Back to School

[barfbag]

Schools and our education system have been politicized by both parties with politicians posing in photos with students and making a fuss about school lunches and teachers unions. Let's do what's best for families and children who attend school though. What this country needs is to have better family involvement with schools which starts with parents choosing where their kids go to school.

College scholarships for every qualified needy student.
Allow parents to homeschool their children, but I don't think it's as good as public education.
Hire more teachers to reduce student to teacher ratio.
Build more charter schools to reduce the student to teacher ratio.
School vouchers in all states to give parents a choice. Let's make a pro-choice education system.
Keep moment of silence because it doesn't hurt anyone.
Require the pledge of allegiance.
Under God remains in the pledge of allegiance as the Creator is mentioned in the D of I.
Encourage states to focus more on traditional African American schools.
Failing schools should be held accountable under the voucher program.
Include schools in education policies such as congressmen visiting schools personally.
Require all public and state colleges to abide by affirmative action.
Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.
Allow states and localities to determine pay of teachers.
No school prayer amendment, but let states decide on the issue as long as not led by a teacher.


Before we debate, I believe education should mostly be left to states and counties.

[cheesepizza]

AA is racist and unfair.

[barfbag]

But does anyone want parents to be able to choose where their kids go to school?

[Franknburger]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

[Consciously Unconscious]

I agree on everything except your opinion that homeschooling isn't as good as public homeschooling.  I think homeschooling should be encouraged. 

[Mopsus]

I think homeschooling should be encouraged. 

Why is that?

[barfbag]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

[barfbag]

I see homeschooling was brought up. There's a lot of good qualities about it. It gets our kids away from a negative atmosphere in some cases, but I've noticed a lot of homeschooled kids are lacking in social skills which could hurt them in life. I hope I didn't offend anybody.

[Lief 🗽]

AA is racist and unfair.

Society is racist and unfair.

[barfbag]

AA is racist and unfair.

Society is racist and unfair.

I think affirmative action helps minorities and our country. The only problem I have is if it's worth more points towards admissions than a perfect SAT score.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

[barfbag]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

They aren't emotionally ready to hear about it. I think we do it pretty well teaching about the dangers of STD's, pregnancies, drugs, and safety in 8th grade and continuing through high school.

[barfbag]

And as for drugs we should be educating students no later than third grade. I realized how putting that into the list could misconstrue what I was saying. "Just Say No" isn't enough though. Students need to learn about the consequences and dangers of harmful drugs too. I think "Just Say No" can be taken to mean anything is ok, but saying no is preferred. Or, maybe I'm looking too into a simple phrase?

[Franknburger]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

Fair enough - the topics on your list are not what I would call essential kindergarden age knowledge.

Problem is that kindergardens don't operate in a vacuum. In the kindergarden that our oldest daughter visited (inner-city Hamburg), we got the impression that some of the other kids had already at home been exposed to hard core porn. Also, one of the girls there had a lesbian couple as parents. Now, if rules would be so strict that kindegarden teachers were not allowed to address such issues ("Sometimes, both parents can have the same sex., That is o.k. Stop harassing her for that") the rules could potentially do more harm than good.

[barfbag]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

Fair enough - the topics on your list are not what I would call essential kindergarden age knowledge.

Problem is that kindergardens don't operate in a vacuum. In the kindergarden that our oldest daughter visited (inner-city Hamburg), we got the impression that some of the other kids had already at home been exposed to hard core porn. Also, one of the girls there had a lesbian couple as parents. Now, if rules would be so strict that kindegarden teachers were not allowed to address such issues ("Sometimes, both parents can have the same sex., That is o.k. Stop harassing her for that") the rules could potentially do more harm than good.

I know where you're coming from, but I don't think it's up to the schools to teach at such a young age. If the school counselors were involved in specific instances I would support it, but I just can't go for a class of 5 year olds learning about such things like hardcore porn. It's up to families to keep that from their children. What context could a teacher talk about hardcore porn in? It was a rhetorical question.

[Franknburger]

I probably did not put forward my point too well, barfbag. Essentially, I agree with you that sexual education should not be part of a kindergarden curriculum.

However, there are situations when a kindergarden teacher may need to take up sexual issues. Imagine a five year old that has been exposed to hard core porn at home, does not understand what it is all about, but nevertheless tries to enact it with other kids. In such a situation, a teacher must be able (and trained) to talk about sexuality, intimacy, respect of others etc., without having to be afraid of being potentially criminalised.

Speaking more generally; De-regulate school, empower teachers, but monitor and evaluate their results. Hold them responsible for the class situation and learning achievement, but don't interfere in how they do their job. Some do it with moments of silence, some with charisma, and others employ games and group work.

What I personally would like to see is parents and pupils from a certain age (say twelve years) regularly rating their teachers according to a pre-defined set of criteria (knowledge, methodological competence, authority, "entertainment factor", fairness, management of class dynamics, etc.).     

[barfbag]

I probably did not put forward my point too well, barfbag. Essentially, I agree with you that sexual education should not be part of a kindergarden curriculum.

However, there are situations when a kindergarden teacher may need to take up sexual issues. Imagine a five year old that has been exposed to hard core porn at home, does not understand what it is all about, but nevertheless tries to enact it with other kids. In such a situation, a teacher must be able (and trained) to talk about sexuality, intimacy, respect of others etc., without having to be afraid of being potentially criminalised.

Speaking more generally; De-regulate school, empower teachers, but monitor and evaluate their results. Hold them responsible for the class situation and learning achievement, but don't interfere in how they do their job. Some do it with moments of silence, some with charisma, and others employ games and group work.

What I personally would like to see is parents and pupils from a certain age (say twelve years) regularly rating their teachers according to a pre-defined set of criteria (knowledge, methodological competence, authority, "entertainment factor", fairness, management of class dynamics, etc.).     

I think if a child were acting out such a scene, the teacher's best move would be to take the child to the office to speak with the guidance counselor. I like your idea about parents rating teachers. It would be nice to see families become more involved with the public education. They are right now but not in the right ways. We need school choice, charter schools, and smaller classes.

[Down the Gurney]

I probably did not put forward my point too well, barfbag. Essentially, I agree with you that sexual education should not be part of a kindergarden curriculum.

However, there are situations when a kindergarden teacher may need to take up sexual issues. Imagine a five year old that has been exposed to hard core porn at home, does not understand what it is all about, but nevertheless tries to enact it with other kids. In such a situation, a teacher must be able (and trained) to talk about sexuality, intimacy, respect of others etc., without having to be afraid of being potentially criminalised.

Speaking more generally; De-regulate school, empower teachers, but monitor and evaluate their results. Hold them responsible for the class situation and learning achievement, but don't interfere in how they do their job. Some do it with moments of silence, some with charisma, and others employ games and group work.

What I personally would like to see is parents and pupils from a certain age (say twelve years) regularly rating their teachers according to a pre-defined set of criteria (knowledge, methodological competence, authority, "entertainment factor", fairness, management of class dynamics, etc.).     

I think if a child were acting out such a scene, the teacher's best move would be to take the child to the office to speak with the guidance counselor. I like your idea about parents rating teachers. It would be nice to see families become more involved with the public education. They are right now but not in the right ways. We need school choice, charter schools, and smaller classes.

I agree, but on one condition: that the government can look into the crossdressing kid's families. Studies have shown that crossdressing frequently comes from child abuse, so we need to make sure that the child's home isn't the opening scene of Django.

[barfbag]

I probably did not put forward my point too well, barfbag. Essentially, I agree with you that sexual education should not be part of a kindergarden curriculum.

However, there are situations when a kindergarden teacher may need to take up sexual issues. Imagine a five year old that has been exposed to hard core porn at home, does not understand what it is all about, but nevertheless tries to enact it with other kids. In such a situation, a teacher must be able (and trained) to talk about sexuality, intimacy, respect of others etc., without having to be afraid of being potentially criminalised.

Speaking more generally; De-regulate school, empower teachers, but monitor and evaluate their results. Hold them responsible for the class situation and learning achievement, but don't interfere in how they do their job. Some do it with moments of silence, some with charisma, and others employ games and group work.

What I personally would like to see is parents and pupils from a certain age (say twelve years) regularly rating their teachers according to a pre-defined set of criteria (knowledge, methodological competence, authority, "entertainment factor", fairness, management of class dynamics, etc.).     

I think if a child were acting out such a scene, the teacher's best move would be to take the child to the office to speak with the guidance counselor. I like your idea about parents rating teachers. It would be nice to see families become more involved with the public education. They are right now but not in the right ways. We need school choice, charter schools, and smaller classes.

I agree, but on one condition: that the government can look into the crossdressing kid's families. Studies have shown that crossdressing frequently comes from child abuse, so we need to make sure that the child's home isn't the opening scene of Django.

What I was meaning by cross dressing was that students shouldn't learn about it as a class. If a teacher notices a student wearing such clothes, then it's a different story.

[Indy Texas]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

[barfbag]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

Some liberal teachers are already having their students pair up with the lights out and grading them on stamina.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

Some liberal teachers are already having their students pair up with the lights out and grading them on stamina.

Barf, where did you get this info from?

Just curious.

[barfbag]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

Some liberal teachers are already having their students pair up with the lights out and grading them on stamina.

Barf, where did you get this info from?

Just curious.

Oh it was easy I just made it up. You never know though with how liberal schools are.

[PJ]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

Some liberal teachers are already having their students pair up with the lights out and grading them on stamina.

I just had to put that in my sig

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sexual education should not be taught in kindergarten.

Would that also exclude teaching small children how recognise (risk of) sexual abuse?

No I don't really consider that sexual education. I was more referring to sex positions, nerve endings, secretions, forms of protection, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It's always good to teach of abuse.

So what ages do you think should learn sex ed - after all, you only said kindergartners in your first post? I don't think kindergartners should be learning about sex positions and condoms and things, but I think older kids should be learning them. Also, why shouldn't kindergartners be taught about "cross dressing and homosexuality"? They exist and they're totally harmless.

Making sure people of reproducing age have a basic understanding of what the forms of birth control are, how they work and where they can be obtained is an integral part of any rational public health policy.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to learn about "sex positions" in school. I think that's more a matter of trial and error.

Some liberal teachers are already having their students pair up with the lights out and grading them on stamina.

And how does that make you feel, barfbag?