A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Parent-Child Negotiations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #581  
Old July 2nd 04, 08:50 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)


"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:07:58 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"


How hard, and in how many places, have you looked? Are you really saying
that the peer pressure issue has nothing to do with why some Jews and
Moslems send their children to Jewish or Moslem schools? And if so, how
do you know?


I notice you leave out Hindus (maybe because there are not many Hindu
day schools?) My dil is Hindu. My husband is Jewish. I live in a
very diverse area which includes those of all these religions and more
- Bahai, for example are numerous here. The only proselytizers are
fundamentalist Christians. Some Catholics may proselytize in some
circumstances though not among children as far as I know.


Why does it matter? If anything, your apparent prejudice against religions
that proselytize looks like evidence that you are trying to take advantage
of the current situation to put non-prosylitizing religions in a stronger
position compared with prosylitizing ones. That would violate the
Establishment Clause.



  #582  
Old July 2nd 04, 09:21 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)


"Donna Metler" wrote in message
news

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...


Unless MOST families send their children to such after-school
activities, and do so for academic reasons rather than because
the activities are something the children enjoy, what you are
doing is demanding that families who want their children to
study religion accept a special, extra burden above and
beyond the burden that other families carry. You refuse to
offer them the option of substituting a religion class for
some other class that they consider less valuable (an art
class, for example). That constitutes discrimination by
government against the choice to study religion as an
elective.

Do a majority of families send their children to weekday religious

education
classes? The common practice where I grew up was Church and Sunday
school on Sunday AM, Youth Fellowship (which was much more social
than worship) for middle and high school kids on Sunday night, Choir
practice on Wednesday night. This was mainline protestant churches.


My impression (from very few data points; you likely have more than I do) is
that families tend to either do something along the lines of what you
describe or go all-out and send their children to religious schools. With
religious schools, a religion class can be substituted for something else
without really adding an extra time burden to the kids. In contrast, extra
classes outside school would create an additional time burden, especially
since it would involve an academic study rather than something done mostly
or entirely for fun like ballet or soccar. Add to that the cost (if the
teacher is a trained professional who needs to be paid accordingly) and
logistical issues, and daily religious studies outside school are not
exactly the world's most attractive option.

I know a lot more parents who send their children to ballet class, soccer
practice, or piano lessons during the school week than who send their
children to weekday religion classes.


Keep in mind that the distribution is not even. Members of some religious
groups are more likely than members of others to send their children to
religious schools or, if they can't do that, possibly arrange some other
kind of relatively intensive religious instruction. Further, within any
given denomination or congregation, the members most likely to send their
children to such schools or programs would tend to be among the most devout,
and I would expect usually among the most conservative.

So the pattern we have is that a lot of families don't mind how the public
schools handle religion at all, some would like to have something more like
what the public schools used to be before the Supreme Court intervened, and
some would prefer full-blown religious schools. Thus, the system taxes
everyone the same, gives some families almost exactly what they want based
on their religious viewpoints, gives some something pretty close, and gives
a small but significant percentage something they dislike enough that
they're willing to pay out of their own pockets to avoid using it if they
have to. The practical effect is to establish religious groups, factions,
and families that like the public schools in a favored position over those
that dislike them and want schools where religion will play a significantly
larger role.


  #583  
Old July 2nd 04, 09:21 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)


"Donna Metler" wrote in message
news

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...


Unless MOST families send their children to such after-school
activities, and do so for academic reasons rather than because
the activities are something the children enjoy, what you are
doing is demanding that families who want their children to
study religion accept a special, extra burden above and
beyond the burden that other families carry. You refuse to
offer them the option of substituting a religion class for
some other class that they consider less valuable (an art
class, for example). That constitutes discrimination by
government against the choice to study religion as an
elective.

Do a majority of families send their children to weekday religious

education
classes? The common practice where I grew up was Church and Sunday
school on Sunday AM, Youth Fellowship (which was much more social
than worship) for middle and high school kids on Sunday night, Choir
practice on Wednesday night. This was mainline protestant churches.


My impression (from very few data points; you likely have more than I do) is
that families tend to either do something along the lines of what you
describe or go all-out and send their children to religious schools. With
religious schools, a religion class can be substituted for something else
without really adding an extra time burden to the kids. In contrast, extra
classes outside school would create an additional time burden, especially
since it would involve an academic study rather than something done mostly
or entirely for fun like ballet or soccar. Add to that the cost (if the
teacher is a trained professional who needs to be paid accordingly) and
logistical issues, and daily religious studies outside school are not
exactly the world's most attractive option.

I know a lot more parents who send their children to ballet class, soccer
practice, or piano lessons during the school week than who send their
children to weekday religion classes.


Keep in mind that the distribution is not even. Members of some religious
groups are more likely than members of others to send their children to
religious schools or, if they can't do that, possibly arrange some other
kind of relatively intensive religious instruction. Further, within any
given denomination or congregation, the members most likely to send their
children to such schools or programs would tend to be among the most devout,
and I would expect usually among the most conservative.

So the pattern we have is that a lot of families don't mind how the public
schools handle religion at all, some would like to have something more like
what the public schools used to be before the Supreme Court intervened, and
some would prefer full-blown religious schools. Thus, the system taxes
everyone the same, gives some families almost exactly what they want based
on their religious viewpoints, gives some something pretty close, and gives
a small but significant percentage something they dislike enough that
they're willing to pay out of their own pockets to avoid using it if they
have to. The practical effect is to establish religious groups, factions,
and families that like the public schools in a favored position over those
that dislike them and want schools where religion will play a significantly
larger role.


  #584  
Old July 2nd 04, 09:54 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)


"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:23:56 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...

If it's only one class, couldn't this be accommodated by release
time or via an after school program?


The problem there is a matter of logistics. In a religious school, a
religion teacher can teach five or six classes a day. The same would
be theoretically possible with a "release time" format, but how do
you make it work in practice if the kids are spread across three or
four different public schools and even the kids at the same school
have different schedules? And where would the classes be held?
I'm thinking they wouldn't be allowed inside the school itself,
although I'm not quite 100% sure about that. But if that is true,
either there would have to be another building handy nearby to
hold the classes in or transportation would have to be arranged
(adding trouble and cost, and eating into time available for
instruction).

I can only say that for Catholics that problem is not an issue. The
classes are held at the local Catholic schools nearest to the
particular public school that is being accomodated. Or in the
Church nearest that school.

Transportation was by walking when I went to school.


What kind of population density was involved, and what kind of density of
Catholics? And what kind of walking distances were required?

I don't know what kind of place you live in, but both the city I grew up in
(Montgomery, Alabama) and the one where I live now (Huntsville) are largely
dominated by single-family homes. That produces a much lower population
density than apartment buildings several stories tall would. For a religion
that isn't among the dominant ones, that can mean pretty long distances
between churches.

If this is not practical, then it certainly isn't practical for the
child to be transported through your voucher system either.


Cars? Carpools? School busses? But by the time you transport kids very
far for a "release time" program, and then transport them back, you've eaten
into a lot of the time that would otherwise be available for instruction.
(And the same would be true for any non-trivial walking distance.)

After-school programs have other logistical issues. The kids have to
be transported to wherever the instruction takes place, and if one
teacher would teach as many separate classes in a religious school,
the classes would run until around 9:00 at night. More than one
teacher? Then you turn a full-time job requiring one teacher into
a part-time job for multiple teachers, which makes it a lot harder
to have enough teachers with the desired level of training and
experience.

What makes you think that there are so many students that one class
would not be sufficient?


The school I went to. My high school Bible teacher taught something along
the lines of five Bible classes a day plus the Chorus class. And that's
just for grades 10-12 or maybe 9-12. Fewer classes would have been possible
if we accepted a worse student-teacher ratio, but considering that public
schools don't have lecture classes of fifty or a hundred or more students
for History and Social Studies, why should such ratios be considered any
more reasonable for Bible classes?

The problem isn't as easy to solve as it looks at first glance like it
ought to be.

I went to those classes when I went to school. It certainly didn't
seem to be a problem for the Catholic Church. I cannot see why
other religions could not do the same thing.


I'd have to know more about your situation growing up (including the answers
to the questions I raised earlier) to address that issue.


  #585  
Old July 2nd 04, 09:54 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)


"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:23:56 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...

If it's only one class, couldn't this be accommodated by release
time or via an after school program?


The problem there is a matter of logistics. In a religious school, a
religion teacher can teach five or six classes a day. The same would
be theoretically possible with a "release time" format, but how do
you make it work in practice if the kids are spread across three or
four different public schools and even the kids at the same school
have different schedules? And where would the classes be held?
I'm thinking they wouldn't be allowed inside the school itself,
although I'm not quite 100% sure about that. But if that is true,
either there would have to be another building handy nearby to
hold the classes in or transportation would have to be arranged
(adding trouble and cost, and eating into time available for
instruction).

I can only say that for Catholics that problem is not an issue. The
classes are held at the local Catholic schools nearest to the
particular public school that is being accomodated. Or in the
Church nearest that school.

Transportation was by walking when I went to school.


What kind of population density was involved, and what kind of density of
Catholics? And what kind of walking distances were required?

I don't know what kind of place you live in, but both the city I grew up in
(Montgomery, Alabama) and the one where I live now (Huntsville) are largely
dominated by single-family homes. That produces a much lower population
density than apartment buildings several stories tall would. For a religion
that isn't among the dominant ones, that can mean pretty long distances
between churches.

If this is not practical, then it certainly isn't practical for the
child to be transported through your voucher system either.


Cars? Carpools? School busses? But by the time you transport kids very
far for a "release time" program, and then transport them back, you've eaten
into a lot of the time that would otherwise be available for instruction.
(And the same would be true for any non-trivial walking distance.)

After-school programs have other logistical issues. The kids have to
be transported to wherever the instruction takes place, and if one
teacher would teach as many separate classes in a religious school,
the classes would run until around 9:00 at night. More than one
teacher? Then you turn a full-time job requiring one teacher into
a part-time job for multiple teachers, which makes it a lot harder
to have enough teachers with the desired level of training and
experience.

What makes you think that there are so many students that one class
would not be sufficient?


The school I went to. My high school Bible teacher taught something along
the lines of five Bible classes a day plus the Chorus class. And that's
just for grades 10-12 or maybe 9-12. Fewer classes would have been possible
if we accepted a worse student-teacher ratio, but considering that public
schools don't have lecture classes of fifty or a hundred or more students
for History and Social Studies, why should such ratios be considered any
more reasonable for Bible classes?

The problem isn't as easy to solve as it looks at first glance like it
ought to be.

I went to those classes when I went to school. It certainly didn't
seem to be a problem for the Catholic Church. I cannot see why
other religions could not do the same thing.


I'd have to know more about your situation growing up (including the answers
to the questions I raised earlier) to address that issue.


  #586  
Old July 2nd 04, 10:26 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)


"Circe" wrote in message
news:8hYEc.10917$Qj6.10251@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


That distinction has been in place
for decades with regard to financial aid for college students,


Missed the recent Washington state Supreme Court decision, did you?
They specifically ruled that the state could refuse to fund a scholarship
to an eligible individual because he wanted to use the money to study
theology at a religious college without infringing that individual's free
exercise. In this case, the Washington State Constitution specifically
bars government financial support of religious entities.


That's a state constitution issue, not a First Amendment issue. And if I
lived in Washington, I'd be pushing for an amendment. The original goal of
the Washington provision may have made sense at the time it was written, but
when a state funds practically anything else that a college chooses to offer
and a student chooses to study, singling out people who study religion to
deny them funding seems grossly unfair.


  #587  
Old July 2nd 04, 10:26 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)


"Circe" wrote in message
news:8hYEc.10917$Qj6.10251@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


That distinction has been in place
for decades with regard to financial aid for college students,


Missed the recent Washington state Supreme Court decision, did you?
They specifically ruled that the state could refuse to fund a scholarship
to an eligible individual because he wanted to use the money to study
theology at a religious college without infringing that individual's free
exercise. In this case, the Washington State Constitution specifically
bars government financial support of religious entities.


That's a state constitution issue, not a First Amendment issue. And if I
lived in Washington, I'd be pushing for an amendment. The original goal of
the Washington provision may have made sense at the time it was written, but
when a state funds practically anything else that a college chooses to offer
and a student chooses to study, singling out people who study religion to
deny them funding seems grossly unfair.


  #590  
Old July 3rd 04, 04:57 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

abacus wrote:

"Circe" wrote in message

The Constitution doesn't prohibit the
government from putting a bus stop closer to your house; it *does* prohibit
the government from providing religious instruction. And whether that
religious instruction is given in a public school or a private one is
immaterial or whether it is done at the behest of or against the will of the
recipient is irrelevant--the government cannot and should not pay for
religious education.


Ma'am, I won't argue that the government should not pay for religious
education. I agree with you on that point. But denying equal funding
for education simply because the education is done in a religious
setting strikes me as the equivalent of refusing to run put a bus stop
in front of a church just because people go there to attend religious
services. Where people go and why they go there is not a matter of
governmental concern, government's only concern should be whether or
not there are sufficient people who want to go there to a bus stop.

------------------------------------
True, but it's not the same. If it was a funding a church bus that
goes to the church most of the time that would be more analgous.
We can't do that, it's offensive to all of us who think the very
kinds of religions who have buses are morally wrong. The protestant
churches can be divided into the unreasoning overbearing ****-headed
assholes vs the more tolerant reasonable thinker-sort of Xtian
precisely by whether they seem to want to bus any children they can
find to brainwash as if in a cattle car, as if compulsory like a
school bus, namely, that they actually USE an old school bus.
That's ****ing offensive!
Steve
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 July 4th 04 11:26 PM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 January 16th 04 09:15 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 02:30 AM
| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 105 November 30th 03 05:48 AM
So much for the claims about Sweden Kane Spanking 10 November 5th 03 06:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.