KJNOKIE, TULSA (11/29/2009 6:43:31 AM)

When will TW get its act together and have the Letters section current and in place at a reasonable time.

FIRE GUNDY, TULSA (11/29/2009 8:45:49 AM)

KJNOKIE it depends on how late the party went the night before, haha

KJNOKIE, TULSA (11/29/2009 8:58:25 AM)

I left a message with the Executive Editor. Maybe he can get those yahoos to solve the problem.

gadfly, Broken Arrow (11/29/2009 9:40:26 AM)

A great letter – but.

Any action that encourages children to be subjected to religious education, in general (for science, social studies, history and the like), or specific (indoctrination in to only one religion) is tantamount to child abuse, both by the parents (who, it’s probable, don’t really know the damage they are doing to their child) and the prevailing society (which should know that brainwashing children is not only wrong, it’s blatant child abuse).

Every “normal” child should be “given” a computer upon graduation from elementary school, and educated, at home, via internet education. Such internet education would be individualized; give immediate remediation; and ensure computer literacy to all. Cost – about $2000 per child, instead of the $8000 (a guesstimate) spent in Oklahoma.

Opposition: Parents who use public education, in part, as a baby sitting service; ands current educators. But this will happen, it’s already happening in our nations colleges and universities – and for high school student in remote parts of our nation.

Also, charging tuition for any more than three children (per family) would be fair. Couldn’t afford it, community service would be arranged.

But to do this (computerized, home education) religious education would have to be recognized as indoctrination (brainwashing) and classified as child abuse. Otherwise “computerized home instruction” would result in the downfall of our nation – because religious zealots could easily dominate on-line home schooling.

Worried about the system, Tulsa (11/29/2009 10:30:56 AM)

Interesting post, gadfly, but aren't you forgetting the vital social lessons learned in school? Classwork is only a part of the education experience, in either public or private schools. Children in school learn to handle themselves in social settings, work with different personalities and cope with peer pressure, to manage their time and get their work done.

Also, I don't see how it's a bad thing that schools "babysit" while their parents work. Millions of parents drop their children off at school and head to their jobs - making it possible to earn a living while raising children.

KJNOKIE, TULSA (11/29/2009 10:50:29 AM)

These politicians always talk about education when running for office. Once elected, they ignore education in favor of pet projects of those who pay them bribes--sorry, I meant donations.

gadfly, Broken Arrow (11/29/2009 11:48:08 AM)

Worried: Good point, and you're correct.

Social lessons are a vital part of "growing up."

But "social lessons" can be added by the implementation of much-less-expensive, after-school programs ASP).

Such ASP's could promote personally-interactive games (such as I "learned" when I was younger) athletics, dance, art, music, or any other social activities which were popular (or selected) by the community.

Youngsters, deficient in meeting their "on-line" obligations, would be dealt with during this time. And, many former teachers could be utilized in any such plans.

Any objections, to on-line education for almost every school student, can be addressed.

And, it's just a matter of time before on-line home instrustion becomes the norm.

The only thing is, do we want to bankrupt a good number of home owners before such plans are implemented. (a situation similar to our failed war on drugs).

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (11/29/2009 12:07:52 PM)

I fail to see any connection at all between the release of rainy day funds and religious schools. I also don't know anyone wanting to hold public schools hostage for anything. There are those who wish to see the portion of public school budget allocated to their particular child's education spent somewhere besides the public school, a wish that I can't find a logical argument against.

More importantly is the fact we have an opportunity to actually teach something to our kids right now. We can teach them that governments actually can run out of money and stop giving everything for free that they are accustomed to getting. We can teach them that when there is no money, there is no money. Crying and whining and throwing tantrums and blaming everyone else won't change the fact that there is no money. When they finally come to that conclusion, maybe they will learn to do with less. Maybe they will be more careful how they spend and expect government to be that way too. Maybe when they grow up they will not allow government to promise as much or spend as much.

Maybe they will finally be angry with their forebears for not learning this lesson years ago.

Jafo, Stillwater (11/29/2009 2:38:31 PM)

Could it be that the legislators are just tired of money in their district being given to Tulsa schools so they can keep $90K per year suspended coaches on staff doing who knows what? Until the local school districts can use the money to actually educate the kids, I do not see why their allocations from the state should be increased above the base.

J C OK, Tulsa County (11/29/2009 2:44:20 PM)

gadfly

Get a life. I bet you have never been an educator. Most likely you do not even have children in school. If we want to pay for Christian education that is our business.


My grandsons go to Christian School and are active in sports. Their school tests scores are higher than the elite private schools. It is my son who pays a great sum of money and why do you care if he does?

I am a former principal and my younger son is an special ed teacher. My neice does home schooling and her children are very bright and tests scores are excellent.


Schooling should be up to the parents and not some one like you making the decision. THANKS ANYWAY.

Worried about the system, Tulsa (11/29/2009 4:20:12 PM)

Herb, your point about the school day reflecting the work day is probably correct, but I can't see any way around that.

Fredsdad, conservative philosophies can be taught in conjunction with liberal philosophies, and the groundwork laid for students to become citizens who decide which philosophy best reconciles with their own way of thinking, and vote accordingly. It's otherwise known as Government - or Civics - class. In my private education, Social Justice was also a required course.

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (11/29/2009 5:18:01 PM)

Worried,(and you should be)

I was not commenting on what is currently taught, but more on what is not. Kids are not learning that there is a bottom to every well. They are not learning that government largesse is not limitless. Most teachers right now are going to complain to their students that the government is failing to take care of them. The best teachers are going to say "Times are hard, and the people don't have the money to give to government so government can give to us. So we are not going to have what we had last year, but we are going to excel anyway. Here's what we're going to do...".

Students of both teachers will learn something. Students of the complaining teacher will grow up complaining that mommy government isn't taking care of them. Students of the other will learn "Hey, we did well this year, and we did it on our own without the government. Why can't we do that next year too?"

I don't know which of those lessons you want your kid to learn, but I know which I taught mine.

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (11/29/2009 5:28:33 PM)

Worried,

I don't want "social justice" taught in school. What is social justice? Is social justice taking care of mothers who have kids they can't afford, and giving them more if the dad isn't there, thus encouraging dad to leave? Is social justice continuing to take care of that person and her offspring allowing them to live better than they would if Mom worked at minimum wage and thus encouraging her not to work? Is social justice raising kids who never see a working parent, and see no income other than that which comes from government, and growing up in full expectation of getting on that same income?

Is social justice watching one of those kids who, in spite of everything, works hard and goes to school and finds a better way to do something and puts that knowledge to work to make a lot of money, then confiscating that money to give to others that he grew up with that didn't work hard?

We already know way too much about the liberal idea of "social justice". We don't need anyone going to any additional effort to teach it to our kids.

Worried about the system, Tulsa (11/29/2009 5:42:12 PM)

Social justice is understanding that wealth and resources come to us not only by our own hard work but from blessings and opportunites we have received. It teaches that those with abundance should share their wealth with those who don't have enough. It teaches us not to pass judgement on a fellow man. It teaches to carry on Jesus' great message of love and humility.

It is indeed a message that I want my children to learn. I hope very much to teach them by example, and I intend to educate them in a world where they will learn this important lesson.

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (11/29/2009 7:42:53 PM)

If that means that the voluntary giving of one's time talent and wealth are good things, I am in support. If it means the justification of a politician confiscating the wealth of one who has worked hard and using that wealth to give to and buy the vote of another who chooses not to work so hard, then that is a twisted form of social justice.

Americans in general and conservatives in particular are the most generous people on earth. In a study conducted by a liberal to prove how selfish and greedy conservatives are, it was found (much to the great chagrin of the researcher) that conservatives were far more generous in giving not only their money, but their time and labor, than were liberals. It was found that while conservatives are very generous with their money, liberals were also very generous with conservatives' money, though not so much with their own.

Incidentally, I have found the harder I work, the more blessings and opportunities come my way. Some of my contemporaries born into far better financial situations than I, with more education and more family connections, are sitting around today where they have sat most of their lives waiting on those blessings and opportunities, remaining far busier looking for someone to give to them than for someone they might help.

Worried about the system, Tulsa (11/30/2009 12:11:38 PM)

Fredsdad, Why does it have to be an "us versus them" scenario at all? It's just a convoluted way of saying one group of people is better than another, for whatever reason, which is in my opinion a huge waste of time. No political party or religion - no anything - has a monopoly on positive attributes, and no matter how many polls or research projects you read, you're never going to prove that one does.

Faith, (11/30/2009 3:59:24 PM)

Good letter and I agree.

For college age students, I think on-line studies is great.