Posted on 10/27/2004 4:35:51 PM PDT by NYer
a couple of years ago, i got in to a discussion with the high school principle where my daughters had attended. i was upset about a survey sent to me that was used to rate the school district by the public, and having studied some statistics, the survey was designed to get high scores. i wrote a letter expressing my opinions that the survey did not enable me to express to the superintendent, who had the principle call me. after 30 minutes of conversation, i learned that at least 25% of the students did drugs or alcohol on campus, the school had a no drug policy, the policy was not being enforced much and that the principle did not want to be sued for enforcing the policy (suspension was involved). thinnking this guy had no spine, i began discussing this with my friends in the education field. all told me that to be an administrator, you have to take additional classes and one of the topics, to paraphrase, is, "how to stay out of court".
as far as i am concerned, state gov't, fed gov't, school districts and the courts are all corrupting our school systems, and the "system" makes it difficult to teach the truth of moral absolutes.
Interesting. I am not the least surprised. As far as I am concerned, the public "screwel" system is FUBAR and needs to be scrapped entirely. The only educational system that will work (IMO) is entirely local based, with 100% local control, and locally paid for. Until that time comes, good private schools or homeschooling is the only answer.
Having one's children taught by people who have an entirely different moral value system and world view will damage them. No doubt about it. Add to that being surrounded by kids who are being raised without the same values (generally speaking) = a recipe for disaster. Doesn't mean every single kid will be ruined. But all will be affected. And kids are affected by the degraded ones among them; it's the "lowest common denominator" effect.
Some strong kids with strong families may be ok. But it's not worth the risk.
i realize there are lots of details that need to be ironed out and some i could compromise on, but consider schools that cater to smart kids, schools that cater to the needs of the less intelligent, schools that cater to musically inclined, schools that help kids kick a drug problem, schools that do not allow drugs, ...
in the longer run, these focused schools will force parents to think about where to send their kids, and further, horrors of horrors, have little johnny possibly rejected by some (see drug schools that will take johnny). parents will have to deal with problem children, not the schools. best of all, the free market will make education cheaper in the long run. this is akin, but not exactly, to having a series of private schools that compete with the public schools.
other thoughts you might have?
Good ideas. First of all, every kid is not the same. The idea that every single young person should go to college or university is stupid. Some kids don't have that kind of intellect, and would rather fix cars, style hair, be a machinist, and so on. No need to spend four years at a so-called "insitution of higher learning" for that. Modern culture prolongs adolescence waaay too long. There's no reason a young person 18 years old can't be a productive adult.
Another point is that most colleges and universities are currently pits of liberal crap, and many young people go primarily to party and put off being responsible. Or even if they do want to learn and be responsible, the party hardy atmosphere screws them up.
There should be more vocational type schools were young people can focus more on (a) practical livelihood learning, (b) cognitive thinking and logical reasoning, and (b) basic knowledge.
Young people who have more of an intellectual bent can study more classical type stuff, without being held back by kids who have no interest.
Apprenticeships would be very excellent - both for practical livelihood skill learning, as well as more intellectual stuff. High schools suck, they did when I went, and they are worse now. Uniforms should be mandatory, then girls wouldn't look like sluts and boys like gangsters, with the poorer kids miserable because they can't afford the expensive gear. Let the kids focus on schoolwork, not on clothes. I think sex separated schools or classes are good too. It's pretty much been proven kids can pay attention to school better when not distracted by the opposite sex, and trying to appeal to each other.
A hundred years ago teachers were hired and chosem not just for their own learning and skills but also for their high moral character. That should be absolutely as important as educational qualifications. Degrees in "education" should be totally eliminated.
There is absolutely no reason why religion can't be taught in schools - obviously not a sectarian indoctrination, but basic moral/spiritual and religious values, which are essentially the same in every religion, SHOULD be taught. Or how about this - representatives of churches, synagogues, even minority religions like representatives of Hinduism and Buddhism - should be able to come in and teach their particular faith. Then kids will be exposed to all of them. Why not? I think it's a much better idea, and more Constitutional, than school being a God-free place, where religion and spiritual truths are so horrible that they can't enter. Kids are naturally interested in religion.
How's that for a start?
i think that you very well articulated many of my beliefs and have made me think even more on the subject. i also believe that if the free market were instituted, the vision you outlined, or something very close, would come about.
i have enjoyed sharing thoughts with you. you clearly have given this some thought and have organized your thoughts very clearly.
Thanks! I have thought a lot about education, did some homeschooling years ago, did some tutoring...and I am not naturally patient...:-)
I also did not finish high school and am entirely self taught (whatever little I know).
I grew up in a "university atmosphere", so I kind of know it from the inside. Explains why I decided it was not for me.
I have seen homeschooled kids, children of friends, who are incredibly responsible, intelligent, motivated individuals at very young ages. Self directed, talented - amazing. And some have married quite young, others waited a bit. Homeschooling can allow kids to be taught according to their interests and capacities - more individualized instruction. And rather than suffer because of lack of socialization, most homeschooled kids I've known have been much more polite, respectful and happy - and have been able to relate to people and children of differing age groups much better than public school kids.
These "sex-ed" classes, which are nothing but the blatant sexualization of childen so as to satisfy the perverted appetites of sexual libertines, are founded on the "fantasy as fact" notions of two intellectual morons: Alfred Kinsey and Herbert Marcuse. Kinsey was a sado-masochistic, bi-sexual pedophile and Marcuse was a sexual libertine, a member of the neo-Marxian Frankfurt Institute, and creator of "Critical Theory", an intellectually empty phrase that means, very simply, "to criticise without offering substantive remedy." It is to civilization what deconstructionism is to literature......a destroyer. In listening to the constant negativism and/or criticism of Bush, his policies, etc., that spews from sKerry, Edwards, and the Left in general, you hear 'Critical Theory" at work.
Judith Reisman has been conducting a crusade to expose Kinseys' pseudo-science and how it has led to the homosexualization of our childern. Here is a link to her website:
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/articles.htm
A simple way of making sense of the overthrow/destruction of what's left of the existing order {traditional values, family, etc},is to see it as the reconstruction and/or reordering of it so as to make it into a sexual libertines idea of 'heaven on earth."
Our entire civilization is being destroyed because historically, it has been stuctured so as to 'protect the innocence of children and to nurture them until adulthood." This necessarily called for social sanctions/condemnation of sexual libertinism in any form. Very naturally, sexual libetines saw this as 'oppressive, repressive, hurtful, and intolerant". In short, our lives, laws, and every foundational institution of our civilization are being upended in order to accomodate the sexual lusts of sexual libertines.
And if sexual libertines are to have their every fantasy come true, then children must be 'liberated' from their parents and 'taught the ways of liberated sex' as early as possible. Which is 5 years old.
>>Other options, homeschool your kids, shelter them, and when they become of age, they will still have to deal with the real world. <<
No, homeschool your kids and before they become of age, but are old enough to understand the real world, teach them. Normally I am not a militant Homeschooler but in MA I would be.
My homeschooled children are not sheltered but also are not told about their lesbian aunt or "Heather's Two Mommies". I would rather not throw my children to the wolves at 7. If you want to call it sheltering, fine with me.
"Kerry is not only a backstabbing, flip-flopping, lying, cheating, UN loving, troop hating, anti-American, liberal traitor, but a heretic as well."
Hey, enough mealy-mouthing around. Say what's on your mind. :>)
"Judith Reisman"
Isn't she great?
What a novel idea. Still, a government school is not a safe place for children because, at the very least, it ignores the purpose of human life, which is to know, love and serve God in this life and to be happy forever with Him in the next. A 12-year schooling that ignores the purpose of life represents child abuse of the worst kind.
The more I hear of stuff like this the more I pray that God will save and change all the 'homosexuals' or, if they refuse to be changed, kill them before they drag others into hell with them.
No need to identify right behavior with wrong behavior. Since there are no part time pathologies, all "bisexuals" are homosexuals
I would rather not also. I had my kids in school, not knowing what the school district had going or the teachers agenda. Had to deal with it after the fact. ALL the students in band laughed behind this teachers back. The teacher at middle school brought his life partner and his dog into the classroom. It was not germain to the subject he was teaching, (computer science). He was also laughed at behind (the teachers) back.
We had to deal with a problem the school district dumped on us. It happens. UNFORTUNATELY. I do not agree with it. I just found a way so did thousands of other parents who did not like it too much. Yes, I do have an sister-inlaw who is a lesbian. Did protect the kids from it. Now that the kids are a little older, they were told. Sometimes things are out of your control.
There has also been two male teachers in 8 years carrying on with female students. And female teacher found to have drugs in her posession on campus, this is life in America today. This is reality my kids dealt with and are fine. They did have a stable home life, and moral fibre to make it through. They also know the lifestyles and actions of others are WRONG.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
I didn't realize that "sex sells" was one of the principles that have shaped our system of government.
Although Bill Clinton certainly thinks so.
Shalom.
"This story is sickening......to think that this was really done in classrooms............."
Im a university student and the gay "lobby" here (Michigan State University) is, in my belief, very militant. On its website, it advocates informing them of anti-gay "bias". So if a "threatening" remark is made, such as "Homosexuality is morally wrong and it's against propagation of the human race", in the paper, I could be publically chastised . They come around telling me to vote not on Proposal 2 (which they cloud the issue by saying it not only outlaws gay marriage but the benefits for couples that live together and are not married, so thats what rings in "sympathy" for this "cause") and tell me that by being a heterosexual Catholic male that I somehow contibuted to hurting the Indians. This classroom stuff is nothing compared to what I have to take.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.