Is this true? If so, why?

[Foxfyre]

Spend some time tutoring kids in the public schools today--I do that now and then--and you will see up close and personal the hgh level of ignorance and non subjects that passes for public education these days.

Spend some time mentoring a group of recent highschool graduates and college kids who not one--count them, not ONE--had any clue who Karl Marx was, not one could name any key members of the President's cabinet, not one could provide anywhere close to an accurate definition for an unalienable right, not one had any idea what the annual deficit or the national debt was, andyou get an up close and personal microcosm of how much our kids are not being educated.

Google up some Watters World You Tube 'man on the street' videos and you get a further idea of how much kids and adults don't know about what is going on.

Here is just one short Watters World segment that sort of sums it all up:
Watters' World: Spring break edition | Fox News Video

And here's some more:



And here's Part II of dumbest moments:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/05/watters-world-dumbest-things-ever-saidpart-ii

 

[Unkotare]

You're not only dumb (yep, now I'm convinced) you've become totally dishonest. No part of any of my posts on this issue suggested let's have fun. I guess being dumb you somehow comported teaching to a student's interests and talents fun even when my post framed core subjects like math, science, reading, history and geography within said interests. In this way fewer kids will be turned off by being told "sit down, don't talk, don't touch, don't, don't don't".

I suppose that is too abstract for you. That's sad.

Whee! Let's have fun!" was intended to be taken as a condensation of your silly, indulgent, impractical attitude towards education. If you had some yourself you might have figured that out on your own.

It was not your intention,

I just told you that it was. In the process, we have discovered something about your capacity for learning. It doesn't look good...

 

[Unkotare]

Spend some time tutoring kids in the public schools today--I do that now and then--and you will see up close and personal the hgh level of ignorance and non subjects that passes for public education these days.

Spend some time mentoring a group of recent highschool graduates and college kids who not one--count them, not ONE--had any clue who Karl Marx was, not one could name any key members of the President's cabinet, not one could provide anywhere close to an accurate definition for an unalienable right, not one had any idea what the annual deficit or the national debt was, andyou get an up close and personal microcosm of how much our kids are not being educated.

Now do the same with a group of Jr High School kids attending decent private schools, and who have families that value education highly. See the difference, and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Spend some time tutoring kids in the public schools today--I do that now and then--and you will see up close and personal the hgh level of ignorance and non subjects that passes for public education these days.

Spend some time mentoring a group of recent highschool graduates and college kids who not one--count them, not ONE--had any clue who Karl Marx was, not one could name any key members of the President's cabinet, not one could provide anywhere close to an accurate definition for an unalienable right, not one had any idea what the annual deficit or the national debt was, andyou get an up close and personal microcosm of how much our kids are not being educated.

Now do the same with a group of Jr High School kids attending decent private schools, and who have families that value education highly. See the difference, and draw your own conclusions.

Anecdotes are not a substitute for facts.

 

[Unkotare]

Spend some time tutoring kids in the public schools today--I do that now and then--and you will see up close and personal the hgh level of ignorance and non subjects that passes for public education these days.

Spend some time mentoring a group of recent highschool graduates and college kids who not one--count them, not ONE--had any clue who Karl Marx was, not one could name any key members of the President's cabinet, not one could provide anywhere close to an accurate definition for an unalienable right, not one had any idea what the annual deficit or the national debt was, andyou get an up close and personal microcosm of how much our kids are not being educated.

Now do the same with a group of Jr High School kids attending decent private schools, and who have families that value education highly. See the difference, and draw your own conclusions.

Anecdotes are not a substitute for facts.

I trust your comments were intended for me and foxfyre then?

 

[Foxfyre]

Spend some time tutoring kids in the public schools today--I do that now and then--and you will see up close and personal the hgh level of ignorance and non subjects that passes for public education these days.

Spend some time mentoring a group of recent highschool graduates and college kids who not one--count them, not ONE--had any clue who Karl Marx was, not one could name any key members of the President's cabinet, not one could provide anywhere close to an accurate definition for an unalienable right, not one had any idea what the annual deficit or the national debt was, andyou get an up close and personal microcosm of how much our kids are not being educated.

Now do the same with a group of Jr High School kids attending decent private schools, and who have families that value education highly. See the difference, and draw your own conclusions.

Anecdotes are not a substitute for facts.

True. Anecdotal evidence should never be construed to be the way it is for everybody. But our personal experience, viewed objectively, can inform us. And my personal experience has been that far too many public schools are absolutely national disgraces in their utter failure to educate the kids. They may brainwash them some. They may indoctrinate them with all sorts of things. But they are absolutely not educating them nor teaching concepts of logic, reason, and critical thinking that would help them to educate themselves.

Private schools and parochial schools are doing a better job. Homeschooled kids are on average getting a far superior education these days.

 

[Unkotare]

Therefore it might be reasonable to look at the differences between failing public schools and thriving private schools and enact changes accordingly, might it not?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Now do the same with a group of Jr High School kids attending decent private schools, and who have families that value education highly. See the difference, and draw your own conclusions.

Anecdotes are not a substitute for facts.

I trust your comments were intended for me and foxfyre then?

Foxfyre spends a great deal of her time doing charitable work and was providing feedback from her own experiences.

You were attempting to extrapolate that with your own anecdote and spuriously claim that it was somehow "conclusive" that "decent private schools" were superior to public schools.

Hence my comment was directed at your egregious intentions.

 

[Foxfyre]

All private schools are not equal any more than all public schools are equally bad. And I am old enough to remember when the public schools were so good that most were far superior to what many of the private schools are now.

Step one: Get federal and state government out of the public school systems altogether and return the schools to the parents, teachers--sans federal unions, and local school boards to administer. I am guessing we would see an immediate remarkable jump in I.Q. scores of the students and their SATs within a year or two.

Step two: The federal and state governments could help by reining in the ACLU and $ motivated litigation and giving the states and local schools cover and protection from frivolous or coercive lawsuits. In other words there would be no grounds for lawsuit if the school institutes a dress code, a conduct code, and the schools would be free to utilize ANY form of security necessary to protect the students and staff from would be agents of mayhem or other crimes.

 

[Unkotare]

Anecdotes are not a substitute for facts.

I trust your comments were intended for me and foxfyre then?

Foxfyre spends a great deal of her time doing charitable work and was providing feedback from her own experiences. .

I was also providing feedback from my own experiences. Same thing viewed differently through the lens of your bias.

 

[Unkotare]

All private schools are not equal any more than all public schools are equally bad...

That's true.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Now do the same with a group of Jr High School kids attending decent private schools, and who have families that value education highly. See the difference, and draw your own conclusions.

Anecdotes are not a substitute for facts.

True. Anecdotal evidence should never be construed to be the way it is for everybody. But our personal experience, viewed objectively, can inform us. And my personal experience has been that far too many public schools are absolutely national disgraces in their utter failure to educate the kids. They may brainwash them some. They may indoctrinate them with all sorts of things. But they are absolutely not educating them nor teaching concepts of logic, reason, and critical thinking that would help them to educate themselves.

Private schools and parochial schools are doing a better job. Homeschooled kids are on average getting a far superior education these days.

It is not at all surprising that well funded private schools catering to the wealthy are outperforming beleaguered and underfunded public schools these days. After all you get what you pay for and taking money out of public education for children has had some dire consequences. Unfortunately the average parent is in no position to fork over tens of thousands of dollars a semester for each of their children to attend private schools. Especially so when the economy is weak, jobs are scarce and wages are shrinking.

Once upon a time not so very long ago we placed a premium on ensuring that our children had the best possible education right from the outset. We funded programs like Head Start so that even underprivileged children could begin their schooling on an equal footing. Nowadays that all gets lumped together as being the evil of too much government spending. We have moved our core values from what is best for our children to what is best for our wallets.

That is not something that I am proud of as a taxpayer. To know that I could be paying just a few dollars more and a child would still be able to get the education they deserve seems like a small enough sacrifice to me. They have their futures still ahead of them but here we are turning our backs on their plight. Somewhere we have gone astray in my opinion.

 

[Unkotare]

Once upon a time not so very long ago we placed a premium on ensuring that our children had the best possible education right from the outset. We funded programs like Head Start so that even underprivileged children could begin their schooling on an equal footing. :

If there is some question as to the effectiveness of a program, is it not reasonable to consider the wisdom of further funding?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once upon a time not so very long ago we placed a premium on ensuring that our children had the best possible education right from the outset. We funded programs like Head Start so that even underprivileged children could begin their schooling on an equal footing. :

If there is some question as to the effectiveness of a program, is it not reasonable to consider the wisdom of further funding?

Onus is on you to prove that Head Start and funding for public education was ineffective before you started harming the futures of innocent children. Furthermore the onus was on you to ensure that they would still be able to obtain an equivalent or better education before you threw them under the bus.

 

[Unkotare]

Once upon a time not so very long ago we placed a premium on ensuring that our children had the best possible education right from the outset. We funded programs like Head Start so that even underprivileged children could begin their schooling on an equal footing. :

If there is some question as to the effectiveness of a program, is it not reasonable to consider the wisdom of further funding?

Onus is on you to prove that Head Start and funding for public education was ineffective before you started harming the futures of innocent children. Furthermore the onus was on you to ensure that they would still be able to obtain an equivalent or better education before you threw them under the bus.

I didn't say it was my personal position. I asked you a question that you have conspicuously avoided answering.

In any case, isn't the onus on those running a program to demonstrate its effectiveness? Otherwise, you end up endlessly funding programs that may or may not be effective just because certain people (yes, you) perceive any critical examination or fiscal responsibility to be a rejection of the aims of any given program regardless of its actual efficacy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If there is some question as to the effectiveness of a program, is it not reasonable to consider the wisdom of further funding?

Onus is on you to prove that Head Start and funding for public education was ineffective before you started harming the futures of innocent children. Furthermore the onus was on you to ensure that they would still be able to obtain an equivalent or better education before you threw them under the bus.

I didn't say it was my personal position. I asked you a question that you have conspicuously avoided answering.

In any case, isn't the onus on those running a program to demonstrate its effectiveness? Otherwise, you end up endlessly funding programs that may or may not be effective just because certain people (yes, you) perceive any critical examination or fiscal responsibility to be a rejection of the aims of any given program regardless of its actual efficacy.

Interesting that you suddenly deny that you were running down public education just a couple of posts ago. And that you deflect from your own agenda so as to avoid having to deal with the consequences. But what is most egregious is your allegation that I failed to address your question when I did nothing of the sort. That type of dishonesty is why I stopped responding to your posts. The onus remains on you to deal with the questions in my previous post.

 

[Foxfyre]

Once upon a time not so very long ago we placed a premium on ensuring that our children had the best possible education right from the outset. We funded programs like Head Start so that even underprivileged children could begin their schooling on an equal footing. :

If there is some question as to the effectiveness of a program, is it not reasonable to consider the wisdom of further funding?

Onus is on you to prove that Head Start and funding for public education was ineffective before you started harming the futures of innocent children. Furthermore the onus was on you to ensure that they would still be able to obtain an equivalent or better education before you threw them under the bus.

Well, I generally am no fan of Unkotare's take on a number of subjects, but I will respectfully protest here as I do not see that he threw anybody under anything. He is offering a very defensible reasoned argument suggesting that which has no proven track record of benefit or success should not continue to receive public funding.

There is no proof available that Head Start is living up to its advertising. Even some, maybe many of those who promote and support the program admit it is usually little more than a different kind of child care service for low income families.

A good pro and con argument for Head Start can be found here:
Pros and Cons of Public Preschool: The Debate | PublicSchoolReview.com

Elsewhere I recently read, though I can't immediately lay my hands on the link, a comprehensive study showing that First Graders who had Head Start do usually have a leg up on their classmates in some areas. But by Third Grade, that advantage has evaporated and there is no difference noted between those that had Head Start and those that did not.

And anecdotally, I refer back to my early education in a time that such things as kindergarten and preschool did not exist. For me and essentially all my peers, our first day in First Grade was our first day in any kind of classroom or formal learning experience. But we all received a Class A education that allowed us to compete with anybody. And I am going to guess that 90% of us went on to get at least some college and we have a very high number of college graduates.

The title and advertising on many government programs, no matter how high minded and noble they might look, simply do not deliver on giving us our our money's worth.

In my opinion the government would utilize its limited resources much more effectively and altruistically by focusing on re-establishing the nuclear family, preferably two-parent homes, and promoting that as the national norm. That and getting itself out of the education business altogether would do wonders for the education of our children.

 

[Unkotare]

Onus is on you to prove that Head Start and funding for public education was ineffective before you started harming the futures of innocent children. Furthermore the onus was on you to ensure that they would still be able to obtain an equivalent or better education before you threw them under the bus.

I didn't say it was my personal position. I asked you a question that you have conspicuously avoided answering.

In any case, isn't the onus on those running a program to demonstrate its effectiveness? Otherwise, you end up endlessly funding programs that may or may not be effective just because certain people (yes, you) perceive any critical examination or fiscal responsibility to be a rejection of the aims of any given program regardless of its actual efficacy.

Interesting that you suddenly deny that you were running down public education just a couple of posts ago. .

I don't deny having issues with public education. You have a lot of trouble following along, don't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If there is some question as to the effectiveness of a program, is it not reasonable to consider the wisdom of further funding?

Onus is on you to prove that Head Start and funding for public education was ineffective before you started harming the futures of innocent children. Furthermore the onus was on you to ensure that they would still be able to obtain an equivalent or better education before you threw them under the bus.

Well, I generally am no fan of Unkotare's take on a number of subjects, but I will respectfully protest here as I do not see that he threw anybody under anything. He is offering a very defensible reasoned argument suggesting that which has no proven track record of benefit or success should not continue to receive public funding.

There is no proof available that Head Start is living up to its advertising. Even some, maybe many of those who promote and support the program admit it is usually little more than a different kind of child care service for low income families.

A good pro and con argument for Head Start can be found here:
Pros and Cons of Public Preschool: The Debate | PublicSchoolReview.com

Elsewhere I recently read, though I can't immediately lay my hands on the link, a comprehensive study showing that First Graders who had Head Start do usually have a leg up on their classmates in some areas. But by Third Grade, that advantage has evaporated and there is no difference noted between those that had Head Start and those that did not.

If there is no difference between those that had head start and those who did not one must ask would those who did not have head start but needed it be behind in the first grade and further behind by the third?

And anecdotally, I refer back to my early education in a time that such things as kindergarten and preschool did not exist. For me and essentially all my peers, our first day in First Grade was our first day in any kind of classroom or formal learning experience. But we all received a Class A education that allowed us to compete with anybody. And I am going to guess that 90% of us went on to get at least some college and we have a very high number of college graduates.

The title and advertising on many government programs, no matter how high minded and noble they might look, simply do not deliver on giving us our our money's worth.

In my opinion the government would utilize its limited resources much more effectively and altruistically by focusing on re-establishing the nuclear family, preferably two-parent homes, and promoting that as the national norm. That and getting itself out of the education business altogether would do wonders for the education of our children.

In your last paragraph you touch on social engineering, do you really want our government to go there?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If there is some question as to the effectiveness of a program, is it not reasonable to consider the wisdom of further funding?

Onus is on you to prove that Head Start and funding for public education was ineffective before you started harming the futures of innocent children. Furthermore the onus was on you to ensure that they would still be able to obtain an equivalent or better education before you threw them under the bus.

Well, I generally am no fan of Unkotare's take on a number of subjects, but I will respectfully protest here as I do not see that he threw anybody under anything. He is offering a very defensible reasoned argument suggesting that which has no proven track record of benefit or success should not continue to receive public funding.

There is no proof available that Head Start is living up to its advertising. Even some, maybe many of those who promote and support the program admit it is usually little more than a different kind of child care service for low income families.

A good pro and con argument for Head Start can be found here:
Pros and Cons of Public Preschool: The Debate | PublicSchoolReview.com

Elsewhere I recently read, though I can't immediately lay my hands on the link, a comprehensive study showing that First Graders who had Head Start do usually have a leg up on their classmates in some areas. But by Third Grade, that advantage has evaporated and there is no difference noted between those that had Head Start and those that did not.

And anecdotally, I refer back to my early education in a time that such things as kindergarten and preschool did not exist. For me and essentially all my peers, our first day in First Grade was our first day in any kind of classroom or formal learning experience. But we all received a Class A education that allowed us to compete with anybody. And I am going to guess that 90% of us went on to get at least some college and we have a very high number of college graduates.

The title and advertising on many government programs, no matter how high minded and noble they might look, simply do not deliver on giving us our our money's worth.

In my opinion the government would utilize its limited resources much more effectively and altruistically by focusing on re-establishing the nuclear family, preferably two-parent homes, and promoting that as the national norm. That and getting itself out of the education business altogether would do wonders for the education of our children.

The benefits of Head Start were working exactly as intended according to the links you provided. Prior to HS underprivileged children were lagging behind their peers in those initial grades and never subsequently catching up. The HS program was intended to ensure that would not happen and it worked. Or at least it was working until the budget was slashed and now children who would have benefited are being denied the program because there is insufficient funding.

As far as the government getting out of school funding that is already happening nationwide. The funding that schools relied upon from the Federal and State levels has all but evaporated. Districts are struggling and there are layoffs and school closings. Some districts are on the point of bankruptcy. Parents can't afford to pay higher taxes since their own incomes are shrinking. They most certainly can't afford to send their children to private schools either.

While the existing public school system had problems primarily with inner city schools it was providing an education for about 50 million children nationwide. That is now in jeopardy because of people like unokatore who supported the sequester and slashing government funding of public schools. No provision was made to ensure that the existing public schools would still have funding. No provision was made for alternative schooling either.

50 million children are now facing a substandard education assuming that the public education system manages to remain afloat. This is a national disgrace in my opinion. If you thought that our public education system was bad before now it will drop to 3rd world standards without any government funding. The futures of our children and grandchildren are in jeopardy because we are literally throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater because we are too cheap and stingy to pay for their education. This will be recorded as a shameful period in our history.