OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[ucodegen]

[quote jstoesz]I see the charter school movement as a big improvement with schools like High Tech High and middle school in Pt. Loma. I would like to see more of that sort of thing, but have it branch out into more than just science, and art, but philosophy and religion. [/quote]
I have mixed impressions of High Tech High. Some of their teachers have really impressive resumes, but they have some unusual ‘school policies’. For example, if a person is gifted in math, High Tech High does not allow them to take an accelerated program – or test into the next class of the sequence. The result can be a bored student, who is bored while taking the favorite or best subjects.

The High School I went to allowed you to take courses like you do in college. If you want to test into the next in the sequence, no problem. If you wanted to use summer school to accelerate, no problem.

Considering High Tech High’s API Base score of 797, and rank of 8, I’m not too impressed. The public high school I went to has a current API base score of 905 and rank of 10. Even the high school I went to is not top API rated which comes in with a Base API of 988. By the way, Poway High’s API Base is 850, LaJolla 831.

I would be careful of ‘branching out’ the scholastics beyond the fundamentals. One needs to make sure the fundamentals are not lost in the process.

[jstoesz]

ucodegen, There are definitely problems associated with their model. And I doubt I would send my child to a similarly styled curriculum. My point was not that they are perfect, but that they are different. They very well may be perfect for one child but not another. The beauty is in the choice not whether it is universally applicable.

To the issue of whether we teach secular humanism in schools, I think we do. Just by removing God from all discussion, one can not argue for/against something from any position but secular humanism (or some derivative)…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

But alas, this issue has come up in the court system as well, and my view point has been ruled against. So you all obviously have legs to stand on, I just disagree. After all the courts have been supportive of the overall growth of government everywhere…I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.

[jstoesz]

ucodegen, There are definitely problems associated with their model. And I doubt I would send my child to a similarly styled curriculum. My point was not that they are perfect, but that they are different. They very well may be perfect for one child but not another. The beauty is in the choice not whether it is universally applicable.

To the issue of whether we teach secular humanism in schools, I think we do. Just by removing God from all discussion, one can not argue for/against something from any position but secular humanism (or some derivative)…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

But alas, this issue has come up in the court system as well, and my view point has been ruled against. So you all obviously have legs to stand on, I just disagree. After all the courts have been supportive of the overall growth of government everywhere…I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.

[jstoesz]

ucodegen, There are definitely problems associated with their model. And I doubt I would send my child to a similarly styled curriculum. My point was not that they are perfect, but that they are different. They very well may be perfect for one child but not another. The beauty is in the choice not whether it is universally applicable.

To the issue of whether we teach secular humanism in schools, I think we do. Just by removing God from all discussion, one can not argue for/against something from any position but secular humanism (or some derivative)…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

But alas, this issue has come up in the court system as well, and my view point has been ruled against. So you all obviously have legs to stand on, I just disagree. After all the courts have been supportive of the overall growth of government everywhere…I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.

[jstoesz]

ucodegen, There are definitely problems associated with their model. And I doubt I would send my child to a similarly styled curriculum. My point was not that they are perfect, but that they are different. They very well may be perfect for one child but not another. The beauty is in the choice not whether it is universally applicable.

To the issue of whether we teach secular humanism in schools, I think we do. Just by removing God from all discussion, one can not argue for/against something from any position but secular humanism (or some derivative)…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

But alas, this issue has come up in the court system as well, and my view point has been ruled against. So you all obviously have legs to stand on, I just disagree. After all the courts have been supportive of the overall growth of government everywhere…I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.

[jstoesz]

ucodegen, There are definitely problems associated with their model. And I doubt I would send my child to a similarly styled curriculum. My point was not that they are perfect, but that they are different. They very well may be perfect for one child but not another. The beauty is in the choice not whether it is universally applicable.

To the issue of whether we teach secular humanism in schools, I think we do. Just by removing God from all discussion, one can not argue for/against something from any position but secular humanism (or some derivative)…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

But alas, this issue has come up in the court system as well, and my view point has been ruled against. So you all obviously have legs to stand on, I just disagree. After all the courts have been supportive of the overall growth of government everywhere…I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.

[ucodegen]

[quote jstoesz]I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.[/quote] I am on the fence with the GSEs. If they were run as originally chartered, I have no problems with them. They prevent mortgage interest ‘extortion’ by banks/lenders, stabilize interest rates, and allow the Fed better control of the money supply. Unfortunately their original charter was usurped for political correctness (which of course reduced the Fed’s control of the money supply).

I still think that the government should be involved in the basic ‘standards’ of education (“three R’s”), beyond that, it should be less regulated.

[ucodegen]

[quote jstoesz]I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.[/quote] I am on the fence with the GSEs. If they were run as originally chartered, I have no problems with them. They prevent mortgage interest ‘extortion’ by banks/lenders, stabilize interest rates, and allow the Fed better control of the money supply. Unfortunately their original charter was usurped for political correctness (which of course reduced the Fed’s control of the money supply).

I still think that the government should be involved in the basic ‘standards’ of education (“three R’s”), beyond that, it should be less regulated.

[ucodegen]

[quote jstoesz]I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.[/quote] I am on the fence with the GSEs. If they were run as originally chartered, I have no problems with them. They prevent mortgage interest ‘extortion’ by banks/lenders, stabilize interest rates, and allow the Fed better control of the money supply. Unfortunately their original charter was usurped for political correctness (which of course reduced the Fed’s control of the money supply).

I still think that the government should be involved in the basic ‘standards’ of education (“three R’s”), beyond that, it should be less regulated.

[ucodegen]

[quote jstoesz]I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.[/quote] I am on the fence with the GSEs. If they were run as originally chartered, I have no problems with them. They prevent mortgage interest ‘extortion’ by banks/lenders, stabilize interest rates, and allow the Fed better control of the money supply. Unfortunately their original charter was usurped for political correctness (which of course reduced the Fed’s control of the money supply).

I still think that the government should be involved in the basic ‘standards’ of education (“three R’s”), beyond that, it should be less regulated.

[ucodegen]

[quote jstoesz]I find GSEs beyond the scope of the federal government, but the courts disagree with me on that too.[/quote] I am on the fence with the GSEs. If they were run as originally chartered, I have no problems with them. They prevent mortgage interest ‘extortion’ by banks/lenders, stabilize interest rates, and allow the Fed better control of the money supply. Unfortunately their original charter was usurped for political correctness (which of course reduced the Fed’s control of the money supply).

I still think that the government should be involved in the basic ‘standards’ of education (“three R’s”), beyond that, it should be less regulated.

[jstoesz]

Fair enough…I would support efforts on both fronts. In an ideal world, I would go farther, but life is about practicality as inelegant as it may be.

If we are giving tax money to anything, it comes with strings attached (hopefully anyways)…

[jstoesz]

Fair enough…I would support efforts on both fronts. In an ideal world, I would go farther, but life is about practicality as inelegant as it may be.

If we are giving tax money to anything, it comes with strings attached (hopefully anyways)…

[jstoesz]

Fair enough…I would support efforts on both fronts. In an ideal world, I would go farther, but life is about practicality as inelegant as it may be.

If we are giving tax money to anything, it comes with strings attached (hopefully anyways)…

[jstoesz]

Fair enough…I would support efforts on both fronts. In an ideal world, I would go farther, but life is about practicality as inelegant as it may be.

If we are giving tax money to anything, it comes with strings attached (hopefully anyways)…

[Author]

Posts