I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but I think this is the real principle behind your school's success (and other schools like it): the school culture explicitly promoted learning and education as a value.
This is the fundamental difference between such schools and public schooling, no matter what school board members, teachers, administrators, and teacher college PhD's say to the contrary. Learning and education is not valued in the public school culture.
In non-government schools, kids are there first and foremost because their parents care enough about education to spare the money for it. Moreover, every student's place in that school is conditional: fuck up, and you're out!
There are good teachers, good students, and good books in both government and non-government schools. The fundamental difference (that makes all the difference) is the above. Promote the value of education, and the work is half done.
This will not happen in American public schools, except for rare exceptions. Government schools in America cater to discipline problem students, half-idiot students, and every half-baked educational fad that comes out of the ivory tower. Apart from the good students, good teachers, and good ideas that happen to make it in through the doors, the public schools are a dumping ground.
For what it's worth, I went through graduate school, earning an M.A. in education and currently substitute teach in several districts. I'm familiar with what goes on.
Couple points to add: 1) Fuck up and you're out doesn't always hold even in private schools. It certainly holds more often than in public schools, but I can tell about instances at the private high school I attended where students deserved expulsion, but delayed or avoided it because their parents were prominent alums. This sort of thing certainly happens in colleges too. 2) It seems that the point of public schools is to finish what is required by law and get the students out, regardless of whether any act
Your point about the student with the connected daddy is well taken. It's the same all over -- just take the sons and daughters of school board members and administrators for example. I worked in a school where the darling child of a school board member snuck out of her hotel room while on a class trip to Spain to go drinking on the beach at midnight. (This was a 16 year old, mind you.)
The teacher ended up coming under fire for not "supervising" the child properly; the child got a slap on the wrist.
In non-government schools, kids are there first and foremost because their parents care enough about education to spare the money for it.
Not only that. What we forget here is that there is no silver bullet. There always be kids who will do well coming from bad schools
and those who will do bad coming from good schools. Kids are not blank papers on which parent and society could write anything they
want. There is no such set of conditions which would always give you best results. I know it does not sound l
So as to not keep you guessing, I suspect your private school was both better funded and had a larger percentage of middle to high income kids. You said your school took all economic backgrounds - but what was the breakdown, and how "low" on the economic ladder? At my public high school, about 66% of the students were on free or reduced lunch. (I was on my newspaper and I crunched the numbers one time.) Our school was also not, in general, a bastion of academic achievemnt.
I came from a very poor school, we couldn't afford a lot of things other schools took for granted. We were a rural community and many kids had to do farming chores before going to school. My father had to drive 60 miles each way to get to a factory job. Yet our school excelled in SAT scores and the percentage of students going on to college was much higher than the state average. The reason was the community; parents were concerned about education, not just needing a daytime sitter. My mother was a custodi
So as to not keep you guessing, I suspect your private school was both better funded and had a larger percentage of middle to high income kids. Having attended a parochial school myself (even though I'm not Catholic), I'd say you suspect wrong. Most private schools spend less than half as much money per student than public schools! Most of our teachers were Nuns, Jesuits, or lay teachers that worked for little more than room and board. The janitorial work was all done by the students themselves, so we had o
The way you phrase this, it sounds like "rich people get better grades because they're rich" in a lefty-hippie-eat-the-rich way. I'd counter that the performance delta you see between high-and-low incomes in SAT scores is more accurately presented in the reverse: higher SATs indicates a greater liklihood of financial success.
In other, simpler, words, if you're smart, you're going to be more successful. No mater how much you wish that there were untapped geniuses in the ghetto, for the most part the people
Someone please mod the parent up. He's making a very good point that is worth listening to. Let's consider for a moment, that maybe the solution to schooling is not to remove religion, but to open the floodgates to all beliefs. Isn't that what this country is based on?
As a matter of disclosure, I am not a fan of the Jesuits or their teachings. Yet that doesn't mean that I'm going to tell the parent poster to shut up. He has his beliefs, I have mine, and every other slashdotter has theirs. To misuse authori
Agreed. I've always said that making schools a religion free zone is just as bad as requiring everyone to pray to the Christian God. The constitution provides freedom to practice the religion of your choice, not a guarantee that you will never be exposed to someone else's religion.
Stop lying! 150-200 points? Yeah sure! And anyway that doesn't say shit! SAT are about format not about knowledge, it's just a system to filter out the poor people.
I see the religious nutcases are creating a bunch of loser conformists, that's exactly what they want! followers! I, for one don't want be a follower!
I am not Russian, Putin is dangerous dictator that has to be taken down. Russia is turning into another USSR, like with the hostage thing in Beslan, it's pretty obvious that the government is bulshiting about the fact that they didn't storm the building first.
I would suggest that one big difference that you fail to point out is that all the parents cared enough about their kids' education to go to the extra effort of sending them to your school. I went to a private school, and even the dumbest kids went to college, because they HAD to do the work. The parents were in touch with what their kids were doing, and if they slacked they were al over them. If the parents aren't doing that, then you're certainly not going to have as high a level of overall achievement.
The dress code is one thing public schools should change. There are kids being shot every year for wearing the wrong colors (ie, not the correct gang colors). If all students were forced to wear the same clothes they would not have to worry about such issues (which would greatly relieve some students). Granted this is treating a symptom, not the disease, but it would probably increase fraternal feelings among the students (although not necesseraly increase school spirit).
I think the real problem is that if you do require some sort of uniform, it's almost guaranteed that people will try to make money off of it. Which means that parents complain because they are spending far too much money on uniforms that could be spent elsewhere.
Gangs shooting people because they wear the wrong colors is just stupid. If you want to help people not get shot by gang members, get rid of gangs, don't think that preventing them
School uniforms are a real pain in the ass. Besides the unfair pricing, we always had to go try them out months in advance, and they would never let us order up a size, so by the time we got the clothes, they were too small. However, with a free dress code, I can wear parents' hand-me-downs, or as many free t-shirts as I can scrounge up at LinuxWorld and other trade shows (which, in fact, make up the majority of my wardrobe).
Besides, I highly doubt mandating a dress code would solve or even begin to trea
Other differences? I can think of a few that might be relevant: strict dress code - pressed pants, starched shirt, suit-coat or blazer, appropriate tie, groomed hair, proper facial hair care (beards/goatees, etc allowed, but must be neat)
Yes, because as we all know only the conservatively-dressed can learn or contribute to society.
The most brilliant person I know (a bioengineering major) has purple hair and wears a patent leather choker with lab vials full of flourescent chemicals attached to it. She is
Conversely, there's a school of thought that says that dress codes are there not because of conservative dress, but because they enforce discipline.
Put another way, I don't care if the dress code is pressed slacks, blazer, and tie, or if it's lab coat, knee-high polished boots, and speedos--as long as it requires a daily effort to make it up to clearly defined, strict standards--creativity is good, but discipline is ALSO good. Equal parts are necessary.
1) The rich kids know who the poor kids are, and the poor know who the rich kids are. The rich kids will still treat the poor kids like shit. Dressing them all up won't change it, but it just might put a little more financial pressure on the parents of said poor kid... now instead of buying whatever reasonably priced clothes that they can, they are forced to spend money on clothes that a bureacrat told them the child must where. 2) This is a problem that can be fixed without uniforms. 3) Discipline is self-co
I was never much of one for clothes. If my girlfriend wasn't always buying them for me, she says I'd be wearing rags and not even noticing it. She's probably right. If I prefer anything, it's shirts without logos and blue jeans.
However, uniforms are one of the goals of all the worst fascists. How many different uniforms were there, in the nazis ideal world? Didn't matter what job you did, there was a uniform for it. Obviously, the nazis also liked to breath air, but that doesn't make "air breathing" bad. O
How many times must I tell you. I am not advocating Uniforms. Get it through your head. There is a vast difference between Uniforms and having a dress code.
Somewhere, then, I've gotten really confused in this thread. My apologies. However, you certainly did your part to confuse me even more. For instance, everywhere I've heard of (smalltown schools, to be sure, not NYC) they did and do have dress codes. Even when I was in highschool (89-93), the worst we ever had, was a controversy (small towns, you would
what school uniforms do is eliminate competition amongst students over who is the best dressed, they eliminate gang signs etc
I would argue that that is the euphemistic reason, not the real one.
People of almost any age will always find a way to flaunt their status if they have it. If their school has uniforms, it will be by having an expensive cell phone or car, or something along those lines.
The only real reason to have a uniform in any situation is to imply that the people wearing it are interchangeabl
See, I don't think that you can treat your experience at a particular Jesuit high school as the solution for everything.
I've been to private, religious, and public schooling, so I figure that I can talk about it intelligently.
I've been to a catholic grade school where I feel, 20 years later, where they were trying to brainwash us into thinking *their* views. We all feared what would happen had Regan not been re-elected in 84, because the Democrats were in the league with the commies.
This sounds like Strake Jesuit [strakejesuit.org] to me. A friend of mine went there and just told me a story about the ~75 year old marine... I can attest that the education there is quite good.
I'm from an area in Jersey that had a ton of Catholic schools. Some of them were exceptionally good and some were exceptionally bad. In fact, the public school system was much better than a good number of them.
I think the most common theme I've seen in the quality of a school system is the socio-economic profile of the majority
So many things are different: a student took a swing once in the cafeteria at our litterally ~75 year old WWII-era Marine vice-principal. After avoiding the attack with cat-like grace and precision, he grabbed the kid by the hair and physically expelled him from campus.
Reminds me of my uncle, who once kicked his Jesuit teacher out of the classroom into the corridor... without opening the door.
...the school culture explicitly promoted learning and education...
I agree. My daughter goes to a specialty high school where students pursue either an International Baccalaureate (IB) or Visual/Performing Arts (VPA) study regimen. They are not as strict as the Jesuits, by any means, but like your school, learning and education in this institution are treated paramount. Any student not interested in learning and keeping up his/her grades is expelled.
I went to a religious high school. I left far less religious than I entered. But there's no denying that my education was of a higher quality than the public alternative. That is why it cost so much. And do not think for a second that the quality of the education was related to the religious environment. The "Religion Classes" were the easiest and most worthless classes they offered, and were manditory.
I went through nearly the hardest cirriculum the school had to offer, and actually exhausted the sch
Just because it worked in your case doesn't mean that it works in others. You make a valid point and I don't doubt the credibility of your school, its scholars, or its teachers - but just because you have a succesful institution implemented in your area doesn't automatically make every private school better than every public school.
I attended a public school in a small town and I'm not going to lie - most of my graduating class are total losers. Infact I would say around 80% of them. Maybe more. By "lose
I have finally come to the opinion that the things that make a school work have much less to do the big things that people like to argue about, and think make a difference (public vs private; religious vs secular) and a lot more to do with small scale things: how the principal runs things, the worth of the individual teachers, and most especially, what the kids and their parents care about.
I went to a public high school in a town that had no private schools. My younger brother went to a Jesuit high school
That's the most frightening picture of school I've ever read.
Yes, we certainly need to send our kids to boot camp at an age where their hormones are changing daily. We need to teach them to submit to any semblence of authority. We need to teach them that to deviate is to be wrong and punishable. Oh yeah, now I understand why so many Catholic school kids I know are stoners these days. Sucks to be you, if that was your school.
One thing that your school could do that public schools could not: cherry picking -- only allowing the best of the best into the school while everyone else can go to that public school down the road. Then they can say "look how good we are, our students score 150-200 points higher on the SATs".
he grabbed the kid by the hair and physically expelled him from campus. Can you imagine that happening at a public school? What type of red-tape would have to be brought to bear at a government run school?
THAT'S IT MAN! YOU'VE DISCOVERED THE SECRET!!!
All we need to do is give staff ultimate authority, with no accountability, and that will solve ALL of our problems!
Here's three things that would help your argument.
Commas.
Grammar.
Spelling.
You made numerous typos (you spelled 'high school' with a hyphen, for example), you left out a lot of useful commas, you structured about half your sentences poorly, and then you started with the dress code as the first cannonball launched in this volley of "differences". While the last point is certainly debatable, it sounds absurd given the rest of your essay, which was about how much better your school was, discipline this,
Public or Private its the teachers, community, parents that make the most difference. School admin, then District probably next. Money is always an issue but its not a big deal unless there is way too little of it. Money gets mentioned so much because its the only thing that can be controlled.
I went to mostly public schools. Only 1 of them was great. That one is what got me to where I am. The 1 private school I attended was the WORST one. I'm still trying to get those shark-like nuns from my memories...
I'd say that you are looking in the wrong areas. Most private schools have mandatory entrance exams. I know mine did. It's fairly easy to take a bright student from a healthy background and teach them, than it is to work with kids whose parents don't give a shit, or who have mental deficits in one or more areas.
One part of my Catholic high school education (also taught by Jesuit priests) was community service at the local head start. Imagine my surprise when I found out one day that one of the kids got
In regards to your first comment, that's simply not true, at least not in the majority of cases. Unless your school somehow had a source of funding that allowed it to accept all it's students for free, it would necessarily have to have some cutoff for financial aid in order to survive. That would seem obvious to me. Requiring people to pay money for something that is otherwise available for free would be a powerful tool for separating by class. Even if your school was supported by a Parish that had a lo
How was the code of conduct at your school? Would they spend resources on students with behavior problems? I know that my Catholic grade school wouldn't. If a kid showed enough problems, he was expelled and sent to the public school so that they could deal with him. That's been my entire point, is that it doesn't take as much money to teach kids if you are allowed to throw kids out when you want. If they would work with children with behavior problems, then you'll have my attention.
The school didn't bus. We had no bus. Kids came from all over town, from all over this area of the state. We weren't the only show in town, we were had sister schools that had the same policies.
What exactly does "came from all over town" mean? Did they fly in? Did they ride their bike 20 miles? Probably not. This indicates that they were driven. I hate to break the news to you, but many of the kids in head start's parents couldn't afford to send their kid across town,
I got a laugh thinking of this one. I'm just trying to imagine what would happen to my Catholic grade school if it were transported to East St. Louis. Now, you would keep the surrounding community exactly the same, spend exactly the same amount on security, etc. Force them to let everybody in, just like the public school. I'm just wondering how long it would have taken for the school to get covered in grafitti, and burned down. How long would it take for the nuns to flee the area back to the nice subur
Anyway, I'm sure you're sick of my posts, but, I'm a bit bored today. The thing to remember about private schools, is that as long as they have a release valve, they can't really make any claims about efficiency. The release valve for private schools is the public school system. Did your school really allow everyone to attend? How did they do that? I'm serious, how did they teach mentally challenged children? Remember, that those costs are lumped in with public school budgets. Would the parents of su
I agree that learning to read is essential. That's probably the one area where I would agree that having a good teacher can make a world of difference. After that, a lot of it comes down to persistence. Before we get to learning how to read, a lot if merely depends on interaction. We are all self-taught when it comes to essentials such as language, walking, etc. As long as we get enough opprotunities to interact with live human beings when we are young, we can learn these essentials (unless we are disa
My high-school routinely scored 150-200 points higher than average on the SATs.
The flaw in your assumption is that scoring higher on government-sponsored tests is a measure of 'success'. But as the book points out rather clearly, the measure of success isn't in actual education but in the system of indoctrination used to disperse that education (as much as it can be called 'education').
All you've done here is show that your school's methods of indoctrination were better at achieving state-sponsored goal
Maybe I just don't understand this, being from a public school background, but how could everyone afford things like pressed pants, starched shirts, blazers, ties and what not, if they were from many different economic and social circumstances? I had a hard enough time keeping my 3-year old hand-me-downs clean, never mind pressed or starched. Did the school offer some magical laundering service, or something?
Parallel lines never meet, unless you bend one or both of them.
Religion and Schooling (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Value learning above all else! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but I think this is the real principle behind your school's success (and other schools like it): the school culture explicitly promoted learning and education as a value.
This is the fundamental difference between such schools and public schooling, no matter what school board members, teachers, administrators, and teacher college PhD's say to the contrary. Learning and education is not valued in the public school culture.
In non-government schools, kids are there first and foremost because their parents care enough about education to spare the money for it. Moreover, every student's place in that school is conditional: fuck up, and you're out!
There are good teachers, good students, and good books in both government and non-government schools. The fundamental difference (that makes all the difference) is the above. Promote the value of education, and the work is half done.
This will not happen in American public schools, except for rare exceptions. Government schools in America cater to discipline problem students, half-idiot students, and every half-baked educational fad that comes out of the ivory tower. Apart from the good students, good teachers, and good ideas that happen to make it in through the doors, the public schools are a dumping ground.
For what it's worth, I went through graduate school, earning an M.A. in education and currently substitute teach in several districts. I'm familiar with what goes on.
Re:Value learning above all else! (Score:1)
1) Fuck up and you're out doesn't always hold even in private schools. It certainly holds more often than in public schools, but I can tell about instances at the private high school I attended where students deserved expulsion, but delayed or avoided it because their parents were prominent alums. This sort of thing certainly happens in colleges too.
2) It seems that the point of public schools is to finish what is required by law and get the students out, regardless of whether any act
Re:Value learning above all else! (Score:1)
Your point about the student with the connected daddy is well taken. It's the same all over -- just take the sons and daughters of school board members and administrators for example. I worked in a school where the darling child of a school board member snuck out of her hotel room while on a class trip to Spain to go drinking on the beach at midnight. (This was a 16 year old, mind you.)
The teacher ended up coming under fire for not "supervising" the child properly; the child got a slap on the wrist.
I
Re:Value learning above all else! (Score:1)
Not only that. What we forget here is that there is no silver bullet. There always be kids who will do well coming from bad schools and those who will do bad coming from good schools. Kids are not blank papers on which parent and society could write anything they want. There is no such set of conditions which would always give you best results. I know it does not sound l
Cross post (Score:1)
Another person made a post to the parent of this thread that supports my observation:
wcrowe's comment [slashdot.org]
(I hope cross posts aren't in poor taste!)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:3, Insightful)
For standardized tests like th
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
The way you phrase this, it sounds like "rich people get better grades because they're rich" in a lefty-hippie-eat-the-rich way. I'd counter that the performance delta you see between high-and-low incomes in SAT scores is more accurately presented in the reverse: higher SATs indicates a greater liklihood of financial success.
In other, simpler, words, if you're smart, you're going to be more successful. No mater how much you wish that there were untapped geniuses in the ghetto, for the most part the people
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:3)
As a matter of disclosure, I am not a fan of the Jesuits or their teachings. Yet that doesn't mean that I'm going to tell the parent poster to shut up. He has his beliefs, I have mine, and every other slashdotter has theirs. To misuse authori
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:1)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dress code (Score:2)
Even if you disagree with me, what
Re:Dress code (Score:2)
Nothing spectacular happened.
I think the real problem is that if you do require some sort of uniform, it's almost guaranteed that people will try to make money off of it. Which means that parents complain because they are spending far too much money on uniforms that could be spent elsewhere.
Gangs shooting people because they wear the wrong colors is just stupid. If you want to help people not get shot by gang members, get rid of gangs, don't think that preventing them
Re:Dress code (Score:1)
School uniforms are a real pain in the ass. Besides the unfair pricing, we always had to go try them out months in advance, and they would never let us order up a size, so by the time we got the clothes, they were too small. However, with a free dress code, I can wear parents' hand-me-downs, or as many free t-shirts as I can scrounge up at LinuxWorld and other trade shows (which, in fact, make up the majority of my wardrobe).
Besides, I highly doubt mandating a dress code would solve or even begin to trea
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:3)
Yes, because as we all know only the conservatively-dressed can learn or contribute to society.
The most brilliant person I know (a bioengineering major) has purple hair and wears a patent leather choker with lab vials full of flourescent chemicals attached to it. She is
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:1)
Put another way, I don't care if the dress code is pressed slacks, blazer, and tie, or if it's lab coat, knee-high polished boots, and speedos--as long as it requires a daily effort to make it up to clearly defined, strict standards--creativity is good, but discipline is ALSO good. Equal parts are necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
2) This is a problem that can be fixed without uniforms.
3) Discipline is self-co
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
However, uniforms are one of the goals of all the worst fascists. How many different uniforms were there, in the nazis ideal world? Didn't matter what job you did, there was a uniform for it. Obviously, the nazis also liked to breath air, but that doesn't make "air breathing" bad. O
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Somewhere, then, I've gotten really confused in this thread. My apologies. However, you certainly did your part to confuse me even more. For instance, everywhere I've heard of (smalltown schools, to be sure, not NYC) they did and do have dress codes. Even when I was in highschool (89-93), the worst we ever had, was a controversy (small towns, you would
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
what school uniforms do is eliminate competition
amongst students over who is the best dressed, they eliminate gang signs etc
like the fresh prince said, you go to school to the learn, its not a fashion show
however, people can still individualize themselves to some extent
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
I would argue that that is the euphemistic reason, not the real one.
People of almost any age will always find a way to flaunt their status if they have it. If their school has uniforms, it will be by having an expensive cell phone or car, or something along those lines.
The only real reason to have a uniform in any situation is to imply that the people wearing it are interchangeabl
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
I've been to private, religious, and public schooling, so I figure that I can talk about it intelligently.
I've been to a catholic grade school where I feel, 20 years later, where they were trying to brainwash us into thinking *their* views. We all feared what would happen had Regan not been re-elected in 84, because the Democrats were in the league with the commies.
I've been to a Jesui
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
I'm from an area in Jersey that had a ton of Catholic schools. Some of them were exceptionally good and some were exceptionally bad. In fact, the public school system was much better than a good number of them.
I think the most common theme I've seen in the quality of a school system is the socio-economic profile of the majority
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Reminds me of my uncle, who once kicked his Jesuit teacher out of the classroom into the corridor... without opening the door.
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
I agree. My daughter goes to a specialty high school where students pursue either an International Baccalaureate (IB) or Visual/Performing Arts (VPA) study regimen. They are not as strict as the Jesuits, by any means, but like your school, learning and education in this institution are treated paramount. Any student not interested in learning and keeping up his/her grades is expelled.
On the
Catholic School Survivor (Score:1)
I went through nearly the hardest cirriculum the school had to offer, and actually exhausted the sch
Just beacuse it worked for you... (Score:1)
I attended a public school in a small town and I'm not going to lie - most of my graduating class are total losers. Infact I would say around 80% of them. Maybe more. By "lose
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
I went to a public high school in a town that had no private schools. My younger brother went to a Jesuit high school
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Yes, we certainly need to send our kids to boot camp at an age where their hormones are changing daily. We need to teach them to submit to any semblence of authority. We need to teach them that to deviate is to be wrong and punishable. Oh yeah, now I understand why so many Catholic school kids I know are stoners these days. Sucks to be you, if that was your school.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
THAT'S IT MAN! YOU'VE DISCOVERED THE SECRET!!!
All we need to do is give staff ultimate authority, with no accountability, and that will solve ALL of our problems!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:1)
You made numerous typos (you spelled 'high school' with a hyphen, for example), you left out a lot of useful commas, you structured about half your sentences poorly, and then you started with the dress code as the first cannonball launched in this volley of "differences". While the last point is certainly debatable, it sounds absurd given the rest of your essay, which was about how much better your school was, discipline this,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Depends on the SCHOOL (Score:1)
School admin, then District probably next.
Money is always an issue but its not a big deal unless there is way too little of it. Money gets mentioned so much because its the only thing that can be controlled.
I went to mostly public schools. Only 1 of them was great. That one is what got me to where I am. The 1 private school I attended was the WORST one. I'm still trying to get those shark-like nuns from my memories...
Pr
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
One part of my Catholic high school education (also taught by Jesuit priests) was community service at the local head start. Imagine my surprise when I found out one day that one of the kids got
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
I never said they
One more thing (Score:2)
The school didn't bus. We had no bus. Kids came from all over town, from all over this area of the state. We weren't the only show in town, we were had sister schools that had the same policies.
What exactly does "came from all over town" mean? Did they fly in? Did they ride their bike 20 miles? Probably not. This indicates that they were driven. I hate to break the news to you, but many of the kids in head start's parents couldn't afford to send their kid across town,
One more thought experiment... (Score:2)
Oh yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)
The flaw in your assumption is that scoring higher on government-sponsored tests is a measure of 'success'. But as the book points out rather clearly, the measure of success isn't in actual education but in the system of indoctrination used to disperse that education (as much as it can be called 'education').
All you've done here is show that your school's methods of indoctrination were better at achieving state-sponsored goal
Re:Religion and Schooling (Score:2)