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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#581
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)
"Circe" wrote in message news:8hYEc.10917$Qj6.10251@fed1read05... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: That distinction has been in place for decades with regard to financial aid for college students, Missed the recent Washington state Supreme Court decision, did you? They specifically ruled that the state could refuse to fund a scholarship to an eligible individual because he wanted to use the money to study theology at a religious college without infringing that individual's free exercise. In this case, the Washington State Constitution specifically bars government financial support of religious entities. That's a state constitution issue, not a First Amendment issue. And if I lived in Washington, I'd be pushing for an amendment. The original goal of the Washington provision may have made sense at the time it was written, but when a state funds practically anything else that a college chooses to offer and a student chooses to study, singling out people who study religion to deny them funding seems grossly unfair. |
#587
|
|||
|
|||
School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)
"Circe" wrote in message news:8hYEc.10917$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. |
#588
|
|||
|
|||
School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)
toto wrote in message . ..
On 2 Jul 2004 08:45:20 -0700, (abacus) wrote: Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But why is it that the private schools provided that smaller class size - if indeed that is the reason for the improvement - while the public schools did not? And why is it that you object to allowing parents more options for their children's education? Money Follow the money into those schools and guess where it goes. I prefer the idea of funding education costs for students, and letting the money follow the student. In regards to the money, what I care about is whether or not it is buying the children in our society a good education. I don't have any particular reason to favor public schools over private or secular ones over religious schools. Nor have I yet to read an argument, either in the press or in newsgroup conversations like this that causes me to think I should. So I'm fine with allowing parents to make those decisions, just as adults receiving funding for their education from the government are allowed to make those decisions. |
#589
|
|||
|
|||
School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)
toto wrote in message . ..
On 2 Jul 2004 08:45:20 -0700, (abacus) wrote: Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But why is it that the private schools provided that smaller class size - if indeed that is the reason for the improvement - while the public schools did not? And why is it that you object to allowing parents more options for their children's education? Money Follow the money into those schools and guess where it goes. I prefer the idea of funding education costs for students, and letting the money follow the student. In regards to the money, what I care about is whether or not it is buying the children in our society a good education. I don't have any particular reason to favor public schools over private or secular ones over religious schools. Nor have I yet to read an argument, either in the press or in newsgroup conversations like this that causes me to think I should. So I'm fine with allowing parents to make those decisions, just as adults receiving funding for their education from the government are allowed to make those decisions. |
#590
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |