Sociology > Education > The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian)
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
06 Sep 2007 02:07:32 PM |
| Object: |
The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
I'm made an important conclusion as relating Christianity in Public
schools that many online opponents will welcome. After many years of
passionately believing the reverse, I have concluded that public
schools are not only founded in atheism but they will remain that
way.
I can hear the mockers and critics saying "told you so," now.
However, my research into the public school system has increased in
recent weeks, especially their past. That has caused my position to
change.
First, one must define a few important terms. Public schools doesn't
mean (and hasn't meant in history) schools by the public and for the
public. That kind of school already existed and was very successful.
In the 1850's, there were over 6 thousand private "academies" that
were producing many high school age graduates in all areas of society
(from every state and region). It, also, doesn't mean FREE schools.
Many churches had free schools, and many "public schools" of the
1800's charged tuition.
"Public" schools were defined by one thing, they were NOT to be
religious. From Mann to Chubberley to Dewey, the developing public
school system was to be SOCIALIST in foundation. Mann say the public
schools as a way to equalize society. Chubberley said it was a mark
in society's development whether they had moved from private,
christian schools to public, state-run schools. Dewey based
educational reform upon psychology of child-development and not upon
needed skills or religious philosophy. Also, consider that one of the
two Teacher unions in the country, today, AFT, was founded by a person
who said he admired socialism (Shanker). Socialism is founded upon
the REQUIRED belief that man has no Creator, their only power is the
state. The belief that (as JFK said) the rights of man come from God
not from the generosity of the state is in direct contradiction to a
socialist system that dispenses rights and benefits at their own
will. That is why almost every communist country has targeted free
religion as a threat to their national power. THIS is the foundation
of the public school system.
So, tell me, what is the chances of convincing a school system founded
(and defined) by an atheistic view) to teach religion in school.
Further, if a public school WERE to teach religion, what would be the
reason for refusing government aid to religious schools? Thus, this
is a lost cause. Religion will NOT ever be accepted and taught in
public schools. It is contrary to their foundation, their
distinction, their history, and the teacher unions in power over
them. So, all the denominations and religious groups that try to put
Christ in public schools is operating in enemy territory. We'd be
much better to use our church funds to promote the REAL historical
(existing hundreds of years before public schools), successful
(private schools alway out-test public schools), and truly democratic
school - the Private, Christian School.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
06 Sep 2007 07:55:03 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm made an important
Nothing you do is important.
You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/d/deteriorata.shtml
conclusion as relating Christianity in Public
schools that many online opponents will welcome.
We will never "welcome" your posts.
After many years of
passionately believing the reverse, I have concluded that public
schools are not only founded in atheism but they will remain that
way.
Again you fail to realize the difference between "atheism" and
"secularism".
First, one must define a few important terms. Public schools doesn't
mean (and hasn't meant in history) schools by the public and for the
public.
Cite please.
That kind of school already existed and was very successful.
In the 1850's, there were over 6 thousand private "academies" that
were producing many high school age graduates in all areas of society
(from every state and region).
Those were NOT "public schools" in the American sense of the term
(which differs from the British usage). The American sense of "public
schools" has been state-supported universal education, a concept
proposed by that great atheist leader Martin Luther, and promoted in
the United States by that great atheist, William Penn, leader of the
Quakers in 1682, who mandated them in Pennsylvania:
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/frampenn.htm
XII. That the governor and the provincial Council shall erect and
order all public schools and encourage and reward the authors of
useful sciences and laudable inventions in the said province....
Clearly William Penn did not consider church schools and private
academies to be "public schools", since public schools were those
"erected and ordered" by the governor and provincial council (i.e. the
state).
It, also, doesn't mean FREE schools.
Many churches had free schools, and many "public schools" of the
1800's charged tuition.
"Public" schools were defined by one thing, they were NOT to be
religious.
In the United States, yes. The word is "secular".
From Mann to Chubberley to Dewey, the developing public
school system was to be SOCIALIST in foundation.
In the sense that they were owned and funded by the government, yes.
But that has nothing to do with religion, since socialism is entirely
orthogonal to religion (one particular flavor of socialism, Marxism,
is specifically opposed to religion, but not all socialists are
Marxists).
Mann say the public schools as a way to equalize society.
So did Thomas Jefferson
[remaining tripe deleted since it is obviously based on faulty
assumptions, like most of what this turkey posts]
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
06 Sep 2007 10:25:44 PM |
|
|
On Sep 6, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm made an important
Nothing you do is important.
You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/d/deteriorata.shtml
conclusion as relating Christianity in Public
schools that many online opponents will welcome.
We will never "welcome" your posts.
After many years of
passionately believing the reverse, I have concluded that public
schools are not only founded in atheism but they will remain that
way.
Again you fail to realize the difference between "atheism" and
"secularism".
First, one must define a few important terms. Public schools doesn't
mean (and hasn't meant in history) schools by the public and for the
public.
Cite please.
That kind of school already existed and was very successful.
In the 1850's, there were over 6 thousand private "academies" that
were producing many high school age graduates in all areas of society
(from every state and region).
Those were NOT "public schools" in the American sense of the term
(which differs from the British usage). The American sense of "public
schools" has been state-supported universal education, a concept
proposed by that great atheist leader Martin Luther, and promoted in
the United States by that great atheist, William Penn, leader of the
Quakers in 1682, who mandated them in Pennsylvania:http://www.constitution.org/bcp/frampenn.htm
XII. That the governor and the provincial Council shall erect and
order all public schools and encourage and reward the authors of
useful sciences and laudable inventions in the said province....
Clearly William Penn did not consider church schools and private
academies to be "public schools", since public schools were those
"erected and ordered" by the governor and provincial council (i.e. the
state).
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob. Why don't you
amp down and actually read my post. If you did, you'd see that I
didn't say they were public schools...that's the point. I said that
being for the public and by the public DIDN'T make them "public."
It, also, doesn't mean FREE schools.
Many churches had free schools, and many "public schools" of the
1800's charged tuition.
"Public" schools were defined by one thing, they were NOT to be
religious.
In the United States, yes. The word is "secular".
From Mann to Chubberley to Dewey, the developing public
school system was to be SOCIALIST in foundation.
In the sense that they were owned and funded by the government, yes.
But that has nothing to do with religion, since socialism is entirely
orthogonal to religion (one particular flavor of socialism, Marxism,
is specifically opposed to religion, but not all socialists are
Marxists).
Actually, all of those founders admired socialist principles, see
below.
Mann say the public schools as a way to equalize society.
So did Thomas Jefferson
[remaining tripe deleted since it is obviously based on faulty
assumptions, like most of what this turkey posts]
lojbab
Mann actually said that public schools were meant to be a "great
equalizer" that would end poverty in the country. How more socialist
could you get? And, the others were clipped, since you couldn't
respond to them. But, then, you'd have to actually READ my post to
respond to it, which your first response above shows you didn't do.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
07 Sep 2007 12:23:06 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob.
Cary - who wins the pool this time? I think it was the shortest
hiatus ever.
Sorry, couldn't get a pool going this time around, because I couldn't
find anyone who would lay off part of the action. I would have
seen better odds betting that corn could not be found in Iowa.
Are you familiar with the Net Kook Award known as as the
`Tony Sidaway "Drama Queen" Award'? While Ken has
never threatened to leave Usenet -- just that he
will never EVER respond to you again -- still,
there are obvious parallels:
Tony Sidaway "Drama Queen" Award
For those logically consistent persons who leave Usenet
for ever, rather more often than the Cabal's rules
require. It isn't necessary to leave Usenet for ever
three times in a single week to win this award, but it
helps. Operatic flouncing of other kinds, including
unprovoked meltdowns and ridiculous ranting may also
lead to a nomination for this award. Named after Drama
Empress Tony Sidaway.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
07 Sep 2007 01:12:30 AM |
|
|
On Sep 6, 8:25 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mann actually said that public schools were meant to be a "great
equalizer" that would end poverty in the country. How more socialist
could you get?
Taking steps to encourage equality (as opposed to dictating it by
fiat) is socialist?
ENDING POVERTY is socialist?
Ken, some people call guns "the great equalizer." I suppose that makes
gun ownership socialist, too.
You have no idea what socialism is or what equality is. And your
genial comfort with people other than you living in poverty is ugly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
07 Sep 2007 12:06:59 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob.
Cary - who wins the pool this time? I think it was the shortest
hiatus ever.
Why don't you amp down and actually read my post. If you did, you'd see that I
didn't say they were public schools...that's the point. I said that
being for the public and by the public DIDN'T make them "public."
So the silly straw man you invented is wrong. Why would this be news?
In the sense that they were owned and funded by the government, yes.
But that has nothing to do with religion, since socialism is entirely
orthogonal to religion (one particular flavor of socialism, Marxism,
is specifically opposed to religion, but not all socialists are
Marxists).
Actually, all of those founders admired socialist principles, see
below.
You don't know what a "socialist principle" is, dodo.
Mann actually said that public schools were meant to be a "great
equalizer" that would end poverty in the country.
Actually, he said no such thing. Here is what he said
http://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/horace_mann.htm
<Now surely nothing but universal education can counterwork this
< tendency to the domination of capital and the servility of labor. If
< one class possesses all the wealth and the education, while the
< residue of society is ignorant and poor, it matters not by what name
< the relation between them may be called: the latter, in fact and in
< truth, will be the servile dependents and subjects of the former.
< But, if education be equally diffused, it will draw property after it
< by the strongest of all attractions; for such a thing never did
< happen, and never can happen, as that an intelligent and practical
< body of men should be permanently poor. Property and labor in
< different classes are essentially antagonistic; but property and
< labor in the same class are essentially fraternal. The people of
< Massachusetts have, in some degree, appreciated the truth that the
< unexampled prosperity of the State -- its comfort, its competence,
< its general intelligence and virtue -- is attributable to the
< education, more or less perfect, which all its people have received;
< but are they sensible of a fact equally important,— namely, that it
< is to this same education that two-thirds of the people are indebted
< for not being to-day the vassals of as severe a tyranny, in the form
< of capital, as the lower classes of Europe are bound to in any form
< of brute force?
<
<Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great
< equalizer of the conditions of men,—the balance wheel of the social
< machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as
< to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow men.
< This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it
< gives each man the independence and the means by which he can resist
< the selfishness of other men. It does better than to disarm the poor
< of their hostility toward the rich: it prevents being poor.
< Agrarianism is the revenge of poverty against wealth. The wanton
< destruction of the property of others -- the burning of hay-ricks,
< and corn-ricks, the demolition of machinery because it supersedes
< hand-labor, the sprinkling of vitriol on rich dresses -- is only
< agrarianism run mad. Education prevents both the revenge and the
< madness. On the other hand, a fellow-feeling for one's class or caste
< is the common instinct of hearts not wholly sunk in selfish regard
< for a person or for a family. The spread of education, by enlarging
< the cultivated class or caste, will open a wider area over which the
< social feelings will expand; and, if this education should be
< universal and complete, it would do more than all things else to
< obliterate factitious distinctions in society.. ..
How more socialist could you get?
Much more, since "ending poverty" is no definition of socialism.
On the other hand, using the actual quote, one sees the sorts of
phrases that an ideologue might use, whether socialist or otherwise.
He talks of the "domination of capital and the servility of labor".
Thus he arguably identifies the same problem that Marx did.
But that is hardly surprising - he was writing at the same time Marx
did, and in a year when Europe was undergoing a massive convulsion of
revolution against the sorts of inequities he described.
But his solution is quite different from that of Marx, or the European
revolutionaries, or for that matter of "socialists" in general, as you
would know if you had a clues as to what "socialism" really is
And, the others were clipped, since you couldn't respond to them.
There is nothing to respond to. You don't even know what "socialism"
is. You just use it for the hodgepodge of political opinions that you
think you are opposed to, except of course when you hypocritically
endorse them.
To give you some food for what passes for thought amidst the rocks in
your head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism
<The English word socialism originated from the French language in the
< 1820s, but the idea that goods should be held in common and that all
< men should be equal is much older. Quasi-socialist elements can be
< identified in Plato's Republic, the Biblical Sermon on the Mount, the
< millenarian movements of the Middle Ages and St. Thomas More's novel
< Utopia.
So if Mann is a socialist, so too was the Author of the Sermon on the
Mount.
But, then, you'd have to actually READ my post
You would have to write something worth reading in order to get people
to "actually read" it as opposed to mocking you yet again.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
07 Sep 2007 07:40:57 AM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 12:06 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob.
Cary - who wins the pool this time? I think it was the shortest
hiatus ever.
Why don't you amp down and actually read my post. If you did, you'd see that I
didn't say they were public schools...that's the point. I said that
being for the public and by the public DIDN'T make them "public."
So the silly straw man you invented is wrong. Why would this be news?
You STILL can't read. I knew I was going to regret this. I was in
agreement with you from the start. Go read it. They were NOT public
schools. "Public" schools didn't start till the socialists created
them for the poor and offer them like food stamps.
In the sense that they were owned and funded by the government, yes.
But that has nothing to do with religion, since socialism is entirely
orthogonal to religion (one particular flavor of socialism, Marxism,
is specifically opposed to religion, but not all socialists are
Marxists).
Actually, all of those founders admired socialist principles, see
below.
You don't know what a "socialist principle" is, dodo.
Mann actually said that public schools were meant to be a "great
equalizer" that would end poverty in the country.
Actually, he said no such thing. Here is what he saidhttp://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/horace_mann.htm
<Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great
< equalizer of the conditions of men,-the balance wheel of the social
< machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as
< to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow men.
< This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it
< gives each man the independence and the means by which he can resist
< the selfishness of other men. It does better than to disarm the poor
< of their hostility toward the rich: it prevents being poor.
< .... The spread of education, by enlarging
< the cultivated class or caste, will open a wider area over which the
< social feelings will expand; and, if this education should be
< universal and complete, it would do more than all things else to
< obliterate factitious distinctions in society.. ..
How more socialist could you get?
Much more, since "ending poverty" is no definition of socialism.
I clipped your above source to show I was right. You can't get much
more socialist than that. Education, Mann's way, "ends poverty" and
ends distinctions in society. Care to change your story, Bob, or are
you going to say that equalizing society, ending poverty, and removing
distinctions are non-socialist ideas?
Christians schools are, on the other hand, BY the public, FOR the
public, responsive to the parents, paid by public funds (of the
parents), founded in American history (much longer than public
schools) and are MUCH more successful on tests than public schools.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
07 Sep 2007 09:36:00 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:06 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob.
Cary - who wins the pool this time? I think it was the shortest
hiatus ever.
Why don't you amp down and actually read my post. If you did, you'd see that I
didn't say they were public schools...that's the point. I said that
being for the public and by the public DIDN'T make them "public."
So the silly straw man you invented is wrong. Why would this be news?
You STILL can't read. I knew I was going to regret this. I was in
agreement with you from the start.
No you weren't, since I never said something for you to agree with.
Go read it. They were NOT public schools.
No one said that "they" (whatever 'they' refers to) WERE public
schools.
You are attempting to reinvent the definition of "public schools" to
suit your agenda. I'm not buying. The American sense of "public"
schools has always meant "owned by and operated under the jurisdiction
of the public sector, i.e. the government. "Public education" is an
ambiguous phrase, having the meaning of the "system of public schools"
as well as the meaning of "educating the general public under the
regulation of the state".
There is also the distinction between "public" and "private" which you
attempt to muddy from the start. The *private* sector includes
activities initiated by citizens, who are members of the public, but
are not the "public sector".
"Public" schools didn't start till the socialists created
them for the poor and offer them like food stamps.
That is where you are wrong. Public schools started long before the
word "socialism" was even invented. In the US, there were public
schools in New England in the 1600s. They weren't "universal" because
they were required only in villages above a certain size, and a lot of
people did not live in villages.
The concept of *universal* public education was proposed by Martin
Luther, who was no "socialist", nor was Frederick the Great who
started the German system of universal public education in the 1700s.
Jefferson is the one who proposed an American system of universal
public education, before the Constitution was adopted. "Jefferson
believed that education should be under the control of the government,
free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective
of their status in society."
http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html
It took a while until all kids were covered by this mandate, but
systems of public schools had started in 7 states by 1791, and the US
government had made provision for public schools in the Northwest
Territories when they were set up in 1787.
The concept of *free* public education was implicit in "universal"
public education, since there are some kids whose families could not
afford to pay for education. But there were "free" public schools
even before universality was mandated, and even before Jefferson
proposed "universal" public education. That does not claim that a
"free school" is a public school as your strawman implied, or that
public schools were necessarily free schools. But they were *usually*
free if not universal before Horace Mann.
Mann actually said that public schools were meant to be a "great
equalizer" that would end poverty in the country.
Actually, he said no such thing. Here is what he saidhttp://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/horace_mann.htm
<Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great
< equalizer of the conditions of men,-the balance wheel of the social
< machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as
< to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow men.
< This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it
< gives each man the independence and the means by which he can resist
< the selfishness of other men. It does better than to disarm the poor
< of their hostility toward the rich: it prevents being poor.
< .... The spread of education, by enlarging
< the cultivated class or caste, will open a wider area over which the
< social feelings will expand; and, if this education should be
< universal and complete, it would do more than all things else to
< obliterate factitious distinctions in society.. ..
How more socialist could you get?
Much more, since "ending poverty" is no definition of socialism.
I clipped your above source to show I was right. You can't get much
more socialist than that.
Yes you can. You still haven't shown that you have a clue what
"socialism" is.
Education, Mann's way, "ends poverty" and ends distinctions in society.
That is not "socialism".
Care to change your story, Bob, or are
you going to say that equalizing society, ending poverty, and removing
distinctions are non-socialist ideas?
Yes. "All men are created equal" was written by Jefferson, who was no
"socialist".
"Ending poverty" began about the same time:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1519560,00.html
<The idea of "making poverty history" did not begin with Bob Geldof,
< Bono or the commitment of rich countries to disburse 0.7% of national
< income in development aid. It goes back to the time of the French and
< American revolutions towards the end of 18th century and to a
< transformation in outlook as momentous as that produced by the
< revolutions themselves. A small group of visionaries, the followers
< of Tom Paine in England and Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet in France,
< ceased to regard poverty as a divine imposition on sinful humanity.
< It was seen as remediable in principle, since it was man-made in
< practice.
The French Revolution also included the idea of "ending distinctions",
but some American colonies had effectively ended distinctions before
then by the simple expedient of never establishing them in law. But
it took the Revolution, which cut us off from British law before the
British class system was no longer part of the American system of
government.
Christians schools are, on the other hand, BY the public,
No. The are by the churches. The churches are NOT the public sector.
They are private organizations. They determine and control their
membership, which is not universal.
FOR the public,
No. Most church schools are for the church membership, or are
missionary activities aimed at increasing the membership. They are
private, not public.
responsive to the parents,
They are responsive to the church leaders who set them up. They are
responsive to the parents ONLY if the parents are members of the board
of governors for the school, or in some churches if they are members
of the church. But in the Roman Catholic schools, which are the bulk
of church schools, they are responsive NOT to parents, but to the
priesthood.
paid by public funds (of the parents),
"public funds" = "state funds". Parental tuition is not public funds.
Church subsidies are not public funds.
founded in American history (much longer than public schools)
No. There were public schools in Massachusetts in the 1600s.
and are MUCH more successful on tests than public schools.
No. Indeed most church schools are not tested in a systematic way
that would allow such comparison.
But if they are so superior, why is your daughter in a public school?
Because you are a socialist hypocrite?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
09 Sep 2007 08:48:56 AM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 9:36 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:06 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob.
Cary - who wins the pool this time? I think it was the shortest
hiatus ever.
Why don't you amp down and actually read my post. If you did, you'd see that I
didn't say they were public schools...that's the point. I said that
being for the public and by the public DIDN'T make them "public."
So the silly straw man you invented is wrong. Why would this be news?
You STILL can't read. I knew I was going to regret this. I was in
agreement with you from the start.
No you weren't, since I never said something for you to agree with.
Go read it. They were NOT public schools.
No one said that "they" (whatever 'they' refers to) WERE public
schools.
You are attempting to reinvent the definition of "public schools" to
suit your agenda. I'm not buying. The American sense of "public"
schools has always meant "owned by and operated under the jurisdiction
of the public sector, i.e. the government. "Public education" is an
ambiguous phrase, having the meaning of the "system of public schools"
as well as the meaning of "educating the general public under the
regulation of the state".
There is also the distinction between "public" and "private" which you
attempt to muddy from the start. The *private* sector includes
activities initiated by citizens, who are members of the public, but
are not the "public sector".
You better inform the public schools, then. I am in a Graduate level
Education program right now for a public school license at a NON-
RELIGIOUS school that is using textbooks used at NON-Religious schools
accross the country for training teachers. In fact, this textbook is
VERY critical of religious schools. This textbook, as well as other
reading material supplied from them ALL says that "public" schools is
NOT the same thing as the religious schools of the past but a NEW
thing that started in the 1800's. Here is an online link to ANOTHER
text required that says the same thing and a quote from it...
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/3009196.html
"As Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn showed in his seminal
work Education in the Forming of American Society, this morality
tale appealed to the education profession's amour propre. Leading
educators in the 1890s enjoyed debating whether the earliest public
school could be traced to the Puritans in Massachusetts or to
the Dutch in New York. Both sides, Bailyn pointed out, were
wrong: public education ''had not grown from seventeenth-
century seeds; it was a new and unexpected genus whose ultimate
character could not have been predicted and whose emergence had
troubled well-disposed, high-minded people.'' The school historians
of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, said
Bailyn, were professional educators who wanted to give the student
of education ''an everlasting faith in his profession.'' These
''educational missionaries'' believed passionately in their
profession,
and they ''drew up what became the patristic literature of a
powerful academic ecclesia.''" (Chapter 1, pages 2-3 - A Primer on
America's Public Schools...Hoover Institution)
Want to change your story, Bob?
"Public" schools didn't start till the socialists created
them for the poor and offer them like food stamps.
That is where you are wrong. Public schools started long before the
word "socialism" was even invented. In the US, there were public
schools in New England in the 1600s. They weren't "universal" because
they were required only in villages above a certain size, and a lot of
people did not live in villages.
The concept of *universal* public education was proposed by Martin
Luther, who was no "socialist", nor was Frederick the Great who
started the German system of universal public education in the 1700s.
Jefferson is the one who proposed an American system of universal
public education, before the Constitution was adopted. "Jefferson
believed that education should be under the control of the government,
free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective
of their status in society."http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/Publi...
It took a while until all kids were covered by this mandate, but
systems of public schools had started in 7 states by 1791, and the US
government had made provision for public schools in the Northwest
Territories when they were set up in 1787.
The concept of *free* public education was implicit in "universal"
public education, since there are some kids whose families could not
afford to pay for education. But there were "free" public schools
even before universality was mandated, and even before Jefferson
proposed "universal" public education. That does not claim that a
"free school" is a public school as your strawman implied, or that
public schools were necessarily free schools. But they were *usually*
free if not universal before Horace Mann.
Again, you didn't read my post. Many of the 1800's "public schools"
ran by the state charged tuition. And, there were (and still are)
many religious schools that are free to the poorest.
Mann actually said that public schools were meant to be a "great
equalizer" that would end poverty in the country.
Actually, he said no such thing. Here is what he saidhttp://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/horace_mann.htm
<Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great
< equalizer of the conditions of men,-the balance wheel of the social
< machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as
< to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow men.
< This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it
< gives each man the independence and the means by which he can resist
< the selfishness of other men. It does better than to disarm the poor
< of their hostility toward the rich: it prevents being poor.
< .... The spread of education, by enlarging
< the cultivated class or caste, will open a wider area over which the
< social feelings will expand; and, if this education should be
< universal and complete, it would do more than all things else to
< obliterate factitious distinctions in society.. ..
How more socialist could you get?
Much more, since "ending poverty" is no definition of socialism.
I clipped your above source to show I was right. You can't get much
more socialist than that.
Yes you can. You still haven't shown that you have a clue what
"socialism" is.
Education, Mann's way, "ends poverty" and ends distinctions in society.
That is not "socialism".
Care to change your story, Bob, or are
you going to say that equalizing society, ending poverty, and removing
distinctions are non-socialist ideas?
Yes. "All men are created equal" was written by Jefferson, who was no
"socialist".
Then, how is it that EVERY socialist that wants to draw from US
History quotes Jefferson. Jefferson is suddenly a capitalist?
"Ending poverty" began about the same time:http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1519560,00.html
<The idea of "making poverty history" did not begin with Bob Geldof,
< Bono or the commitment of rich countries to disburse 0.7% of national
< income in development aid. It goes back to the time of the French and
< American revolutions towards the end of 18th century and to a
< transformation in outlook as momentous as that produced by the
< revolutions themselves. A small group of visionaries, the followers
< of Tom Paine in England and Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet in France,
< ceased to regard poverty as a divine imposition on sinful humanity.
< It was seen as remediable in principle, since it was man-made in
< practice.
The French Revolution also included the idea of "ending distinctions",
but some American colonies had effectively ended distinctions before
then by the simple expedient of never establishing them in law. But
it took the Revolution, which cut us off from British law before the
British class system was no longer part of the American system of
government.
You DO know that the French are almost entirely socialist in politics
(that's why they condemn the recent election so harshly)...right?
Christians schools are, on the other hand, BY the public,
No. The are by the churches. The churches are NOT the public sector.
They are private organizations. They determine and control their
membership, which is not universal.
Are the churches "public" or not? A second ago, you were telling me
that "public schools" were not just those that are government schools
but for the public. Now, you are saying that churches are not public,
since they are private? Make up your mind. Here's a problem for you
to solve (I'll be waiting). Many of those "public" schools you claim
from the earliest years were run by the churches you say are NOT
public. How is that?
FOR the public,
No. Most church schools are for the church membership, or are
missionary activities aimed at increasing the membership. They are
private, not public.
Are their church membership excluded from being American public?
responsive to the parents,
They are responsive to the church leaders who set them up. They are
responsive to the parents ONLY if the parents are members of the board
of governors for the school, or in some churches if they are members
of the church. But in the Roman Catholic schools, which are the bulk
of church schools, they are responsive NOT to parents, but to the
priesthood.
Says who? Many religious schools are community style churches
unconnected to a religious denomination.
paid by public funds (of the parents),
"public funds" = "state funds". Parental tuition is not public funds.
Church subsidies are not public funds.
Now state is the government again? Make up your mind. Either
"public" funds are the funds of the general public (citizens), or
"public schools" are just government schools...which means they began
in the mid-1800's.
founded in American history (much longer than public schools)
No. There were public schools in Massachusetts in the 1600s.
You JUST said that "public" means state. There WAS no American state
at that time. You just contradicted yourself in the very next
sentence.
and are MUCH more successful on tests than public schools.
No. Indeed most church schools are not tested in a systematic way
that would allow such comparison.
But if they are so superior, why is your daughter in a public school?
Because you are a socialist hypocrite?
lojbab
You are arguing with yourself. When you decide whether "public" means
state or not, let me know. Here's another thought on the issue, Bob.
If the religious schools of the colonial days are "public" schools,
can we give the "public" religious schools of this day government
funds?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
09 Sep 2007 11:14:42 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 9:36 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:06 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob.
Cary - who wins the pool this time? I think it was the shortest
hiatus ever.
Why don't you amp down and actually read my post. If you did, you'd see that I
didn't say they were public schools...that's the point. I said that
being for the public and by the public DIDN'T make them "public."
So the silly straw man you invented is wrong. Why would this be news?
You STILL can't read. I knew I was going to regret this. I was in
agreement with you from the start.
No you weren't, since I never said something for you to agree with.
Go read it. They were NOT public schools.
No one said that "they" (whatever 'they' refers to) WERE public
schools.
You are attempting to reinvent the definition of "public schools" to
suit your agenda. I'm not buying. The American sense of "public"
schools has always meant "owned by and operated under the jurisdiction
of the public sector, i.e. the government. "Public education" is an
ambiguous phrase, having the meaning of the "system of public schools"
as well as the meaning of "educating the general public under the
regulation of the state".
There is also the distinction between "public" and "private" which you
attempt to muddy from the start. The *private* sector includes
activities initiated by citizens, who are members of the public, but
are not the "public sector".
You better inform the public schools, then. I am in a Graduate level
Education program right now for a public school license at a NON-
RELIGIOUS school that is using textbooks used at NON-Religious schools
accross the country for training teachers. In fact, this textbook is
VERY critical of religious schools.
Oh, dear. Kennie wants to be a public school teacher. Probably so he
can get fired for trying to teach religion in the schools.
This textbook, as well as other
reading material supplied from them ALL says that "public" schools is
NOT the same thing as the religious schools of the past but a NEW
thing that started in the 1800's. Here is an online link to ANOTHER
text required that says the same thing and a quote from it...
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/3009196.html
"As Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn showed in his seminal
work Education in the Forming of American Society, this morality
tale appealed to the education profession's amour propre.
Of course you leave out the strawman that Ravitch was attacking with
this quote, which was not the same strawman you are attacking.
Leading
educators in the 1890s enjoyed debating whether the earliest public
school could be traced to the Puritans in Massachusetts or to
the Dutch in New York. Both sides, Bailyn pointed out, were
wrong: public education ''had not grown from seventeenth-
century seeds; it was a new and unexpected genus whose ultimate
character could not have been predicted and whose emergence had
troubled well-disposed, high-minded people.'' The school historians
of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, said
Bailyn, were professional educators who wanted to give the student
of education ''an everlasting faith in his profession.'' These
''educational missionaries'' believed passionately in their
profession,
and they ''drew up what became the patristic literature of a
powerful academic ecclesia.''" (Chapter 1, pages 2-3 - A Primer on
America's Public Schools...Hoover Institution)
Want to change your story, Bob?
Nope. I haven't read Bailyn's argument, as opposed to Ravitch's
selective quote of Bailyn, but as she presents it, it is incorrect.
Ravitch's later explication is more correct, although as with most of
her writing strongly slanted ideologically. To her, it seems. the
essence of "public schooling" is in its control by state boards of
education; she identifies public schooling in terms of the "common
school movement" which Mann promoted.
She says that public schools as we know them today had their primary
roots in the charity schools for poor kids. She is more or less
correct in terms of how the schools were politically managed. She
also mentions rural school-board schools:
<Rural areas developed district schools with local boards composed
<mainly of parents.
Those schools and their governance are just as much a basis for public
education as the charity schools. The charity schools were
significant in that they were state run and without tuition. The
rural schools were run by local boards of education with no state
control.
The essence of the error in her argument can be shown linguistically.
The discussion we are having is NOT about a line between "common
schools" and something else, but between "public schools" and
"non-public schools". If the public schools were nothing more than
Mann's "common schools", they would probably be called "common
schools" most of the time. They aren't.
The concept of *free* public education was implicit in "universal"
public education, since there are some kids whose families could not
afford to pay for education. But there were "free" public schools
even before universality was mandated, and even before Jefferson
proposed "universal" public education. That does not claim that a
"free school" is a public school as your strawman implied, or that
public schools were necessarily free schools. But they were *usually*
free if not universal before Horace Mann.
Again, you didn't read my post. Many of the 1800's "public schools"
ran by the state charged tuition.
They also received government funding. That is what made them
"public" schools is that they were funded by the public sector.
And, there were (and still are) many religious schools that are free to the poorest.
So? You are attacking a strawman. I did not say that the distinction
between public and private is one of "free" vs "paid". I said that
*universal* education required that education be "free" as in
non-tuition based.
Care to change your story, Bob, or are
you going to say that equalizing society, ending poverty, and removing
distinctions are non-socialist ideas?
Yes. "All men are created equal" was written by Jefferson, who was no
"socialist".
Then, how is it that EVERY socialist
You don't know whatr a "socialist" is.
that wants to draw from US History quotes Jefferson. Jefferson is suddenly a capitalist?
He certainly wasn't a socialist. The word and concept hadn't even
been invented yet.
The French Revolution also included the idea of "ending distinctions",
but some American colonies had effectively ended distinctions before
then by the simple expedient of never establishing them in law. But
it took the Revolution, which cut us off from British law before the
British class system was no longer part of the American system of
government.
You DO know that the French are almost entirely socialist in politics
No, they aren't. They have a socialist party, but it loses as many
elections as it wins. But even when they win, France is not
especially "socialist".
Christians schools are, on the other hand, BY the public,
No. The are by the churches. The churches are NOT the public sector.
They are private organizations. They determine and control their
membership, which is not universal.
Are the churches "public" or not?
They are not part of the public sector, but the private sector.
A second ago, you were telling me that "public schools" were not just those that are government schools
but for the public.
You obviously misunderstood. If they are funded and controlled by the
public sector, then they are public.
Now, you are saying that churches are not public, since they are private?
That being the dichotomy being discussed at the moment, yes.
Here's a problem for you
to solve (I'll be waiting). Many of those "public" schools you claim
from the earliest years were run by the churches you say are NOT
public. How is that?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
In some locales, in the early years, there were public schools that
were run by churches. Since in those years, there were established
state churches in several states, this is no problem for my
statements. A Puritan church school in early Massachusetts might
indeed have been a public school, because the government of the colony
was itself religious in nature. Only when separation of church and
state became a reality could it be said that "public schools" and
"church schools" were contradictions. The separation took place early
in Rhode Island, and relatively late in Massachusetts (indeed it was
finalized there about the time Mann gained his authority, though I
don't claim this to be a significant chronological argument).
FOR the public,
No. Most church schools are for the church membership, or are
missionary activities aimed at increasing the membership. They are
private, not public.
Are their church membership excluded from being American public?
No. But "American public" uses a different meaning of the word
"public" than "public schools". This should be obvious, since the
former is a noun, and the latter is an adjective. You do know English
grammar, don't you?
responsive to the parents,
They are responsive to the church leaders who set them up. They are
responsive to the parents ONLY if the parents are members of the board
of governors for the school, or in some churches if they are members
of the church. But in the Roman Catholic schools, which are the bulk
of church schools, they are responsive NOT to parents, but to the
priesthood.
Says who?
Says me.
Many religious schools are community style churches
unconnected to a religious denomination.
Not all churches are denominational. They are still churches. And
the schools they operate are still run by a church.
paid by public funds (of the parents),
"public funds" = "state funds". Parental tuition is not public funds.
Church subsidies are not public funds.
Now state is the government again?
Yes. That is what the word refers to.
Make up your mind. Either "public" funds are the funds of the general public (citizens), or
"public schools" are just government schools.
False dichotomy. Government is the means by which the general public
"citizens" operates as a unit.
..which means they began in the mid-1800's.
No. Government schools started in the 1600s. "Common schools"
(*universal* public education) started in the US in the 1800s, though
it was proposed much earlier by Luther and later by Jefferson.
founded in American history (much longer than public schools)
No. There were public schools in Massachusetts in the 1600s.
You JUST said that "public" means state. There WAS no American state
at that time. You just contradicted yourself in the very next
sentence.
Gawd, you can be dense, when you are playing semantic games.
Do you know how many definitions of the word "state" there are?
Main Entry: 1state
Pronunciation: 'stAt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
....
4 a : a body of persons constituting a special class in a society :
ESTATE 3 b plural : the members or representatives of the governing
classes assembled in a legislative body c obsolete : a person of high
rank (as a noble)
5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a
definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the
political organization of such a body of people c : a government or
politically organized society having a particular character <a police
state> <the welfare state>
6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal
government <the fifty states> b plural, capitalized : The United
States of America
8 : the territory of a state
All of definitions 5 through 7 are sometimes in play in discussing
public schooling. When one talks about the public/private
distinction, one is using definition 6. When one is talking about the
state of Massachusetts, one is using definition 5 or 7 (or 8)
In the sense of definition 6, there was an American state starting
shortly after 1607. Jamestown was founded privately by the Virginia
Company which was a private company with a charter from the crown.
But the charters still provided for state authority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company
<The charters of the companies called for a local council for each, but
< with ultimate authority residing with the King through the Council of
< Virginia[2] in England.
in the colonial era, if the king was involved, then it was a
*state*-run enterprise.
But if they are so superior, why is your daughter in a public school?
Because you are a socialist hypocrite?
You are arguing with yourself.
No. And I notice that you did not answer the question.
When you decide whether "public" means state or not, let me know.
Depends on the context. When referring to public schools, it does.
If the religious schools of the colonial days are "public" schools,
Some were, since church and state were not yet separate.
can we give the "public" religious schools of this day government
funds?
There are no "'public' religious schools of this day" in the United
States.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
09 Sep 2007 04:39:43 PM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 11:14 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 9:36 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:06 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know that I will regret speaking to you, again, Bob.
Cary - who wins the pool this time? I think it was the shortest
hiatus ever.
Why don't you amp down and actually read my post. If you did, you'd see that I
didn't say they were public schools...that's the point. I said that
being for the public and by the public DIDN'T make them "public."
So the silly straw man you invented is wrong. Why would this be news?
You STILL can't read. I knew I was going to regret this. I was in
agreement with you from the start.
No you weren't, since I never said something for you to agree with.
Go read it. They were NOT public schools.
No one said that "they" (whatever 'they' refers to) WERE public
schools.
You are attempting to reinvent the definition of "public schools" to
suit your agenda. I'm not buying. The American sense of "public"
schools has always meant "owned by and operated under the jurisdiction
of the public sector, i.e. the government. "Public education" is an
ambiguous phrase, having the meaning of the "system of public schools"
as well as the meaning of "educating the general public under the
regulation of the state".
There is also the distinction between "public" and "private" which you
attempt to muddy from the start. The *private* sector includes
activities initiated by citizens, who are members of the public, but
are not the "public sector".
You better inform the public schools, then. I am in a Graduate level
Education program right now for a public school license at a NON-
RELIGIOUS school that is using textbooks used at NON-Religious schools
accross the country for training teachers. In fact, this textbook is
VERY critical of religious schools.
Oh, dear. Kennie wants to be a public school teacher. Probably so he
can get fired for trying to teach religion in the schools.
Who said I want to be a public school teacher? I said I was doing a
program that leads to public school license (even Christian schools
use state certified teachers). However, the temptation to work at a
public school for the purpose of praying (mentally but not out loud)
for the salvation of the kids there is very tempting.
This textbook, as well as other
reading material supplied from them ALL says that "public" schools is
NOT the same thing as the religious schools of the past but a NEW
thing that started in the 1800's. Here is an online link to ANOTHER
text required that says the same thing and a quote from it...
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/3009196.html
"As Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn showed in his seminal
work Education in the Forming of American Society, this morality
tale appealed to the education profession's amour propre.
Of course you leave out the strawman that Ravitch was attacking with
this quote, which was not the same strawman you are attacking.
Leading
educators in the 1890s enjoyed debating whether the earliest public
school could be traced to the Puritans in Massachusetts or to
the Dutch in New York. Both sides, Bailyn pointed out, were
wrong: public education ''had not grown from seventeenth-
century seeds; it was a new and unexpected genus whose ultimate
character could not have been predicted and whose emergence had
troubled well-disposed, high-minded people.'' The school historians
of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, said
Bailyn, were professional educators who wanted to give the student
of education ''an everlasting faith in his profession.'' These
''educational missionaries'' believed passionately in their
profession,
and they ''drew up what became the patristic literature of a
powerful academic ecclesia.''" (Chapter 1, pages 2-3 - A Primer on
America's Public Schools...Hoover Institution)
Want to change your story, Bob?
Nope. I haven't read Bailyn's argument, as opposed to Ravitch's
selective quote of Bailyn, but as she presents it, it is incorrect.
Ravitch's later explication is more correct, although as with most of
her writing strongly slanted ideologically. To her, it seems. the
essence of "public schooling" is in its control by state boards of
education; she identifies public schooling in terms of the "common
school movement" which Mann promoted.
She says that public schools as we know them today had their primary
roots in the charity schools for poor kids. She is more or less
correct in terms of how the schools were politically managed. She
also mentions rural school-board schools:
<Rural areas developed district schools with local boards composed
<mainly of parents.
Those schools and their governance are just as much a basis for public
education as the charity schools. The charity schools were
significant in that they were state run and without tuition. The
rural schools were run by local boards of education with no state
control.
The essence of the error in her argument can be shown linguistically.
The discussion we are having is NOT about a line between "common
schools" and something else, but between "public schools" and
"non-public schools". If the public schools were nothing more than
Mann's "common schools", they would probably be called "common
schools" most of the time. They aren't.
So, now you disagree with Harvard experts and Stanford educators (the
book author) if they don't back YOUR view? No surprise. THEY, at
least, have sources and quotes for their opinion. It seems your
opinion is just that ... YOUR opinion...just like our last
discussions.
The concept of *free* public education was implicit in "universal"
public education, since there are some kids whose families could not
afford to pay for education. But there were "free" public schools
even before universality was mandated, and even before Jefferson
proposed "universal" public education. That does not claim that a
"free school" is a public school as your strawman implied, or that
public schools were necessarily free schools. But they were *usually*
free if not universal before Horace Mann.
Again, you didn't read my post. Many of the 1800's "public schools"
ran by the state charged tuition.
They also received government funding. That is what made them
"public" schools is that they were funded by the public sector.
EXACTLY. They were NOT free but public. So, public didn't mean free.
And, there were (and still are) many religious schools that are free to the poorest.
So? You are attacking a strawman. I did not say that the distinction
between public and private is one of "free" vs "paid". I said that
*universal* education required that education be "free" as in
non-tuition based.
Actually, you said they were usually free if not universally, which
shows your ignorance on the subject.
Care to change your story, Bob, or are
you going to say that equalizing society, ending poverty, and removing
distinctions are non-socialist ideas?
Yes. "All men are created equal" was written by Jefferson, who was no
"socialist".
Then, how is it that EVERY socialist
You don't know whatr a "socialist" is.
that wants to draw from US History quotes Jefferson. Jefferson is suddenly a capitalist?
He certainly wasn't a socialist. The word and concept hadn't even
been invented yet.
So, socialism isn't a truth that existed before someone labeled it?
The French Revolution also included the idea of "ending distinctions",
but some American colonies had effectively ended distinctions before
then by the simple expedient of never establishing them in law. But
it took the Revolution, which cut us off from British law before the
British class system was no longer part of the American system of
government.
You DO know that the French are almost entirely socialist in politics
No, they aren't. They have a socialist party, but it loses as many
elections as it wins. But even when they win, France is not
especially "socialist".
Christians schools are, on the other hand, BY the public,
No. The are by the churches. The churches are NOT the public sector.
They are private organizations. They determine and control their
membership, which is not universal.
Are the churches "public" or not?
They are not part of the public sector, but the private sector.
But, are they a part of THE PUBLIC, or are you going back to saying
PUBLIC means government, again.
A second ago, you were telling me that "public schools" were not just those that are government schools
but for the public.
You obviously misunderstood. If they are funded and controlled by the
public sector, then they are public.
Now, you are saying that churches are not public, since they are private?
That being the dichotomy being discussed at the moment, yes.
Here's a problem for you
to solve (I'll be waiting). Many of those "public" schools you claim
from the earliest years were run by the churches you say are NOT
public. How is that?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
In some locales, in the early years, there were public schools that
were run by churches. Since in those years, there were established
state churches in several states, this is no problem for my
statements. A Puritan church school in early Massachusetts might
indeed have been a public school, because the government of the colony
was itself religious in nature. Only when separation of church and
state became a reality could it be said that "public schools" and
"church schools" were contradictions. The separation took place early
in Rhode Island, and relatively late in Massachusetts (indeed it was
finalized there about the time Mann gained his authority, though I
don't claim this to be a significant chronological argument).
Later words by you...
First, you claim that "public schools" mean government schools....
"public funds" = "state funds". Parental tuition is not public funds.
Church subsidies are not public funds.
But, wait...now, your claim that "public schools" existed BEFORE the
government....
"No. Government schools started in the 1600s. "Common schools"
(*universal* public education) started in the US in the 1800s, though
it was proposed much earlier by Luther and later by Jefferson."
And...
No. There were public schools in Massachusetts in the 1600s.
Will you PLEASE make up your mind. Does PUBLIC mean government or
not, since the 1600's schools existed BEFORE the US Government did,
yet you call them "public" schools.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
09 Sep 2007 11:53:10 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course you leave out the strawman that Ravitch was attacking with
this quote, which was not the same strawman you are attacking.
Leading
educators in the 1890s enjoyed debating whether the earliest public
school could be traced to the Puritans in Massachusetts or to
the Dutch in New York. Both sides, Bailyn pointed out, were
wrong: public education ''had not grown from seventeenth-
century seeds; it was a new and unexpected genus whose ultimate
character could not have been predicted and whose emergence had
troubled well-disposed, high-minded people.'' The school historians
of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, said
Bailyn, were professional educators who wanted to give the student
of education ''an everlasting faith in his profession.'' These
''educational missionaries'' believed passionately in their
profession,
and they ''drew up what became the patristic literature of a
powerful academic ecclesia.''" (Chapter 1, pages 2-3 - A Primer on
America's Public Schools...Hoover Institution)
Want to change your story, Bob?
Nope. I haven't read Bailyn's argument, as opposed to Ravitch's
selective quote of Bailyn, but as she presents it, it is incorrect.
Ravitch's later explication is more correct, although as with most of
her writing strongly slanted ideologically. To her, it seems. the
essence of "public schooling" is in its control by state boards of
education; she identifies public schooling in terms of the "common
school movement" which Mann promoted.
She says that public schools as we know them today had their primary
roots in the charity schools for poor kids. She is more or less
correct in terms of how the schools were politically managed. She
also mentions rural school-board schools:
<Rural areas developed district schools with local boards composed
<mainly of parents.
Those schools and their governance are just as much a basis for public
education as the charity schools. The charity schools were
significant in that they were state run and without tuition. The
rural schools were run by local boards of education with no state
control.
The essence of the error in her argument can be shown linguistically.
The discussion we are having is NOT about a line between "common
schools" and something else, but between "public schools" and
"non-public schools". If the public schools were nothing more than
Mann's "common schools", they would probably be called "common
schools" most of the time. They aren't.
So, now you disagree with Harvard experts and Stanford educators (the
book author) if they don't back YOUR view?
People who have actually been reading my post know that I have
disagreed with Ravitch's writings many times. She is an ideologue in
academic clothing. A very smart ideologue, but still an ideologue.
No surprise. THEY, at least, have sources and quotes for their opinion.
So do I. It is still her *opinion*. And since her opinions are noted
for being controversial, it is wise to be skeptical. Nothing you
quoted is convincing of anything but of a semantics game in progress.
It seems your
opinion is just that ... YOUR opinion...just like our last
discussions.
My opinion certainly is my opinion. If it were someone else's
opinion, I would be quoting them and not writing for myself.
Again, you didn't read my post. Many of the 1800's "public schools"
ran by the state charged tuition.
They also received government funding. That is what made them
"public" schools is that they were funded by the public sector.
EXACTLY. They were NOT free but public. So, public didn't mean free.
So? Why is that controversial? Public colleges have existed for a
long time, and few if any of them are free. But few people are
advocating universal college education. In order for education to be
universal, it has to be free.
And, there were (and still are) many religious schools that are free to the poorest.
So? You are attacking a strawman. I did not say that the distinction
between public and private is one of "free" vs "paid". I said that
*universal* education required that education be "free" as in
non-tuition based.
Actually, you said they were usually free if not universally,
No. I said "they were usually free if not universal", which in the
context of a discussion of whether education was "universal" or not is
a significantly different statement. If you can't quote me exactly
then don't guess, because I will check.
which shows your ignorance on the subject.
No. It might show some difference of opinion on what qualifies as
"free", however. Some systems were established with the intent that
kids not have to pay, but in practice the public funding did not cover
all the costs, and some or all the parents had to contribute towards
the remaining costs. I will therefore back off from the claim of
"usually" free, because I cannot find statistics on how many attended,
and how many paid.
For example, in Connecticut
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/cthistory/81.ch.02.x.html#b
<In 1717 the General Assembly required every parish, in towns with more
< that one parish, to have a school. The upkeep of the school was to
< come from a tuition paid by the parents. However, the town covered
< the cost for anyone too poor to afford it.6 In those townships where
< no school-houses existed students received their instructions at the
< teachers’ home. When the teacher lacked a home the class would be
< rotated among the homes of the families whose turn it was to board
< the teacher.
Since the government provided for kids who couldn't afford to pay
tuition, I consider those to be "free". As the cited article ensues,
this insight explains a lot, since when the state stopped providing
funding, the schools deteriorated rapidly in quality and enrollment.
In New York, there was a "free common school system" in existence
starting in 1784, which was a long time before Horace Mann.
http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/edocs/education/sedhist.htm#free
The schools were ideally supposed to be free, but from 1814 to 1849,
and again from 1851-1867, when state and local funding did not match
expenditures, the schools could make up the difference by charging
tuition, It wasn't Horace Mann or "socialists" who led the fight for
full funding of the promise for free public schools, but teachers and
parents.
In Massachusetts, the law required that the town hire and pay the
teacher, but there was no provision requiring that they other costs be
paid by the state. Thus some were "free", some expected students to
contribute firewood to heat the school building, or the families had
to find a way to provide lodging for the teacher. John Adams
specified in the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution the *goal* of
universal public education with the costs of support and maintenance
for the teachers born by the public. The goal was not immediately
realized.
Care to change your story, Bob, or are
you going to say that equalizing society, ending poverty, and removing
distinctions are non-socialist ideas?
Yes. "All men are created equal" was written by Jefferson, who was no
"socialist".
Then, how is it that EVERY socialist
You don't know whatr a "socialist" is.
that wants to draw from US History quotes Jefferson. Jefferson is suddenly a capitalist?
He certainly wasn't a socialist. The word and concept hadn't even
been invented yet.
So, socialism isn't a truth that existed before someone labeled it?
Socialism is a *word* that was invented in the 19th century. It
isn't a "truth", and it did not exist as an ideology at least until
the word was invented.
Christians schools are, on the other hand, BY the public,
No. The are by the churches. The churches are NOT the public sector.
They are private organizations. They determine and control their
membership, which is not universal.
Are the churches "public" or not?
They are not part of the public sector, but the private sector.
But, are they a part of THE PUBLIC, or are you going back to saying
PUBLIC means government, again.
I provided a dictionary definition. If you cannot comprehend the
difference between public as a noun and public as an adjective, that
is your problem. If you want to continue to play semantic games with
the various meanings of the word as a form of mental masturbation, we
don't need to participate.
In some locales, in the early years, there were public schools that
were run by churches. Since in those years, there were established
state churches in several states, this is no problem for my
statements. A Puritan church school in early Massachusetts might
indeed have been a public school, because the government of the colony
was itself religious in nature. Only when separation of church and
state became a reality could it be said that "public schools" and
"church schools" were contradictions. The separation took place early
in Rhode Island, and relatively late in Massachusetts (indeed it was
finalized there about the time Mann gained his authority, though I
don't claim this to be a significant chronological argument).
Later words by you...
First, you claim that "public schools" mean government schools....
"public funds" = "state funds". Parental tuition is not public funds.
Church subsidies are not public funds.
But, wait...now, your claim that "public schools" existed BEFORE the
government....
"No. Government schools started in the 1600s. "Common schools"
(*universal* public education) started in the US in the 1800s, though
it was proposed much earlier by Luther and later by Jefferson."
And...
No. There were public schools in Massachusetts in the 1600s.
Will you PLEASE make up your mind. Does PUBLIC mean government or
not, since the 1600's schools existed BEFORE the US Government did,
yet you call them "public" schools.
"public schools" have nothing to do with when the US government
existed, since they have always been a state or local government
function.
There were governments in each of the colonies before there was a US
government. In the north, those colonies mandated the establishment
of public schools, with the primary costs born by a combination of the
state and the local government.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
10 Sep 2007 07:41:31 AM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 11:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course you leave out the strawman that Ravitch was attacking with
this quote, which was not the same strawman you are attacking.
Leading
educators in the 1890s enjoyed debating whether the earliest public
school could be traced to the Puritans in Massachusetts or to
the Dutch in New York. Both sides, Bailyn pointed out, were
wrong: public education ''had not grown from seventeenth-
century seeds; it was a new and unexpected genus whose ultimate
character could not have been predicted and whose emergence had
troubled well-disposed, high-minded people.'' The school historians
of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, said
Bailyn, were professional educators who wanted to give the student
of education ''an everlasting faith in his profession.'' These
''educational missionaries'' believed passionately in their
profession,
and they ''drew up what became the patristic literature of a
powerful academic ecclesia.''" (Chapter 1, pages 2-3 - A Primer on
America's Public Schools...Hoover Institution)
Want to change your story, Bob?
Nope. I haven't read Bailyn's argument, as opposed to Ravitch's
selective quote of Bailyn, but as she presents it, it is incorrect.
Ravitch's later explication is more correct, although as with most of
her writing strongly slanted ideologically. To her, it seems. the
essence of "public schooling" is in its control by state boards of
education; she identifies public schooling in terms of the "common
school movement" which Mann promoted.
She says that public schools as we know them today had their primary
roots in the charity schools for poor kids. She is more or less
correct in terms of how the schools were politically managed. She
also mentions rural school-board schools:
<Rural areas developed district schools with local boards composed
<mainly of parents.
Those schools and their governance are just as much a basis for public
education as the charity schools. The charity schools were
significant in that they were state run and without tuition. The
rural schools were run by local boards of education with no state
control.
The essence of the error in her argument can be shown linguistically.
The discussion we are having is NOT about a line between "common
schools" and something else, but between "public schools" and
"non-public schools". If the public schools were nothing more than
Mann's "common schools", they would probably be called "common
schools" most of the time. They aren't.
So, now you disagree with Harvard experts and Stanford educators (the
book author) if they don't back YOUR view?
People who have actually been reading my post know that I have
disagreed with Ravitch's writings many times. She is an ideologue in
academic clothing. A very smart ideologue, but still an ideologue.
Are you going to be pot or kettle here?
No surprise. THEY, at least, have sources and quotes for their opinion.
So do I. It is still her *opinion*. And since her opinions are noted
for being controversial, it is wise to be skeptical. Nothing you
quoted is convincing of anything but of a semantics game in progress.
Evolution is controversial. Can we pitch it, then?
EXACTLY. They were NOT free but public. So, public didn't mean free.
So? Why is that controversial? Public colleges have existed for a
long time, and few if any of them are free. But few people are
advocating universal college education. In order for education to be
universal, it has to be free.
This started with me saying public wasn't defined by FREE, which you
disagreed with. Thank you for admitting you were wrong. NOTE:
"public" colleges teach religion, the professors are free to express
their opinion, and more.
In some locales, in the early years, there were public schools that
were run by churches. Since in those years, there were established
state churches in several states, this is no problem for my
statements. A Puritan church school in early Massachusetts might
indeed have been a public school, because the government of the colony
was itself religious in nature. Only when separation of church and
state became a reality could it be said that "public schools" and
"church schools" were contradictions. The separation took place early
in Rhode Island, and relatively late in Massachusetts (indeed it was
finalized there about the time Mann gained his authority, though I
don't claim this to be a significant chronological argument).
Later words by you...
First, you claim that "public schools" mean government schools....
"public funds" = "state funds". Parental tuition is not public funds.
Church subsidies are not public funds.
But, wait...now, your claim that "public schools" existed BEFORE the
government....
"No. Government schools started in the 1600s. "Common schools"
(*universal* public education) started in the US in the 1800s, though
it was proposed much earlier by Luther and later by Jefferson."
And...
No. There were public schools in Massachusetts in the 1600s.
Will you PLEASE make up your mind. Does PUBLIC mean government or
not, since the 1600's schools existed BEFORE the US Government did,
yet you call them "public" schools.
"public schools" have nothing to do with when the US government
existed, since they have always been a state or local government
function.
There were governments in each of the colonies before there was a US
government. In the north, those colonies mandated the establishment
of public schools, with the primary costs born by a combination of the
state and the local government.
lojbab
And, those governments taught religion in their public schools, even
after the change to the US Govt. Shall I quote the Northwest
Ordinance to you? Further, churches ran the public schools both in
those govts you mentioned and the following US Government
schools...that's why Mann, Chubberly, and others suggested a school
that was different. Thus, the "public schools" they created were
INTENTIONALLY a departure from the prior schools (not a growth FROM
them). These new schools had new rules, new teachers, new buildings
and more. Thus, they were NEW from the 1800s, which is what that
ideologue (someone like yourself) had to say.
There is a big issue here, though, that you ignore. She says that
many very intelligent people have disagreed on this issue, which I am
willing to concede. Yet, you automatically suggest anyone that
suggests otherwise is unintelligent and beneath you...oh, the ego.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historical, Successful, and Democratic School....(PRIVATE, Christian) |
10 Sep 2007 10:37:57 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, now you disagree with Harvard experts and Stanford educators (the
book author) if they don't back YOUR view?
People who have actually been reading my post know that I have
disagreed with Ravitch's writings many times. She is an ideologue in
academic clothing. A very smart ideologue, but still an ideologue.
Are you going to be pot or kettle here?
I am not an ideologue, and in fact reject ideology. My assumptions
are always subject to question, if my results do not match reality.
But even if I were, it would then amount to one ideology vs another,
and there is no basis to choose between two ideologies other than pure
emotion or real world trial (which is seldom possible to achieve in a
way that will actually test the ideology).
No surprise. THEY, at least, have sources and quotes for their opinion.
So do I. It is still her *opinion*. And since her opinions are noted
for being controversial, it is wise to be skeptical. Nothing you
quoted is convincing of anything but of a semantics game in progress.
Evolution is controversial. Can we pitch it, then?
"It is wise to be skeptical". The way to overcome skepticism is
evidence, and there are reams of evidence for evolution.
Of course, in the case of evolution, it is NOT "controversial" among
those who actually know what they are talking about, and are not
driven by ideology.
EXACTLY. They were NOT free but public. So, public didn't mean free.
So? Why is that controversial? Public colleges have existed for a
long time, and few if any of them are free. But few people are
advocating universal college education. In order for education to be
universal, it has to be free.
This started with me saying public wasn't defined by FREE, which you
disagreed with.
That is NOT how this started.
The things that I disagreed with in your first post were
1) the intentional confusion of the British and American senses of the
phrase "public school" such that "private schools" can be considered
"public". This was at first not a "disagreement" but an attempt to
block your obvious attempt to start playing word games based on the
multiple definitions of "public", an attempt that you continued
DESPITE my preemption.
2) the claim that public schools were "socialist in foundation", a
claim that did not include a definition of what "socialist" means to
you in making such a claim, one that you have not supplied despite
several requests.
My reply to the first point was
<You are attempting to reinvent the definition of "public schools" to
<suit your agenda. I'm not buying. The American sense of "public"
<schools has always meant "owned by and operated under the jurisdiction
<of the public sector, i.e. the government. "Public education" is an
<ambiguous phrase, having the meaning of the "system of public schools"
<as well as the meaning of "educating the general public under the
<regulation of the state".
<
<There is also the distinction between "public" and "private" which you
<attempt to muddy from the start. The *private* sector includes
<activities initiated by citizens, who are members of the public, but
<are not the "public sector".
<
<>"Public" schools didn't start till the socialists created
<>them for the poor and offer them like food stamps.
<
<That is where you are wrong. Public schools started long before the
<word "socialism" was even invented. In the US, there were public
<schools in New England in the 1600s. They weren't "universal" because
<they were required only in villages above a certain size, and a lot of
<people did not live in villages.
<
<The concept of *universal* public education was proposed by Martin
<Luther, who was no "socialist", nor was Frederick the Great who
<started the German system of universal public education in the 1700s.
<Jefferson is the one who proposed an American system of universal
<public education, before the Constitution was adopted. "Jefferson
<believed that education should be under the control of the government,
<free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective
<of their status in society."
<http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html
<It took a while until all kids were covered by this mandate, but
<systems of public schools had started in 7 states by 1791, and the US
<government had made provision for public schools in the Northwest
<Territories when they were set up in 1787.
<
<The concept of *free* public education was implicit in "universal"
<public education, since there are some kids whose families could not
<afford to pay for education. But there were "free" public schools
<even before universality was mandated, and even before Jefferson
<proposed "universal" public education. That does not claim that a
<"free school" is a public school as your strawman implied, or that
<public schools were necessarily free schools. But they were *usually*
<free if not universal before Horace Mann.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong. NOTE:
"public" colleges teach religion, the professors are free to express
their opinion, and more.
Public colleges teach ABOUT religions. They do not "teach religion"
(i.e. "indoctrinate"). Professors are free to express their opinions.
College students are, however, free to choose their classes and
professors, and being adults, can walk out of class if they are | | | | | | | | | | | |
