03 August 2011

Public Education - The Trust Factor

If you can't trust public schools to teach a balanced, apolitical approach to science, should you trust them to teach a balanced, apolitical approach to history? *No, you shouldn't. They have an agenda.

Headline:

U.S. Education Dep’t Pushes Man-Made Global Warming, Saving the Earth at Children’s Reading Event

Unadulterated indoctrination. They are teaching false science. Story here. I'm glad all (8) of my school-aged grandchildren are being homeschooled.

*Yes, I realize that there are exceptions with individual teachers.
 

40 comments:

Brock Townsend said...

Marxists in charge and posted.

Dr. Robinson (Dixie's Homeschooler) Myth Of Global Warming
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=2219&highlight=robinson

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Thanks Brock. A scam of epic proportions. Of course, the "smartest among us" - academic historians - are either dupes or co-conspirators:

http://hnn.us/articles/44958.html

What an embarrassment! Yet, these folks want to tell the rest of us how to interpret history. Buffoons.

Lindsay said...

I really am glad you put this on here...as I was perusing the article and then looking through the comments, this one caught my eye:

Cdansell wrote:

"No wonder kids hate to read now. Nothing but moralizing and lecturing. No adventure, fun, or exploring allowed. Learning to be a good steward of earth and earth systems is well and fine but indoctrination regarding unsettled science is neither educational or wise. More important however is that these books are more like extended school lessons and will do nothing to increase the desire to read and explore new topics of interest. Sad."

I couldn't have said it better that that.

Lindsay said...

Something else interesting to note is that in all my education to become a teacher and then 7 years of service in public schools, not one single time have I ever heard an administrator/professor/teacher/school board member, etc. say, "please do not allow your personal opinions/beliefs to become a part of the education of students." Either they think that is common sense, and doesn't need to be stated, or they are fine with it happening. Either way, our kids end up losing if a teacher or educator does that.

Michael Lynch said...

The material from the Dora the Explorer book is especially nefarious. Watering plants, turning off the lights when you're not in the room, etc. I, for one, will not sit down for this.

On a less sarcastic note, I'm actually a global warming skeptic myself.

--ML

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"not one single time have I ever heard an administrator/professor/teacher/school board member, etc. say, "please do not allow your personal opinions/beliefs to become a part of the education of students."

I have mixed feelings about that Lindsay. I understand where you're coming from, but Americans used to have fundamental agreements on our founding, heritage and culture - for the most part anyway. Though there have always been disagreements, we were not as polarized as we are now. For example, when I was in school, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, or even praying, was not controversial, though one could argue they were "personal beliefs."

Consider this - when I was in grade school in the '60's, boys could not wear their shirts untucked. Their hair could not come over their ears, nor touch their collar - if it did, you'd be sent home w/a note to get a haircut. No one objected. You could not wear a t-shirt to school. My teachers said grace before lunch. These were all "personal beliefs" but ones shared by most in the community.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hello Michael - "Watering plants, turning off the lights when you're not in the room, etc. I, for one, will not sit down for this."

Well, of course, you can't start the little crumb-crunchers out with the heavy stuff right off the bat. Marching in the streets and buying wind up cars will come later, once they're enrolled in "higher education." ;o)

I don't necessarily deny the earth could be warming, I just reject the notion of "man-made" global warming. I'm old enough to remember that, during the 1970's, much of academia, the media, and the government was telling us we were entering a new ice age and we were all going to freeze to death. The ultimate goal is the same - frighten everyone into surrendering liberty and wealth.

Michael Aubrecht said...

"Consider this - when I was in grade school in the '60's, boys could not wear their shirts untucked. Their hair could not come over their ears, nor touch their collar - if it did, you'd be sent home w/a note to get a haircut."

Richard, I get where you are coming from, but that sounds awful. There is a difference between maintaining school order and the military. Individuality and creative expression is what makes us different. Kids need to be kids and not conform to some kind of prehistoric code. Your description of school sounds a lot like a prison.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Michael - what's awful is kids who have very little discipline, and sport purple hair, piercings, and potty mouths. My oldest son just pulled his boy out of a public school because he came home every other day with a new "F" word joke - he's in the first grade. When my son complained, the teacher knew the source of the problem (another kid), but due to "discipline" guidelines, she could not do anything about the other kid.

"Prehistoric" you say? Civilized, well-behaved and orderly would be my description. So, a kid with a normal haircut and smartly dressed would look "prehistoric" next to a kid pierced with purple hair and pants falling off their rear end? Funny that you should say my description "sounds a lot like prison." You've got it backwards - the school environment you favor is the one that requires armed police guards.

Michael Aubrecht said...

You're judging people by their appearance my friend. I know some really smart and decent kids with 'purple hair.' There are plenty of jerks out there with "normal haircuts" too. My point is that kids expressing themselves should be nurtured not neutered. I had long hair, hung out with punk rockers, and partied more than my share in school and I turned out OK.  My kids are all on the more ‘conservative’ side of appearances, but if they went a little artsy (to a point) I wouldn’t have an issue with it. (And yes I had armed guards in my schools. In fact my wife’s grandfather, a retired marine and cop was the head of our high school’s security division.)

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

So, if someone applies to be a U.S. Marshall, and he has purple hair, tongue and eyebrow piercings, and a butterfly tattooed on his forehead, would he be hired?

No, he would not. Why? Because its outside the societal norm. So why allow/encourage it in childhood? Drugs are also a form of expression - where do you draw the line? It's a ridiculous argument. Yes, we had very strict rules in my school, but we had no shootings, no knife fights, and did not need a law enforcement presence.

The head of my school's security division was the principal.

Michael Aubrecht said...

I think you're going a little over the top in your argument. You're acting as if things should be like they were in the 1950's. Really?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

In regards to this specific topic, was there something about the 1950's that scare you? So, you actually prefer armed police guards in public schools and the hallways looking like a scene from Night of the Living Dead? Really?

(BTW, I went to grade school in the '60's.)

Michael Aubrecht said...

No Sir, but the world has changed and the age of innocence that you speak of is gone forever. Parents should absolutely have total responsibility and accountability for their children’s upbringings, but pining for a time when the world was a completely different place is totally unrealistic. Of course everyone would like to live in Mayberry RFD, but that’s not reality. Your issues with public schools are justified to a point, but you offer no practical solution other than to pull kids out of it. You can’t just remove children from the influences of mainstream society and then expect them to be able to go back out into that society as adults fully prepared to deal with all of the issues that you sheltered them from in the first place.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"everyone would like to live in Mayberry RFD, but that’s not reality."

True, but one can make choices which results in a lifestyle more like Mayberry than South Park. I've made mine.

"you offer no practical solution other than to pull kids out of it"

Well, that's a very good solution in my mind, but I would also advocate getting the Feds TOTALLY out of "public" education and returning all control to the localities - at the very least, the states. That would be a good start to a solution.

"You can’t just remove children from the influences of mainstream society and then expect them to be able to go back out into that society as adults fully prepared to deal with all of the issues that you sheltered them from in the first place."

Sure you can. I did. My youngest 4 were all homeschooled, the oldest 2 mostly in private schools. All six function quite well as business owners, teachers, and wives, husbands, fathers and mothers. They are all contributing members of society who pay taxes and none are on government assistance. I would suggest they were quite well-prepared.

Michael Aubrecht said...

Richard, I am absolutely sure that you and your wife did a great job homeschooling your brood and that your kids are all successful. I wonder though if they had any challenges adjusting to college. What universities did they go to and were they selected based upon their conservatism and/or rejected on their liberalism? That is what I meant by "adjusting as adults." I think that if a parent does their job effectively, it shouldn't matter if their kids enroll at seminary or a total party school, they will make the right decisions.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"I wonder though if they had any challenges adjusting to college."

For the ones who attended, no.

"What universities did they go to?"

Mary Baldwin College, Greensboro College, Pensacola Christian College, Blue Ridge Community College (though one was accepted at Patrick Henry College, she decided not to go), and another went to a trade school. From a financial standpoint, the one who went to a trade school is more successful than any of them. His dream had been to attend VMI until they were forced to go co-ed.

"were they selected based upon their conservatism and/or rejected on their liberalism?"

No.

Michael Aubrecht said...

"His dream had been to attend VMI until they were forced to go co-ed."

What's wrong with a co-ed VMI?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"What's wrong with a co-ed VMI?"

Uhhh . . . they allow girls.

Michael Aubrecht said...

You don’t support the concept of co-ed colleges? No girls?

Really? Really?

Man, you are Old School. :)

I'm sorry but I can' even relate to this discussion on any level. No hot girls? Wow...

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Yeah, really, really - not in a military prep school. Would you support a co-ed NFL?

Sorry Michael, I live in Realville, not some manufactured utopia that denies the laws of nature.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"Man, you are Old School. :)"

Absolutely and very proud of it!

Lindsay said...

As an educator, I pine for the old days - days when children were taught to be respectful and teachers didn't have to fear for their safety. I'm with you Richard, we are not better off today than we were then. My opinions, of course.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Thanks Lindsay. I happened to attend school during the transition period that, I believe, saw the most change - from the early '60's to the mid '70's. Of course, I've witnessed the continued digression since.

Michael Aubrecht said...

Respectfully, I have to ask Lindsay as an educator...

You said "I pine for the old days…” and “I'm with you Richard, we are not better off today than we were then.”

Do you mean Richard's reference to the old days, "when boys could not wear their shirts untucked and their hair could not come over their ears, nor touch their collar" and of course before schools like VMI "allowed girls."

I am astonished by this whole conversation to be honest… According to Richard’s theory instead of exposing children to the ‘real world’ while teaching them to resist negative influences and sexual urges, we simply remove them from it entirely through homeschooling and same-sex colleges.

That’s called isolating, not educating. I have four children spread out from college to pre-school and it has always been my belief that our job as parents is to prepare them to be part of the real world. By creating some kind of sterile environment where everything is “protected” and “censored” and “gender-separated” sounds a tad off. Even private and religious schools have their own conflicts and issues.

It sounds to me like you all have no faith in our kids to make good choices. It also sounds like you are afraid of them making mistakes which are also a big part of growing up. Bad decisions = wisdom. I'm not arguing here I'm just trying to understand this sudden "Amish' (for lack of a better term) or social-separatist approach to parenting.

Don’t kids need to learn to deal with other kids with as Richard put it: “purple hair, piercings, and potty mouths” because when they get out in the real world there will be plenty of adults like that too? Simply removing children from the public school environment is not a solution IMO.

I respect Richard tremendously, but he has a lot of contempt for the public school system. I am interested in what you as a teacher think about taking a non-participatory approach to it.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Yes, this is an old argument against homeschooling - "over-sheltered", etc, etc. I've given enough examples in previous posts to refute that notion that there's no need to repeat. Here's one of my more detailed posts about this:

http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-homeschooling-child-abuse.html

The debate over homeschooling has moved light years beyond the objections and concerns that Michael is raising. With all the scandals and failures of the public education system (present company excepted, of course), I find it quite amazing one still hears these kinds of baseless charges against homeschooling. Homeschoolers are doing quite fine, thank you - its the public schools that need help.

Again, we didn't need a man with a gun patrolling our halls - that really says it all, doesn't it?

Michael Aubrecht said...

I'm not against homeschooling at all. I just don't agree with it when it is simply used to shelter kids from the 'sins' of the real world. How does that prepare them?

You're the one stating publicly here that you are against free expression and gender-integration in schools at the college level. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. You can't possibly be this restrictive and sexist.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Michael - I really don't know where to start to respond to your question and the "sexist" charge - come on, are you really going down that road?

It prepares them by maturing them. Study after study has shown that. I provided you with the link to an earlier post which will answer that and give some more links to explore. Did you read it? I'm not going to repeat what I've already written.

Is it sexist that they're aren't any women playing in the NFL or the NHL? Answer the question please.

And after you do, please tell me why they aren't playing.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

BTW Michael. Do you know how many all male colleges there are in the United States? Do you know how many all female colleges there are in the United States?

Michael Aubrecht said...

You can't possibly equate VMI with the NFL. That is a ridiculous comparison and no one would entertain that as a counterpoint.

You opened this can of worms when you stated that you are against co-ed colleges because quote: "I live in Realville, not some manufactured utopia that denies the laws of nature."

So now we are isolating college students from the opposite sex because of the evil "laws of nature." Really? Why not just teach your kids not to have casual sex instead?

In response to your follow-up question, no, I have no clue how many same-sex colleges there are in the US, but I feel bad for the kids that go there. They are missing out :)

Michael Aubrecht said...

I would like to add that some of the smartest and most talented kids that I have ever met were/are homeschooled. The difference is that their parents implemented it to curtail and expand their kids education, not shelter them from "purple haired potty mouths."

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"You can't possibly equate VMI with the NFL. That is a ridiculous comparison and no one would entertain that as a counterpoint."

Differences in physical strength, muscle mass, etc. and the natural physical differences between men and women (they do exist, you know), are all germane to the debate and play an important role. The reason you don't want to entertain it is because it destroys your argument.

"So now we are isolating college students from the opposite sex"

I never said that and you know it. Single sex education does not equate isolating from the opposite sex. They're not locked in cages 24/7. Your red herring response reveals the weakness of your position.


"In response to your follow-up question, no, I have no clue how many same-sex colleges there are in the US"

There are 4 all male colleges in the U.S. There are approximately 60 that are all female. Is that sexist?

If you don't want to answer the question about why women don't play in the NFL and the NHL, then you've pretty much acknowledged my point.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"their parents implemented it to curtail and expand their kids education, not shelter them from "purple haired potty mouths."

I actually did it for both reasons. So you don't think its reasonable to protect children from bad influences? Wow.

Michael Aubrecht said...

You said: "Differences in physical strength, muscle mass, etc. and the natural physical differences between men and women (they do exist, you know), are all germane to the debate and play an important role."

What on earth does that have to do with getting a VMI education and being a military officer?

According to your argument, there shouldn't be any women in our military, law enforcement, fire and rescue fields etc. due to the 'unequal' physical differences between men and women.

Is that REALLY your position? You just proved my point.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Michael, you sound like a talking head from MSNBC - putting words in my mouth, taking my comments out of context to make my views appear extreme or outside the norm - sorry, that won't work here. If you want to pretend that they're aren't (generally speaking) physiological differences between the male and female bodies, you go ahead. I can't relate to nonsense. You might want to spend some time outside, observing nature. Women have traditionally been excluded from combat roles for a reason. I really do think you can figure it out if you try real hard.

So, again, why don't women play in the NFL and the NHL? I mean, what on earth does their sex that have to do with anything? Really, what's the problem with a 6 foot 8 inch, 370 pound man lining up against a 6'(that's a stretch), 190 pound (also a stretch) woman?

Michael Aubrecht said...

None of this answers the question what does this have to do with VMI going co-ed. You stated that your son dreamed of going to VMI until they were quote "forced to allow girls." If that isn't sexist I don't know what is. You are not the norm in this mindset and I challenge any woman here to agree with you. I will refrain from responding until then.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

He wanted the experience of an all male, military education - for many of the same reasons some women choose to attend an all girl school. Thinking that is sexist is bigoted.

Michael - why don't women play in the NHL and the NFL? Come on, I know you can do it.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Just to be clear, I enthusiastically support the diversity of choice represented by all female schools, as well as the right of those schools to remain all female.

13thBama said...

If the argument for women to get into VMI was "we want the opportunities that men have" then why not just create an all female version of VMI?

And on the military/protective services front, I would prefer to be rescued from a fire or from terrorists by males. A female could not put me in a fireman's carry and get me out of danger. I, instead, would have to be dragged and would probably receive more injuries than I already had.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

13B -

"why not just create an all female version of VMI?"

That is exactly what the Commonwealth did at Mary Baldwin College:

http://www.mbc.edu/vwil/

But it wasn't good enough. That was not the real purpose in forcing VMI to go co-ed. If you'll do the research involving the court case and what was openly advocated by NOW and other like-minded groups, you'll see there were other motives.