@Gunfighter: "Teaching standards are not the problem. The problem is that bad teachers are difficult (if not impossible) to fire and that they are usually not held accountable for poor performance after they attain tenure."

Yes, there are some teachers who should not be in this profession. But in your proposed solution, who would fire them? An enlightened school administration/ bureaucracy? A knowledgeable and nonpolitical PTA? An automatic process based on their students' improvements in test scores, regardless of what population of students they are assigned? In fact the management crisis in education is one of the primary causes of bad education. In most districts, teachers can be fired for good cause IF management follows their own stated procedures, state law and regulations, and any union contract stipulations they have signed.

Actually all districts can do that, but some have really ridiculous appeals processes. But otherwise a teacher would have to kowtow to administration even more than they do now, and where would that leave academic freedom?

@ Mujus

I outlined my proposed solution in an earlier thread (that is probably locked now anyway) but the name of the thread escapes me.

I propose a privatized system with every child receiving a voucher for X dollars. If a teacher (employee) is not teaching (working) well, then A) the parents (customers) pull out their kid and the school loses money, or B) the school fires the teacher and gets a new teacher who does teach well.

The free market is a very wonderful thing. You just have to unleash it.

Ideally, the government would be out of the system altogether and wouldn't give vouchers, but I'm not idealistic enough to think THAT would ever happen in the near future.

Ok, so here's what I've seen: A teacher with national and international recognition, a genius at improving her students' abilities really, who started getting a paper trail of complaints from people who were jealous of her recognition/contacts/prospects of a higher-paying job. This is the first step in getting rid of someone.... So she decided to 1) answer each accusation fully, 2) maintain a file with multiple copies of the complaints and her responses at work so that she could give people copies when they asked about what was going on, and 3) keep duplicate copies in a secure location outside of work. This is an illustration of the problem of whom to entrust firing to.

This is why there are safeguards in place against being arbitrarily fired. And I could see someone getting assigned all of the troubled youths, those with learning disabilities, and second language learners if higher-ups wanted his/her scores to go down.

Yeah, I would be pretty confused if my teacher asked me to spell the word BACKWARDS if I was having trouble. I mean, what do the letters B A C K W A R D and S have to do with the word "the"???

LOL! dD_ST +1

maybe your kid is just dumb

"I respectfully disagree with you. Plenty of smart, useful, non-drone people believe in creationism. On the other hand, how can members of society engage in any sort of intelligent discussion about anything if they can't speak and write properly?"

speaking isn't in question here. Language is defined by use, and i doubt many of these children has difficulty learning to speak, without any formal education at all.

And that it is possible to be non-drone like, and believe in creationism at the same time - this does not make it optimal.

So what's the alternative to creation? "Sudden appearance from nothing," "Gradual appearance from nothing," or "It always existed"?? On an intellectual level, I find original creation to be more satisfying than any of the alternatives.

And I'm talking about the origin of matter and energy, of the universe.

Well, according to him, he sits in the back and in the corner of the class during English, and doesn't like to talk a lot and stays as quiet as possible.

So basically, he's like me in a Math class. ;)

He likes to spell everything exactly the way he says it, so that causes a lot of problems, because EVERY LITTLE SOUND he makes, he spells...

If he says "Then...uh" it shows up "thena" on the paper, "a" signifying that all-important "uh."

And he doesn't really understand a lot of vowel rules, especially vowel combinations...

But he did better last time...at least he knew what the vowels were and didn't say "p."

"So what's the alternative to creation? "Sudden appearance from nothing," "Gradual appearance from nothing," or "It always existed"?? On an intellectual level, I find original creation to be more satisfying than any of the alternatives. "

I'm sure in ancient times many people found a flat earth hypothesis as more intellectually satisfying. Doesn't make them any less wrong.

On creationism/evolution. I think that having an informed understanding of both is paramount to the discussion of the world in any sort of enlightened sense otherwise you are simply parroting ideas as they are presented to you.

I think that there isn't anything wrong with homeschooling as a system. While I've known people who is has gone terribly for I think it is a viable and allowable alternative, regardless of the the parent might choose to teach. After all it won't be better or worse then simply hearing what the government wants taught.

Private education can go die in a hole somewhere though.

While I can't speak to the quality of teaching in American institutions, I can attest to the decent quality of educate available through the public school system in Canada. Which did provide all these lessons. Given this fact one could say that the problem isn't with the school system. But what either this particularly uninspired teacher, or with a particularly miserable bit of educational programming. Either which could have been due to a variety of factors. My personal theory is it is the dumbing down to the lowest common denominator that does curriculum like this is. They often make it so simple that there isn't anything left to learn.

However now a month and a bit through my first year at a public university and my opinions of our public school system couldn't be higher. And of the private school system couldn't be lower.

"So what's the alternative to creation? "Sudden appearance from nothing," "Gradual appearance from nothing," or "It always existed"?? On an intellectual level, I find original creation to be more satisfying than any of the alternatives. "

Whatever you find "satisfying"...

There is no SCIENTIFIC basis for creationism/intelligent design.

If you want to believe in it, more power to you, but belief =/= science.

Mujus. You prefer "I can't possibly understand that, so I'm going to say God did it?"

That's both intellectually shallow, as well as kind lazy.

Yep...

There is no reason for everything to have just always been either, or even for a big bag to have just happened. Both are valid and important viewpoints when it comes to considering the nature of existence. The scientific view is equally shallow and lazy. It just pushes back the problem of were everything comes from.

+ 1 Damian! Obi, you say the word "SCIENTIFIC" in all caps as if it were the name of God, all-powerful. I do appreciate science as the study of God's creation. And I said "intellectually" satisfying, because I see evidence of God in all of his creation, in all of science. You took the word "satisfying" out of context, which indicates a weak argument on your part.

Many top scientists came to believe in God as they studied science. But Jack, to say that nothing that you can't see can exist, or nothing that conflicts with your limited view of the universe can exist, is worse than lazy--it's unscientific.

If you really do value an open mind, then you will try not to shut it to any avenue of inquiry and exploration, even if it is beyond time and space. What's out there, outside of this time/space bubble, in eternity? Jesus says "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto you." It's way different, yes, but I'm not pointing you to any particular church/cult figure/human institution. I'm just telling you to check out what so many people have personally witnessed to.

@ Santa, wow, so show me the origin of the universe with your science. If you say "We can't do it yet," I applaud your faith in science. But science, the study of God's creation, pales beside the knowledge of God. It's just a pale shadow, the study of one part of reality--the part of God's creation that we can observe with our physical senses.

There is a spiritual aspect of our lives and of our beings, and I'm not talking about emotions. You might want to check the user's manual or ask the creator.

"I tutored my 4th grade kid today"
I thought you were a college student...

Also public education is not crap (I support it) however the way America does it is...

Mujus...

For you to appreciate science as the explanation of God's creation, you must first suppose a God, and you cannot do that scientifically--and only scientifically, you can arrive there through faith, and that's fine, I'll even say that's far more genuine, but faith =/= science and so should not and is not taught in schools--unless you hold to this inane idea of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design has no scientific grounding, has tried to surpass the "proof" stage and jump right into classes and textbooks, and is not science.

That's all I'm arguing here.

If you think science=explaining God's creation and that works for you, great, more power to you.

I'm just saying God has no place in schools or science books.

Neither does another other theory of creation, by those standards. Suggesting that students shouldn't learn something just because we can't prove it 100% is foolish. Furthermore suggesting that we shouldn't teach things that aren't completely objective, is simply asking for a poorly educated bunch who won't be able to have informed opinions on anything. Do you I think it should be taught as fact. No. But most things shouldn't be taught as fact. If fact a large portion of subject matter that is considered important is not fact and is very questionable.

I expected a far more enlightened idea of education from you obi. As apposed to this stringent empiricist attitude you've been pushing.

Do you consider Plato worthless because he suggest there is something we cannot reason in this world? That the good is not traditional fathomable within our senses. If you can accept Plato as something worth learning why not study the bible too. Both are important works of philosophy, that hold an important part both in the emotional development of a human being and in allowing us to broaden our horizons in the future.

So don't teach the bible as science. But please don't try and pass the big bang off as science as well then. Both belong in our philosophical understand of were we come from.

Faith is taught in schools. It's just taught by different names. And payed for by various different corporations. It's just often not religious faith.

Sciences is as full of assumptions as religion. They just aren't as obvious.

So please don't go around trying to preach either as the 'gospel' truth.

"Santa, wow, so show me the origin of the universe with your science. If you say "We can't do it yet," I applaud your faith in science. But science, the study of God's creation, pales beside the knowledge of God. It's just a pale shadow, the study of one part of reality--the part of God's creation that we can observe with our physical senses."

As opposed to religious belief which hs been visibly shaped by the hand of man responding to pressures of politics, economics, demographics, war, etc. Such "timeless" beliefs which evolve just like any other man made construct. That is the unassailable spiritual realm that you base your life and belief on.

@ Obi, you are absolutely correct that God cannot be proven scientifically. But you still hold science up as the path to all truth, while I am asserting that there is an area of knowledge beyond science, beyond the physical.