Backroads

Yes, it costs money to educate a child. You forget I've worked in education. But it's not coming out of the individual student's family's pocket. Have it come out of taxes, you allow a lot of kids to go to school who otherwise could have come up with 8400$ or whatever. You might say "but if a family cares, they'll find a way". Please. Too many families just won't be able to. Now, on giving the money back to you... I'm fine with that. Vouchers and similar ideas. I find them great. Last time they were on the ballot I voted for them even when the UEA told me not to (stupid UEA...). I think they are a great idea. But that argument was not my point. YOu give the 8400$ back, it still has to come from somewhere. Contrary to popular opinion charter schools ARE PUBLIC. A voucher system would still use PUBLIC money. If the money is still coming out of our taxes (thus being public) and given back to the families as vouchers/other concept in order to pay for education, that is great. But if families are expected to come up with education money completely on their own, you are going to see quite a few families who just won't be able to front the expense for the school they want. You might say the government can offer scholarships and grants... that money still has to come from somewhere. This is why I think the basic idea of public education is a good one. It gives opportunity. We can't return to the Dark Ages where only the rich were educated. And yes, there is a money saturation point where money still not efficiently improve education. Doesn't stop a school from lowering its tuition.

I don't think I commented very well, so I shall attempt again. In my area, at least, food is plentiful. I can go to the supermarket or one of the local farmers or grow my own or participate in several other options. I can get healthy and tasty food for a reasonable cost. In my area, I'm not competing with others for food. A school, however, can only take so many students. That creates competition. There is a popular charter school in my area that has a gigantic wait list. Also, to get healthy, tasty food, I'm not paying a heck of a lot more than I would pay for any other food. In education, I could be paying a lot more.

Anything for you. Once a school gains a reputation as giving an excellent education, people will be begging to get in. This puts all power in the hands of the school. They can charge what they want. I agree that admission price does not necessarily mean best education. Which is why I take issue with people that think Any private school is better than Any public school. Yes, I agree there is plenty of evidence to suggest that private schools are better than public schools, but it's impossible to say that in every case across the board. However... it's about perception. People tend to THINK the higher price means better education. I know that has nothing to do with my argument, but it's true. And... I do believe there can be a small correlation between money and education. A great system of education will be able to teach well despite tools, but a school that is able to charge a lot will be able to attract the best teachers with pay, be able to buy tools/instruments/misc. supplies, etc. I also agree public education is as only as good as the regulations with it. Which is why I support local public education where the community has more control and more knowledge with which to work. Like charter schools. But there is a lot to be said for free education. I grew up in a family of seven children. We were hardly poor, but if we had to pay thousands of dollars per kid for an education... none of us would have made it through high school. I do think public education desperately needs an overhaul, but I agree with it on principle.

ANd yes, I suppose good ol' free market can take care of this, but the best schools will still have this power. I like public education. I think it's a blessing and it's just what the founding fathers wanted. I am against completely privatizing education. I just think public education should expand the charter system more.

I don't think the food comparison is good reasoning. I can get very healthy food for very cheap. If the best schools are charging outrageous amounts of money, only the rich families will be able to afford the best schools. Why should a school charge less when they know people will pay for a great education?

And, not to be controversial, allow more discipline. When I was teaching, so much of my time was spent with kids with issues from home. Parents send their kids hoping they would be instructed in discipline, ethics, etc.

Ooh, I missed a lot... Sports. Keep 'em. To deny sports is to deny that that all kids have different intelligences. Some kids are simply athletically intelligent. Let's support that. I believe sports also bring in school spirit, give kids something to do, something to shoot for, etc. Standardized testing: In my first comment about it, I did say "if we have to have them". I am hestitant about getting rid of them altogether, I would just like less focus. There are other methods of assessment, and some are worse than standardized testing. Kids should be required to go to school, at least until a certain age. I believe some tracking to be a good idea, but I still don't know if I want to get my master's in education or library science or environmental science or whatever. I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up. Discussed this on Sunday with some people... I still stress charter schools, or at least a public school system that allows for variation and choice. I have issues with making everything private as that would only let the rich families get the best education.

This reminds me of my best friend back in college. She confessed to us that while she had a testimony of the church and the gospel and all that, she did not have one of Relief Society. We advised her to pray about it and ask for opportunities to be involved in Relief Society and thus gain a testimony of it. I regret to say that two weeks later she was called as RS president of our student ward. Poor, poor girl. At least she now has a testimony of it.

It's hard. You're committed to this person, you plan on marrying her, you want to show your affection. I will go out on a controversial limb and say that I was more affectionate with my fiance/now husband when we were engaged than when we were dating. I don't feel we ever crossed a line--because that was important. We made lines. I heard a great thing to determine if you're committed: You're married. Sure, a marriage might go sour, might end, but it's a very good sign of committment. Until you're married, anything can happen. In our situation, it was tricky. My husband had been married before, and a bad sex life was one of the reasons the marriage fell apart. He was terrified I wouldn't like sex, just like his first wife. So it seemed to be extra important to make clear lines. I ALWAYS hear people saying how important it is to have sex before marriage to make sure you're sexually compatible. I honestly think there's a lot of error in there. To search for sexual compatibility is naive and completely ignores the process of working on sex together and paying attention to your partner's needs and wants. It's a completely selfish statement. Sure, there are people here and there, even couples, who wind up having sexual issues, but it's no reason to say "we should have checked before". A lady in my ward is a sex and marriage therapist and says that most cases of sexual problems can be resolved either through physical or emotional/mental therapy.

Which is why we need to improve PUBLIC education. I agree with you: I don't want to see a scenario where a family's wealth determines a child's entire educational life, and I have yet to see a voucher system that would cover all kids (mind you, I quite like the idea of vouchers, but there are some flaws). My biggest hang-up with public education as it currently stands is the push to have all kids the same. Nationalization, standardization... the kids get lost in it, even if everyone has the best intentions. Which is why I love charter schools and why I think education should become more localized.

I can see your point there. I spent several years studying Singapore math, and I don't agree it's all that rote, though there is a nod to the rote learning, probably to make it better to be integrated into your standard classroom. I actually loved it BECAUSE of the focus on math theory.

estradling is new to this, let's not give him too much pressure!

I suppose we could argue the higher iq for regular morons. No offense.

I think if we could implement the other things we've mentioned, there would be a better case for computers. Computational thinking is crucial, but I disagree there is only one effective way of teaching it. Have you studied Singapore math style?

Recent studies have shown early introduction to computers has no crucial educational impact--therefore often little more than a waste of time. Whole language and phonics need to be combined!!! Stress one or the other as needed, but stop focusing on only one! More arts in the schools. I'm on the fence with career-focused education. There are some obvious benefits, but it also leaves out the "extras" kids love. I see a school discouraging a kid and his desire to study history the rest of his life. Smaller class sizes. I have yet to see a good argument for 30+ kids. I recommend the book "The Book Whisperer". An amazing approach to teaching literature.

anatess, somewhat off-topic, but what are your thoughts of Montessori-style for high school? (It's bad to open up a discussion of teaching styles in my presence... I have far too much fun debating and learning.)

ANd yet... I can see why it happens. I have something of a gossip gene I have to control, and there is a little part of me that has to wonder "and why AREN'T they getting married at the temple?" It could be a major sin, or it could have absolutely nothing to do with sin but was simply the best choice at the time and situation. LOVE how you said the bold bit.

In this example, more than your actions are being judged. I would interpret that as being accused as a sinner, not one who sins. Not only am doing <insert possible sin> but now I defy the GAs as well. It's hard NOT to take that in a bad way, and I would like to see evidence making that open to less-harsh interpretation.

Well, who's Little Miss Judgy Judge now? Can't even judge the difference in threads!

And that's my point! We must learn to take them at their word! I can't know anything else.

ANd yet I see that as a rather judgemental assumption. I can see where it might be a valid view in cases of sin where repentance never happens, but I think many people just want to do what is right. I remember reading somewhere a statistic to show that original temple weddings in the amount they are now are a relatively new thing in the church.

Get rid of--or at least make optional-- the age-based system. It's based on the notion that kids automatically do better with kids of their exact age, rather than considering that not all kids are going to progress the same, despite their age. Which is why I like Waldorf and Montessori systems. End National Education (for the most part, I'm sure there are plenty of good ways to alter this). Let state, or even local communities, handle the schools. Back to the basics: reading, writing, 'rithmetic. You don't get a good handle on those, you are pretty much done for. Catch-up on learning-how-to-read in high school is hard. Get rid of the negative view of trade skills. Repair standardized testing. If you HAVE to have it.

Ultimately it's that perception that matters... Thanks for clarifying. Now I also agree with you.

Didn't someone on some thread mention an incident where a bishop was trying to say a ring ceremony cancelled out a temple sealing or something to that effect? A temple sealing is a temple sealing. Everyone should reach for it. Though whether it is at the same time as the initial wedding, that should not really be a factor.

While I think there is some truth to what Dravin says, this was said perfectly. I was trying to express how I felt in one of those controversial threads, but this says it so much better. I think when people get into these heated discussions, their emotional guards are a little more sensitive. And online where we are minus so many other forms of communication, it's so easy to interpret things that aren't there. I'm pretty guilty of "taking offense" in these situations, even though I try my darndest to assume the best that so-n-so REALLY IS just stating his/her opinion. Like Dravin said, it's common to interpret that even while someone is saying they aren't judging you... they really are. And maybe they are. Let's face it: It's easy to say "I'm not judging you." It's easy for me to disbelieve you. But in the simple, common phrase of beefche's example, there really isn't enough information to concretely assume either way. Now I've felt like the "victim" where someone is saying "in my opinion, that's not right". And I disagree with the decree of wrong and I have my reasons and I don't feel I'm justifying myself whatsoever. But I do so hate to think someone else is judging me even when they claim they are not. I love the quote "What someone else thinks of you is none of your business" and I want to be better at applying that to my life. If I suspect judgement... maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I need to work on that it's not my problem.