Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Tom:
    
    Assuming you live in New Hampshire, since property taxes are
    outrageously high, I believe that IF the status quo has to be kept,
    then this would put the onus of education on everybody.
    
    Of course the real me believes the public school system in this country
    is in shambels and is catering to radical special interest groups and
    lobbyists with kids interests as secondary.  I'm sorry to say, through
    observation, that the public schools in the inner city are for the most
    part, lost institutions.
    
    My approach...gut the public school system and have the electorate pay
    a very small tax for the restoration and operation of schools for kids
    with special needs.  Dismantle the NEA and the Department of Education
    in order to keep our tax dollars from heading to Washington.  Privitize
    the school system and allow parents to decide what school and which God
    they want to honor in school.  Have the schools funded privately since
    taxes will decrease.  This puts the onus of education on the parents
    and quite frankly, if a parent doesn't want their child to participate
    in gay pride month, then they are afforded the private choice to do so.
    
    -Jack

    In order to solve the problems of public education and funding, you
    must first get the federal government's hand out of the way.  We have
    seen that expanding school funding on the federal level has done
    nothing to save our failing educational system.  The reasons for this
    are both simple and complex... I'll deal with the simple reasons for
    now.
    
    One simple example is related to how things are implemented on the
    federal level - particularly funding of schools.  In order to receive
    funds for each student, the school has to show that the students are
    learning.  How?  By advancing through the grades.  Unfortunately, this
    check is also one of the problems.  Schools will advance kids who
    really haven't earned such advancement, in order to get more funds.
    It's the welfare mentality all over again, though in a different
    context than that of the private welfare citizen, and it feeds upon
    itself.
    
    There are also problems with federally mandated curriculum -
    especially those "new" (and questionable, IMO) programs that use our
    children as guinnea pigs (GOALS 2000 being one example).  You either
    suck it up and let your kids be experimented on, or you pay for a
    private school (but keep in mind, that you are also paying for public
    schools, too... including funding of said program you do not wish your
    kids to be exposed to).  Fair, eh?  (not)
    
    Until the federal government is out of the school business, we will
    keep tossing more and more tax $$ into programs that simply
    will not work.  Each locality is unique, with different needs, and this
    is something that the federal government cannot cater to.  You cannot 
    simply force one standard program on everyone and expect to get 
    satisfactory results.  You need programs implemented locally, by those 
    who have a clue as to what is best for THEIR school and their kids.
    
    Besides, for every $$ earmarked for the schools, how many are wasted in
    federal beauracracy?  I'd say that this waste of money alone is reason
    enough to privatize or localize all schools - letting each community be
    responsible for their own.  With the tax $$ savings from getting the
    fed out of the way, we could more than pay for this to happen (of course,
    the problem here is that with the current tax collection system, we'd
    never see our money back, and it would only be wasted in some other
    federal scheme - so without overhauling the entire tax structure, any
    break to the taxpayer would amount to a federal grant of some sort
    (voucher), which IMO is self-defeating in the long run - though
    preferable to what we have now).
    
                                  
    -steve                       

    Would that it were that schools were the ones allowed black budget
    projects.
    
    Richard
    

    
    The quality of education is not related to the level of taxation.  I
    have homeschooled one of our children and it didn't raise the taxes at
    all in my state nor did I spend anything much more than what a
    curriculum costs.
    
    There was a time when schools were not funded to the extent that they
    are today and education was much better - several generations ago.  The
    taxes to quality of education argument is specious.
    
    jeff

    the difference between then and now is parental involvement.  If you
    have questions about what goes on in the schools, check with a local
    one.  They are usually looking for volunteers.
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1270.0                    taxes and education                     5 replies
THOLIN::TBAKER "Flawed To Perfection"                29 lines  29-AUG-1996 12:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I know this doesn't have much directly to with Christianity,
    but this issue came to mind reading the Campaign 96 string.

    Taxes and education.

    I live in New Hampshire.  Schools are paid mostly by local
    property taxes.  Time was when land=income.  Not any more.

    We don't have much business in our town so our property 
    taxes are quite high.

    I advocate an income tax.  It only taxes income.  Those
    with little income can keep still their homes.  And this
    would adequately fund the schools.

    Without adequate education we don't have a prayer to compete
    on a global scale.

    If we eliminate federal funding of education through the 
    elimination of the IRS what will happen to other school
    systems, especially those in the inner city?

    These are questions, not challanges.

    Please actively try to *avoid* being nasty in responses,
    at least until .10 or so.

    Thank you,
    Tom

re Note 1270.4 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     There was a time when schools were not funded to the extent that they
>     are today and education was much better - several generations ago.  The
>     taxes to quality of education argument is specious.
  
        Arguments of the above form are especially weak ones.

        For example, one could just as easily write:  "There was a
        time when teachers were only given, at most, a two-year
        professional education, and education was much better -
        several generations ago.   The teacher training to quality of
        education argument is specious."

        Of course, nobody is going to offer the above argument, since
        teacher training is not a hot-button political issue, and
        taxation is.

        Bob

    I read an article in Scientific American on something pertinent to
    this.  (SA is reputed for publishing well researched papers in science
    and technology, a source regarded by the scientific community as being
    very reputable.  IOW, this is no tabloid journal)  
    
    Anyway, the article was a study on why asian american children do so
    much better in the public schools then other racial/ethnic groups.  As
    usual, the researchers went out collecting data in as objective a
    manner as they might take if they were sampling salamanders in the
    woods or something.  They compiled all their data and this is what they
    found:
    
    The asian american children were often at a disadvantage as compared to 
    other groups not having english as their first language (not true of
    comparing to ALL Other groups, but on average).
    
    The parenst of these children instilled in their kids a great respect
    for adults, especially teachers.  They also instilled in their kids
    the idea that education was very very important, something that should
    be sought with great vigor and interest. (This stuff was gleaned via
    interviews with the kids)
    
    After dinner each night, the table was cleared and all the kids would
    sit down and do homework.  Not enough homework to keep ghoing for hours
    you say?  No problem, study other things, read, practice topic you
    already know, review past homewor sessions, read chapters yet to come,
     etc... .  The study sessions would last for at least 3 hours.  The
    older children would help the younger.  The parents would actively
    participate.  If the parents could not help with the work directly
    (many were not english literate or well educated themselves), then 
    they would supervise.
    
    This was compared to the average non-asian american child who took
    education far less seriously, and would spend on average <1/2 hr/night
    alone doing homework (or on the phone with whoever).
    
    Being a good scientific journal, the researchers didn;t jump to any
    conclusions.  They presented the data, calculated probabilities and
    posted the results.  The conclusions are obvious.
    
    The root of the problem with education in America is not in the schools
    at all.  It starts at home.  Teachers can present information, they
    cannot make children learn.  They have to want to learn before they 
    will learn anything.  And that comes from home.  Throwing money at the
    problem is like building stronger and stronger links on a chain that's
    broken at the base.  You're wasting your time.
    
    Private schools, public, it doesn't matter for the vast majority of the
    cases.  The kids in the SA study attended public schools and excelled.
    When they wer not challenged, they challenged themselves by reading
    ahead, tapping other sources, etc... .  
    
    The focus needs to be shifted to the home.  Unlike someo ther problems,
    money cannot buy an answer.
    
    -dave

re Note 1270.8 by SMARTT::DGAUTHIER:

>     The root of the problem with education in America is not in the schools
>     at all.  It starts at home.  

        I heard somebody say that the problem with education in
        America is the teachers' unions.

        Bob

>        I heard somebody say that the problem with education in
>        America is the teachers' unions.

 

   I heard somebody else say that they want to spend a lot of money to 
   make sure that kids can read by 3rd grade.  Why aren't are teachers
   doing that, and why do we have to create a new "program" to make it
   happen.



  Jim

>     There was a time when schools were not funded to the extent that they
>     are today and education was much better - several generations ago.  The
>     taxes to quality of education argument is specious.
  
>>        Arguments of the above form are especially weak ones.

        >>For example, one could just as easily write:  "There was a
        >>time when teachers were only given, at most, a two-year
        >>professional education, and education was much better -
        >>several generations ago.   The teacher training to quality of
        >>education argument is specious."

        >>Of course, nobody is going to offer the above argument, since
        >>teacher training is not a hot-button political issue, and
        >>taxation is.
    
    I was not offering an argument per se, I was only implying one.  It is
    clear that a lack of money (and indirectly less-than-required-taxation) 
    is not the root of the problem.  The problem with our education results 
    is multi-faceted but lack of adequte funding is not one of them.  
    Teacher's unions, family disintegration, high taxation, bureacratic 
    inefficiency, crime, drug abuse, humanist idealology including natural 
    sciences, sociology, and psychology are all together the cause of our 
    education problems.

    jeff

    Well, in our school system we don't have enough money
    to pay our teachers well enough.  In a profession where
    a master's degree is almost essential we are starting 
    teachers at less than $20,000.  The average salary is
    somewhere around $32,000.   Per Year.

    All but one of the 7th grade teachers quit at the end
    of last year.

    Continuity?  Experience?

    Money might not solve every one of our problems, but 
    this one can be easily addressed.  Teachers *do* want to
    have at least a living wage.

    BTW: you can't abolish the NEA.  To outlaw it would be
    in direct violation of the 1st Ammendment - the freedom
    of association.  If you try to mess with that you're 
    opening a nasty can of worms.

    Tom

     Z   BTW: you can't abolish the NEA.  To outlaw it would be
     Z   in direct violation of the 1st Ammendment - the freedom
     Z   of association.  If you try to mess with that you're 
     Z   opening a nasty can of worms.
    
    No but we can certainly make it as uncomfortable as
    possible...especially when the NEA is using our tax money to endorse
    candidates and special interests that have little to nothing to do with
    education.
    
    -Jack

>    No but we can certainly make it as uncomfortable as
>    possible...especially when the NEA is using our tax money to endorse
>    candidates and special interests that have little to nothing to do with
>    education.

    Don't do it, Jack.  Next you know the government will be outlawing
    certain churches.  It's the same law.

    If you mean to protest and publicise our opinion about the NEA
    as a private citizen or group, knock yourself out.  That is
    also your right.

    But then again, I don't have to agree :-)

    Tom

    I agree that teachers should get paid more and get more respect.  I
    think one of the reasons they're not paid as much as others with
    comparable education is that they're on vacation when students are on
    vacation and that's a large segment of the calandar year.  I think both 
    students and teachers should be in the classroom  on more days and for
    more hours per day than they are today.  America is behind and falling
    ferther behind in this area.
                                
    Teacher's unions?  Tenure?  They can serve to keep the dead weight 
    in the system.  But this issue is secondary to some of the more
    pressing ones.

    Teachers do NOT have the ssme days off as students.  They are there for
    weeks before and after the kids are let out.  They have to pay for
    their own continuing ed courses, which are going on during those
    "breaks."  School starts in my district next Tuesday.  The teachers
    have been there for two weeks now.  
    
    jack, 
    
    How is the NEA using your tax dollars?  Is it that teachers salaries
    and therefore dues are paid by the district?  Does that mean that you
    are a government employee because digital supports large numbers of
    school districts, the FBI, the White House, the Armed Services?  Does
    it make me a supporter of sevewral different sects of Christianity
    because I have worked on their netowrks?  Does it makeme an employeed
    of RJR/NAB, several Chemical companies, hospitals, and whatever, as all
    of them collectively pay my salary?
    
    meg
    
    meg

re Note 1270.11 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

        ... natural sciences .. are all together the cause of our
        education problems.

    Re .16 (Meg)
    
    >Teachers do NOT have the ssme days off as students.
    
    I stand corrected.  But they still work far less hours/year than
    others, even with the required course work.  This might be part of
    the reason there's a relucatance to pay them more.  Don't get me wrong.
    I feel that they should get paid more and that children should be in
    school more also (two points that work in concert).  
    
    -dave
    

 Z   Don't do it, Jack.  Next you know the government will be outlawing
 Z       certain churches.  It's the same law.
    
    One difference Tom.  Teacher Unions are compulsory.  It is a real shame
    that they have taken an honorable profession such as teaching and
    turned it into a blue collar mentality.  Compulsory unions are
    distasteful.
    
    -Jack

>    One difference Tom.  Teacher Unions are compulsory.  It is a real shame
>    that they have taken an honorable profession such as teaching and
>    turned it into a blue collar mentality.  Compulsory unions are
>    distasteful.

    Surprise!  I disagree.  I find it a shame that the salaries
    that we paid teachers forced them into forming a union.
    
    Teachers have been getting beat up for a long time.

    Tom

  Z  Surprise!  I disagree.  I find it a shame that the salaries
  Z      that we paid teachers forced them into forming a union.
        
  Z      Teachers have been getting beat up for a long time.
    
    And yet, unions have been around for years.  What does this tell you?

>    And yet, unions have been around for years.  What does this tell you?

That workers have been exploited for a long time.

    Tom:
    
    Most people I've spoken to seem to feel the compulsory unions are
    repressive and ghastly.
    
    

>    Most people I've spoken to seem to feel the compulsory unions are
>    repressive and ghastly.

    I still think they are the lesser of two evils.

    Tom

    Tom:
    
    Remember the incident of the Israelites who disobeyed God in the Old T?
    Well...many times they did this and one time they were plagued, I
    believe by scorpions and many were very sick.  Moses pleaded for them
    and God told them to make a gold (bronze?) serpeant, and as each person
    just looked upon it, they would be cured.  
    
    Well, what do you think they did?  Instead of just throwing the thing
    away, they kept it...and kept it...for many many years they kept it
    and it wasn't until well into the Kings that they finally destroyed it
    after it had been worshiped for years as a idol.  
    
    Morale:  The NEA has outlived its existence.  Time to throw it away.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,

    That analogy is *really* stretching it :-)

>    Morale:  The NEA has outlived its existence.  Time to throw it away.

    In my school district the teachers were up for the first raise
    they'd had in years.  It was for a whopping 2%!  Yes.  TWO PERCENT!

    Even so, people got up at the school district meeting and said,
    and I quote, "If the teachers really cared about the students
    they wouldn't ask for this raise."

    Some say that without a union raises are based on merit.  Well,
    in our school system if there weren't a union there wouldn't
    be *any* raises.

    Tom

    Too bad the 2% is going towards union dues.
    
    Many unions are run by the syndicate.  You really think all the money
    the NEA gets is used for the benefit of the teachers?  I would say more
    likely they line the pockets of lawyers.
    
    Unions SHOULD NOT be compulsory!
    
    -Jack

        It's amazing that the same people who are so quick to preach
        personal responsibility are yet so quick to lay sweeping
        charges of blame for their own and society's ills on certain
        targets, e.g., the NEA.

        Look -- assuming for a moment that the NEA is an oppressive
        and corrupt major negative influence on American education:
        those students of Asian extraction who were doing so well in
        the Scientific American study were under the same oppressive
        and corrupt NEA as the students who graduate without being
        able to read.

        The NEA isn't a major factor, and by fixating on it you are
        either ignorantly or deliberately ignoring what may be the
        important factors.

        Bob

    Bob, what you say is worthy of consideration; however I do reserve the
    belief that compulsory unions is oppressive, and is like forcing school
    prayer on the masses.  It holds no better merit.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    You think union membership is compulsory>  You don't belong to one. 
    There are lots of states with right to work laws, including the one I
    live in.  So your compulsory membership is so much hot air.  
    
    also I see you are back to broad generalizations of things you know
    nothing about.  Syndicate indeed!  have you ever thought about opening
    your mind or your heart, just a bit?  Honest your brains won't fall
    out. 
    
    Now, how do you explain first and second generation asian-americans and
    their performance in those same "NEA owned" schools that so many other
    children are not excelling at?
    
    meg

    Richard
    
    Evidence is by the 3rd generation kids of asian descent are just like
    most kids in the US.
    
    meg

>    The asian american children were often at a disadvantage as compared to 
>    other groups not having english as their first language (not true of
>    comparing to ALL Other groups, but on average).
    
>    The parenst of these children instilled in their kids a great respect
>    for adults, especially teachers.  They also instilled in their kids
>    the idea that education was very very important, something that should
>    be sought with great vigor and interest. (This stuff was gleaned via
>    interviews with the kids)

	I believe this is getting at the heart of it.  I have tried to
instill this degree of respect in my children.  At the same time I have
tried to encourage independent thinking and inquiry.

	Cultural influences are at work, however, making other demands on our
children, particularly our adolescents.  I hate the stupid pressures my 16
year old son is under.  Of course, he doesn't see the baggy low-slung pants,
the pierced ear, the wallet with a chain, the pager, and the goofy Sumo
haircut as stupid at all (And these are just the externals).  He's just
blind enough about himself to think he's not one of the crowd, yet life
seems to bear little meaning for him when he's not with one of his peer
group.

	Children and grandchildren of Asian immigrants may be a bit more
resistant to cultural influences because they see themselves more as
outsiders, thus, making them more likely to live up to strivings generated
by parents and grandparents who are also likely to be less enmeshhed with
the present culture.

Richard

Let me add that I'm pleased to know of two ex-members of this file who became
professional educators.  I believe these two answered a high calling.

Richard

  I've felt led of late to consider a post Digital career as a
 teacher in Christian schools.  It is something I'm praying about
 and recently discussed with my pastor.






 Jim

    .34
    
    Allow me to add my prayers on your behalf, Jim.
    
    Richard
    

    .34
    
    Oh, be prepared to live on less income.  Both the other two I know of
    had to.  Both also indicate that they've never been happier.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

  Z  Now, how do you explain first and second generation asian-americans
  Z  and their performance in those same "NEA owned" schools that so many
  Z  other children are not excelling at?
    
    Easy...parental involvement is apparently key to the success of a
    student.  Let's face it Meg, this is simply not the case and I fully
    admit/agree that the poor teachers are the one's bearing the brunt of
    dysfunctionalism in our schools.  The teachers have suddenly become all
    things to all people and there are simply things they are not equipped
    to handle.  So Meg, I do have a heart...but I'm trying to make the
    connection between this and unions.
    
    Meg, if I went for a teaching job in Massachusetts and insisted on not
    joining the union, I would be completely shunned, I would be browbeaten
    and blackballed...and would most likely not be hired the following
    year.  I have a close friend who went through is very experience in New
    Hampshire...you know...the Live Free or Die state?  Well....he died!
    The unions Meg, are a racket, and the dues are used to line the pockets
    of lawyers, government lobbyists, and I still think the mob is tied in
    with some organized labor.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Easy...parental involvement is apparently key to the success of a   
    > student.  Let's face it Meg, this is simply not the case and I fully   
    > admit/agree that the poor teachers are the one's bearing the brunt of   
    > dysfunctionalism in our schools.  The teachers have suddenly become all   
    > things to all people and there are simply things they are not equipped   
    > to handle.  So Meg, I do have a heart...but I'm trying to make the   
    > connection between this and unions.

    So families are falling apart, there is little parental support for
    students, teachers or schools (e.g. volunteerism), the communities have
    pushed teachers to be "all things to all people" and yet do not
    provide them with the necessary resources.... 

                    ...and it's the union's fault.

    I see. I personally would not want to be a teacher in an American
    public school, where there is such little respect for the teachers or
    the teaching profession in the community and on school boards,
    *without* a union.

    Eric