The nation is seeing an increasingly polarized debate on how-if at all-government (that is, "public") schools should discuss homosexuality, reports the Washington Post:
In most of the country, the trend in sex education is toward "abstinence only," which dictates that sex outside of marriage is wrong and potentially dangerous. Such programs tend to bypass homosexuality, except to characterize gay sex as a public health risk....
SIECUS [the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.] counts nine states that require "something negative" if sexual orientation is taught, such as characterizing homosexuality as unacceptable behavior.
The Post goes on to note that:
the federal government...since the mid-1990s has required a strict abstinence-only approach as a condition for substantial federal funds. Such programs, the government says, should endorse sex only in the confines of marriage, one reason they tend to skirt homosexuality.
And yet polls show only a quarter of Americans deem homosexuality and sexual orientation inappropriate topics for sex education, while a majority think schools should teach what homosexuality is (but not whether it is right or wrong). Given the lack of "school choice" in public education, that's probably the best common standard we can hope for, and one that is still much better than the "gays as health risk" view taught with the government's blessing in certain locales.
Public schools cannot help but be creatures of government, and increasingly it's the federal government that calls the curriculum shots. This means common sense, factual teaching falls by the wayside. While a few liberal districts go out on a rope (and risk federal funding) by teaching tolerance, many more treat homosexuality as beyond the pale.
Now, if education were privatized and government provided, say, tuition vouchers instead of buildings and (overstaffed) bureaucracies, there would still be a wide divergence on how homosexuality was taught. But at least the negative, "abstinence outside marriage" (and no marriage for immoral gays) view would not be coming directly from government educrats.
More. The Cato Institute makes a similar point in Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict: "Such clashes are inevitable in government-run schooling because all Americans are required to support the public schools, but only those with the most political power control them."
48 Comments for “In Public Schools, Homosexuality Is Politicized–And Mostly Absent.”
posted by James on
I fully support including gays in abstinence only programs. I think it would be great if gay youth were told that they didn’t have to have sex until they were married. Gays need to know that they are free to honor and respect their bodies and sexuality by waiting to share that most intimate part of themselves with a lifelong partner.
posted by PCT on
Yeah but only if the teachers are masculine.
posted by Alex on
I support the “Abstinence First” approach of my denomination. Promote the idea that sex is something special between two people who love each other. That there are risks to promiscuity including life threatening diseases.
It’s wishful thinking, at best, to think that all kids will all practice abstinence. We do not serve the next generation by holding back potentially lifesaving information because we want to make their choices for them.
Introducing the profit motive into the American Education system ill serves our republic. Making education available only to those who can afford it only serves to further entrench the divide between the business class and the poor.
posted by Carl on
This is all being done to make homosexuality a stigma, a shame to never be discussed, and to make young people more and more anti-gay. I worry that this is working.
posted by James on
I would sign on with an abstinence first program. I recognize that kids will probably experiment with sex. However, I think that stressing abstinence before marriage, even as an unfulfilled ideal, will help them make better choices. I think that gays need to be included in these programs, and that gay adults need to support kids in their abstinence pledges and remind them that love and permanence are worth waiting for. Again, this ideal may not be perfectly realized, but it will help keep gay kids away from life-threatening behaviors. And those gay kids who do live up to the ideal will find themselves in loving, lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
From what I know abstinence only for gay people IS what’s being taught and has been taught for decades…if not centuries. The constant message to gay youth, is not only homosexual celibacy, but heterosexual married sex ONLY for everyone.
There is nothing that would be different in an abstinance until marriage aspect of education for gay people, especially with the understanding that marriage isn’t now and has never been an option for gay people.
The unspoken message is, gays and lesbians for all their lives must live similar to priests and nuns, without taking collars and veils if they want to stay with their faith communities.
Where the school systems fall down, is the inequity of treatment and basic prejudice that comes with being gay and/or being female.
Emotional responses to normal hormonal surges, and growing in one’s maturity and how to handle relationships ethically and with respect to health care, but also MENTAL health care within sexual relationships.
The failures in education on this is what’s led to early and immature marriage, premature parenthood and exposure to disease and promiscuity.
Religion based issues regarding sex are unrealistic.
I read an article recently about these celibacy pledge ceremonies that girls had with their fathers.
NOTE: there is a predominance of GIRLS taking abstinence pledges…NOT males.
Women and girls have often been left to take their cues from males regarding sex, again…marriage TO a male being the decider to have sex.
This isn’t new.
It didn’t work before to great effect, and it won’t work now.
Unless and until our sex ed system is consistent, realistic and addresses ALL matters of human sexuality and the ability to differentiate what is moral within a sexual relationship (monogamy,commitment and equal responsibility towards birth control and disease protection, and understand that homosexuality isn’t a matter of morality, but orientation, then we’ll get somewhere.
But females and homosexuals(ity) bear the brunt of sexuality miscues and prejudice.
Ridiculous in our age and time when awareness and taking away prejudice would do MUCH more than fear and ignorance ever could.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Forgive my frankness, but in my view an abstinence lecture is far less effective than what I got as a college freshman: An exhaustive discussion from so-called “peer counselors” of all the then-available anti-pregnancy and anti-STD devices, procedures and preparations. I must admit that this spontaneity-killing business effectively cooled my urges for a while, and I was better educated once I was ready to take the plunge.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t understand the surprise in the blog post. Public schools are viewed by both conservatives and liberals as opportunities to indoctrinate captive young minds with their positions du jour.
Why would it be any different with homosexuality?
posted by James on
I don’t think there is any scientific evidence that there is a “hormonal surge” which intensifies sexual desire during adolescence. “Raging hormones” are an urban myth. It’s a self-fulfilling expection–kids are told they are going to have unquenchable desires for sex, so they do. But there are, in fact, no physical reasons for this increase in sexual desire.
I don’t see what’s wrong for gay kids to be told it’s OK to honor their bodies and their God-given orientation by sharing themselves sexually only with long-term, monogamous partners even as they search for a lifelong, sexually exclusive partner. It’s also OK to wait until full adulthood. Abstinence is not a punishment–abstinence is self-honoring. It is a decision which says I am worth more than mere sexual attractiveness, and that I deserve relationships based on love and committment. Gay kids especially need to hear this.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, with that, James, I would disagree; puberty is a process of going from no sex hormones to wildly-fluctuating surges of them. There is indeed a physical reason for increased sex drive during puberty and the teenage years.
However, where I would agree that it is somewhat of a self-fulfilling expectation is when teenage sex is made out to be something inevitable — or even, as TV and pop culture show, desirable. The mere fact that you have the hormones doesn’t make you unable to say no to them; furthermore, it’s the patterns you develop as an adolescent in learning how to manage sexual desire and your actions that will stick with you into adulthood.
posted by John on
A gay inclusive abstinence first education program could provide the younger generation with an ideal to strive for while discouraging unsafe sexual practices that lead to HIV and STDs.
The current abstinence first and abstinence-education programs, however, do nothing but ignore gays at best and marginalizes them at worst (by reinforcing heterosexual attraction standards).
No as is heterosexual-exclusive sex education program merits our support.
posted by Bobby on
“I support the “Abstinence First” approach of my denomination”
—Is that the one where a woman has anal sex to save her hymen? Or where she gives handjobs for the same purpose? While abstinence may work with some people, it’s not for everyone. And I despise those hypocrites who preach virginity while doing almost every sexual act under the sun.
Here’s what I support. 1. Punish teachers who have sex with students with the maximum sentence. 2. Teach opposing views when you teach sex ed. 3. Let parents remove their kids from sex ed if they object.
posted by James on
Before gay kids could be included in an abstinence-first sex education program, the gay community would have to support abstinence as a valid choice. Let’s see–how likely is that? Hmmm. . .
Once again, we find one of those gay activist paradoxes–
“Abstinence is an unrealistic goal and is an unhealthy repression of our natural sexuality which needs a variety of experiences with all kinds of people to breathe and grow
AND
We want gay kids to be included in abstinence-first programs.”
On this, as on so many issues, the gay community spends years publicly trashing the basic values underlying a tradition, and then wants the right to be part of that tradition (see also military, marriage, adoption, church, etc.).
Perhaps if the gay community publicly affirmed the underlying values of the traditions it wants to be part of, it might find acceptance easier.
Or we could just call straight people hypocrites and hope they help us.
posted by James on
James, is masturbation OK ? Or is it a sin ? I really want to know.
I think we should teach kids about STDs and safe sex and the consequences of STDs and pregnancy and let them decide what’s best for them.
posted by PCT on
James – once again I start to agree with you – obviously young gay guys would be better off if they didn’t sleep around. But then you feel compelled to talk about the gay “community”.
Let’s use the homophobes number for a second – that gays make up only 3 to 5% of the population. That would still mean that in the US and Canada there are 4 to 5 million gay guys. Why can’t you accept the fact that there are probably that many opinions about the issues we discuss. There is no gay “community”.
And I would hope that instead of complaining about the gay “community” all the time, that you are doing something to promote your values to the surrounding het population. I would guess that you probably are doing that. It works. I have established a pretty good friendship with a local newspaper columnist. She started out a couple years ago writing these virulently anti gay columns in the local paper. I began a correspondence with her – to let her know about the very real people she’s talking about – and we have become friends. She still thinks I’m living in sin – but she doesn’t share Dobson’s view anymore that the only reason I want to marry my guy is to “destroy marriage”.
So please, keep expressing your views. Keep working to let the people around you know who you are. But please stop telling me that because I don’t agree with you 100% of the time that I’m part of some evil gay “community.”
posted by James on
Masturbation isn’t a sin. I don’t think any form of sexual activity between consenting adults is a sin, that is, something that absolutely and finally separates you from God, and neither does my church. Some things move you closer to God’s plan for sexual expression, and some things move you further away, and, on the whole, people are happier when they move toward God’s plan.
One point of controversy which has come up on this and other threads is that I think there is a “gay community,” a group of gays who believe themselves to be the “true” gays and who grab media visibility and try to portray the homosexual lifestyle in their own terms. This “gay community” doesn’t include all gay men; however, all gay men are presumed to be part of it because we allow this faction to speak for us.
I don’t see how anyone can not see this “gay community” constantly at work. It is, to me, the bars, the parades, the rallies, the rainbows, the little blue equal signs, Rosie O’Donell, Scissor Sisters, Advocate, Out, Gay.com, Planetout, etc. etc.–it is the default image of what people think when you say “gay.”
For those of us who are not part of that “gay community,” who have a different set of values and a different vision for homosexual expression, that community is oppressive and annoying–they are truly “everywhere.” I can’t believe that you have not felt oppressed by them yourselves at some point.
So, in order to talk about the issue on this and any other thread, I have to get past the default gay opinion coming from the “gay community” so that I can present alternatives. I am not including you, PCT, or any individual on this board–I am pointing to a community–an oppressive, Borg-like community which limits the freedom of gay men to live their lives the way they want to.
posted by Brian Miller on
This entire debate illustrates why public education is a failure. Public schools exist not to teach facts, or prepare people for careers, but to “make well rounded citizens.”
In other words, indoctrinate.
The profit motive in private schools could only help in this regard. Students would learn the facts and come to their own conclusions rather than get indoctrinated with someone else’s dogma.
As for public schools being there for people who cannot afford them, ever been to a public school in poor regions of inner cities or rural areas? One would get a better education with some books and a computer on the Internet than in those expensive cesspools of failure.
Those are just some of the most vivid examples of how public education has completely failed.
posted by Ethical Capitalism on
The profit motive in private schools could only help in this regard.
Yup, it would help bring about the same improvement in eductation that it did in health care.
posted by Timothy on
James,
I am always bemused by the things that you think “the gay community” believes, thinks, behaves, or expresses itself. Almost never do I see coming from this collective the same things that you do.
Do you really think that “our natural sexuality which needs a variety of experiences with all kinds of people to breathe and grow” is something that the leaders of gay organizations say? From what I’ve seen, most of them have long-term partners.
And as for the average young gay guy hanging out in a bar listening to Scissor Sisters while reading the Advocate, wearing an equal sign and waving a rainbow flag… he’ll just call you a slut if you have too much variety of experiences with too many people. Ask him what he wants and he’ll say, “I’m looking for a boyfriend”.
At some point your logic begans to sound circular. You define the gay community as slutty and leftist and irresponsible. And anytime anyone demonstrates otherwise, you simply define them as being outside the gay community.
It’s kind of like insisting that cows are red. And if you’re shown a cow that’s brown, it’s not really a cow. Because cows are red.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “Once again, we find one of those gay activist paradoxes–
“Abstinence is an unrealistic goal and is an unhealthy repression of our natural sexuality which needs a variety of experiences with all kinds of people to breathe and grow””.
James, I’ve never heard any gay person make a statment like that. Obviously you come here just to denigrate and hate gays for stuff you only imagine they do.
James said “I am pointing to a community–an oppressive, Borg-like community which limits the freedom of gay men to live their lives the way they want to.”.
That’s absurd, no gays are standing in your way if you want to be masculine, and in a committed relationship. However you continually express your desire to push fem and flamboyant gays back into the closet. You’re the one wanting to limit the freedom of others.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Adolescents not only have fluctuating hormonal and EMOTIONAL issues…they also don’t have much in the way of inhibition triggers. And their minds are too immature to deal with adult situations.
At the same time, many adults throw away these kids as hopelessly mercurial and incapable of NEGOTIATION, SELF RESTRAINT and INFORMED DECISIONS.
They are left out of the loop altogether with abstinence AND no realistic sex education to address ALL their needs and expectations, rather than sweeping it under the rug….James.
And James, gay and lesbian psychologists, doctors, and other PFLAG and other socially supportive entities ARE encouraging young gay people to take care of themselves. Not just about sex, but substance abuse and parental education too.
But they are thwrated a great deal in their efforts. There is a determined effort to keep gay people from socializing with each other ESPECIALLY when they are young.
And the parents of gay kids are often clueless or hostile to the idea.
And GSA’s in schools are constantly under fire.
It’s not gay people that aren’t trying to do something, James…it’s the straight people, and the parents of straight kids or the parents of gay kids…that have to step up now.
posted by Xeno on
Out of curiosity, and this is a question primarily addressed to Bobby and Steve; how should society handle parents that kick their children out of their own house, or even led them to suicide due to the intense pressure to change a critical aspect of their being?
Also Bobby, are you aware of the sex-ed controversy going on in Montgomery County? Why the devil should the schools teach opposing views when the views laugh at the face of research and science? You’re basically stating that children should be exposed to propaganda from PFOX or NARTH, and that makes as much sense as requiring students reading the opposing views on the Holocaust and WW2, such as David Irving in history class.
I certainly hope you revise your second statement to only include only rational opposing views, something that is seriously lacking among antigay pseudofamily organizations.
posted by PCT on
Fair enough, James.
By the way this is totally off topic, but either you said, (or maybe I just assumed) that you attend an Episcopalian Church. I have never been to one, but I am so happy at the stand that they are taking.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_84148_ENG_HTM.htm
These people truly understand Jesus’ message.
posted by alex on
James: This is off topic, but…
“there must then be a way to be a ?good? way to be gay; or simply a way to be ?good and gay.? Or as Campolo put it earlier when discussing Ted Haggard, the individual who?s same-sex oriented must then decide what that means for his or her life. For some it might be celibacy, but for others it might mean finding a healthy outlet to express their sexuality.
And that?s where the religious right hits a brick wall. There can be no outlet for same-sex orientation that is not morally corrupt. It?s essential to their understanding of how the world must work.
Republic of T
But, I’m guessing that you’ll say: “Since he’s not a nelly (white) queen he is de facto outside the gay community.”
posted by Bobby on
“how should society handle parents that kick their children out of their own house, or even led them to suicide due to the intense pressure to change a critical aspect of their being?”
—I don’t know, but what I do know is I don’t want more government involvement in our lives. In London, they wanted to charge a woman with child abuse just because his son was fat. Unless the abuse is physical, there’s little you can charge them with.
“Also Bobby, are you aware of the sex-ed controversy going on in Montgomery County?”
—I’m not aware.
“Why the devil should the schools teach opposing views when the views laugh at the face of research and science?”
—Because anything can be politicized. Now there’s evidence that there’s not concensus on global warming, the National Geographic even had an article about global warming in Mars because of sun flares. Even among gays there’s debate about what causes homosexuality. I believe it’s genetic, others believe it’s the environment, others a combination of both.
I don’t like hearing just one point of view. My school was brought a pro-life speaker once and that’s the only point of view I got. I hated that. I belive in ideological diversity.
“that makes as much sense as requiring students reading the opposing views on the Holocaust and WW2, such as David Irving in history class.”
—The difference is that the holocaust and WW2 did happen. And yes, you can teach that David Irving doubts the holocaust, why not? I believe in knowing my enemy. As for WW2, there are arguments that say America should not have gotten involved, you can teach that as well. A well-rounded education is the ideal.
“I certainly hope you revise your second statement to only include only rational opposing views, something that is seriously lacking among antigay pseudofamily organizations.”
—I would revise it, except that I’ve been to those websites and there’s truth in there I can’t deny. Just like when I read Ann Coulter, she often quotes from liberals, stories from the media, and their own writings, blogs.
The truth comes from many places, not just Newsweek and The New York Times.
posted by Randy R. on
All this abstinence talk is baloney. Sex is probably the most natural things that human beings do. Sheesh — animals exists without lectures about abstinence.
What schools should teach is that if you want to be abstinent, or your religion requires it, that’s great. If you want sex, that’s great too. But whatever you want, here are the things you need to know about safe sex, how to avoid pregnancy, STDs, and so on.
Then they should talk about the emotional aspects of sex — that you shouldnt’ just have sex from a lack of self-esteem, or because of peer pressure.
that would at least be an honest discussion.
posted by James on
Randi said–
“James said “Once again, we find one of those gay activist paradoxes–
“Abstinence is an unrealistic goal and is an unhealthy repression of our natural sexuality which needs a variety of experiences with all kinds of people to breathe and grow””.
James, I’ve never heard any gay person make a statment like that. Obviously you come here just to denigrate and hate gays for stuff you only imagine they do.”
And, wow, just look at Randy R.’s post above. Coincidence? Serendipity? Conspiracy? or just good timing to prove my point?
Yes, I am grateful for the Episcopal Church’s stand. My church is a place where gays can get unequivocal support for lifelong, monogamous relationships–support which is hard to find either in the gay community or the straight community.
posted by Randy on
Uh, James, I was talking about abstinence, not monogamy. Of course, if two people enter into a relationship with the understand that there should be monogamy, then they should respect that or exit the relationship.
Furthermore, I was careful to say (which I truly believe) that if you want abstinence, or your religion requires it, then great — go ahead.
But it is foolish and contrary to human nature to require abstinence before marriage, especially when gays cannot marry in most states, and even heteros don’t get married until quite late in life.
Certainly by the time you reach your early or mid-20s, this whole abstinence thing — as a requiremente or teaching — grows increasingly silly.
posted by PCT on
Here we go again.
>>lifelong, monogamous relationships–support which is hard to find either in the gay community…<< You are simply wrong about this my friend. Too bad you refuse to see it.
posted by PCT on
Sorry, but you’re simply wrong about that – too bad you refuse to see it.
posted by Brian Miller on
it would help bring about the same improvement in eductation that it did in health care
Indeed it would.
I lived in Britain for a number of years, and given the choice between the public health system (called the NHS) and a private physician/insurance, the British choose the latter every single time.
“Public” health care is all about budgets that have doubled in the past ten years, but provide fewer beds; ambulances that never show up, or show up too late to save people; hospitals that are contaminated with MRSA bacteria that can kill or maim people who even have simple procedures; and doctors who are overworked to exhaustion.
Private health care, on the other hand, has modern technology; lower costs (private insurance costs less than NHS taxes for the average Briton), better quality, and a better level of personal care and focus on patient well-being.
That’s a consistent thing across the board — private, for profit care delivers individual attention and better results. “Public” care shoves away people in dismal, filthy facilities where they’re tended to by bureaucrats and overworked professionals who don’t really care much about individual well-being.
As goes health care, so goes education.
posted by Ethical Capitalism on
Brian:
You addressed quality of care, which is important. But what is missing is the breadth of care.
How many uninsured Britons are there? Do we simply say that it’s too bad that 40 million American can’t afford health care (and aren’t covered by medicare / medicaid)? Likewise with education, if it is only for those who can afford it, are we willing to say 40 million uneducated Americans is acceptable?
posted by Brian Miller on
Do we simply say that it’s too bad that 40 million American can’t afford health care
40 million Americans don’t have health care. That doesn’t mean 40 million cannot afford it — a simple HMO for oneself is about $1,500 a year.
I know several of those people who “cannot afford health care.” One of them drives a $35,000 Chrysler 300C sedan and says he’d rather spend his money elsewhere.
Another has a monthly cell phone bill in excess of $200.
Neither is “poor.” In fact, most of them are manifestly capable of affording insurance — they simply make other choices.
Irresponsible? Absolutely. But should responsible folks with insurance underwrite their irresponsibility?
And worse still, should we condemn every single American citizen to lousy government health care, with its innumerable flaws, just because so many Americans put cable TV, high speed internet, nice cars, and T-Mobile Sidekicks above health insurance premium payments?
I don’t think we should. Your mileage may vary.
I also am not offering a “perfect solution,” since no such thing exists — I’m merely pointing out that your alternative is worse, for more people, than the status quo.
If we really want to make insurance affordable, let’s lift the ban on catastrophic care coverage that presently exists, and end the HMO monopoly (both of which are imposed by government regulation).
posted by PCT on
couple comments Brian.
First, most people can’t get HMO coverage for $1500. I’d like to retire early one of these days, and believe me the cost is substantially more than that.
Secondly, because hospitals are required to treat everyone, you’re already subsidizing those who aren’t responsible enough to buy their own insurance. We probably pay 25% to 30% more for our insurance simply to cover the irresponsible people you describe in your post.
Finally, the only alternative to our form of insurance isn’t a goverment health care system. How about some sort of single payer system in conjunction with private doctors.
Yeah I can think of several problems with that too – but I think it’s time we considered doing something different than we are now.
posted by ETJB on
“Now, if education were privatized.”
Translation – only well born and bred would attend, what would most likely be religious education.
“government provided, say, tuition vouchers…”
If the government is providing vouchers it can likely dictate which schools are eligible. Also vouchers are generally worthless.
A private or public school is likely going to skirt the issue of homosexuality, until college. Or say negative things about it.
These days, just about anything — true or false — can be found online at sex.
posted by James on
Just to illustrate the incredible narcissism of the gay mindset which cannot grasp problems which are non-gay, I have amended his post–
“Neither is “stupid.” In fact, most of them are manifestly capable of monogamy — they simply make other choices.
Irresponsible? Absolutely. But should responsible folks who choose to have monogamous relationships underwrite their irresponsibility?
And worse still, should we condemn every single American citizen to helping AIDS vicitmes just because so many Americans put barebacking, multiple partners, circuit parties, and meth above a prudent, monogamous lifestyle?”
Perhaps the gay community’s concern about those who suffer with AIDS should extend to those without health insurance.
And undocumented workers.
And anyone else who suffers because of lack of compassion.
posted by Bobby on
“How about some sort of single payer system in conjunction with private doctors.”
—Nothing from the government ever works. Here in Florida we have a state hurricane insurance for people who can’t get private insurance. Here’s the catch, their rates are sometimes a lot more than what private insurance companies charge. And in Florida, it’s the law to have hurricane insurance. So you tell me, you’re gonna trust the government after that?
Fuck that, I’m gonna keep my work based HMO. It’s a lot better than any big government system that decides what is healthcare and what isn’t.
posted by Ethical Capitalist on
Brian: You missed (or ignored) the point of the analogy.
40 million uneducated Americans is acceptable? This would be the result of gutting public education in favor of a for profit system.
posted by ETJB on
(1) Teach abstience but also teach kids that if they are going to have sex they need to be smart about it.
(2) Abstience-only sex education as it is practiced in just about school in America is homophobic. It ignores the issue of sexual orientation all together or simply says that gay people should never have sex. It does not have to be, but it is.
posted by Brian Miller on
40 million uneducated Americans is acceptable? This would be the result of gutting public education in favor of a for profit system.
Nonsense.
In addition, I’d wager that the vast majority of Americans graduating from US public schools today are uneducated — judging from the scores and from kids going through 12 to 15 years of school who cannot read.
I think that everyone who wants to condemn our children to the public school system should spend some time in a typical urban public school, and then take the typical job that someone who graduates from a typical urban school can get — usually at 7-11, Wal-Mart, or if lucky, McDonalds.
Then lecture me about “education for all” after meeting 21 year old HS grads who cannot read a magazine or make change at a cash register.
posted by Ethical Captialist on
Brian, why are you so avid to avoid the question of access to education?
I am not arguing that public education needs improvement…but coming from a family of public school teachers I can also give you many annecdotes about parental attitudes of schools as nothing more than glorified babysitting services or those who questioned why girls needed to have an education because they were just going to get married anyway.
In short, I am reading your comments as advocating the elimination access to education to those who need it most instead of improving the system.
posted by Brian Miller on
I suppose you and I just have a very different definition of “access to education.”
You seem to view access to education as the status quo — where students show up at a school building, learn very little, emerge illiterate and innumerate, and thus have few skills useful for finding a job and earning a living.
I define access to education as providing every student with the best opportunity to actually learn useful skills required for success in life.
You seem content to allow students to rot in the public schools, where ever larger sums of money are dumped in and scores (not to mention student success) continue to plummet. You don’t care about how poorly the students are doing, or that the schools are doing a miserable job.
Your sole criterion is “equality” — as long as students all have “equal access” to abysmally poor education, you’re happy.
My primary concern is outcome. I want the largest number of students possible — every student willing to work hard and apply himself — to have a chance at an education. Some will, granted, have to work harder than others to get there. But that’s life.
In my scenario, everyone who works hard and studies hard and gets a good education has opportunity to survive and thrive. In your scenario, the status quo, all students are condemned to a life of atrocious educational quality and resulting economic marginalization — but all have “equal access” to that dismal future.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James, there’s a huge difference between what Randy R said about abstinence being baloney and your statement that gays are saying a “natural sexuality needs a variety of experiences with all kinds of people to breathe and grow”.
posted by Bobby on
“I’d wager that the vast majority of Americans graduating from US public schools today are uneducated”
—While those who are home schooled are getting accepted into Harvard and Yale. That should tell you something about public education. But frankly, I don’t care, there’s a lot of punks in our public schools, kids who don’t want to learn, who misbehave, not to mention bad teachers.
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter. In a capitalistic society, everyone is responsible for their own behavior. Those bums will pay for their laziness eventually, maybe they’ll go to a trade school and make something useful of themselves. Who says everyone has to go to college? we need mechanics, electritians, plumbers, not every job requires a college education, and some of those trade jobs pay even more than your typical college major.
“usually at 7-11, Wal-Mart, or if lucky, McDonalds.”
–So what? Some of them rise to become executives, specially at Wallmart. I saw a documentary about the store, a female employee who started as a cashier now gets to fly on a Lear Jet every week to different stores.
“Then lecture me about “education for all” after meeting 21 year old HS grads who cannot read a magazine or make change at a cash register.”
—Sink or swimm, that’s the darwinist philosophy. If you liberals are gonna teach evolution, you might as well practice the main tenets.
posted by Brian Miller on
There’s no Darwinism in a public system that condemns everyone to sink.
That’s what American public education is all about.
posted by Marcus on
Brian – did you go to public school?
This point has been touched on before, but some of the failure of the public system, particularly in urban settings, is the willingnes of the kids to work hard and learn. This is not necessarily their fault, but results from a lack of solid parenting.
Are there problems with the public school system? Absolutely. And these problems can’t all be solved by throwing money at the issue. However, stating that public schools are a complete failure and that they doom all who attend them to minimum wage jobs and manual labor is a bit alarmist.
posted by Bobby on
“There’s no Darwinism in a public system that condemns everyone to sink.”
Condie Rice and Alberto Gonzalez did not come from luxurious backgrounds and did not go to the best public schools. But they worked hard, got to college and got ahead.
Just because not everyone can do what they did doesn’t mean the system doesn’t work.
posted by ETJB on
It also does not mean that the system does work…
BTW, one of the best films about high school would be Donnie Dark.