# Online Public Schooling?



## panta dokimazete (Feb 1, 2008)

Online Schooling Grows, Setting Off a Debate



> Half a million American children take classes online, with a significant group, like the Weldies, getting all their schooling from virtual public schools. The rapid growth of these schools has provoked debates in courtrooms and legislatures over money, as the schools compete with local districts for millions in public dollars, and over issues like whether online learning is appropriate for young children.



What a great notion and opportunity for homeschoolers! - do you agree?


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 1, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Online Schooling Grows, Setting Off a Debate
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why online public schooling is any better an option for those inclined to homeschool than actual in-the-class public schooling....


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2008)

The pros to it are that you might actually learn something in class without the teacher having to discipline the problem kids a million times. The bad thing about is that this program presupposes the discipline to do the work.


----------



## SueS (Feb 1, 2008)

What a great notion and opportunity for homeschoolers! - do you agree?[/QUOTE]



Absolutely not!!! On-line public schooling is NOT homeschooling by any stretch of the imagination - it is public schooling consisting in the same scope and sequence, the same or similar texts, and supervision by public school representatives who are there "to help" the hsing parent. The student is so tied to the on-line program that there is no opportunity for much outside learning, no following fascinating bunny trails or taking advantage of sudden learning oportunities that fall into one's lap - one of the neat pluses of real hsing. I've heard it said that the public programs are designed to produce frustration in the user families which then encourages them to enroll their children in "real" schools. The last I heard, HSLDA will not allow participants in these programs to join their organization.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2008)

YIKES! If I were a student on "on-line public school" and surfed the net for 8 hours per day and did not work then I would be matching the demands that were placed on my during my public high school days.

This would be even less personal attention than a crowded and rowdy highschool public school class would provide. Just have the gov't mail the books to the students and issue them a diploma!


----------



## lololong (Feb 1, 2008)

Online public schools weeds the disruptive kids, the distractions of the class, and saves much time on the road or money for buildings etc...

However their curriculum is absolutely liberal and set against the Lord.
It also takes 8h a day...what a joke.

So I vote completely against it


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 1, 2008)

Option A.



I voted in favor of online public school instruction. I do so as a former homeschool instructor to our son, a former Christian day school teacher, and a former public school instructor hoping to return to the profession.

We chose to homeschool our son because we knew he could never get the kind of education that he needed in public nor in private Christian, AND because we were able to do it. 

Yes, there is much that is wrong with public schools and the indoctrination that goes against everything we stand for is forboding. That being said, there is simply no alternative for some children, for various and sundry reasons.

If online public instruction will get certain students away from their peers or remove them from classrooms where they would be inclined to be disruptive, then I'm all for that medium. It is not homeschool and it is not for homeschoolers.

And students who are "stuck" with public school still need good teachers.


----------



## BJClark (Feb 1, 2008)

My nephew took two years of Latin on-line, the school he went to didn't offer the classes, so he opted to take them online instead.

And with that, he took additional math and sciences during the day as his electives, instead of taking a language or other class he didn't feel would be beneficial to him when he entered college.

he could get online anytime and get his assignments and print them out get them done and mail or e-mail them to the instructor, he wasn't tied to the computer, as most might assume. He could call his instructor most anytime if he had questions, as many of the instructors are actually working from home themselves, and they meet with the instructors in person for any testing. (at least here they do) 

I know a couple of teachers who quit teaching in the public schools and one of the local Jr Colleges, when they had kids. They wanted to be home with their kids, but at the same time wanted to keep bringing in an income, so they opted to do the online teaching..and they believe it benefits the kids as well, because the kids are disciplined and WANT to learn..and they don't have to deal with the disruptive kids in a classroom enviroment, they can give more one on one to the kids who actually need it. And they don't pay the expense of gas to and from work everyday or the upkeep of as many clothes, so the money they are making is actually benefiting the home more than if they were teaching in a classroom, yet because they are teaching through the public school they still recieve the benefits, such as insurance, retirement and soforth...

He does say it's NOT for people who are NOT self-disciplined to get the work done, as they have a week to get all the assignments done and turned in, and if they don't keep their grades up then they can be removed from the online schooling program. 

But then I think the same thing about homeschooling, if a parent or child is NOT disciplined then maybe they shouldn't be homeschooling either.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

My wife and I have in the past used K12 for our children. It was veerrry rigorous.

I work in the CA public schools and I see great opportunity for online schools because the problem children could be removed from the classroom. If they do not respect or value what the teacher/classroom provides, don't force them to stay, give them a laptop and send them home.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 1, 2008)

I can see the benefit of removing children who need to be in public school from the problem children. However, when the problem children go home yet still need to meet state-sanctioned academic standards, a precedent may be set for the state to invade the home even further, so that it may keep tabs on the problem children.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 1, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> [What a great notion and opportunity for homeschoolers! - do you agree?



No, it seems to me like an opportunity for the State to begin exercising jurisdiction and oversight within the home, thus once they work out a model for regulating their children being taught in the home, then they will have the model for regulating our children and insuring they don't get educated.

"Homeschooling" isn't about the location of educating your children, it's about taking the command to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord seriously. It is a rejection of the State's entire socialistic premise, systems and curriculum designed to mentally retard children.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 1, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I can see the benefit of removing children who need to be in public school from the problem children. However, when the problem children go home yet still need to meet state-sanctioned academic standards, a precedent may be set for the state to invade the home even further, so that it may keep tabs on the problem children.



The bottom line is: do you want your children to be taught a humanist curriculum or a Christian one? I want the latter. Covenant children are to be taught to love God with all their minds; removing them from pagan children is not, in itself, a Christian education. While many have grasped that statist schools are bad places, their reaction has been purely negative; what we need is a positively and explicitly Christian philosophy of education to put in its place.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the benefit of removing children who need to be in public school from the problem children. However, when the problem children go home yet still need to meet state-sanctioned academic standards, a precedent may be set for the state to invade the home even further, so that it may keep tabs on the problem children.
> ...



Y'all need to consider this: many of the children in public schools--and we need to come to this fact: a lot of inner-city kids come from drug-related homes, are beyond poverty, and can barely read as teenagers. Suffice to say, they lack both the worldview and the money for a Classical Christian education. And to say "Well, the church can help them." That is too easy of a line. The church can help some, but not enough. We might not like it, but public education keeps many of these kids off the streets (for at least 8 hours a day anyway) and keeps them from crime, if only temporarily.

Does that justify public education? Maybe not. But look at the alternative. 99.4% of these kids cannot afford a Christian education. The parental factor is sometimes nonexistent. The church doesn't have the resources for a large scale endeavor, although it can work wonders with a handful of them.

This is a tough situation. Yes, our ideals are good. We should have them. But we should also face some logistical challenges. 

Also, concerning the state invading the home: Many of these kids are being sent home for violence, fighting, extreme disobedience, drugs, etc. The state invading the home is not the worst-case scenario with them. In most cases, the state's influence is extremely limited. You can PM me for specific concrete examples.


----------



## Gloria (Feb 1, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Online Schooling Grows, Setting Off a Debate
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If the curriculum is the same, I'd say it's not a great move, not for Christian homeschoolers anyway. I know I would like to homeschool to avoid what's being taught to my children (evolution as fact, homosexuality okay, pre-marital sex fine when "protection" is used, etc.)


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 1, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the benefit of removing children who need to be in public school from the problem children. However, when the problem children go home yet still need to meet state-sanctioned academic standards, a precedent may be set for the state to invade the home even further, so that it may keep tabs on the problem children.
> ...



Precisely. This is why I asked the question I did. I just don't see any difference between taking public school classes "live or on Memorex". Kids taking such an approach will get the same content, approach, etc. as the kids in the seats physically. Sure they won't have quite the same social pressures and situations that they face if they're actually there, but that is only a tiny piece of the pie, from our perspective, when my wife and I evaluate public schooling. Similarly I don't understand why so many homeschooling families use the "free textbooks" option from their local schools - again, same content with perhaps slightly increased retention and attention for the kids. Why not give them something far better, since the opportunity?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 1, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



I think you are highlighting an important point; do we need to consider how we should help in the education of pagan children, and carefully distinguish this from the education of our own covenant children?


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 1, 2008)

I tend towards the idea that the gov't has no business educating anyone, sometimes I can even be downright antagonistic to it. I've called public schools secular humanist madrassas, and wondered if our brethren who work in them would take a job at an islamic madrassa if it paid more or had better benefits. Not much difference in my view. But I have a lot of brethren (and sistren) who work in them, so I try to see their side. But I can't seem to grasp it.

I understand the argument that there are many kids who have no other choice. Are these covenant kids? I would think not. The conditions that have arisen that cause their limited resources are directly related to the unregenerates welcoming the gov't's help in abdicating their responsibilities as parents, and the acceptance, acquiescence, and even support of this paradigm by the Church as a whole and by individual Christians. Things don't have to be this way. But they will stay this way as long as we are willing to allow this godless gov't to educate even our own covenant children.

So of course I voted nope.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 1, 2008)

BJClark said:


> ...
> He does say it's NOT for people who are NOT self-disciplined to get the work done, as they have a week to get all the assignments done and turned in, and if they don't keep their grades up then they can be removed from the online schooling program.
> 
> But then I think the same thing about homeschooling, if a parent or child is NOT disciplined then maybe they shouldn't be homeschooling either.


 
Uh-huh ... you got it!!!


----------



## Gloria (Feb 1, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...




Good question. Should I send my children to government schools (if I have the opportunity to homeschool) because there are families (Christian or pagan) that don't have the opportunity or don't consider homeschooling an option? 

My fiance' is a 9th grade English teacher at a GS in a poverty stricken area so I know all about the issues facing these children. I hear about them EVERY DAY. He is essentially a baby sitter. He can BARELY teach class. His hands a frequently tied by administration. The expectations given by the school and the state are SO low for these children that it's really amazing. The children who actually WANT to learn can't learn because of the distractions facing them at home and school. Being in school several hours a day is HARDLY keeping kids from fighting and drug use. Just last week his school was featured on the news because four kids jumped another kid and put his head through a trophy case. When, in this environment, is a child to learn about subject verb agreement or Shakespeare?

I said all of that to say, I don't understand what all of those issues have to do with how we choose to educate our children.

Even in schools where there is no violence and no real social or home problems, you still have to deal with THE CURRICULUM. *What's* being taught?? Do I want my children taught those things? I have the right as a parent to decide what my children learn. I have a command from God to raise them in his ways. Sending them to a government run school is counter productive.



PS.
Does anyone know the average cost per child for government education vs the average cost per child for homeschooling?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 1, 2008)

> Does anyone know the average cost per child for government education vs the average cost per child for homeschooling?



I think I heard Kevin Swanson say that it cost him $500 a year to homeschool 5 children, while it would have cost the state $25,000 dollars to teach them.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 1, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Y'all need to consider this: many of the children in public schools--and we need to come to this fact: a lot of inner-city kids come from drug-related homes, are beyond poverty, and can barely read as teenagers. Suffice to say, they lack both the worldview and the money for a Classical Christian education. And to say "Well, the church can help them." That is too easy of a line. The church can help some, but not enough. We might not like it, but public education keeps many of these kids off the streets (for at least 8 hours a day anyway) and keeps them from crime, if only temporarily.



I think that you need to consider that these situations that you describe are created situations, it is the end result of statist interference and imposition of humanistic ideals whereby society has become the laboratory for social experimentation. So, we now have a whole generation of misfits being born to misfits, and this seems to necessitate even more statist interference and societal experimentation. I'm sorry that situation exists, but at some point we have to deal with the underlying disease and not the symptoms of it.



Ivanhoe said:


> Does that justify public education? Maybe not. But look at the alternative. 99.4% of these kids cannot afford a Christian education. The parental factor is sometimes nonexistent. The church doesn't have the resources for a large scale endeavor, although it can work wonders with a handful of them.



I guess my problem with this view is that it refuses to allow the sinner to accept his responsibility, hence the Gospel is impeded all the more because people no longer properly interpret cause and effect, consequences and responsibility. A gospel that preaches salvation from sin unto a people that never really experience any consequences of their sin is foolishness unto them. Our society has departed from God and judgment comes in various ways - but when it comes then the State interposes itself to protect people from the consequences of their sins. The big argument in support of this is that we can't have people suffer the consequences of their sins.

I would like to know why not?

I can't "afford" (whatever that means) a Christian education for my children either, but we sacrifice and find ways to do it. A big savings for us is used books, and I don't spend anymore per child than my neighbors spend on their new books they buy for their children to go to public school. My wife doesn't have a job, so we drive used cars, my children don't wear $ 75 tennis shoes either. Of course, if I wasn't paying for all of the social experiments being carried out on their children then we could do a much better job of our own. So, my wife and I are taking our responsibility seriously, but we have to be penalized by the State in order to protect the sinners from the consequences of their sin.

So, in a way, in trying to be an obedient and lawful Christian, I am punished all the more by the transfer of Diving Judgment by means of the civil magistrate interposing itself to protect people for the consequences of their sins. I don't like that, I believe we should be able to enjoy the blessings of the Covenant and they should inure to my children's benefit and advance them greatly above others, instead of being stolen to create more sin through social experimentation by the State.


----------



## Answerman (Feb 1, 2008)

As long as they don't make me pay for it. But we all know, if that was the case they wouldn't call it public, so I said no.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I can see the benefit of removing children who need to be in public school from the problem children. However, when the problem children go home yet still need to meet state-sanctioned academic standards, a precedent may be set for the state to invade the home even further, so that it may keep tabs on the problem children.



What standards? NCLB is a sham. It is all smoke and mirrors. The CA HS Exit Exam is a joke and does not hold up in court. The state tests can be circumvented by simply writing a letter. Look at the success of HSLDA. The state (at this point) only has jurisdiction over education when parents abdicate their own authority to the state.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> "Homeschooling" isn't about the location of educating your children, it's about taking the command to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord seriously. It is a rejection of the State's entire socialistic premise, systems and curriculum designed to mentally retard children.



People homeschool for many reasons. I know a woman who homeschools her children "to keep them away from all of those Christians in the public schools." (This is an exact quote)


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Precisely. This is why I asked the question I did.



Is this the 'question' to which you are referring?



> I'm not sure why online public schooling is any better an option for those inclined to homeschool than actual in-the-class public schooling....



Perhaps what you mean is that you are not sure why online public schooling is any better for those *Christian families* inclined to homeschool than actual in-the-class public schooling.

If so, I can somewhat see your point. But isn't it obvious that some children in pagaqn families might actually benefit from online schooling? Not everyone wants to be in Band and Football and Student Council. Some just want an education without all of the distractions.



toddpedlar said:


> I just don't see any difference between taking public school classes "live or on Memorex". Kids taking such an approach will get the same content, approach, etc. as the kids in the seats physically.



This simply is not true. I homeschool my children through a state charter and they receive only the content my wife and I desire. The educationaly 'approach' is however we want to approach it.



toddpedlar said:


> Similarly I don't understand why so many homeschooling families use the "free textbooks" option from their local schools - again, same content with perhaps slightly increased retention and attention for the kids.



We use BJU, but we have used the "free textbooks" and done very well. 2+2 = 4 is the same in a "free" textbook as it is in the BJU textbook. So many of us use the "free" stuff because when you are educating 4 children at 4 different grade levels you get whatever you can for free.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

Brad said:


> I tend towards the idea that the gov't has no business educating anyone, sometimes I can even be downright antagonistic to it. I've called public schools secular humanist madrassas, and wondered if our brethren who work in them would take a job at an islamic madrassa if it paid more or had better benefits. Not much difference in my view. But I have a lot of brethren (and sistren) who work in them, so I try to see their side. But I can't seem to grasp it.



Would you similarly condemn Joseph for working for Pharaoh? Or Daniel working for the Babylonians? If an Moslem hired me to teach his child how to play the clarinet, why is it unrighteous of me to do so? Just as you cannot seem to 'see their side', I have trouble seeing yours.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

Answerman said:


> As long as they don't make me pay for it. But we all know, if that was the case they wouldn't call it public, so I said no.



My point is that online public schooling might (if handled properly) actually save tax money. The discussion needs to at least take place and not be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all need to consider this: many of the children in public schools--and we need to come to this fact: a lot of inner-city kids come from drug-related homes, are beyond poverty, and can barely read as teenagers. Suffice to say, they lack both the worldview and the money for a Classical Christian education. And to say "Well, the church can help them." That is too easy of a line. The church can help some, but not enough. We might not like it, but public education keeps many of these kids off the streets (for at least 8 hours a day anyway) and keeps them from crime, if only temporarily.
> ...



I was making an empirical observation, not describing what *ought* to be the case.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2008)

Gloria said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



I understand what you are saying. Your fiancee's job description sounds almost identical to mine, word for word.

I think people are missing my point. I was just making observations about tough situations that affect us all, regardless of how much we don't like the government.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

Some seem to be denying the fact that homeschooling (or online/independent study) has benefits for children that transcend Christianiy. Children of all kinds would benefit from more time with mom and dad and siblings. All children could learn a great deal about 'self advocacy' by not having everything done for them. Many children would benefit from not being around the drugs and sex and violence in public schools. It may not be the right 'fit' for all children but to just say a blanket "no" to any possibility of benefits to an online schooling program seems extreme.

That said, I believe that in *most* cases Christian parents should be home schooling there children.


----------



## danmpem (Feb 1, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the benefit of removing children who need to be in public school from the problem children. However, when the problem children go home yet still need to meet state-sanctioned academic standards, a precedent may be set for the state to invade the home even further, so that it may keep tabs on the problem children.
> ...



I agree. My concern is that I do not see very good solutions or alternatives around me. While someone can pick apart any educational system (whether it be Christian, humanist, or another) and find its flaws, I see very legitimate problems in each of the systems.

I guess I have only seen private Christian schools who teach theology that is highly inclusive & liberal, feel they need to "Christianize" those outside the church, and keep their kids in legalistic bubbles. I know we have another thread for this, but has anyone seen the movie "Saved"? That is a perfect picture of the Christian school in my home town.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 1, 2008)

While I wholeheartedly support parental right and responsibility in educating children, and am in no voluntary way supportive of state-controlled education, the issue that Dan brought up needs to be honestly confronted.

For instance, in Orwell's _A Clergyman's Daughter_ there is a description of a private school which is ultimately controlled by parents, drawn from Orwell's own experience as a private school teacher. The quality of the education given there was appalling, if more disciplined than American public schools. And I think we all know parents whose qualifications for homeschooling make us queasy at best. That's not a recommendation of bad solutions to the problem (like mandatory attendance at state-run schools), but merely a note that there doesn't seem to be a convenient fix which can be easily applied for instant results. 

We need to understand that we will have to (and be prepared to put in the work to) equip parents for the Biblical education of their children (and that we will have to work with children to instruct them so that in due time they can become competent parents).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 1, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



I think it is important that Christian educators emphasize that they are striving to provide covenant children with a Christian education, but not promising a Utopian education. There will always be faults even in Christian education.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 1, 2008)

> Would you similarly condemn Joseph for working for Pharaoh? Or Daniel working for the Babylonians? If an Moslem hired me to teach his child how to play the clarinet, why is it unrighteous of me to do so? Just as you cannot seem to 'see their side', I have trouble seeing yours.


Brother, Joseph was not working as an indoctrinator of a false religion, nor was Daniel, and of course they both practiced their faith openly and without compromise. From what I hear from those I know who work in gov't schools, that's not allowed these days. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they can pray openly or speak of their faith to anyone, and they must teach whatever false science and philosophy the state dictates without expressing disagreement. Are these things not so?

I compare gov't schools to madrassas because they are involved in the indoctrination of children in a false religion, secular humanism, and constucting a paradigm wherein that false religion makes sense. A far cry from just teaching a kid to play the clarinet. A teacher of any subject in a madrassa would still not be allowed to practice openly any other faith than islam. Not much different in a gov't school.

I know that in most of our's secular upbringing the aspiration to be a teacher was an admirable pursuit, but with Christians, aren't we called to make a distinction as to the ultimate purpose of whatever organization we work in? I could be a maintenance man in a Church or in a strip club, but as long as it were only maintenance work, would it matter?If so, what if the strip club offered better pay and benefits? Does that affect the propriety of working there at all?

Do you really think Joseph or Daniel would ever have taken a job down at the local sun-worship temple school?


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2008)

Brad said:


> Brother, Joseph was not working as an indoctrinator of a false religion, nor was Daniel, and of course they both practiced their faith openly and without compromise. From what I hear from those I know who work in gov't schools, that's not allowed these days. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they can pray openly or speak of their faith to anyone.



Perhaps unknowingly you just accused all public school teachers of indoctrinating children with a false religion. How is teaching a 4th grader to play clarinet a false religion?

Sometimes 'practicing your faith openly and without compromise' is doing a good job at what you have been hired to do. Would it be 'practicing faith' for a Christian school teacher to ignore his class all day so he could catch up on his prayers and devotionals? Daniel open prayers did not get in the way of him doing what he was hired to do.

And...there are no rules against teachers praying during their break times at public schools. I don't know where you are 'hearing' these things but it is not true in the schools in CA and CO I have taught in.

And...there are no rules against teachers sharing their faith either. There might be resistance to a teacher evangelizing instead of teaching, but honestly I wouldn't want just any teacher who calls themselves a Christian evangelizing my children either.



Brad said:


> and they must teach whatever false science and philosophy the state dictates without expressing disagreement. Are these things not so?



They are not so. I have taught 2nd through 12th grade and never once taught what I know to be a false science and I have openly disagreed with what students tell me they have learned.

You get the feeling from Christian homeschool parents that all we do in public school all day is teach three subjects: evolution, cultural equality, and homosexuality. It just isn't so. In fact, these days, teachers spend all day every day in pretty much addressing one thing: "Why can't Johnny read?" Evolution is the farthest thing from most teachers' minds.



Brad said:


> I compare gov't schools to madrassas because they are involved in the indoctrination of children in a false religion, secular humanism, and constucting a paradigm wherein that false religion makes sense. A far cry from just teaching a kid to play the clarinet. A teacher of any subject in a madrassa would still not be allowed to practice openly any other faith than islam. Not much different in a gov't school.
> 
> I know that in most of our's secular upbringing the aspiration to be a teacher was an admirable pursuit, but with Christians, aren't we called to make a distinction as to the ultimate purpose of whatever organization we work in? I could be a maintenance man in a Church or in a strip club, but as long as it were only maintenance work, would it matter?If so, what if the strip club offered better pay and benefits? Does that affect the propriety of working there at all?
> 
> Do you really think Joseph or Daniel would ever have taken a job down at the local sun-worship temple school?



I can't answer these questions because I do not agree with your similes. You have built these broad brush caricatures based on things you have 'heard' about public schools.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 2, 2008)

KMK said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Brother, Joseph was not working as an indoctrinator of a false religion, nor was Daniel, and of course they both practiced their faith openly and without compromise. From what I hear from those I know who work in gov't schools, that's not allowed these days. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they can pray openly or speak of their faith to anyone.
> ...



Exactly. Most teachers are worried because their students are 4 or 5 grades behind and probably cannot pass standardized tests. And I live in the South. We still have remnants of the old Christendom. While it might be "state religion" to teach evolution. I simply don't. Won't. My students know that. Parents know that. And this is the case for many, many teachers. And what is the state going to do about it? Nothing. They need teachers too desperately.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 2, 2008)

It is not just the issue of evolution that keeps me away from public education. It is the humanism and moral relativism that is in nearly every textbook. True, their are some great teachers out there who will not push these philosophies, but it is there, even in the texts. Just this past week, I picked up a 1999 public school health book (first grade level) that was given to me by a neighbor whose son was finished with it. I looked through the book and was shocked to find discussions on family (not the traditional family that we see in Scripture), decision making based on teaching situational ethics, drugs, etc. I would not want my child to have to sort through those things at age 6 (typical first grade age).


----------



## Davidius (Feb 2, 2008)

Jacob,

The argument that "some have no other choice" does not justify the fact that I have to pay almost half of my paycheck to the government in order to fund these God-hating schools. 

We should think like Ron Paul and try to cut this tree down at the root. If everyone in the Church were able to keep more of their money, then the Church would again be able to build orphanages, hospitals, and SCHOOLS to provide for the needy. We wouldn't have to rely on Our Savior the State. It's very hard to be charitable when giving so much of one's money to Uncle Sam. 

The State comes along and gives us these "great options" for helping out the needy and it casts a smokescreen. We slack off on fighting against our bondage to the state because it feeds us some "semi-helpful" programs.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Jacob,
> 
> The argument that "some have no other choice" does not justify the fact that I have to pay almost half of my paycheck to the government in order to fund these God-hating schools.
> 
> ...



I understand what you are saying. But the situation is not going to change in the near future. We need to make the best of a bad situation until the time comes. I am not "copping out" with an easy answer. I am facing the facts. Your taxes fund a lot of things: public roads, postal service, defense, etc. Could the private sector do these things better? Probably, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Until it does, well, we are stuck.

And not to mention that Ludwig von Mises himself allowed for the option of conscription, which I see as more of a threat than your tax dollars going elsewhere. But he lived as the last man of the ancien regime, so he could in good conscience allow for conscription.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 2, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob,
> ...



I understand this argument. However, the difficulty here is that the government should be doing things like defense, roads, etc. But education is not in the same category, since this impinges on our freedom. Mandatory school tax is ridiculous. This is a tacit admission that the government schools cannot run on the money of those who actually participate. They have to steal money from people who aren't using their services. It is outright theft. While we need to submit to such theft at the moment (since such theft is not asking us to sin, although the issue of funding secularist schools brings in a moral issue), we should be striving to correct such theft in the future.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 2, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



I think that is what I was saying to David.


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2008)

I homeschool my children because I believe that their education is my responsibility. I do not want to blindly turn my children over to the state and abdicate my authority. Nor would I want to blindly turn my children over to a Christian school and abdicate my authority. In either case, if children are learning error, it is the father who shall give an account.

There are parents, however, who choose to place their children in public schools or Christian schools and continue to be highly involved with their children's education. They are on top of what is being taught. They are in the classrooms often. They volunteer at the school. They correct the errors contained in textbooks.

There are also teachers who know they will be held to account as well and, like Jacob, we refuse to teach what we believe to be error.

As tempting as it might be to put all public schools and their teachers in a box and condemn them all is too simplistic.


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



I, as a public school teacher, wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has a great deal of improving to do. Maybe if we could get the pulpits of America to commit to a greater boldness gospel preaching we will see our nation turn from her ways.


----------

