don't support what I've read this particular school teaches, and no one in my family would attend such a school.

No one is saying ALL Christian schools. However, what one is taught in a sectarian school may very well depend upon which religion runs the school. Catholic parochial schools, just to take one example, are *less* likely to teach this kind of thing than some Southern Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist Christian Academy. If the school is run by some evangelical sect in the United States, the chances are high that students will get a *very* skewed science education that barely rates being called either scientific or education.

The larger point is not about the specific school it is about the fact that Christian schools are using texts written at Christian universities where the faculty either does not realize that electricity is a rather well-understood phenomena (in which case they have no business writing a science text) or they know but are lying in the text to further their religious agenda (in which case they should not be writing *any* academic text). If they can't get the small concepts correct, how are they going to get the big concepts correct? The simple answer is, they aren't.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Problem is there is no national standard in the US that I've been able to determine. In Canada, each province sets the standard but it's pretty rigorous to keeping religion out of making decisions on books unless they are religious class (there are a lot of Catholic school boards and such).

The book is published by Bob Jones University, a Protestant Christian university out of South Carolina.

I think the fact that religious schools are allowed to push this out as acceptable is what is unfortunate. Religion, for those who believe and want to study it, has, IMO, it's place in a religious class. It should not be allowed, however, to transverse over to non-religious classes.

Linus:

There are no national scientific standards. There are *barely* national standards on reading and mathematics. One could reasonably go from kindergarten to 12th grade without *ever* having to demonstrate that you understand what an atom is or what it's constituent parts are (I'm not talking about the really small stuff like muons and gluons or quarks, I'm talking about proton, electron, neutron). One can go all the way through college in the United States without *ever* encountering the equation F=ma (Force = mass * acceleration) or having to explain the three laws of thermodynamics.

It's really quite remarkable if one thinks about it.

Cheers
Aj

[Abigail Crabby]

No one is saying ALL Christian schools. However, what one is taught in a sectarian school may very well depend upon which religion runs the school. Catholic parochial schools, just to take one example, are *less* likely to teach this kind of thing than some Southern Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist Christian Academy. If the school is run by some evangelical sect in the United States, the chances are high that students will get a *very* skewed science education that barely rates being called either scientific or education.

The larger point is not about the specific school it is about the fact that Christian schools are using texts written at Christian universities where the faculty either does not realize that electricity is a rather well-understood phenomena (in which case they have no business writing a science text) or they know but are lying in the text to further their religious agenda (in which case they should not be writing *any* academic text). If they can't get the small concepts correct, how are they going to get the big concepts correct? The simple answer is, they aren't.

Cheers
Aj


I agree Aj - which is why I said no one in my family would ever attend where such drivel is being taught.

Sounds very odd that anyone with any education would write this, and pass it off to unsuspecting children.

[The_Lady_Snow]

When I attended Catholic school my parents decided to switch me mid year to the better one in another neighborhood, I was dragged into the office by my ear, it also left a huge mark from the nail when I ducked all the way to Mother Superior's office because I shouted out in science class that we do not come from spit and ashes and some dudes rib.

My father came in asked for his tuition back and reported the school to it's Archdiocese. It turned out they had been targeting kids from non Catholic backgrounds or kids who thought differently.

While I looked into schools for the Worm the Christian schools here have a curriculum to fight the gay agenda and evolution. Thank goodness I got him into a Charter School. It's scary what is allowed cause these kids go into the world ignorant, unprepared, and without knowledge!

[dreadgeek]

I agree Aj - which is why I said no one in my family would ever attend where such drivel is being taught.

Sounds very odd that anyone with any education would write this, and pass it off to unsuspecting children.

It doesn't strike me as odd what-so-ever. It makes perfect sense given that there is an agenda within certain sects of American evangelical Christianity to undermine the credibility of science in their own domains. Saying "scientists don't understand what electricity is or where it comes from..." is a prelude to saying "and we all use electricity so if they can't even explain something as everyday as electricity, how can we possibly believe them when they say we came from monkeys?" It's the prologue to the longer riff of "we're just trying to teach the controversy with Darwin". The problem is is that there isn't a controversy.

No serious biologist questions whether or not evolution happens. There's disagreement in the field about levels of selection (is it *all* gene-level selection or does selection happen at the gene and individual and group level) and there's disagreement about what role sexual selection plays into things but all of this takes place on the basis that evolution *happened* and what we are pursuing is understanding of how it works, not whether or not it did.

Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

It doesn't strike me as odd what-so-ever. It makes perfect sense given that there is an agenda within certain sects of American evangelical Christianity to undermine the credibility of science in their own domains. Saying "scientists don't understand what electricity is or where it comes from..." is a prelude to saying "and we all use electricity so if they can't even explain something as everyday as electricity, how can we possibly believe them when they say we came from monkeys?" It's the prologue to the longer riff of "we're just trying to teach the controversy with Darwin". The problem is is that there isn't a controversy.

No serious biologist questions whether or not evolution happens. There's disagreement in the field about levels of selection (is it *all* gene-level selection or does selection happen at the gene and individual and group level) and there's disagreement about what role sexual selection plays into things but all of this takes place on the basis that evolution *happened* and what we are pursuing is understanding of how it works, not whether or not it did.

Cheers
Aj

It also seems to go hand-in-hand with many of those "sects" decision to make a more "Conservative" bible and remove references where Jesus was seen as helping the poor and referencing the "Golden rule" and such. The more of this that I see, the more that I find the "Religious Right" to be a cult than a religion.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Electricity is created when the Great Sky Gnome rubs the Great Sky Balloon on his head to make his hair stand up.

Duh.

[dreadgeek]

Electricity is created when the Great Sky Gnome rubs the Great Sky Balloon on his head to make his hair stand up.

Duh.

Is that step 2?

1. Get underpants
2. Rub great sky balloon
3. Profits!

Eureka! It works! A complete economic theory. Yay!

Cheers
Aj

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Is that step 2?

1. Get underpants
2. Rub great sky balloon
3. Profits!

Eureka! It works! A complete economic theory. Yay!

Cheers
Aj

I was totally thinking of the Underpants Gnomes when I wrote that. :)

[betenoire]

I was wondering at what juncture petting a cat that is under blankets in the winter comes into play?

[DapperButch]

Problem is there is no national standard in the US that I've been able to determine. In Canada, each province sets the standard but it's pretty rigorous to keeping religion out of making decisions on books unless they are religious class (there are a lot of Catholic school boards and such).

The book is published by Bob Jones University, a Protestant Christian university out of South Carolina.

I think the fact that religious schools are allowed to push this out as acceptable is what is unfortunate. Religion, for those who believe and want to study it, has, IMO, it's place in a religious class. It should not be allowed, however, to transverse over to non-religious classes.

The article is about a Christian (Protestant) School. Parents send there kids there because they WANT Christianity to permeate all areas of learning.

For Protestant Christian schools, I think the religion piece is a big part of the reason that parents send their kids to these schools. I think that this is not always the case for Catholic schools (at least around here people of all religions send their kids to Catholic schools for the academics. Parents decide if their child goes to religion class and religion is much less commonly carried over to other subjects in the Catholic schools).

[dreadgeek]

The article is about a Christian (Protestant) School. Parents send there kids there because they WANT Christianity to permeate all areas of learning.

For Protestant Christian schools, I think the religion piece is a big part of the reason that parents send their kids to these schools. I think that this is not always the case for Catholic schools (at least around here people of all religions send their kids to Catholic schools for the academics. Parents decide if their child goes to religion class and religion is much less commonly carried over to other subjects in the Catholic schools).

The problem becomes when kids educated in these schools either leave the warm womb of Christian education and suddenly have to sit in a science class where actual science is being taught OR they wind up going to an evangelical university and then get out and only then have to actually deal with people who didn't have the same education. Then you wind up with adults who are, for any practical definition, scientifically illiterate.

We really need a rethink of educational standards in this nation. We are too large, too powerful and have altogether too much technological sophistication at our disposal to have any significant portion of our society so dramatically illiterate about science. We are the *only* major industrialized nation where denial of climate change is in the least bit intellectually respectable. We are also the only major industrialized nation where denial of evolution is in the least bit respectable.

We desperately need national science standards for students k - 12 and, quite honestly, I would like to see the universities and colleges require a full year of physics, chemistry and biology regardless of major but that's probably a pipe dream.

Cheers
Aj

[DapperButch]

No one is saying ALL Christian schools. However, what one is taught in a sectarian school may very well depend upon which religion runs the school. Catholic parochial schools, just to take one example, are *less* likely to teach this kind of thing than some Southern Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist Christian Academy. If the school is run by some evangelical sect in the United States, the chances are high that students will get a *very* skewed science education that barely rates being called either scientific or education.

The larger point is not about the specific school it is about the fact that Christian schools are using texts written at Christian universities where the faculty either does not realize that electricity is a rather well-understood phenomena (in which case they have no business writing a science text) or they know but are lying in the text to further their religious agenda (in which case they should not be writing *any* academic text). If they can't get the small concepts correct, how are they going to get the big concepts correct? The simple answer is, they aren't.

Cheers
Aj

SOME Christian schools are using religious texts written at Christian universities...

My sister (Pepperdine university professor) would DIE before she would send her children to a Christian school (which is where they go) that was not of the highest quality.

Getting back to the "some" word would be appreciated, folks! :)

<--- had planned to stay out of this thread when it first surfaced

[tapu]

Linus:

There are no national scientific standards. There are *barely* national standards on reading and mathematics. One could reasonably go from kindergarten to 12th grade without *ever* having to demonstrate that you understand what an atom is or what it's constituent parts are (I'm not talking about the really small stuff like muons and gluons or quarks, I'm talking about proton, electron, neutron). One can go all the way through college in the United States without *ever* encountering the equation F=ma (Force = mass * acceleration) or having to explain the three laws of thermodynamics.

It's really quite remarkable if one thinks about it.

Cheers
Aj

Historically it has been states that set their standards in all content areas. (In accordance with the doctrine of "States' Rights.") It is true that recently a set of National Standards for math/LA have been developed. These are called the "Common Core." States may decide whether or not to adopt the Common Core. It is projected that, eventually, there will be National Standards mandatory for all states. One of the reasons Science Common Core lags is precisely because of Christian vs. Scientific disagreements among states and among various Boards of Education within a state. It is very doubtful that private schools' leeway in teaching religious alternatives would ever be affected by public school curricula, at least in those areas. The standards, National or State, will have to be met, but "add-ons" like religion will remain privately determined in those schools.

[dreadgeek]

SOME Christian schools are using religious texts written at Christian universities...

My sister (Pepperdine university professor) would DIE before she would send her children to a Christian school (which is where they go) that was not of the highest quality.

Getting back to the "some" word would be appreciated, folks! :)

<--- had planned to stay out of this thread when it first surfaced

My apologies. I should say that very specific Christian schools are using very specific textbooks written by faculty at very specific institutions that, for lack of any better word, are called universities. These very specific schools that are using said textbooks written at said universities should not be teaching from these textbooks because they are ultimately hobbling their students in the long run. These kids will grow up to be adults who will be profoundly confused about science and will find themselves almost entirely unable to evaluate political issues with scientific content. The point here is not that kids going to Christian schools will be hobbled. Rather, if the school in question uses textbooks from Bob Jones, Liberty or Regent's universities (I think this is safe to say) then it is vanishingly improbable that they will have received an even adequate scientific education because they will not have learned the basics of the scientific method.

Textbooks that come from BJU, LU, or RU and are used at schools that have some kind of sectarian connection to those institutions and/or are feeder schools for those universities and/or are otherwise in theological agreement with those universities, will have the science diluted because it will be filtered through a specific theological point of view wherein scientific truth must *first* pass a litmus test adhering to a specific interpretation of very specific passages within the Bible. As I said earlier, the whole point of the statement about scientists being entirely ignorant about the nature of electricity is to sow seeds of doubt that scientists know much of anything thus allowing them to suggest that intelligent design is a viable scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution.

I want to make it clear that the issue is NOT that the teaching is occurring at Christian schools. In 2005 the school board of Dover, PA had a blistering decision delivered to them from a Federal court judge because they were using a textbook titled "Of Pandas and People" which had been developed by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that tries to push the idea that scientific ideas must first pass a theological litmus test. The edition of Pandas was so shoddily edited to remove all references to 'creation science' (which was ruled as being just creationism given a face lift in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillar case in Louisiana) that there were passages that had been subject to find-and-replace where one would see creationintelligent designscience" in order to try to get it to pass Constitutional muster (specifically the so called Lemon test). Now, the Dover school board was a *public* school board that had approved creationist curriculum for instruction in public school. So the issue is, again, not Christian schools. It is teaching non-scientific concepts in science classes.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Meanwhile, back in Ontario, I don't even like the Catholic school board. They are publicly funded by property taxes just like the public schools are (in Ontario) and so far as I am concerned no school that gets government money should be allowed to teach religion.

I want to know, during that hour a day that kids are in religion class, what education are they missing out on that Ontarian public school kids are getting?

(Threads about education in the US always confuse me. I don't get what is so bad about public schools. In Canada hardly anybody goes to private school (why would they?) and the few private schools I'm aware of are either religious, french, or all-girl. And I don't know anybody who went to one.)

ETA - I actually want to know, during that hour (or whatever a day) that kids are in religion class anywhere in North America - what education are they missing out on that non-religious schools use that hour for?

[The_Lady_Snow]

In *my* area where I live it was safer, better education, better extra carriculars, smaller classrooms, more nurturing environment and preparation for college if he do chose. I felt this way about Columbus public schools cause of the area we lived in..

[JustJo]

Meanwhile, back in Ontario, I don't even like the Catholic school board. They are publicly funded by property taxes just like the public schools are (in Ontario) and so far as I am concerned no school that gets government money should be allowed to teach religion.

I want to know, during that hour a day that kids are in religion class, what education are they missing out on that Ontarian public school kids are getting?

(Threads about education in the US always confuse me. I don't get what is so bad about public schools. In Canada hardly anybody goes to private school (why would they?) and the few private schools I'm aware of are either religious, french, or all-girl. And I don't know anybody who went to one.)

ETA - I actually want to know, during that hour (or whatever a day) that kids are in religion class anywhere in North America - what education are they missing out on that non-religious schools use that hour for?


This probably varies dramatically depending on the state, the school, etc.

When I was in upstate NY I had looked into a Catholic school for Rooster because it had an outstanding reputation for academics.

There were religion classes, but they were offered before the "official" school day started...so kids not attending religion arrived an hour later, and then all students did the academic day together. There was also bible study/catechism (forgive me, I'm not up on Catholic terminology) during lunch hour as a sort of "lunch and learn"...which was purely optional.

Honestly, I would have sent him there, but the waiting list was years long, and our name never came up before we moved. I probably needed to list him at birth.

There were other religious schools in the area that delivered a truly sub-standard education, in my view, but the Catholic school system (at least in my area) was quite different.

[dreadgeek]

Meanwhile, back in Ontario, I don't even like the Catholic school board. They are publicly funded by property taxes just like the public schools are (in Ontario) and so far as I am concerned no school that gets government money should be allowed to teach religion.

I want to know, during that hour a day that kids are in religion class, what education are they missing out on that Ontarian public school kids are getting?

(Threads about education in the US always confuse me. I don't get what is so bad about public schools. In Canada hardly anybody goes to private school (why would they?) and the few private schools I'm aware of are either religious, french, or all-girl. And I don't know anybody who went to one.)

Part of what happened to public school in America is that it became desegregated. I'm about to step into a minefield so I'm going to try to be very careful here.

When it became abundantly clear that public school desegregation was here to stay, Christian academies* (sorry Dapper but that is the term that the people who STARTED these schools used so I have to use that term) sprang up like mushrooms in the Southern United States. In the USA you can discriminate in pretty much any manner you choose if you are a religious institution AND you do not take public funds. This allowed these Christian academies, which were all Protestant and, given the locales, largely (but not exclusively) Southern Baptist to continue to discriminate on the basis of race.

As the culture wars heated up, these schools became more about generically teaching a curriculum that was amenable to specific parts of specific denominations of Christianity. Specifically, these schools became core to teaching a version of American history that would lead students to believe that America was founded on theocratic lines (it wasn't) and that the Earth is much younger than it is (6000 years old as opposed to ~4.5 billion years old) and that while 'mistakes were made' slavery was, on the whole, good for blacks because it brought them to the United States where we could learn of Christianity. That much the same thing could be said of the Native Americans.

It is important to note that I am talking here about schools started by Protestants who were largely Southern Baptists or Methodist with some scattered Presbyterian and Lutheran sects thrown in. I am very specifically NOT talking about Catholic schools because while Catholics are, for any reasonable definition, Christians the schools run by various Catholic diocese were not part of this movement. Nor am I saying that all Christian schools were started for these reasons.

The homeschooling movement is an outgrowth of what happened. Because many of the sectarian schools under discussion here were started on a segregationist basis they have had to avoid taking Federal funds lest they have to open their doors to all students. This has made them more expensive. So families that might not otherwise be able to afford these Christian academies (again, I am using the term because that is the term that the founders of the schools used at the time and I am deferring to their nomenclature) but did not want their kids getting a 'secular' education where they might learn that the United States is a secular nation with a majority Christian population, as opposed to a constitutionally Christian nation, or that human beings are very closely related to chimpanzees, gorillas, pygmy chimps and orangutans, started schooling their kids at home. This is not to say that all home schooled children are in religious families, nor is it to say that all religious home schooled children are Christian nor is it to say that all Christian schools or home schooling parents are doing so for reasons of racial segregation. My only point here is to provide some context on why these schools grew up and how they ended up spawning the burgeoning home schooling movement.

Cheers
Aj

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Meanwhile, back in Ontario, I don't even like the Catholic school board. They are publicly funded by property taxes just like the public schools are (in Ontario) and so far as I am concerned no school that gets government money should be allowed to teach religion.

I want to know, during that hour a day that kids are in religion class, what education are they missing out on that Ontarian public school kids are getting?

(Threads about education in the US always confuse me. I don't get what is so bad about public schools. In Canada hardly anybody goes to private school (why would they?) and the few private schools I'm aware of are either religious, french, or all-girl. And I don't know anybody who went to one.)

ETA - I actually want to know, during that hour (or whatever a day) that kids are in religion class anywhere in North America - what education are they missing out on that non-religious schools use that hour for?

In the Utah public school system, all the jr. high and high schools have "Release Time". Release Time actually means Mormon seminary, but they can't actually put that on student schedules in public schools. The LDS church owns small buildings just off campus (in some cases, on a small parcel of land that would have been school property, but the church pays a pittance to the school to buy just enough land to build the seminary building) where students are taught Mormon doctrine during school hours. Even though they technically call it Release Time, that doesn't mean students can use that period for whatever they want. I tried to use it as a study hall period once and got detention for cutting class, even though my schedule said I was on Release Time and I was in the school library. Generally, students take seminary in place of one of their other electives. Usually it's art, language, or home ec/shop that they're not taking to make time for seminary.

[betenoire]

Eww, home-schooling. That's all I have to say about that. (Mind you, I only know two people IRL who were home-schooled and they were brothers from my church growing up. So I guess I really have no real yard stick with which to measure homeschooling. But those two boys (I used to hang out with them when I was in 11th and 12th grade) had zero concept about how to function with groups of people and would throw tantrums (seriously!). No sense of what compromise is. No sense of the importance of sharing, even - and that's something you learn in freaking Kindergarten. As far as how they would measure up academically, I have no idea. But I do know that socially they were behind.)

So in the US is it presumed that all public schools are bad, or does it vary depending upon where you live? Because here it doesn't matter if you are from Scarborough, Pickering, or freaking Northbrook - the expectation is that you've graduated highschool with the same tools and you know the same things.

[betenoire]

In the Utah public school system, all the jr. high and high schools have "Release Time". Release Time actually means Mormon seminary, but they can't actually put that on student schedules in public schools. The LDS church owns small buildings just off campus (in some cases, on a small parcel of land that would have been school property, but the church pays a pittance to the school to buy just enough land to build the seminary building) where students are taught Mormon doctrine during school hours. Even though they technically call it Release Time, that doesn't mean students can use that period for whatever they want. I tried to use it as a study hall period once and got detention for cutting class, even though my schedule said I was on Release Time and I was in the school library. Generally, students take seminary in place of one of their other electives. Usually it's art, language, or home ec/shop that they're not taking to make time for seminary.

ALL of them, though? But what if you're not a Mormon? That's so messy!

[Linus]

Meanwhile, back in Ontario, I don't even like the Catholic school board. They are publicly funded by property taxes just like the public schools are (in Ontario) and so far as I am concerned no school that gets government money should be allowed to teach religion.

I want to know, during that hour a day that kids are in religion class, what education are they missing out on that Ontarian public school kids are getting?

Yes but to be fair, you get to choose whether you want your taxes to go to public or Catholic schools. And Catholic schools are required to meet the same standard for ALL courses as public schools (I've gone through the submission process for college courses in Ontario and it ain't easy!)

[dreadgeek]

How good the public schools are in the United States depends upon where you live. Quite literally. We fund our schools based upon property taxes so the higher the property taxes in your neighborhood the better your schools are. This means that wealthy and upper-middle class neighborhoods have good public schools and working class and poor neighborhoods have bad public schools. This also means that rich states have better public schools than poor ones. So Mississippi is a state of largely crappy schools while Massachusetts is a state largely of good schools. (Again, this is not say that EVERY school in MS is bad and EVERY school in MA is good. Rather, I'm saying that the worst school in MA is going to be closer to being on par with the best school in MS while the best school in MS will probably be nowhere near the best school MA)

If that system sounds insane and, in fact, almost exactly the opposite of what one would like to see that's because it is.

Cheers
Aj

Eww, home-schooling. That's all I have to say about that. (Mind you, I only know two people IRL who were home-schooled and they were brothers from my church growing up. So I guess I really have no real yard stick with which to measure homeschooling. But those two boys (I used to hang out with them when I was in 11th and 12th grade) had zero concept about how to function with groups of people and would throw tantrums (seriously!). No sense of what compromise is. No sense of the importance of sharing, even - and that's something you learn in freaking Kindergarten. As far as how they would measure up academically, I have no idea. But I do know that socially they were behind.)

So in the US is it presumed that all public schools are bad, or does it vary depending upon where you live? Because here it doesn't matter if you are from Scarborough, Pickering, or freaking Northbrook - the expectation is that you've graduated highschool with the same tools and you know the same things.

[The_Lady_Snow]

For us where Grants parents live which is 10 miles East of us Worm would of ended up in a far better Jax public school WAY better with all the things Christ The King would offer. In Columbus I lived on the edge of Worthington and Columbus has I lived 250 more to the North Worm would if went to Worthington Highschools, had we stayed in Columbus I would of entered the lottery for the Charter School or I'd of sent him to St Michaels.

It all really depends where you live and frankly class status...

[betenoire]

Yes but to be fair, you get to choose whether you want your taxes to go to public or Catholic schools. And Catholic schools are required to meet the same standard for ALL courses as public schools (I've gone through the submission process for college courses in Ontario and it ain't easy!)

Blech, still. I'm not sure why there should be a "give my taxes to Catholic schools" option at all. I think Ontario (and possibly Alberta?) are the only province(s) that do(es) this. Especially since the Ontario Catholic/Separate School Board gets to pull heinous fuckery like, for example, banning GSAs on campus.

[betenoire]

If that system sounds insane and, in fact, almost exactly the opposite of what one would like to see that's because it is.

Cheers
Aj

That's fucked. And it certainly goes a long way toward explaining things like generational poverty.

[Linus]

Blech, still. I'm not sure why there should be a "give my taxes to Catholic schools" option at all. I think Ontario (and possibly Alberta?) are the only province(s) that do(es) this. Especially since the Ontario Catholic/Separate School Board gets to pull heinous fuckery like, for example, banning GSAs on campus.

Ya. I know. But at least the taxes default to public rather than Catholic so that's good.

And I'm surprised that no one challenged the removal of the GSAs because of the Charter. Although I could see that as being a challenge since it pits the rights of religious freedom vs. free speech.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

ALL of them, though? But what if you're not a Mormon? That's so messy!

If there is a public school in Utah that doesn't have a seminary building, I've never heard of it. Non-Mormon kids just don't get religious instruction during the school day.

[betenoire]

If there is a public school in Utah that doesn't have a seminary building, I've never heard of it. Non-Mormon kids just don't get religious instruction during the school day.

Okay, cool. I must have misunderstood you then. I thought everybody HAD to go. I'm glad to hear that they don't.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Okay, cool. I must have misunderstood you then. I thought everybody HAD to go. I'm glad to hear that they don't.

If you register for "release time" then you *have* to go to seminary during that period, but release time is not required, it's an elective.

[tapu]

ETA - I actually want to know, during that hour (or whatever a day) that kids are in religion class anywhere in North America - what education are they missing out on that non-religious schools use that hour for?


"Study Hall." Seriously. I would be quite surprised if the schools you reference have Study Hall.

[tapu]

The problem becomes when kids educated in these schools either leave the warm womb of Christian education and suddenly have to sit in a science class where actual science is being taught OR they wind up going to an evangelical university and then get out and only then have to actually deal with people who didn't have the same education. Then you wind up with adults who are, for any practical definition, scientifically illiterate.

We really need a rethink of educational standards in this nation. We are too large, too powerful and have altogether too much technological sophistication at our disposal to have any significant portion of our society so dramatically illiterate about science. We are the *only* major industrialized nation where denial of climate change is in the least bit intellectually respectable. We are also the only major industrialized nation where denial of evolution is in the least bit respectable.

We desperately need national science standards for students k - 12 and, quite honestly, I would like to see the universities and colleges require a full year of physics, chemistry and biology regardless of major but that's probably a pipe dream.

Cheers
Aj




So... where do you come down on freedom of religion?

[Cin]

I don't think you have to go to a Christian school to be effected by what is going on in the US right now. Education was never all that educational but it seems like it's getting kind of scary.

I don’t know about now but when I went to school they really had odd maps and taught weird stuff. Granted I really didn’t go that much, but still I managed to soak up some of the stuff. I remember how surprised I was when as an adult I saw a map that showed the actual size of countries. I thought they were all tiny and the U.S. was gigantic.

I remember being told things like Newton discovered gravity when an apple hit him on the head and Columbus’ whole trip was about proving the earth was round. In science I learned that plants get their food directly from soil and water is not a good conductor of electricity (which is technically true but I think further explanation is needed). Also I found out that Ben Franklin flew a kite with a key tied on the end in a lightening storm so he could discover electricity (I remember thinking if he did that he would more likely discover that human flesh smelled like pork).

I could cite more dubious or just plain wrong stuff that they taught in schools back in the day but I suppose it doesn’t matter much because while inaccurate and US-centric it really wasn’t terribly harmful. I think what is going on now is much different. Scary really. Certain political and religious fractions of the country seem to be trying to control the information that is taught in schools.

They have a rather different agenda than the old let’s keep it easy for the kids and tell them the primary colors are red, yellow and blue instead of cyan, yellow and magenta cause really what more do they need to mix with and let’s not get too political and upset the kids with too much reality so we’ll tell them the civil war was about freeing the slaves and other various misinformation with a side order of partial truths. While pretty distressing it’s not as dangerous as what we are seeing at this time in history. Now it’s about teaching completely incorrect information to promote a religious/political agenda.

I read a couple of articles today informing me that an educational program called “Building Fluency Through Practice and Performance” is promoting socialism. It has a section called The Promise of America that breaks down the preamble and interprets it thus

-that people’s basic needs must be met in a country

-that labor laws ensure that people work in safe environments and that they are paid fairly for the work they do

-that needs for housing, education, transportation and health care are overseen by our government system.

I can understand not agreeing with that interpretation of the preamble, but the articles I’ve read make it sound like a terrible crime has been committed. People are horrified that kids are learning to read by saying labor laws ensure that people work in safe environments and that they are paid fairly for the work they do. I mean seriously, is that a horrible thing? Is it controversial? Apparently work safety and fair wages is now the definition of socialism. I guess this is the direction we are heading. It’s okay to teach kids that Columbus’ voyage was about trying to prove the world wasn’t flat when it was pretty common knowledge by 400 BC it was round. But don’t let them think their government should be responsible for protecting its citizens with Marxist ideas like labor laws.

[DapperButch]

dreadgeek,

I kind of jumped the gun, as there has been one or two places where you did make it clear that it was only some private, Christian schools. I apologize. I like the word some for obvious reasons: no group likes sweeping generalizations. That is why we say "some transmen", "some lesbians", "some caucasians", etc. The number of Protestant denominations is quite large and there are some radically different views within them. Subsequently, the Christian schools can be very different from each other, including the curriculum. I am certain that a book written by anyone from Bob Jones University would never make it into my nephews' school(s).

Certainly a parent can look at the curriculum, the average SAT/ATC scores of graduates, the percentage of graduates going to 4 year colleges and which colleges, etc. Parents can alos look at the accreditations various schools have. My older nephew's school has a waiting list a mile long. Since it is an "open" Christian school, there is no expectation that everyone who attends the school hold the same beliefs (or be a "Christian"). My sister does like that her son is exposed to different types of people and different types of thinkers.

One of the concerns that my sister/brother in-law had was that if their kids went to Chrisitian schools that they would get "shell shocked" when they went to college since they would have lived in a cocoon their entire lives up until that point. They had actually planned to send their kids to either a public or private non religious high school (if they were in Christian schools for grades k-8), so that this wouldn't happen to them, as friends had told my sister/her husband that this is what happened to them after being encased in a womb prior to college.

In terms of your concern for the kids not learning what they need to be learning like in the schools in the OP, I hear you. It is a crime really. They are doing a great disservice to the kids if they want to continue their education. They will have to go so far backwards in order to learn what they should have learned to begin with, it will be ridiculous. And how will they ever do well on their SATs?

[dreadgeek]

So... where do you come down on freedom of religion?

I'm strongly in favor of people having very large ranges of latitude to practice whatever religion they prefer. I see very few areas where government has a legitimate reason to restrict religious practice. However, there is a non-trivial difference between letting religion be and granting religious beliefs the status of 'alternative truth' when it comes to questions about curriculum in public schools. Letting schools off the hook, if you will, because the most current science contradicts this or that deeply held belief sets up those religious belief as having an alternative truth that must be treated as being as equally probable when they simply are not. This sets up a great deal of confusion for people and hamstrings them in the long run.

It is imply not true that the Young Earth Creationist account of the origins of the Universe, the planet and the history of life on this planet is a viable alternative to the standard scientific account. The YEC account gets it wrong all over the place so anyone who learns the YEC account *as if it were a scientific theory* is, for all practical purposes, shut out of the mainstream of large amounts of science. We do neither them nor ourselves any favors pretending that it is any other way. I don't see this as being properly a question of religious freedom anymore than I would if some sect or another taught that pi was *exactly* 3.0 or that the angles of a triangle always add up to 100 degrees. No one would argue that any church-run school had the right to teach students that, for instance, men walked on the moon in 1869 instead of 1969 or that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. I see no reason to draw a hedge around certain scientific questions and allow church-run schools to get a pass on any subject just because it may conflict with their religious doctrines.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I think private religious schools have the right to teach anything they want to, so long as they also meet state curriculum standards or Common Core, whichever in effect. That's why they call them "private, religious, schools."

:)

[Cin]

I think private religious schools have the right to teach anything they want to, so long as they also meet state curriculum standards or Common Core, whichever in effect. That's why they call them "private, religious, schools."

:)

I would think that teaching kids incorrect information would go against the mission statement of Common Core State Standards. But I guess if these kids go to religious universities then the fact that they have been given wrong information won't hamper them much. I guess. It's a puzzler why anyone would want to hobble their kids but I imagine the religious parents don't see it that way. And I guess as long as people in the US continue to have a percentage of people who believe evolution is incorrect and that global climate change isn't happening, etc., it won't matter in the long run anyway. A study done found that 1/3 of Americans reject evolution and 14% believe evolution is "definitely true" while more than 80% of Europeans accept the concept of evolution as true. The only country included in the study that rejected evolution more consistently than the US was Turkey. But I guess that's the price we all pay for religious freedom. There is no other alternative. Look at the Catholic Church it took them over 200 years to stop believers from accepting the reality that the earth revolves around the sun and almost another 200 to pardon Galileo.

[tapu]

Oh, we teach kids plenty of incorrect information. And some would argue it isn't incorrect at all. The education system is not perfect.

And, allowing alternative belief systems to be taught in private religions schools is the price we pay for freedom of religion; matter of fact, it is the essence of it.

[Linus]

I would think that teaching kids incorrect information would go against the mission statement of Common Core State Standards. But I guess if these kids go to religious universities then the fact that they have been given wrong information won't hamper them much. I guess. It's a puzzler why anyone would want to hobble their kids but I imagine the religious parents don't see it that way. And I guess as long as people in the US continue to have a percentage of people who believe evolution is incorrect and that global climate change isn't happening, etc., it won't matter in the long run anyway. A study done found that 1/3 of Americans reject evolution and 14% believe evolution is "definitely true" while more than 80% of Europeans accept the concept of evolution as true. The only country included in the study that rejected evolution more consistently than the US was Turkey. But I guess that's the price we all pay for religious freedom. There is no other alternative. Look at the Catholic Church it took them over 200 years to stop believers from accepting the reality that the earth revolves around the sun and almost another 200 to pardon Galileo.

Actually, some still believe that (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-adv-galileo-wrong-20110828,0,3264179.story) :blink:

Oh, we teach kids plenty of incorrect information. And some would argue it isn't incorrect at all. The education system is not perfect.

And, allowing alternative belief systems to be taught in private religions schools is the price we pay for freedom of religion; matter of fact, it is the essence of it.

It would be great if they taught it in comparison but they don't. While not all religious schools use a book like this, the ones who do are likely to only provide this book. And that does a huge disservice.

[Cin]

Actually, some still believe that (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-adv-galileo-wrong-20110828,0,3264179.story) :blink:


LOL. What can you say to that? I will add to the Dawkins quote that i have for my signature that apparently even in the face of over whelming, even indisputable evidence to the contrary.

[betenoire]

"Study Hall." Seriously. I would be quite surprised if the schools you reference have Study Hall.

My school did not have study hall, and I went to public school my whole life. I studied at home.


It would be great if they taught it in comparison but they don't.

Speaking of teaching in comparison. My highschool had a pretty cool 12th grade english class. I forget what exactly it was called (even though I took it!) but it was for studying and comparing/contrasting various religious texts with a pretty big focus on some of the common mythologies between them. (Like lots of religions had a big flood, etc). It was a super neat class and I'm glad I took it.

I did my final paper on Wicca.

[dreadgeek]

Oh, we teach kids plenty of incorrect information. And some would argue it isn't incorrect at all. The education system is not perfect.

And, allowing alternative belief systems to be taught in private religions schools is the price we pay for freedom of religion; matter of fact, it is the essence of it.

I'm sorry my friend, I have to disagree here. In fact, I think the fact that we have taken this attitude, as a culture, is part of why I think we are in the political position we are today.

To illustrate, consider the following statements all of which are manifestly false but are still held by people adhering to alternative belief systems.

1) The Holocaust never happened. It is something that Jews cooked up in order to get sympathy so that they could start the nation of Israel. Even if there *were* executions, there's no way it was anywhere near 6 million people.

2) Humans have never walked on the moon. It is physically impossible to build a machine that can escape Earth's gravity enough to get to the moon, much less carry three human beings back and forth safely. If nothing else, the cosmic rays would have cooked them like hot dogs in a microwave.

3) The Earth, the solar system and the Universe are all ~6,000 years old. They were all called into being during a single act of creation which took place over a week. This action was initiated and controlled, start to finish, by a singular divine entity. Any information that might appear to contradict this story is either not correct, by definition, and was either made up out of whole cloth, misinterpreted, or planted either by God or some other supernatural entity to test the faith of humanity.

People *believe* all of these things. They are all wrong. There are no sane interpretations of *this* world (other worlds in a multiverse, maybe) where any of the three statements are correct. Does someone have a right to believe any of those things? Absolutely. Do they have the right to teach their children these things in the home? Yes. Does that burden them with the problem of explaining why the teacher at school taught something else? Unfortunately, yes it does but that actually can't be helped. It can't be helped, *unless* the rest of us are prepared to pretend that there are perfectly valid alternative explanations that are being rejected not for reasons having to do with evidence but because of some completely arbitrary factor. In other words, unless the rest of us are prepared to enable the willful misleading of students in classrooms.

This is why I would like to see us come up with *national* scientific standards. I do not think you should be able to graduate from high school in a technologically advanced country if you cannot articulate certain very general scientific ideas. I do not think this is a matter of respecting religious freedom. If an adult couldn't, for instance, do the problem 3+2=5 or count by ten to 100 we would not say that person knew math. We would not say that someone who didn't understand that, for instance, WW II happened in the 20th century and not the 19th knew history. I don't see why to treat scientific subjects differently just because people might have religious objections to this or that scientific idea.

Cheers
Aj

[little_ms_sunshyne]

As the head of a science department and a science teacher :( This saddens me, puzzles me, frustrates me, infuriates me etc etc etc etc


Kids are amazing! They are so open to knowledge and are ready to develop their own thoughts and ideas...WHY WHY WHY limit them!!!!

I think I may need to be a sub for the day! lol

[Martina]

i don't know much about this, but my understanding is that there is no regulation of private schools. No public accreditation process. i could be wrong.

i think accountability is just can the kids pass the SAT at the end. i don't know.

The fact is that anybody can home school, and there is no oversight. You can leave your kid completely illiterate if you choose, and there will be no legal consequence.

There are accreditation bodies, but isn't membership voluntary?

[Martina]

In my school people have study skills classes. It's not the same as study hall, but it can function that way for many kids.

[dreadgeek]

As the head of a science department and a science teacher :( This saddens me, puzzles me, frustrates me, infuriates me etc etc etc etc


Kids are amazing! They are so open to knowledge and are ready to develop their own thoughts and ideas...WHY WHY WHY limit them!!!!

I think I may need to be a sub for the day! lol

Which part do you find saddening, puzzling, frustrating or infuriating?

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Excellent points being made. I want to give some more thought to all this, but meanwhile here is a very specific and current perspective on what's happening wrt science standards and requirements in Massachusetts--really the hotbed of high-stakes testing in education today.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/08/3000_denied_diplomas_because_of_mcas/

This opinion piece points out the minority, low-income, and urban factors in not passing the MCAS (standards test), argues for dropping the MCAS science requirement for graduation, and brings out the fact that private and religious schools get a pass on this.

This veers a bit off the topic in its totality, but also sheds light on some points of discussion here. As a side note: I managed production of the MCAS 2010 and 2011. The politics are searing.

[Cin]

To me it makes perfect sense to hold students of public schools to the same standards as those attending private or religious schools. So right now that can be defined as students who meet all other requirements, the ones that will get a private school student a diploma, should also get a diploma and an MCAS diploma should be given to those who pass the MCAS test. Though this is really just a band-aid. To me the real value in these tests is they will tell us exactly how well we are actually educating our youth. I guess we have the answer to that. Effort needs to be made to educate young people so that all kids can pass standard tests across the country.

I suppose that’s pie in the sky stuff, but seriously if we can accomplish all the phenomenally impressive stuff we manage like making the world’s tiniest laser, 1000 times smaller than the width of a hair, just 44 nanometers across, hell if we can measure in nanometers, if we can discover that sticky tape can produce x-rays, if we can figure out that a black hole (the one true flying spaghetti monster god) eats planets turning them into it’s own special kind of pasta, if we can discover an enzyme that can convert any type of blood into type O, and on and on, why can’t we find a way to educate our youth. I mean how hard is that compared to cloning rhesus monkeys? We can destroy the financial stability of the world with unique and infinitely complicated financial weapons of mass destruction. If the minds that can come up with a demonic piece of work like derivatives would, just for a little while, focus on doing good, I have to believe they could come up with a plan to actually educate our youth.

Not that I am saying the scientific or financial communities should be responsible for improving education. What I am saying is that we are incredibly innovative and amazingly creative in a myriad of ways. Let’s make one of those ways that we are incredibly innovative and creative about finding ideas that work to educate our youth. MCATS tell us that we are not all that successful, but they don’t tell us how to get successful. And without leveling the playing field, once again it is those people least able to handle any more on their plate, who take the hit.

Poor urban youth are the victims of this type of inequity. And really don’t they have enough inequity already? I use poor as the operative word, although I have no doubt the largest percentage of the kids affected are minorities. The causality or common link for most is, I believe, a lack of money. People who have enough money can send their kids to a private school.

I am from Massachusetts and had first hand experience as a poor urban youth with the public school system. Even more recently I lived with a women and her three kids in Mattapan, a part of Boston. Her two boys managed to go to high school in Quincy by using their father’s address. However, when it came to her youngest, her father moved out of Quincy in her senior year. And it was common knowledge she lived with her mother in Boston. I guess the school district employs someone to follow kids around who are suspected of going to school in one district but living in another. They followed A. home and came back early in the morning and followed A. and I as I took her to school in the mornings on my way to work. Then they told her she needed to go to school in Boston. A’s mother allowed her to live in Quincy with the parents of a girlfriend so she could finish her senior year in Quincy. And the Quincy public school department was kind enough to let her finish out her senior year in Quincy. The school departments try very hard to stop people from sending their kids to public schools not in their district. And parents keep trying to find inventive ways to send their kids to schools they deem better to give their kids all the advantages they are able. They don’t have many options because without the resources they cannot send their kids to private schools. After trying to get them into a public school they think is better, they really have no options. Yet you cannot send your children to whatever public school you think is better. That is no answer. We need to invest the money to make all schools safe places to get good educations.

[DapperButch]

Excellent points being made. I want to give some more thought to all this, but meanwhile here is a very specific and current perspective on what's happening wrt science standards and requirements in Massachusetts--really the hotbed of high-stakes testing in education today.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/08/3000_denied_diplomas_because_of_mcas/

This opinion piece points out the minority, low-income, and urban factors in not passing the MCAS (standards test), argues for dropping the MCAS science requirement for graduation, and brings out the fact that private and religious schools get a pass on this.

This veers a bit off the topic in its totality, but also sheds light on some points of discussion here. As a side note: I managed production of the MCAS 2010 and 2011. The politics are searing.

Really interesting tapu. Where do you stand on the issue (yes, I am aware that you managed production of the 2010 and 2011, but I am not going to assume you believe kids should have to pass it in order to receive a diploma)?

Here adults who dropped out of high school can later take a test to receive their GED in place of a diploma, but they also now have something where they can now get a hisgh school diploma as an adult (however I do not know the requirements for that). What are the option in Massachusetts for returning students?

[tapu]

Something I was reading on FOX:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/23/eliminating-education-department-still-option-but-unlikely-one/


This article is about eliminating the federal dept of ed. Now, that would effectively kill the idea of national ed standards. (i think)

Obama makes a statement toward the end about how RI students may not need the same education as TX students, or wherever. This is an old assumption, based on a much less mobile workforce, that should be challenged. Natl politics is trying to keep the states happy with that one. It should so totally be taken out of their hands, as I understand AJ to be advocating, too.

By the way, in practical application, NCLB threw the educational publishing industry--and education in general-- into a frenzy. Teaching took a much reduced role in the market for variety of teaching materials. And the money, time (incl classroom time), and the teacher/admin focus has all gone into testing.

Don't even get me started on how Alt Testing is done. I managed production of Florida's Alt testing and it finally dawned on me what was going on. This is not the thread for it, I guess. Shit, I'm always doing that. Sorry! Anyway, Alt testing is about inclusiveness in testing, not about inclusiveness in student learning.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Something I was reading on FOX:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/23/eliminating-education-department-still-option-but-unlikely-one/


This article is about eliminating the federal dept of ed. Now, that would effectively kill the idea of national ed standards. (i think)

Obama makes a statement toward the end about how RI students may not need the same education as TX students, or wherever. This is an old assumption, based on a much less mobile workforce, that should be challenged. Natl politics is trying to keep the states happy with that one. It should so totally be taken out of their hands, as I understand AJ to be advocating, too.

By the way, in practical application, NCLB threw the educational publishing industry--and education in general-- into a frenzy. Teaching took a much reduced role in the market for variety of teaching materials. And the money, time (incl classroom time), and the teacher/admin focus has all gone into testing.

Don't even get me started on how Alt Testing is done. I managed production of Florida's Alt testing and it finally dawned on me what was going on. This is not the thread for it, I guess. Shit, I'm always doing that. Sorry! Anyway, Alt testing is about inclusiveness in testing, not about inclusiveness in student learning.

I don't think that's what Obama is saying at all. He's saying that children in RI may need to be taught in a different way from student in TN, not that they need a different education. The problem with NCLB is that it's a one-size-fits-all method of education, and all children don't learn the same way. All children need to learn the same things, but that doesn't mean they all need to be taught those things in exactly the same way.