Quote:Let me ask you this. How do you define theology?
Also, the way that I interpreted Eric's initial example, say School A is an under performing high school and School B is a very well performing high school that is privately owned (not necessarily a religious school). Should parents not be given a choice as to which school they want to send their children to?
Another question for you. Is someone better off learning about evolution, creationism or both? Of the three choices, which is the most "well rounded" education that a person can receive?
Choice should not take away funding from public schools. When it does, it does not give incentives to either public schools to do better, nor for private schools to do better, rather if gives them only incentive to appeal to parents (rather than to perform better)
Both would be the 'most balanced', but I don't think it should necessarily be balanced. I think people who want their kids to learn about creationism can teach it at home, or let the church teach it if their parents feel it's something they should learn. Or if they so choose with their own money, have their kids attend a private school that teaches creationism.
Religion should be left to parents and their churches of choice. I doubt very much many would like it if a Muslim teacher was teaching their version of Creationism in schools. And I doubt many would like taxpayer dollars going to Muslim Schools that teach muslim values. I happen to expand that to all religions.
Quote:I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but I've never heard of such a thing happening. Can you point to a source that describes this?
All money for our schools are distributed during what is called a FTE period. In the first week of school we have to a do head count and lay eyes on students in order to confirm that they are attending our school. The schools funds are originally estimated by the county, but in order to hold onto these funds (or get more if more students randomly show up, which does happen) we need to have proof the students are attending the school. After the initial FTE period there is a follow up that occurs towards the end of the first quarter. At that point all monies are allocated based on student enrollment and no longer adjusted for the year.
Funds for enrollment are not shifted from school to school after that point. If we get more kids, we don't receive more money per student.
As for the comment about students being kicked out of charter and private schools, I can just tell you from my personal experience. I always have a bump in students that are booted from both types of schools after the 1st quarter (which, for charter schools, coincides with the end of the FTE period.) Also, I should note and probably should have been clearer in my earlier post, that many times the students dismissed from these institutions are for "disruptive behavior" or some other violation of school rules. This often coincides with low grades and I find it tends to happen a lot once monies have been finalized (with charter schools, but I would be concerned the same thing would happen if vouchers were allowed on large scale with private schools.)
I know a lot of people would argue that if they are breaking the rules they should be kicked out, however, in the public schools we HAVE to take them. I have had private school students come to my class for a variety of reasons (caught with pot, got in too many fights, etc.)
Quote:Hah we know what you think. But creationism is not a valid science. It's bunk. If you choose to believe it, or want your kids taught it, that's fine. But it has no basis in reality. No proof. It's faith-based. It is not a component of a well rounded education and does not offer a valid counter argument to the actual science of evolution.
Carry on
Typical liberal response. Although my question(s) weren't directed at you, you quote my post and fail to answer a single question. Instead you attack it to try to discredit it.
So directed specifically toward you and your response.
1. How do you define theology?
2. Should parents be given a choice as to how their children get educated?
3. Nobody is even claiming creationism is a science let alone a "valid" science. Is it not better to stimulate ideas and discussion when educating, or should students just be taught what some see as the "right" answer all of the time?
Quote:Choice should not take away funding from public schools. When it does, it does not give incentives to either public schools to do better, nor for private schools to do better, rather if gives them only incentive to appeal to parents (rather than to perform better)
Both would be the 'most balanced', but I don't think it should necessarily be balanced. I think people who want their kids to learn about creationism can teach it at home, or let the church teach it if their parents feel it's something they should learn. Or if they so choose with their own money, have their kids attend a private school that teaches creationism.
Religion should be left to parents and their churches of choice. I doubt very much many would like it if a Muslim teacher was teaching their version of Creationism in schools. And I doubt many would like taxpayer dollars going to Muslim Schools that teach muslim values. I happen to expand that to all religions.
Well, at least you answered a portion of my post.
Why should an education not be "balanced" with respect to ideas and stimulating thought? I do believe that you are confusing creationism with religion. The two are not the same.
The way that I view education goes back to
an interview that one of my "heroes" in life did, and is someone who I happen to look up to, Steve Wozniak. I challenge you to watch that video (it's only 3:22 in length) and then think about what you are saying regarding creationism.
Quote:All money for our schools are distributed during what is called a FTE period. In the first week of school we have to a do head count and lay eyes on students in order to confirm that they are attending our school. The schools funds are originally estimated by the county, but in order to hold onto these funds (or get more if more students randomly show up, which does happen) we need to have proof the students are attending the school. After the initial FTE period there is a follow up that occurs towards the end of the first quarter. At that point all monies are allocated based on student enrollment and no longer adjusted for the year.
Funds for enrollment are not shifted from school to school after that point. If we get more kids, we don't receive more money per student.
As for the comment about students being kicked out of charter and private schools, I can just tell you from my personal experience. I always have a bump in students that are booted from both types of schools after the 1st quarter (which, for charter schools, coincides with the end of the FTE period.) Also, I should note and probably should have been clearer in my earlier post, that many times the students dismissed from these institutions are for "disruptive behavior" or some other violation of school rules. This often coincides with low grades and I find it tends to happen a lot once monies have been finalized (with charter schools, but I would be concerned the same thing would happen if vouchers were allowed on large scale with private schools.)
I know a lot of people would argue that if they are breaking the rules they should be kicked out, however, in the public schools we HAVE to take them. I have had private school students come to my class for a variety of reasons (caught with pot, got in too many fights, etc.)
Thank you for your response. I can certainly see your point regarding the funding. However, one thing that must be considered, after the first quarter is it possible that students have "acted out" during that period? Generally speaking, using your examples of why students end up in your class (getting in too many fights, caught with pot), would you say a student that fit that profile generally has good grades or bad grades?
Here is my thinking, and it's all hypothetical of course. Perhaps "little Johnny" has been getting into too much trouble at school and has bad grades. His parents want him to do better, so they send him to a private school. After two or three months (not sure how a quarter is defined on the school calender) little Johnny has gotten into lots of trouble by getting into fights, disrupting class, etc. He gets caught with pot on school grounds, so the school expels him.
Is it possible that the timing just happens to coincide with the end of the first quarter going into the second quarter?
I would say that this is an indicator of a parenting problem rather than a school problem.
Quote:Thank you for your response. I can certainly see your point regarding the funding. However, one thing that must be considered, after the first quarter is it possible that students have "acted out" during that period? Generally speaking, using your examples of why students end up in your class (getting in too many fights, caught with pot), would you say a student that fit that profile generally has good grades or bad grades?
Here is my thinking, and it's all hypothetical of course. Perhaps "little Johnny" has been getting into too much trouble at school and has bad grades. His parents want him to do better, so they send him to a private school. After two or three months (not sure how a quarter is defined on the school calender) little Johnny has gotten into lots of trouble by getting into fights, disrupting class, etc. He gets caught with pot on school grounds, so the school expels him.
Is it possible that the timing just happens to coincide with the end of the first quarter going into the second quarter?
I would say that this is an indicator of a parenting problem rather than a school problem.
Absolutely it could be a coincidence and I do get students at other times of the year, however, when it comes to charter transfers, they generally come in larger numbers (and this has been for a few years, not a one time occurrence) at the time I mentioned.
Oh, and I don't think that there is a problem with the school for kicking them out, they have that right, I just wish that the funding came with them and the new school (usually public) doesn't have it held against them (in test scores for teacher evaluations or for school grade) considering 25% of the year was spent elsewhere. Technically, they are not supposed to count against teachers, but it doesn't really work that way. I once had a foreign exchange student who spoke no English count against me (even though foreign exchange students are not supposed to) because he failed a state exam (not joking). I once had a student who left my class in late October/Early November to attend another public high school. He failed his state exam (i don't know if his teacher covered the material or not) and it counted against me. Now, I challenged the first example (the appeal is going on a few years :teehee: ) but the second one I didn't bother. My scores are good enough that a few kids that count against me (even wrongly) doesn't make a difference and it is easier to just ignore it, but not everyone is in that position. Oh, and students who don't take the exam (whether they decide to just skip it, or, go on vacation {yes this has happened to me}) count against the teacher. But this is all a rant for another thread. Sorry!
Quote:Well, at least you answered a portion of my post.
Why should an education not be "balanced" with respect to ideas and stimulating thought? I do believe that you are confusing creationism with religion. The two are not the same.
The way that I view education goes back to an interview that one of my "heroes" in life did, and is someone who I happen to look up to, Steve Wozniak. I challenge you to watch that video (it's only 3:22 in length) and then think about what you are saying regarding creationism.
I'm not against stimulating thought. But Creationism is a religious concept, not a scientific one. Teachers may (and should) provide scientific critiques of evolution. But they should not teach creationism. An Intelligent Designer can neither be proven nor disproven by science.
Creationism could be talked about maybe in a class like Comparative Religion. But it has no place in a science class. And most people don't take Comparative Religion.
Quote:Absolutely it could be a coincidence and I do get students at other times of the year, however, when it comes to charter transfers, they generally come in larger numbers (and this has been for a few years, not a one time occurrence) at the time I mentioned.
Oh, and I don't think that there is a problem with the school for kicking them out, they have that right, I just wish that the funding came with them and the new school (usually public) doesn't have it held against them (in test scores for teacher evaluations or for school grade) considering 25% of the year was spent elsewhere. Technically, they are not supposed to count against teachers, but it doesn't really work that way. I once had a foreign exchange student who spoke no English count against me (even though foreign exchange students are not supposed to) because he failed a state exam (not joking). I once had a student who left my class in late October/Early November to attend another public high school. He failed his state exam (i don't know if his teacher covered the material or not) and it counted against me. Now, I challenged the first example (the appeal is going on a few years :teehee: ) but the second one I didn't bother. My scores are good enough that a few kids that count against me (even wrongly) doesn't make a difference and it is easier to just ignore it, but not everyone is in that position. Oh, and students who don't take the exam (whether they decide to just skip it, or, go on vacation {yes this has happened to me}) count against the teacher. But this is all a rant for another thread. Sorry!
No need to be sorry, I appreciate yours and The Eleventh Doctor's perspectives regarding education. Obviously you are a teacher and the Doctor's wife is a teacher. This brings insight and discussion from a perspective different from my own.
We did get off-track from the initial purpose of the thread, but we do have some interesting perspectives to think about. To try and bring the discussion back to the original topic, do you support Marco Rubio's ideas regarding education in general, or support Bernie Sander's ideas and why?
Quote:Typical liberal response. Although my question(s) weren't directed at you, you quote my post and fail to answer a single question. Instead you attack it to try to discredit it.
So directed specifically toward you and your response.
1. How do you define theology?
2. Should parents be given a choice as to how their children get educated?
3. Nobody is even claiming creationism is a science let alone a "valid" science. Is it not better to stimulate ideas and discussion when educating, or should students just be taught what some see as the "right" answer all of the time?
1. With a dictionary.
2. Sure.
3. In what class? TOK maybe but most curriculums don't include that class.
Quote:I'm not against stimulating thought. But Creationism is a religious concept, not a scientific one. Teachers may (and should) provide scientific critiques of evolution. But they should not teach creationism. An Intelligent Designer can neither be proven nor disproven by science.
Creationism could be talked about maybe in a class like Comparative Religion. But it has no place in a science class. And most people don't take Comparative Religion.
You seem to miss the point. Teaching Creationism is not teaching religion. It's teaching a concept and an idea. This has nothing to do with science. Is political science really a "science" or is it teaching ideas and concepts?
Nobody is saying that that Creationism should be taught as a "science", however if brought up in an Evolution Theory type of class, then it encourages thought. Isn't that what education is supposed to do? Stimulate thought and ideas? What you and some other posters on here propose is that Creationism is "false, therefore it should not be taught". That goes back to the video that I linked to earlier where Steve Wozniak describes that every student "must come up with the same answer" rather than stimulating the mind and letting students come up with their own conclusion(s). At that point, it's not education, it's indoctrination.
What you are saying is that students "must embrace evolution" and "shun anything that has to do with creationism". Again I say, that's indoctrination not education.
Quote:1. With a dictionary.
2. Sure.
3. In what class? TOK maybe but most curriculums don't include that class.
Again, try to circumvent answering the question(s) by giving sarcastic answers. Why not enter the discussion with real answers? Could it be that your answers would expose you?
Quote:You seem to miss the point. Teaching Creationism is not teaching religion. It's teaching a concept and an idea. This has nothing to do with science. Is political science really a "science" or is it teaching ideas and concepts?
Nobody is saying that that Creationism should be taught as a "science", however if brought up in an Evolution Theory type of class, then it encourages thought. Isn't that what education is supposed to do? Stimulate thought and ideas? What you and some other posters on here propose is that Creationism is "false, therefore it should not be taught". That goes back to the video that I linked to earlier where Steve Wozniak describes that every student "must come up with the same answer" rather than stimulating the mind and letting students come up with their own conclusion(s). At that point, it's not education, it's indoctrination.
What you are saying is that students "must embrace evolution" and "shun anything that has to do with creationism". Again I say, that's indoctrination not education.
Where did I say that students must 'embrace evolution'? In fact I said straight out that science classes (which is where evolution belongs, because it's science) -- i'll quote it for you even.
Quote:Teachers may (and should) provide scientific critiques of evolution.
Why is Creationism required to stimulate thought and ideas?
Evolution is taught in a science class. (Namely, Biology and Integrated Science)
If Creationism as you argue should be taught along side evolution
You are saying Creationism should be taught in science classes.
Quote:Typical liberal response. Although my question(s) weren't directed at you, you quote my post and fail to answer a single question. Instead you attack it to try to discredit it.
So directed specifically toward you and your response.
1. How do you define theology?
2. Should parents be given a choice as to how their children get educated?
3. Nobody is even claiming creationism is a science let alone a "valid" science. Is it not better to stimulate ideas and discussion when educating, or should students just be taught what some see as the "right" answer all of the time?
Sigh...
1. the·ol·o·gy
<div style="font-size:large;">THēˈäləjē/
<div><i>noun</i>
- <div style="margin-left:20px;">
<div>
<div>the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
2. Sure choice is fine but religion is not education it's religion you go to church or sudnay school or preach at home it has no place in education IMO.
3. If no one it is science let alone valid science (yes they are see Ken Ham) why are they trying to it in science class?
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial, 'sans-serif-light', sans-serif;font-weight:lighter;">
<div style="margin-left:20px;">
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Quote:Where did I say that students must 'embrace evolution'? In fact I said straight out that science classes (which is where evolution belongs, because it's science) -- i'll quote it for you even.
Why is Creationism required to stimulate thought and ideas?
Evolution is taught in a science class. (Namely, Biology and Integrated Science)
If Creationism as you argue should be taught along side evolution
You are saying Creationism should be taught in science classes.
I never said that students must "embrace evolution". If I did, I would like for you to highlight that.
What I did say is that creationism can be brought up and discussed in a science class to stimulate thought.
So creationism taught in a science class means that it's considered a science? What about it being another idea or concept to consider? Does that not stimulate thought? Does that thought automatically claim that creationism is a science? No it doesn't. It simply offers a different point of view (something that liberals don't like).
You want to eliminate creationism from public education because you believe that it's the same thing as religion (censorship of free speech).
You want to teach that evolution is "the only concept" of how our planet was created. (indoctrination).
Quote:I never said that students must "embrace evolution". If I did, I would like for you to highlight that.
What I did say is that creationism can be brought up and discussed in a science class to stimulate thought.
So creationism taught in a science class means that it's considered a science? What about it being another idea or concept to consider? Does that not stimulate thought? Does that thought automatically claim that creationism is a science? No it doesn't. It simply offers a different point of view (something that liberals don't like).
You want to eliminate creationism from public education because you believe that it's the same thing as religion (censorship of free speech).
You want to teach that evolution is "the only concept" of how our planet was created. (indoctrination).
You said that I said that right here: (I've enlarged it, bolded it, made it red, and underlined it.)
Quote:What you are saying is that students "must embrace evolution"
and "shun anything that has to do with creationism". Again I say, that's indoctrination not education.
Now please explain to me how it's "indoctrination" when I've stated
PLAIN AND CLEAR
that
scientific critiques of evolution should absolutely be taught.
Quote:
Sigh...
1. the·ol·o·gy
<div style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size
mall;">
<div style="font-size:large;">THēˈäləjē/
<div><i>noun</i>
- <div style="margin-left:20px;">
<div>
<div>the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
2. Sure choice is fine but religion is not education it's religion you go to church or sudnay school or preach at home it has no place in education IMO.
3. If no one it is science let alone valid science (yes they are see Ken Ham) why are they trying to it in science class?
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial, 'sans-serif-light', sans-serif;font-weight:lighter;">
<div style="margin-left:20px;">
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
I would argue with this.
1.Theology - the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious ideas, but can also mean the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university, seminary, or school of divinity.
Key points regarding that definition is the "rational study of concepts". As well as "the nature of religious ideas". It by no means points to any particular religion or deity.
2. Nobody brought up religion, the question was about if parents should be allowed to choose where their children get educated. It should be a simple yes/no question not a "yes but... or no but..." question.
3. Not sure about your answer, but if a science class is discussing "the beginning of the world" should the idea or concept of creationism not be brought up? After all, it's a theory much like the "big bang" theory. The "big bang" theory is not proven, nor is the "creationism" theory. Why should one be excluded from education and not the other?
Quote:You said that I said that right here: (I've enlarged it, bolded it, made it red, and underlined it.)
Now please explain to me how it's "indoctrination" when I've stated
PLAIN AND CLEAR
that scientific critiques of evolution should absolutely be taught.
Nothing like taking comments out of context.
How about quoting my whole comment and addressing that rather than picking a phrase to suit your agenda? I've already expressed my reasoning for creationism being part of a curriculum in a high school education. I stated my reasoning for that.
You seem to think that creationism shouldn't be a part of the curriculum because in your small mind "creationism = religion" of some sort. To go further, I would suggest that your idea of religion is "religion = christian".
Get off of your personal beliefs and think about what children learn. You want to "shield" them from learning about what creationism is and what it's about. In other words, you want our public education system to be about the same thing that Steve Wozniak talked about in that video clip. I call that indoctrination rather than learning.
Quote:Hah we know what you think. But creationism is not a valid science. It's bunk. If you choose to believe it, or want your kids taught it, that's fine. But it has no basis in reality. No proof. It's faith-based. It is not a component of a well rounded education and does not offer a valid counter argument to the actual science of evolution.
Carry on
Creationism doesn't ignore evolution it argues against man being monkey a million years ago, there is no evidence man was ever a monkey it's all theory's
Quote:Nothing like taking comments out of context.
How about quoting my whole comment and addressing that rather than picking a phrase to suit your agenda? I've already expressed my reasoning for creationism being part of a curriculum in a high school education. I stated my reasoning for that.
You seem to think that creationism shouldn't be a part of the curriculum because in your small mind "creationism = religion" of some sort. To go further, I would suggest that your idea of religion is "religion = christian".
Get off of your personal beliefs and think about what children learn. You want to "shield" them from learning about what creationism is and what it's about. In other words, you want our public education system to be about the same thing that Steve Wozniak talked about in that video clip. I call that indoctrination rather than learning.
Making a personal attack by saying I have a small mind. And then making a baseless assumption on top of it.
Real Mature.
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how providing scientific critiques (you know, in a class about
Science) to evolution, isn't stimulating thought. I won't hold my breath for it.