Children In Loudoun Schools

First of all, thank you for disclosing this fact. I applaud you for this and hope others here follow your lead.

First of all, the term "public school" is inappropriate. That is a term that the government uses to try to hide the fact that they are indeed "government-run schools" run by big government bureaucrats. If people were honest and called them that, fewer parents would drop their kids off at them each and every morning. Our children deserve better than the education provided by a government bureaucrat, don't you think?

Also, kids in our family will not be forced to endure the violence, sex, drugs, and gangs that are rampant in government-run schools. For example, have you seen how big government bureaucrats let teenagers dress these days? The big government bureaucrats let kids go to school dressed like they should be standing on a street corner selling themselves. That is disgusting.

How can what kids learn in a government school be anything except government indoctrination? Who sets the curricula? Answer: Big government bureaucrats. Who teaches the lessons? Answer: Big government bureaucrats. Let's all be honest and admit those facts.

John, that is the reason for some people. Actually it is the reason for many of the families in the home-schooling groups we know in our area. It's not our main reason, though. We teach kids in our family about humanity's rich cultural and religious beliefs in the hope that they will form a personal relationship with their Creator (God, Allah, etc.) in the way that suits them. (I can't wait for the extreme right-wing fundamentalists on here to attack me for that!!!) That is not something that they will be able to get in going to a government school.

 

If they are so great (and I am not saying whether or not they are), why do so many people have a problem with the article that Lee cited? Why is there a rush to defend the government and shut down anyone asking reasonable questions? This effort sounds like a smokescreen, and where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

Gryphon, the main element of my question you was:
"In several posts you mentioned your reason for not putting your kids in public school was because of "government indoctrination". Can you explain what you mean by this? What specific indoctrination is occuring and how are you aware of it?"

The closest your answer got to addressing that issue was:
"How can what kids learn in a government school be anything except government indoctrination? Who sets the curricula? Answer: Big government bureaucrats. Who teaches the lessons? Answer: Big government bureaucrats. Let's all be honest and admit those facts. "

That doesn't actually answer my questions. Please try again and be specific and focused.
Thanks!
--- John B.

 

John,

The question was asked and answered, but let me try again. You asked me why I called education in government schools "government indoctrination." I answered that saying that, if schools are run by big government bureaucrats, then it is government indoctrination. Look up "indoctrination" in a dictionary. The simple meaning is "To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles." Schools clearly are set up to "instruct" and their lessons represent "a body of doctrine or principles" in the subject taught. Therefore, if you allow your kids to attend a school run by big government bureaucrats, then they are subject to "government indoctrination."

You did not answer a single one of my questions, which I re-state below:

1. Our children deserve better than the education provided by a government bureaucrat, don't you think?
2. Have you seen how big government bureaucrats let teenagers dress these days?
3. How can what kids learn in a government school be anything except government indoctrination? Who sets the curricula? (Answer: Big government bureaucrats.) Who teaches the lessons? (Answer: Big government bureaucrats.)

 

Translation of the statement above: "Once again, I am spewing more obfuscation in an attempt to cover up government incompetence."

Why do you have such a problem when anyone tries to ask sensible questions about government bureaucrats, like Lee did?

A lesson in tolerance from you??? That's rich. How were your repeated examples of intolerance of thepea2001's views a demonstration of tolerating "diffeering opinions or lifestyles"? Practice what you preach, dude. For now, I think you are going to make me...:sickhurl:

 

Umm, not sure you should homeschool since you can't count, but LEE is the only one that I have noticed so far that had even a remote "problem". ONE does NOT = "so many"

SPIN ME RIGHT ROUND BABY!

 

Dude, you are smarter than that. I asked why so many people were upset with the fact that Lee brought the article to the attention of the Broadlands forum. That sparked a VIOLENT reaction from the people who always and blindly rush to the defense of big government bureaucrats.

 

Let me answer!

1 - short answer, NO
2 - I would actually say it is the parents who allow the children to dress "that way".
3 - blah blah blah (since that is pretty much what you question sounds like)

 

Who says I am upset?

Gryphon, pretty much everything you say here goes in one eye and then out the other.

 

T8erman - I totally agree with you on the dress code...it's the parents that let their kids dress the way they do and it's not only in the schools....look around - I've noticed that people don't really know how to dress for different occassions. My husband and I were celebrating our anniversary out of town recently at a very nice, upscale restaurant. My husband and I dressed up, however, I noticed there were several couples that came in with shorts and flip flops. Of course some restaurants would refuse them, but that wasn't the case where we were. UGH....and another thing - not removing your baseball hats. Anyway - to my point - it's a shame that people don't dress a little better in our society, but you can't blame the schools or the government. Another comment regarding one of the reasons Gryphon home schools is that he said there's too much sex, violence, drugs, drinking in school. My reply is - you can't keep your kids in a bubble all their lives. They need to learn right from wrong and how to deal with different situations such as these. It's what parenting is, you raise them with values and how to deal with peer pressure. If you shield them too much - they won't know what to do when a situation does comes up.

 

I realize that you don't mean what I am about to type, but I want to give an example to showcase the fallacy of the view you posted. Following the type of "logic" expressed in your post, you would seem to argue for packing up our six-year olds and forcing them to live in Baghdad. If there is such violence in our world and our kids should not be shielded from it (rather, as you seem to argue for, actually be forced to endure it), isn't that practically what you are calling for?

In our family, we choose to raise our kids in the way we, as parents, see fit. That means home-schooling vs. government-run schools. If that's not for some people who prefer to abdicate their responsibilities as parents to some big government bureaucrat, then I guess that is a choice that they will have to live with. Live and let live is all I ask.

 

Gryphon...your assertion that teachers are bureacrats is incorrect. The purpose, function, and activities of a bureacrat are very different from those of a teacher. Even if you take a very broad and ambiguous definition of "bureacrat" you still can't stretch it far enough to cover the teaching profession. It is possible that you think all government employees are bureacrats simply because they work for a government entity. I doubt anyone's logic is truly that faulty.

My questions to you still lack specific answers. Maybe this new question will help you focus.
What specific information is taught to children in LCP schools that is objectionable to you?

My answers to your questions are:
1. Our children deserve better than the education provided by a government bureaucrat, don't you think?
JB: My children are taught by professional educators. They deserve to be taught by skilled and professional educators and indeed thet are.

2. Have you seen how big government bureaucrats let teenagers dress these days?
JB: Yes.
But seriously, aside from a basic dress code used in the schools, they way teenagers dress is up to their parents, and is not influenced by "big government bureacrats". I'm surprised that on one hand you object to government influence on the children's education, but then also object to the same government's LACK of influence on their clothing choices. How can you reconcile such an inconsistency?

3. How can what kids learn in a government school be anything except government indoctrination? Who sets the curricula? (Answer: Big government bureaucrats.) Who teaches the lessons? (Answer: Big government bureaucrats.)
JB: Again, you are confusing educators with bureacrats. Different jobs, learn the difference. Merely educating a child does not equate to indoctrination unless you use a broad and ambiguous definition of indoctrination, which then would cover any form of education regardless of who provides it. Here's a solid definition of indoctrination: "To teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically". The key term is "uncritically". Judging by what my kids describe, there is lots of critical discussions in classrooms about the material presented. The kids aren't just sheep who listen, take notes, and regurgitate on tests. Especially in the higher grades and in the AP-level classes there is lots of analysis and discussions. Teenagers especially look for logical flaws in the material so they can jump on it and oppose the teachers. I guess it is a form of proving intellectual superiority. It is an intellectual exchange with doubters and supporters, and it sharpens the kids' abilities to think critically.

--- John B.

 

You forgot to add the "BIG" before government. Cause, you know, the city and county governments that actually run our public schools are huge compared to those pesky little state and federal goverments... :rolleyes3:

 

OK, we need some grounding. Here's the definition straight out of Webster's off my bookshelf:

- a body of nonelective government officials (government teachers are non-elected, so they fit!)
- government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority (government teachers come with different specializations, like math teacher vs. English teacher; they follow fixed rules, like a rigid curriculum or teaching to the tests/SOLs; and they have a hierarchy -- teaching assistant, teacher, principal, etc.)

Also, more importantly, bureaucrats are paid by the taxpayers. Answer me this: who pays for government teachers? The answer is the taxpayer! So, please do not deny what teachers in government schools are: bureaucrats.

All of it. In my opinion, anything coming out of a big government bureaucrat's mouth is not to unfit for a child's ears. I don't understand parents who are comfortable with abdicating responsibility for educating their kids to government bureaucrats. Don't we all realize how bad of a job the government does with most of the things it touches!

 

I probably shouldn't even join this conversation so late in the game but.... Oh well, let me get my asbestos suit on.... OK, here we go.

This thread has been very... interesting... to read, but I think this response is somewhat unfair. It contains two pretty huge logical fallacies, one being begging the question, and the other being loaded questions.

The premise that education in public schools is "government indoctrination" because public schools are really government schools run by big-government bureaucrats seems to be begging the question. The conclusion of the argument is assumed by it's premise. I think people are asking you to remove the circular logic from your assertions. What about public -- sorry, government -- school education is indoctrination? It's not enough to say "what else could it be, it's government education, therefore it's government indoctrination." There's no proof in that, just assumption. Round and round the circular logic goes.... What, specifically, are the schools indoctrinating? You mean that 2+2 doesn't REALLY equal 4, as they teach in math class? NaCl isn't really salt, as they learn in Chemistry? Please explain, for those of us not familiar with precisely what "indoctrination" is going on in LCPS or any other public school district....

The three questions you ask are unreasonable, because they're loaded. Just about any answer someone could give would cause them to implicity agree with your premise that publ-- err, government school education is equivalent to indoctrination by big-government bureaucrats. Perhaps that's why you haven't gotten any answers. Oh, and the 3rd question is just another case of begging the question... your question assumes its own answers.

Anyway, sorry if I'm off-topic. It's been a very enlightening thread to read, particularly from the home-schoolers. My sister-in-law home-schools her children, and has been having problems with her kids specifically with what others here have said -- trouble with getting them into sporting programs and extracurricular activities, field trips, community service, etc. because where she lives, there isn't much of a network for home schooling. It's nice to know that here in Loudoun there is.
I lived in a community growing up where the public schools were rated top in the state, and all of the sports activities, theater, etc through middle school were mostly community-run, so even home-schooled kids could have participated. High school was different, but from what I've heard and read, in many communities high schools will allow home-schooled kids to participate in the extracurriculars as long as their teachers (parents) can prove they're maintaining their academic studies up-to-par.

And I'll admit to having friends and family in public schools as teachers, guidance counselor, and police officer (not all in LCPS, but one of them is (not the police officer)) and honestly, don't feel they deserve the insults delivered them by some in this thread. They're all very capable educators and professionals, doing their best so the kids get good educations and have good experiences in school. It's unfair to call all of them unfit to teach or educate. These are people equally qualified to teach in private schools, but happened to have found gainful employment in a public school system. That fact alone doesn't make them unfit to educate children. If they were private school teachers, that alone would suddenly make them fit as educators? Please.

Just out of curiosity, a simple question the answer to which probably means nothing: (anyone who wants to answer as part of their discussion of the public school system, LCPS and the quality of the education here which iirc was the point of the thread?) were you home-schooled, or did you go to public or private school? Public here, and private for one college, state for another. And none the worse off for any of it, actually.

- A

PS. Apropos of the quality of US education, consider trying this civics quiz to see if YOUR education was adequate:

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

 

Families = governments??? You win the contest for the biggest lapse of logic, pretty much ever!