• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Public K-12 Education: Conservative or Liberal?

Public K-12 Education: Conservative or Liberal?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • Liberal

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 7 43.8%

  • Total voters
    16
What would you prefer for your children, conservative or liberal K-12 Education in public schools?Do not forget that after liberal "education" in public schools many children are illiterate and know nothing. BTW most of wealthy people ( democrats and liberals too ) send their children only to conservative schools. Please explain your choice and do not forget that too liberal "education" in public schools has downgraded America to one of the lowest places among other western countries.

1. I would prefer my children to go to a school that forces them to examine every idea they encounter.
2. Nothing you said is true.
 
I didn't realize there was a difference in public schools. Public schools are run by the government and in turn run by one people...there is no conservative or liberal its merely government run indoctrination centers...children don't go to school to learn they are now merely pawns in a game of life and death that most people have not woken up to.

The BOE in Texas recently voted to change the content of science and history textbooks. They now contain revisionist accounts of Texas' involvement in slavery, the treatment of Indians, and other controversial events. They also modify the names of historic events or organizations to paint them in a better light. The science textbooks are now required to give equal birth to creationism and evolution, despite the inbalance in evidence.
 
I find public k-12 schools to be mostly nonpartisan? They do not get real deep into issues that could be considered liberal or not. I suppose sex education is somewhat liberal... but other than that, they are really just learning basic stuff man.
 
Twelve years in the public education system in Texas, coupled with 3 years of internships and observations during college. In Texas, teacher pay is heavily based on the percentage of children who pass the TAKS test every year, with only about 30% of their performance dependent upon student success on general coursework.

okay.

As a student we spent August-April preparing for the TAKS (formerly TAAS) test. During that time at least 50% of our day was focused on test taking strategies, practice tests, and "tricks" to help us answer questions we don't know the answers to. We were taught how to write to please those grading that portion (and graders were often not educators, or those with any education background to speak of...they requested volunteers to save money).

so you were taught the material on the test, study strategies, and how to write effectively.

you're going to have to forgive me if i see this as not that bad a trade-off in return for a metric by which we can compare/contrast school, teacher, and student performance.
 
I find public k-12 schools to be mostly nonpartisan? They do not get real deep into issues that could be considered liberal or not. I suppose sex education is somewhat liberal... but other than that, they are really just learning basic stuff man.

:shrug: history too; and poli sci and economics are also courses taught at the HS level.
 
okay.



so you were taught the material on the test, study strategies, and how to write effectively.

you're going to have to forgive me if i see this as not that bad a trade-off in return for a metric by which we can compare/contrast school, teacher, and student performance.

NO, we weren't taught the material on the test, we were taught how to perform well w/o knowing the material (i.e. "C" is the most common answer, rule out the 2 most unlikely answers, etc). We weren't taught how to write properly, we were taught how to write to get the best grade. No focus was placed on grammar or structure, but on what type of story/essay they wanted (i.e. "they tend to prefer if you use lots of adjectives").

Knowing how to fill in a bubble sheet is not a "study strategy". Basically, the teachers told us what the graders look for and then handed us a test booklet. The content on the test was almost never something we had covered in classes. We combed over the format repeatedly, but we didn't learn the items on the test. I distinctly remember the panic I always felt when we hit the math section. Most of the problems were like reading greek, because we hadn't covered the topics during our coursework.

Also, we could discuss the fact that the tests are still racially biased towards caucasian students. Hispanic, Asian, and black students perform disproportionately lower on these tests than they do on standard classroom assignments. Classes specifically designed for students who have failed the TAKS test are disproportionately populated by minority students as well.

They don't accomplish the original goal. These tests aren't designed in such a way that actually measure the academic success of the student. The system is flawed, and basing a teacher's livelihood on how many students pass a flawed test is ridiculous.
 
actually it would be called "education vouchers"

which shouldn't be used for private schools. like i said, send your kids to private schools if you don't like public education. or change the public school system.
 
:shrug: history too; and poli sci and economics are also courses taught at the HS level.

Well, I did not take economics in High School, so I cannot speak for how they taught that. I did not take political science either, but I would imagine it would be a political science class could not have much of a lean since it is about politics itself. History... we learned about WWII, WWI, the Depression (yeah I know they didn't rip on FDR like you people want), and a **** ton of other wars. What is liberal about that?

Do you have any proof at all that high schools teach liberal versions of those classes?
 
gosh if only there were some way that the government could allow you to control the education dollars allotted to your child so that you could direct them to a school that had neither...... what would we call such a system?

The first steps towards theocracy?

We're already dealing with two versions of recent history due to both sides propaganda.

I don't think starting this programming in kindergarden is gonna be good for anyone.

Except maybe your bosses?:mrgreen:
 
NO, we weren't taught the material on the test, we were taught how to perform well w/o knowing the material (i.e. "C" is the most common answer, rule out the 2 most unlikely answers, etc).

A) everyone knows the "C" thing. if you had to get taught that then you had more issues than just the test.
B) if they taught you to perform the process of analysis by reduction then they were teaching you critical thinking skills, i'm cool with that too.

We weren't taught how to write properly, we were taught how to write to get the best grade

thats the only way you are supposed to be taught to write. would you prefer to be taught to fail?

No focus was placed on grammar or structure, but on what type of story/essay they wanted (i.e. "they tend to prefer if you use lots of adjectives").

well that is problematic, but that's the graders fault, not the test's.

Knowing how to fill in a bubble sheet is not a "study strategy". Basically, the teachers told us what the graders look for and then handed us a test booklet. The content on the test was almost never something we had covered in classes. We combed over the format repeatedly, but we didn't learn the items on the test. I distinctly remember the panic I always felt when we hit the math section. Most of the problems were like reading greek, because we hadn't covered the topics during our coursework.

well then they didn't do a very good job of teaching to the test, now, did they?

Also, we could discuss the fact that the tests are still racially biased towards caucasian students.

:lamo and did you burst into uproarious laughter when they tried to pass of that pile of dung? :)

They don't accomplish the original goal. These tests aren't designed in such a way that actually measure the academic success of the student.

actually it sounds to me like your teachers sucked and the test graders were problematic. I didn't see a single thing you described as negatively reflecting on the tests.

The system is flawed, and basing a teacher's livelihood on how many students pass a flawed test is ridiculous.

on the contrary, testing quality is a far better means (if an imperfect one) than simple longevity. tenure does little but encourage sloth and abuse.
 
Well, I did not take economics in High School, so I cannot speak for how they taught that. I did not take political science either, but I would imagine it would be a political science class could not have much of a lean since it is about politics itself.

I took both. my Econ was pretty basic; supply demand curve, what goes into GDP, etc. In my Poli Sci class I learned about federalism and the social contract. I also learned that Republicans wanted to control our personal lives, that our Republican Governor was anti-education, that George Bush was too stupid to be president, and that moving into a "living Constitution" society marked by a large and generous federal government was the logical conclusion of the Founders intent.

History... we learned about WWII, WWI, the Depression

allow me to introduce you to an unfortunately common book assigned in history courses:

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.

also popular with the educrat crowd is Howard Zinns' "A People's History of the United States; though that is more common in the collegiate world.

(yeah I know they didn't rip on FDR like you people want), and a **** ton of other wars. What is liberal about that?

i couldn't care if they rip on FDR or not; i just want them to accurately teach the history of that era as opposed to claiming that capitalism created the Great Depression and FDR "saved" us. :roll: that's like claiming that responsible lending practices created the mortgage crises and George Bush pulled us out.
 
A) everyone knows the "C" thing. if you had to get taught that then you had more issues than just the test.
B) if they taught you to perform the process of analysis by reduction then they were teaching you critical thinking skills, i'm cool with that too.



thats the only way you are supposed to be taught to write. would you prefer to be taught to fail?



well that is problematic, but that's the graders fault, not the test's.



well then they didn't do a very good job of teaching to the test, now, did they?



:lamo and did you burst into uproarious laughter when they tried to pass of that pile of dung? :)



actually it sounds to me like your teachers sucked and the test graders were problematic. I didn't see a single thing you described as negatively reflecting on the tests.



on the contrary, testing quality is a far better means (if an imperfect one) than simple longevity. tenure does little but encourage sloth and abuse.

That has to be the most elaborate non-response I have seen in a while. But it sounded clever and probably convinced those you are here to supervise.:2wave:
 
That has to be the most elaborate non-response I have seen in a while. But it sounded clever and probably convinced those you are here to supervise.

tessy claimed that having to meet tests ruined her education, i asked her to describe how, and she told me that her teachers didn't cover the material tested in her class and that the graders had poor standards. seems to me that's a problem that can be solved by firing some teachers and graders.
 
From what I've heard, the problem with standardized tests is that they narrow the curriculum because teachers (and schools) would rather drill the students repeatedly on the specific test areas than explore other aspects of the textbooks and materials available. It takes time from class reflection on current events and other activities.

Students who do not need the repeated drilling (and even those who do) lose out on being introduced to other aspects of the subject(s).



.02
 
Last edited:
I took both. my Econ was pretty basic; supply demand curve, what goes into GDP, etc. In my Poli Sci class I learned about federalism and the social contract. I also learned that Republicans wanted to control our personal lives, that our Republican Governor was anti-education, that George Bush was too stupid to be president, and that moving into a "living Constitution" society marked by a large and generous federal government was the logical conclusion of the Founders intent.



allow me to introduce you to an unfortunately common book assigned in history courses:

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.

also popular with the educrat crowd is Howard Zinns' "A People's History of the United States; though that is more common in the collegiate world.



i couldn't care if they rip on FDR or not; i just want them to accurately teach the history of that era as opposed to claiming that capitalism created the Great Depression and FDR "saved" us. :roll: that's like claiming that responsible lending practices created the mortgage crises and George Bush pulled us out.

You can't just put a link to some book down and say, "Welp, it's clearly a liberal biased education!". And again, drop the whole FDR thing. He was a good president, he implemented great social programs, and I think most historians agree that overall he was beneficial during one of the dark hours of the United States' history. If you have a problem with that, I guess that's just your problem.

Every time I heard the word liberal and education put together I know the stupid FDR argument is coming out.
 
You can't just put a link to some book down and say, "Welp, it's clearly a liberal biased education!"

well, firstly, you are moving the goal posts. my point here was that these are subjects where there is room for bias by the overwhelmingly left-leaning educators to whom we give our children. if you want to have a debate about whether or not the instruction in our public school system is liberally-biased or not, then that's fine, we can discuss that; but i think it deserves it's own thread.

And again, drop the whole FDR thing. He was a good president, he implemented great social programs

FDR used the political turmoil that was the product of his own destructive economic policies to turn the Constitution on it's head. He was no Wilson (he wasn't quite as absolutist and certainly wasn't as racist), but a "good President" was something he was not.

I think most historians agree that overall he was beneficial during one of the dark hours of the United States' history.

except that when they poll "historians" inevitably what they poll is "history teachers"; which would tend to reinforce my point. You're polling people like Haymarket (who taught history - and government, for that matter); the ranks of our professors are nearly uniformly tilted leftward, and they will naturally laud FDR despite the fact that he was an economic illiterate who lengthened the Depression.

If you have a problem with that, I guess that's just your problem.

given that he still stands as a model of reference for how to deal with a downturn, it's everyones' problem. how do you like that consistently high unemployment rate, eh?

Every time I heard the word liberal and education put together I know the stupid FDR argument is coming out.

actually you are the one that called this out. I was happily discussing the structure of how we go about organizing the educational system.
 
Last edited:
Why are all your posts so... so...

Wrong?

I mean there's nothing in this post that makes even remotely any sense.

Ah **** it.

All liberals are evil.

Al Gore.

Socialism.

Islam.

All evil.

You win.

You've convinced me.

Who's been ****ing with my medicine!

A liberal finally gets it right :lol:
 
What would you prefer for your children, conservative or liberal K-12 Education in public schools?Do not forget that after liberal "education" in public schools many children are illiterate and know nothing. BTW most of wealthy people ( democrats and liberals too ) send their children only to conservative schools. Please explain your choice and do not forget that too liberal "education" in public schools has downgraded America to one of the lowest places among other western countries.

Depends. What exactly makes a school 'conservative' or 'liberal'?
 
I would prefer to teach my own kids. I would teach truth, not politics.
 
For serious talkers, and not necessarily the OP, both. I come in from the history area, so I don't really just buy the idea that you know, there's just "truth" and then there's "political ideology." It's a great deal more complicated than that. It is too easy to get sucked into group think and perceive reality that way. For instance, in universities, colleges of education can get too sucked into one mode of thinking and just completely ignore the other half of the spectrum, because it is "just wrong" without any consideration that maybe many issues are far more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:
except that when they poll "historians" inevitably what they poll is "history teachers"; which would tend to reinforce my point. You're polling people like Haymarket (who taught history - and government, for that matter); the ranks of our professors are nearly uniformly tilted leftward, and they will naturally laud FDR despite the fact that he was an economic illiterate who lengthened the Depression.

Yes, you're right. Also, however, I would assume that it has not been nearly concluded that his actions lengthened the Depression, and is still a matter of intense debate that may never be "nearly" concluded (because universal opinion to begin with is impossible to achieve, and near conclusion would imply that there is just far less debate). I am also assuming it can possibly divide between historical generations and/or political ideology with regard to analyzing the correct course with the Great Depression.
 
Yes, you're right.

:D see, now, why did you have to keep writing after you had already figured out the most important point?

Also, however, I would assume that it has not been nearly concluded that his actions lengthened the Depression, and is still a matter of intense debate that may never be "nearly" concluded (because universal opinion to begin with is impossible to achieve, and near conclusion would imply that there is just far less debate). I am also assuming it can possibly divide between historical generations and/or political ideology with regard to analyzing the correct course with the Great Depression.

The work that highlights the Presidents' role in lengthening the Great Depression is fairly recent, that is true; it's a backlash, I think, against a kind of uniformity of assumption within much of the historical field. And perhaps a rebellion by some against a similarly uniform professoriate. Poking holes in the thesis of your forebears, of course, is the traditional way to make a name for onesself :).

but note the debate; which we will for ease call the anti-FDR and pro-FDR factions; the anti-FDR faction focuses on the effects of transfer payments, of the agricultural adjustment act, of the NIRA legislation's effect on wages... etc. they are uniquely focused on the economics of the debate. the pro-FDR side seems to focus on the expresed opinion of like-minded history teachers. they are uniquely focused on past polling of the debate. I would posit that the first has the long-term advantage over the latter.
 
:D see, now, why did you have to keep writing after you had already figured out the most important point?



The work that highlights the Presidents' role in lengthening the Great Depression is fairly recent, that is true; it's a backlash, I think, against a kind of uniformity of assumption within much of the historical field. And perhaps a rebellion by some against a similarly uniform professoriate. Poking holes in the thesis of your forebears, of course, is the traditional way to make a name for onesself :).

but note the debate; which we will for ease call the anti-FDR and pro-FDR factions; the anti-FDR faction focuses on the effects of transfer payments, of the agricultural adjustment act, of the NIRA legislation's effect on wages... etc. they are uniquely focused on the economics of the debate. the pro-FDR side seems to focus on the expresed opinion of like-minded history teachers. they are uniquely focused on past polling of the debate. I would posit that the first has the long-term advantage over the latter.

This subject requires a different thread and a more elaborate argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom