Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm

fate
These same parents who don't have the ability to make a good decision about their child's education, which one assumes they would care deeply about, are fully capable of voting intelligently? Should they have tutors? Maybe even prompters in the voting booth?


You have ended up with Trump....

You both presume that a parent is equipped to make good decisions about their child's education.
In what other field would you consider a person to be able to make decisions as well as experts?
Medicine? Dentistry? Law? Auto Mechanics?

Parents must be advocates for their children. And must be involved. But the notion that father knows best, just because he's the parent, belies common sense.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Dec 2017, 2:30 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
These same parents who don't have the ability to make a good decision about their child's education, which one assumes they would care deeply about, are fully capable of voting intelligently? Should they have tutors? Maybe even prompters in the voting booth?


You have ended up with Trump....

You both presume that a parent is equipped to make good decisions about their child's education.
In what other field would you consider a person to be able to make decisions as well as experts?
Medicine? Dentistry? Law? Auto Mechanics?

Parents must be advocates for their children. And must be involved. But the notion that father knows best, just because he's the parent, belies common sense.


No, what belies common sense is the notion that the State cares more than parents. That's just dumb.

Now, the State certainly has experts . . . who have crafted the education system so many complain about.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Dec 2017, 4:11 pm

It seems that the opinion of Government run schooling is what is being desired here. Those on the left think the Public school system is the best, and it can't be beat.

Let us compare that way of thinking to the food supply to the less fortunate. There could be food banks and government provided cheese, macaroni and vegetables. But no; what is the plan there? They pay people to go to the private sector and procure what they choose for food. Obviously, according to Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, food is a higher priority. One (not me) would think that the government should be providing all of the nutritional needs for every person, as the "experts" no so much more than normal plebeian society.

******NEWSFLASH*****

The government is not the best way to do everything. If parental rights need to be revoked to meet the educational needs of the child, then do that. Otherwise stay out of the way, and let parental choice take priority.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Dec 2017, 4:49 pm

bbauska wrote:The government is not the best way to do everything. If parental rights need to be revoked to meet the educational needs of the child, then do that. Otherwise stay out of the way, and let parental choice take priority.


I do not think you understand the situation, Comrade.

Image
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Dec 2017, 9:27 pm

I do understand. To revoke ALL the rights of the parents who disagree with the government is not feasible. It is sarcastic.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Dec 2017, 5:30 am

bbauska wrote:I do understand. To revoke ALL the rights of the parents who disagree with the government is not feasible. It is sarcastic.


When I make Stalin memes, I'm in a sarcastic state of mind. :winkgrin:
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 21 Dec 2017, 8:43 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
bbauska wrote:I do understand. To revoke ALL the rights of the parents who disagree with the government is not feasible. It is sarcastic.


When I make Stalin memes, I'm in a sarcastic state of mind. :winkgrin:


Phew!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Dec 2017, 8:46 am

Fate
No, what belies common sense is the notion that the State cares more than parents. That's just dumb
.
That is dumb. Who's said that?(Could you or Bbbauska would address something other than your straw men?)

When a parent takes their child to a medical facility, they care more about their children then the doctors. And yet they depend upon the medical facility to provide the expert care. Because they understand they don't know as much about medical care.
That doesn't stop them from advocating for their children. Weighing options provided and considering the advice before making a decision.
Why you two think Parent are magically endowed with an expertise about education, but not other areas is the mystery.

Here's something you and I agreed on once Fate. The most important factor in the quality of education a child receives is the quality of the teacher....
How does a parent judge that in advance? How are they qualified to understand what makes a good teacher? They may understand, once their child is engaged with a teacher, whether or not a student is enjoying or benefiting from the experience... But how would they know going in?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Dec 2017, 9:18 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
No, what belies common sense is the notion that the State cares more than parents. That's just dumb
.
That is dumb. Who's said that?(Could you or Bbbauska would address something other than your straw men?)

When a parent takes their child to a medical facility, they care more about their children then the doctors. And yet they depend upon the medical facility to provide the expert care. Because they understand they don't know as much about medical care.
That doesn't stop them from advocating for their children. Weighing options provided and considering the advice before making a decision.
Why you two think Parent are magically endowed with an expertise about education, but not other areas is the mystery.

Here's something you and I agreed on once Fate. The most important factor in the quality of education a child receives is the quality of the teacher....
How does a parent judge that in advance? How are they qualified to understand what makes a good teacher? They may understand, once their child is engaged with a teacher, whether or not a student is enjoying or benefiting from the experience... But how would they know going in?


Oh, okay, so the STATE is the equivalent of doctors when it comes to education.

Oh, sure. That explains why our education system is universally lauded.

:no:

The quality of teachers is important. The quality of parents is important too. You can have the best teachers on the face of the planet and bad parenting will diminish the results.

Since you know so much about education (allegedly), what is the magic bullet for poor-performing schools?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 21 Dec 2017, 10:11 am

RickyP,
Great analogy. Considering a parent can choose to treat a child for whatever they feel comfortable with regarding their beliefs, and the government cannot step in without legal action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Child_deaths,_prosecutions

The first time the church was held liable (overturned on appeal) was in 1993 after 11-year-old Ian Lundman died of hyperglycaemia in Minnesota in 1989. The church sent a Christian Science nurse to sit with him; doctors testified that he could have been saved by an insulin injection up to two hours before his death. The mother and stepfather were charged with manslaughter, but the charges were dismissed. The boy's father sued the mother, stepfather, practitioner, nurse, nursing home and church. He was awarded $5.2 million compensatory damages, later reduced to $1.5 million, and $9 million in punitive damages against the church. The Minnesota State Court of Appeals overturned the award against the church and nursing home in 1995, finding that a judgment that forced the church to "abandon teaching its central tenet" was unconstitutional, and that, while the individuals had a duty of care toward the boy, the church and nursing home did not.

Here is a clear case of a parent being given control over a child's health care. I do not agree with parents in this case, but I agree that a parent has the right to make these decisions. Yes, sometimes parents make a bad choice. (So do schools, btw). Your desire to remove that choice is where I have the problem. You, again, are not believing in choice.

And that does not surprise me.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 21 Dec 2017, 10:28 am

I have said it before, I do not think ALL parents are "magically endowed" with an expertise on education. I do, however, think some are, and that is enough to have the choice to choose a child's education.

Back to the medical analogy...

Do you think that everyone needs to go to the nearest government run health care center, or should they get to choose who sees their child? You are saying with YOUR analogy that everyone should go to the nearest provider, mandated by the government.

I think your are blatantly incorrect, thinking faulty, and taking away freedom.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Dec 2017, 11:29 am

bbauska
Here is a clear case of a parent being given control over a child's health care. I do not agree with parents in this case, but I agree that a parent has the right to make these decisions. Yes, sometimes parents make a bad choice. (So do schools, btw). Your desire to remove that choice is where I have the problem. You, again, are not believing in choice.

I'm not sure how this buttresses your argument bbauska.
You've got caring parents, who, blinded by their faith to the advantages offered by medical science, made a decision that ended their child's life. That might be legal in Minnesota but its hard to figure how this was the best decision for the childs welfare. Or why it supports your argument that "parents know best".

And it might serve both Fate and you to read what I wrote.
Here's what I wrote.
That doesn't stop them from advocating for their children. Weighing options provided and considering the advice before making a decision.

Does this not clearly indicate that the parents "make a choice"?
The difference is that parents should make an informed choice, with the assistance and application of the expert information available.
I think few parents are expert in education. And although they care greatly for their children, may not understand their choices completely.
Just as those who choose to ignore the advice of expert medical science can kill their children, poorly informed parents might make choices that are unhelpful to their childrens schooling.
They still get to make choices...

Fate
Do you think that everyone needs to go to the nearest government run health care center, or should they get to choose who sees their child? You are saying with YOUR analogy that everyone should go to the nearest provider, mandated by the government.

Where I live everyone chooses their medical provider. Neither the government, nor private insurance providers have any say on who they see. They just don't worry about the cost. Since paying their taxes have provided them freedom from worrying about the cost of the care. (Its free.)

Fate
Since you know so much about education (allegedly), what is the magic bullet for poor-performing schools

I advocate for following the example of over performing school systems. Finland provides arguably the best example of a system that produces excellent results.Almost all children there go to public schools, and the schools are all funded equally, and staffed with superior teachers. All well paid well qualified professionals.
Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.
In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.
.

This notion may seem difficult for an American to digest, but it's true. Only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland, and even they are all publicly financed. None is allowed to charge tuition fees. There are no private universities, either. This means that practically every person in Finland attends public school, whether for pre-K or a Ph.D.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... ss/250564/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Dec 2017, 12:59 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Since you know so much about education (allegedly), what is the magic bullet for poor-performing schools

I advocate for following the example of over performing school systems. Finland provides arguably the best example of a system that produces excellent results.Almost all children there go to public schools, and the schools are all funded equally, and staffed with superior teachers. All well paid well qualified professionals.
Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.
In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.
.


With all due respect, that is daft. Try to import the Finnish model and employ it in South Central Los Angeles. Good luck.

There are cultural and demographic differences, which are not inconsiderable. Los Angeles has gangs. It has a poor transit system (that cannot be fixed. Don't try). There are many students for whom English is a second language. There are gangs. There are all manner of drugs. There are ethnic tensions.

Finland is nothing like Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago. Sorry.

This notion may seem difficult for an American to digest, but it's true. Only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland, and even they are all publicly financed. None is allowed to charge tuition fees. There are no private universities, either. This means that practically every person in Finland attends public school, whether for pre-K or a Ph.D.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... ss/250564/


So, once again, the "solution" is socialism.

So surprising.

Then again, our big cities are run by socialists. Why have they never figured this out?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Dec 2017, 1:01 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Do you think that everyone needs to go to the nearest government run health care center, or should they get to choose who sees their child? You are saying with YOUR analogy that everyone should go to the nearest provider, mandated by the government.

Where I live everyone chooses their medical provider. Neither the government, nor private insurance providers have any say on who they see. They just don't worry about the cost. Since paying their taxes have provided them freedom from worrying about the cost of the care. (Its free.)


It might serve you well when you're complaining that others don't read what you post to actually read what they post.

Hint: I didn't post this.

Spoiler alert: bbauska did.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Dec 2017, 9:57 am

Fate
With all due respect, that is daft. Try to import the Finnish model and employ it in South Central Los Angeles. Good luck


As always, your answer is that its no use trying to emulate systems that have worked to produce superior results because ... the US just can't do stuff that smells like "socialism". (Except of course medicare, social security, libraries, fire and police departments, the CDC and ...well most of the popular components of American society.)
So there's no use trying anything that works elsewhere.

Not everyone can be convinced by evidence or experts. However the longer people are exposed to, and informed about, systems that work better for the vast majority of the populace .... the closer to a tipping point society can get. Admittedly the US political system is corrupt, sclerotic and highly resistant to change. But even then, a tipping point can be reached...