Utah Schools, public education funding and the Utah legislature > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Public Policy > Cache & Logan School Districts

Subject: Utah Schools, public education funding and the Utah legislature

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

nonleft
Posts:111

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

01/20/2007 6:43 PM
Currently, there is yet another big debate raging at the Utah legislature concerning Tax cuts vs. additional funding for public schools in Utah. I choose the Tax cut!!! If businesses were run as poorly as public institutions, they would be long out of business! Public institutions have the luxury of poorly managing our money and getting more when ever they demand it from us! I must be in the wrong business I'm concerned about my kids being exposed to and indoctrinated in to believing in socialism, anti-Americanism, premarital sex, the UN, Anti-religion, Darwinism, Democrats, affirmative action and all the other off wall garbage that public schools and Universities teach these days! Why would I want pay for a school system or send my kids to a school where all the above stuff I mentioned is taught?! Many people are starting to feel the same way as I do! They won't even let the military into some public schools. They allow UN clubs. The UN is against every American ideal and standard I know of. I could go on and on. I'm done supporting socialism and am done supporting a dismal failure such as the public schools. I will spend as much time and resources as it takes to remove the public schools and build private schools! Many people feel the same way!!! Anyone who doesn't believe me when it comes to the agenda of public schools, just Google some quotes from John Dewey, the father of public education. Also lookup some quotes of the NEA, UEA and other liberal/radical "Secular Humanist" groups. It would scare you to know the agenda they have for our kids! Their ideas are like cancer to our American society. Just like any form of cancer, it has to have a way to spread. In the human body, it uses the lymph system. In our society, it uses public education! You tell me a good reason why I or any other Utahan with common sense should support further funding of this bureaucratic scum!!!?

mulhollandj
Posts:229

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

01/28/2007 1:17 PM
I find it interesting to study the history of schools in Utah. The schools used to be run by the LDS church and did cost some money but were meant to be very affordable. Then came the missionary schools from back east. People thought that the education was better so they dropped to the church schools and sent their kids to the missionary schools. After this Utah got its statehood it was forced to accept public education. That being said, I am not pleased with schools. It has turned into government daycare in many places instead of a place to learn. I personally choose to home-school and supplement it with other classes offered for things like science and possibly things like dance and gymnastics as my kids get older. There is actually a large group of home-schoolers in Cache Valley.

Code101
Posts:64

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

02/06/2007 10:08 PM
Well put, both of you! I'm sick of the school system with their hand out for more all the time! The school vouchers passed the Utah House! If Lyle Hilliard doesn't vote for school vouchers, I will help unseat him next time around. He's a Lib!

Debator
Posts:44

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/10/2007 2:24 PM
Nonleft, I appreciate you bringing up this topic. However, a few of your comments trouble me. First, you state that: I'm concerned about my kids being exposed to and indoctrinated in to believing in socialism, anti-Americanism, premarital sex, the UN, Anti-religion, Darwinism, Democrats, affirmative action and all the other off wall garbage that public schools and Universities teach these days! You seem to be arguing against both the exposure to and indoctrination of these ideas. I find it hard to see how exposure to any of these ideas is harmful. If these ideas are false, then when they butt up against the truth, they will fall like the "house upon the sand" as long as the children already understand the truth. That's why my children will be exposed to all of these ideas (and more) within the walls of my home so that when they encounter them at school - or in life - they will already know how to deal with them. But perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Maybe you are concerned that your children are being exposed to these ideas at all, even in a context that would present them as false. If that is the case, then how do you expect your children to deal with them when they will inevitably come across them? Or do you reasonably expect that your children will never run into these ideas? As far as indoctrination, the county school board (in association with the state school board) is the ultimate authority on what is taught in schools and the board members are subject to popular election. If the people are unhappy with what is being taught, then they can vote the school board out of office (the same indirectly applies to the state board, which is controlled by the legislature). As for your other points, about the "agenda" of the "secular humanists" who "control" our schools, I have to disagree with your assessment. I've read the platforms of the NEA and the UEA. They seem to be dedicated to creating a society where all children have the opportunity to learn, independent of the circumstances of their parents. As for John Dewey, I've read many of his writings and he seems to be dedicated to the same ideas. He takes it a step further and explains how having an educated, socialized (not the political philosophy, but the psychological phenomenon) citizenry is essential to the functioning of democracy. Unless the people are educated to at least a minimum, they won't have the knowledge or skills necessary to make good political decisions. That's why public education was introduced in the first place. And I'm not aware of any instance where the military was denied access to a public school. In fact, when it comes to higher education, the "Solomon Amendment" requires that all institutions that receive federal student aid must allow military recruiters and ROTC on campus. This law has been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court (Rumsfeld v. FAIR). I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to a particular instance of the military being denied access to a public school so that I can set the record straight in my own mind.

Debator
Posts:44

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/10/2007 2:26 PM
I suppose I should clarify that my response is not directed specifically at Nonleft and I would appreciate responses by any author interested in the topic, including those who have already posted here.

Outspoken
Posts:26

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/13/2007 1:05 AM
I have plenty of personal examples of teachers who have tried to indoctrinate my children to their own personal philosophies and liberal politics, but that is not the point. You answered the question yourself when you stated, "That's why my children will be exposed to all of these ideas (and more) within the walls of my home so that when they encounter them at school - or in life - they will already know how to deal with them." This is the responsibility of the parent, not the teacher! Public education was introduced to teach the 3 R's!

Fiery Darts
Posts:133

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/13/2007 12:09 PM
Once upon a time, the ability to read and write was the key attribute that determined an individual's ability to succeed or fail in life. If people still only needed the three Rs, then it would be fine for schools to only teach that (also, our students could graduate after the 4th or 6th grade with an adult education). These days, the world is a far more complicated place and if our students leave school having been merely taught how to read, write, and do sums, then they have been done a great disservice. These days, students should learn about a wide range of topics in order to function in the world. A good high school education should include, in addition to non-R core subjects such as history and science, some subset of arts (fine and/or performing), social science, business, technology, health, and fitness. Somewhere in all of that (and well before high school if your kids talk to other kids) they will be exposed to ideas that you personally disagree with. Debator's point is that you can't prevent your children from being exposed to contradictory ideas (not even if you home school them) and that you should step up and prepare them to deal with a wide range of philosophies before they get broadsided by them. One group of people that I am particularly disdainful of are college freshmen who, upon entering post-secondary education, are exposed for the first time to ideas different than what their parents believed and go through a philosophical meltdown. It happens all the time, and it's typically the result of a poor education and an overly protective, sheltered childhood in terms of the ideas that they were exposed to. The moral of the story is that if you want to reduce the chances of your children becoming socialists the moment that they leave your home, perhaps you should consider discussing political theory around the dinner table, considering both the strengths and weaknesses of all the different sides (if you just spend your time railing against an idea without considering its merits, then your children will realize that you were brainwashing them and they could be even more susceptible to the idea's arguments when they finally hear them).

Outspoken
Posts:26

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/14/2007 3:40 PM
I certainly can prevent my children from being exposed to contradictory ideas in public schools by teachers who are paid by my tax dollar. THAT IS WHAT I MEAN. It is not the job of a teacher to recruit students for the democratic party. Of course they need to learn about a wide range of subjects, but that do not have to be indoctrinated. Sorry, but I don't "just spend my time railing against an idea without considering its merits". I do teach them the strengths and weaknesses of all different sides, that's why they are so adept at sticking up for what is right. When you said that, "One groupd of people that I am particularly disdainful of are college freshmen who, upon entering post-secondary education, are exposed for the first time to ideas different than what their parents believed and go through a philosophical meltdown", it makes me wonder if you are a college professor? Why would you be "disdainful" of them when the only thing they are guilty of is having parents who think that they are protecting them?

Fiery Darts
Posts:133

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/15/2007 8:36 PM
Teaching students arguments in favor of a position is not the same thing as brainwashing them to that position. I believe that you do not truly understand a position until you know the arguments in favor of it, the arguments against it, the arguments in favor of an opposing position, and the arguments against that position. Unfortunately, I think that I am in the minority as far as that goes. Most people are far more interested in plugging their own views and pulling down their opponents, but in doing so they miss the weaknesses in their own position and fail to address the strengths of their opponents. A key example of this is the abortion debate. Both sides paint themselves as being in favor of a fundamental virtue, and only attack their opponents by pointing out how they fail to promote their chosen virtue. The net effect is as if two armies lined up, faced each other, each turned a quarter turn to the right, and started firing. Pro-lifers should take some time to consider why many people consider choice to be a higher virtue than life, and come up with some sound arguments to explain why that is not the case (just saying that life trumps choice clearly doesn't work). Similarly, Pro-choicers should consider why their opponents place a higher value on a non-viable entity than an established individual. My point is that if you want to teach your children both sides to an argument, there are really four angles that need to be taken to do it right. If you fail to do that, then there is a higher chance that I will find your children annoying once they get into college. On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong to have disdain for the children when I should be upset with their parents. If college students weren't already adults, maybe I would look harder for other people to blame for their overzealous responses to a world that is larger than their narrow upbringings showed them.

nonleft
Posts:111

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/15/2007 11:05 PM
The fact is I'm suppose to educate my child, not Government! I don't believe in sheltering kids, they do need to hear both sides. In the public system, they only hear the side that liberals want to hear. Why is it that they can teach Darwin but not Deity? At best, Deity is talked about in a negative light in public schools. Myself along with many others are saying no to our Taxes going into this stuff. I don't want to fund the downfall of our Country, sorry!

Debator
Posts:44

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/16/2007 11:21 AM
I agree that you do have the primary responsibility to educate your child. However, that does not mean that the government doesn’t also have a responsibility to educate children nor does it mean that you can’t delegate that responsibility to someone else. Uneducated citizens are more likely to be a burden on society, even outside the sphere of public services – violent and petty criminals are less likely to have finished high school than their law-abiding counterparts. Also, we need a highly educated citizenry if we are to compete with Japan, China and Europe in the international market. If we lag behind in innovation, we will lose our edge and the power that comes with it. School now requires so much more than just the “3 R’s”. History, science, health, art, government, computer skills and more are all necessary to function in and contribute to our society. Unless parents are capable of giving their children this type of education, their children will be unprepared to compete in the marketplace. My instincts tell me that most parents are unable to do so. A second reason the government might also need to educate children through public education is that schools give children important opportunities to socialize (again, the sociological phenomenon, not the political philosophy), interact, make friends, deal with bullies, encounter ideas they disagree with, and many others. Children who have not had these opportunities will not be sufficiently prepared for life in our cosmopolitan society. If you withdraw your support, your lack of funding may cause the downfall of our society. You have not responded to my point that you do have a say in what your children are taught. School curricula are defined by the state legislature and county school boards. All of those positions are elected. Not only that, but organizations such as the PTA, ACLU, and others can have a profound influence on what is taught in classes, even by specific teachers. If you have a quarrel with what a particular teacher is teaching, there are many avenues you may take to stop it, even to preempt it if necessary. We don’t need to scrap the system to change it. I should clarify that I don’t expect to be able to preempt everything my children will hear in school. I hope to cultivate a relationship where they will come to me with questions about things they hear in school, on TV, at church, etc. I also don’t expect my children to believe the same things that I do. Reasonable minds, even people of the same religion, may disagree about how best to govern. Finally, Deity isn’t taught in public schools because the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. The government cannot teach that children should believe in God. Also, Darwin’s theory of evolution (which is what I assume you meant by, “Darwin”) isn’t taught as fact in schools. It is labeled a theory, it is presented as a theory, and children who are educated in the scientific method can see it as a theory (I did). Nevertheless, the scientific community accepts it as the best explanation presently available for some phenomena. It represents the present culmination of biological science and as such is appropriately taught in school. But perhaps you wouldn’t quarrel if schools taught more than the “3 R’s” as long as it conformed to your political beliefs.

nonleft
Posts:111

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/18/2007 9:42 PM
Posted By Debator on 04/16/2007 11:21 AM You have not responded to my point that you do have a say in what your children are taught. School curricula are defined by the state legislature and county school boards. All of those positions are elected. Not only that, but organizations such as the PTA, ACLU, and others can have a profound influence on what is taught in classes, even by specific teachers. If you have a quarrel with what a particular teacher is teaching, there are many avenues you may take to stop it, even to preempt it if necessary. We don’t need to scrap the system to change it. That’s just it! Because of powerful organizations like the ACLU and the teachers unions such as the UEA and NEA, (all corrupt organizations) parents don't have the power to do anything! Short of sexual offences by teachers, it is very hard to get teachers fired. I had teachers who didn't care one bit about their class. They sat in the hall way and talked about sports. Other teachers found the occasion as much as possible to trash religion or the USA. That was 12 years ago. They still work there today and without any discipline.

Outspoken
Posts:26

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/21/2007 3:13 AM
Believe it or not, parents are more effective teachers than any public school system or higher education teacher could ever be. Most parents, including myself, have a natural tendency to teach their children in the same way that you explained (from the four angles), even though you feel that you are in the superior minority when it comes to this. Your example of the abortion debate is a joke at best. I have feeling for people's different life experiences, but there is no gray area when it comes to the debate between life and death. You either believe life is valuable and try to protect it, or you are anti-life. I love how people like you use the word "pro-choice". Who gets to choose? It's certainly not the baby! Of course, that baby as you put it is only a "non-viable entity", as if it were some alien lifeform. Thank Heaven the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortion yesterday. Isn't your point really that you find some children annoying once they get into college because they don't go along with what you believe in? This statement that you made says it all - "If college students weren't already adults, maybe I would look harder for other people to blame for their overzealous responses to a world that is larger than their narrow upbringings showed them". Why don't you just admit that you disdain parents who teach their children well, because you are not able to change their minds.

Outspoken
Posts:26

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/21/2007 4:37 AM
My last post was in response to Fiery Darts. This post is in response to Debator. Public school teachers should stick to teaching the necessary subjects and not try to impose their beliefs upon the impressionable young minds of children. I agree with nonleft that the system is broken and in many cases it is almost impossible to make changes. I believe that a remedy for this is choice in education. The competition is critical for improvement. If public schools can teach Darwin's theory, why can't they teach the theory of the Creation? (I think that is what nonleft was trying to say).

Fiery Darts
Posts:133

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/21/2007 7:55 AM
I have been thinking a lot about public debates lately (largely influenced by the recent debates about gun control, but as always, the abortion debate is a poster child for this phenomenon), and I've come to a few realizations. The biggest one is that when debating in the public forum, it is almost always more beneficial to ignore your opponents position. If you acknowledge it, even to give rebuttal, then you're taking your valuable time and using it to remind people of their position. This isn't necessarily relevant to the discussion here, but it does help me understand why pundits are so obtuse when it comes to ignoring each other. As for Outspoken's comments on abortion, I would like to thank him for demonstrating the tendency to completely ignore (or at least misunderstand) the opposing view. My point here isn't to discuss this one issue, but to have a meta-debate about the way that people discuss issues, which is a key part of learning. What I'm really thinking about is a socratic teaching style where a student is required to defend her position on a topic and the teacher will argue the opposing view, regardless of which side that is. The point of it isn't to convince the student that either side is right, but to teach her to think critically (in the sense of involving skillful judgement, not the sense of being negative).

mulhollandj
Posts:229

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/22/2007 9:15 PM
I have a lot of problems with the way public schooling is handled. Public schools are turning more into government daycares, especially inner cities. Now we look at how we were effected by our teachers growing up. I would like to think that we are all highly intelligent people who can think largely for themselves. Many others are not as fortunate. They do not have good families or parents who care. These students are heavily influenced by their teachers and peers. Many of these students do most of their learning in schools and mass media and it is only getting worse. Most of us grew up in Utah where schools are still decent. My wife, like most others, did not have the same experience. She describes her sex-ed class as a how to class of a lot of things I won't mention on this debate. They practiced putting condoms on bananas in class. Don't tell me that that didn't influence a lot of the students. I even look at my own economics class, taught by an Ex-Mormon, who constantly made negative remarks about the LDS church. While in CT the high school held a gay repression day. The students were heavily pressured by faculty and peers to participate despite any religious convictions. There were many issues that I was only taught one side on. I was taught that the UN and globalism was good but it was never questioned. I learned about the Federal Reserve but never learned that it was run by private banks or the problems that it caused. It reminds me of those who want you to have an open mind by forcing their opinion down your throat. Why can Atheism be taught in school but any other reference to religion in general is prohibited? Sound to me like a religion is being established. We must take a step back and look at what the kids who aren't taught at home are learning.

Debator
Posts:44

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/30/2007 8:58 PM
Why can Atheism be taught in school but any other reference to religion in general is prohibited? Sound[sic] to me like a religion is being established. You are correct in stating that Athiesm cannot be taught in school as it is an establishment of religion. In fact, the current rule is, "The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in public schools; it is the advancement or inhibition of religion that is prohibited." This comes from an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case called, "Florey v. Sioux Falls School Dist. 49-5". It is forbidden for a teacher to promote (or discourage) religion in the classroom, but can teach about it in a non-sectarian way. For example, a teacher may teach "that over a billion people in th world practice Christianity. Christians believe X, Y, Z. Different sects of Christians believe X, Y, Z. This community is comprised of X% of Y sect. There are also Athiests in the world. They believe X." Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that advancement of Athieism or a disbelief in God constitutes establishment of religion. Many people argue that atheism is taught in the context of evolution. This may be true, but when it does happen, it is just as unconstitutional as when a Christian teaches that God created the world. In either case, a lawsuit could be brought, and absent any other facts, would likely succeed. Either way, the teaching of evolution is the teaching of the currently accepted scientific (irreligious) theory, and not any particular dogma. In fact, many people in this world believe in evolution and the Big Bang while concurrently believing in God. The two are not necessarily incongruous. I am however concerned about what kids who are taught at home are learning. Are they learning to respect other people's beliefs, even if they disagree with them? Are they being exposed to the ideas that they will have to confront in everyday life so that they won't be caught off guard? Are they being taught to believe that our country would function better if it were a fundamentalist theocracy? These are the reasons that I will be sending my children to public school and continuing to fight for the funding of quality public schools for all children.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Public Policy > Cache & Logan School Districts > Utah Schools, public education funding and the Utah legislature

ActiveForums 3.7