Public Schools? To Kansas Conservatives, They're 'Government Schools'

[Mockingbird]

Quote

LEAWOOD, Kansas — Erica Massman, a moderate Kansas Republican, refers to the building where her daughter attends fourth grade as a public school.

 

Ms. Massman’s mother, whose politics tilt further to the right, calls it something else: a government school.

 

“My mother, who is a Tea Party person, started saying ‘government schools’ all the time,” said Ms. Massman, recalling when she first heard the phrase around 2010. “I remember thinking, ‘Wow.’”

 

Kansas has for years been the stage for a messy school funding fight that has shaken the Legislature and reached the State Supreme Court. Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, and his political allies threatened to defy the court on education spending and slashed income taxes in their effort to make the state a model of conservatism.

 

Somewhere along the way, the term “government schools” entered the lexicon in place of references to the public school system.

 

“Our local grade school is now the government school,” State Senator Forrest Knox wrote in an op-ed article last year, echoing conservative concerns that the government had inserted itself unnecessarily into education.

 

The intent was obvious to her, Ms. Massman said. “They are trying to rebrand public education,” she said.

 

 

The use of the term has set off alarms even among some Republicans, who fear that it signals still less support, financially and otherwise, for the public schools in a state that had long felt pride over the quality of its education system. The recent adoption of a school finance plan that was acceptable to Mr. Brownback, the Legislature and the Kansas Supreme Court has not entirely assuaged those concerns.

 

[...]

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/us/schools-kansas-conservatives.html?_r=0

[+devHead Subscriber²]

When are people going to stop believing the lie that Brownback and his cronies are selling, that trickle down economics don't work?  The rich aren't going to share their wealth with the less fortunate; that's why their rich!  They're all a bunch of greedy bums.  Brownback's "experiment" is a catastrophe, and of course the educational system is getting slapped because of it.  But what do rich folks care?  Their kids are safe in private schools.  Brownback is an evil pscychopath.  

[Mockingbird]

27 minutes ago, devHead said:

When are people going to stop believing the lie that Brownback and his cronies are selling, that trickle down economics don't work?  The rich aren't going to share their wealth with the less fortunate; that's why their rich!  They're all a bunch of greedy bums.  Brownback's "experiment" is a catastrophe, and of course the educational system is getting slapped because of it.  But what do rich folks care?  Their kids are safe in private schools.  Brownback is an evil pscychopath.  

Brownback's "real life experiment" failed.

 

His successor is going to have to dig Kansas out of a hole.

[Gone]

Public schools are government schools. Anybody care to debate the OBVIOUS?

 

The people that posted here are complete and obvious socialist, but I must tell you rich people got rich because they were willing to work hard to get where they are at (with the exception of actors and people who inherited wealth).

The one thing I will say though is today it is nearly impossible to reach the levels of wealth if you start your own business as major corporations dominate the market. "Mom and Pap" stores very rarely survive if they don't offer something completely unique. Why pay $40 for an item when you can get it for $18 at Walmart?

 

Obama's daughters attend private school, just like every other politician.

[Torolol]

8 hours ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Public schools are government schools. Anybody care to debate the OBVIOUS?

 

Obama's daughters attend private school, just like every other politician.

There was time when Public schools were actually mean Local Community Supported School,

which much of its curriculum, funding, and operational were derived from its own local community, and none from state/federal governments.

It was a form of public schools that extincted already.

Today 'public schools' are government schools.

[TechJunkie81]

8 hours ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Public schools are government schools. Anybody care to debate the OBVIOUS?

 

The people that posted here are complete and obvious socialist, but I must tell you rich people got rich because they were willing to work hard to get where they are at (with the exception of actors and people who inherited wealth).

The one thing I will say though is today it is nearly impossible to reach the levels of wealth if you start your own business as major corporations dominate the market. "Mom and Pap" stores very rarely survive if they don't offer something completely unique. Why pay $40 for an item when you can get it for $18 at Walmart?

 

Obama's daughters attend private school, just like every other politician.

Soooo does that mean public roads are government roads?  Are public water supplies government water supplies?  Are public sewage systems government sewage systems?

 

If they are and you don't like them then by all means stop using them and build your own.  You can have your own private ones.  Good luck funding it.  It will only require some socialism to do it.

[wakjak]

46 minutes ago, TechJunkie81 said:

Soooo does that mean public roads are government roads?

Technically yes. They're paid for by your taxes, which the government takes.

[Anibal P]

9 hours ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Public schools are government schools. Anybody care to debate the OBVIOUS?

 

The people that posted here are complete and obvious socialist, but I must tell you rich people got rich because they were willing to work hard to get where they are at (with the exception of actors and people who inherited wealth).

The one thing I will say though is today it is nearly impossible to reach the levels of wealth if you start your own business as major corporations dominate the market. "Mom and Pap" stores very rarely survive if they don't offer something completely unique. Why pay $40 for an item when you can get it for $18 at Walmart?

 

Obama's daughters attend private school, just like every other politician.

 

You missed the memo, those of us that work hard for what we get are greedy bums now, being a leech on society is "patriotic" and so is hating on the ones that are successful that are the ones paying for the leeches to survive, greedy 

[compl3x]

10 hours ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

 

The people that posted here are complete and obvious socialist, but I must tell you rich people got rich because they were willing to work hard to get where they are at (with the exception of actors and people who inherited wealth).

 

Define "work hard". Lots of people work hard but are never going to become wealthy by any reasonable, Western description.  In fact, if not enough people worked hard you couldn't have anything even remotely resembling a functioning economy.

 

The idea that the difference between being rich or poor is work ethic is obnoxious, especially when you consider the rampant nepotism and cronyism in the private sector. The old "it's not what you know but who you know" bit is truer now that ever. This "just work harder and enjoy the fruits of your labour" reduces literally hundreds of variables and circumstances down to trite political sloganeering.

 

As far as "re-branding"  the word "public" into "government" the reason is simple: wacko far-right wingers have this bizarre belief and fixation on the idea that public schools are Marxist indoctrination camps, despite being able to review the curriculum any time they please. Science classes, especially discussing evolution and climate change are left-wing conspiracies to persecute Christianity and sex/health-ed encourages kids to have unprotected, drug fuelled sex.

 

If anyone thinks I am creating a strawman, look up any of those issues and see what extreme conservatives criticise about them. It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious and detrimental to kids' futures.

 

[Emn1ty]

35 minutes ago, compl3x said:

 

Define "work hard". Lots of people work hard but are never going to become wealthy by any reasonable, Western description.  In fact, if not enough people worked hard you couldn't have anything even remotely resembling a functioning economy.

 

The idea that the difference between being rich or poor is work ethic is obnoxious, especially when you consider the rampant nepotism and cronyism in the private sector. The old "it's not what you know but who you know" bit is truer now that ever. This "just work harder and enjoy the fruits of your labour" reduces literally hundreds of variables and circumstances down to trite political sloganeering.

 

As far as "re-branding"  the word "public" into "government" the reason is simple: wacko far-right wingers have this bizarre belief and fixation on the idea that public schools are Marxist indoctrination camps, despite being able to review the curriculum any time they please. Science classes, especially discussing evolution and climate change are left-wing conspiracies to persecute Christianity and sex/health-ed encourages kids to have unprotected, drug fuelled sex.

 

If anyone thinks I am creating a strawman, look up any of those issues and see what extreme conservatives criticise about them. It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious and detrimental to kids' futures.

While I agree criticism has been extreme, it is a bit frustrating when you can see a fairly obvious liberal bias in teaching in public schools. It's also idiotic to believe in any one mode of thought economically (as you've pointed out, economics are far more complex than that). Sure, trickle down economics don't work but neither does extreme taxation and wealth redistribution. Neither work on their own, and a compromise must be found.

The reason people see these schools as marxist and anti-christian is because of the liberal bias and the complete banishment of religious discussion. It has the side effect of creating an echo chamber for these ideas. The criticism is extreme and often laughable, but the problem isn't nonexistent either. There is a reason why people prefer private schools. The schools I went to were very center leaning, and even despite being Lutheran they discussed every religion (not just their own). It allowed for an understanding and acceptance of religion I feel many public schools lack.

One last word on economics and rich vs poor. I'm tired of this idea that the rich steal from the poor. Money is no longer a limited resource, wealth can be generated literally out of thin air (along with entire industries). Just because you aren't on the highest rung of these successes does not make you unsuccessful or being exploited. And just because you're at the top of the success chain does not make you evil, or greedy. We like to generalize, demonize those with wealth and influence merely because they have it. But that's not fair, nor is it objective. Just as it's not fair to generalize those below the poverty line as drug crazed, uneducated criminals.

Stop being divisive and maybe these groups can start working together instead of the many trying to strong arm (via taxation) the few into giving up what they've worked so hard to achieve just because they feel they "deserve" it.

[Mockingbird]

24 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

While I agree criticism has been extreme, it is a bit frustrating when you can see a fairly obvious liberal bias in teaching in public schools. It's also idiotic to believe in any one mode of thought economically (as you've pointed out, economics are far more complex than that). Sure, trickle down economics don't work but neither does extreme taxation and wealth redistribution. Neither work on their own, and a compromise must be found.

The reason people see these schools as marxist and anti-christian is because of the liberal bias and the complete banishment of religious discussion. It has the side effect of creating an echo chamber for these ideas. The criticism is extreme and often laughable, but the problem isn't nonexistent either. There is a reason why people prefer private schools. The schools I went to were very center leaning, and even despite being Lutheran they discussed every religion (not just their own). It allowed for an understanding and acceptance of religion I feel many public schools lack.

There's definitely a obvious liberal bias in public education. Take, for example, Chemistry. In a Chemistry classes, they talk about chemical reactions, yet they never talk about Jesus.

 

Don't we know for a fact that Jesus causes every chemical reaction to happen?

 

24 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

One last word on economics and rich vs poor. I'm tired of this idea that the rich steal from the poor. Money is no longer a limited resource, wealth can be generated literally out of thin air (along with entire industries). Just because you aren't on the highest rung of these successes does not make you unsuccessful or being exploited. And just because you're at the top of the success chain does not make you evil, or greedy. We like to generalize, demonize those with wealth and influence merely because they have it. But that's not fair, nor is it objective. Just as it's not fair to generalize those below the poverty line as drug crazed, uneducated criminals.

Stop being divisive and maybe these groups can start working together instead of the many trying to strong arm (via taxation) the few into giving up what they've worked so hard to achieve just because they feel they "deserve" it.

Oh, sure. While some people are barely making money toiling the fields, others are making a lot of money manipulating stocks.

[Emn1ty]

8 minutes ago, illegaloperation said:

There's definitely a obvious liberal bias in public education. Take, for example, Chemistry. In a Chemistry classes, they talk about chemical reactions, yet they never talk about Jesus.

 

Don't we know for a fact that Jesus causes every chemical reaction to happen?

 

Oh, sure. While some people are barely making money toiling the fields, others are making a lot of money manipulating stocks.

Did you even attempt to comprehend what I wrote? Or are you just trying to start something by demonstrating extreme narrow-mindedness?

[Mockingbird]

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Did you even attempt to comprehend what I wrote? Or are you just trying to start something by demonstrating extreme narrow-mindedness?

I did read what you said.

 

Public education teachings are objective.

 

Religion by definition cannot be objective.

 

If public school has a liberal bias because, for example, it teaches about evolution and global warming, then it's because reality has a liberal bias.

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, illegaloperation said:

I did read what you said.

 

Public education teachings are objective.

 

Religion by definition cannot be objective.

 

If public school has a liberal bias because, for example, it teaches about evolution and global warming, then it's because reality has a liberal bias.

Reality has no bias, learning about religions is different than preaching religion. I'm not asking for preaching, I'm asking for education. You should learn about Christianity, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Scientology, Islam, Judaism, etc. Equally, objectively as a topic of study no different than Greek or Roman mythology. As for the bias, I am not talking just about religion, evolution or global warming here. I'm talking about economics and sociology. Things like white guilt, etc.

But please, continue misunderstanding and putting words in my mouth as well as drawing lines where only extremes can be discussed.

[xendrome]

7 hours ago, wakjak said:

Technically yes. They're paid for by your taxes, which the government takes.

Well technically none of these items are the governments, they are the peoples as a whole, since it is their tax dollars that are used to build and maintain the infrastructure.

[compl3x]

8 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

While I agree criticism has been extreme, it is a bit frustrating when you can see a fairly obvious liberal bias in teaching in public schools.

 

Such as? People always make this accusation and I never see anyone offer specifics or they think that teaching evolution or climate change or comprehensive sex/health-ed is liberal bias. Scientifically sound theories or proven health policies aren't liberal or conservative bias, they represent the best state of knowledge on a subject.

 

The way some tell it you'd think their were pictures of Noam Chomsky is every classroom and daily recitations of Das Kapital. There most certainly are not.

 

 

8 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

The reason people see these schools as marxist and anti-christian is because of the liberal bias and the complete banishment of religious discussion. It has the side effect of creating an echo chamber for these ideas. The criticism is extreme and often laughable, but the problem isn't nonexistent either. There is a reason why people prefer private schools. The schools I went to were very center leaning, and even despite being Lutheran they discussed every religion (not just their own). It allowed for an understanding and acceptance of religion I feel many public schools lack.
 

 

Why is religious instruction such an important issue in public schools? The irony is that people who think religious education is so important are usually church-goers who can easily enrol their kids in Sunday school or Bible class or whatever, there is no need for the state to be involved. You know, that "big Government" they are always so worried about? They want their faith prioritised but because the state often won't foot the bill & many parents and teachers have no desire to see religion infused into public schools they confuse that with persecution & anti-Christian bias. They want public schools to be a vector for proselytising Christianity.

 

We've tried to incorporate religious instruction into Australian schools with strict rules about what can and cannot be taught. Of course, the instructors & organisations put their hand on their hearts and swore they wouldn't evangelise but they have been caught over and over again. So much so that my state scrapped the whole programme. That story isn't unique. If you follow this stuff you see similar experiences in other parts of the world. Christianity, it seems, is simply not a faith that can be taught with no desire to convert. Indeed, it is a core tenant of the faith.

[Emn1ty]

13 minutes ago, compl3x said:

Such as? People always make this accusation and I never see anyone offer specifics or they think that teaching evolution or climate change or comprehensive sex/health-ed is liberal bias. Scientifically sound theories or proven health policies aren't liberal or conservative bias, they represent the best state of knowledge on a subject.

 

The way some tell it you'd think their were pictures of Noam Chomsky is every classroom and daily recitations of Das Kapital. There most certainly are not.

I gave an example, such as the vilifying of whites, teaching Manifest Destiny as imperialism (despite most if not all of it having been achieved through democratic means). Vilifying the pilgrims and immigrants to America. Effectively making Americans feel guilty about their own past. Preaching progressivism, etc. It is undoubtably a generalization, but I am seriously wondering why it seems the high-school and college population seem to gravitate towards liberal ideals. I don't have hard evidence, but I do question where these trends come from. So I will retract my "obvious" statement since I firstly cannot find good evidence outside a few smaller sources. Other links would be the prevalence of unionization amongst public schools (which means having a vested interest in bigger government and unionization power equals job security), etc. Still, without any hard evidence I will retract that assertion.

 

35 minutes ago, compl3x said:

Why is religious instruction such an important issue in public schools? The irony is that people who think religious education is so important are usually church-goers who can easily enrol their kids in Sunday school or Bible class or whatever, there is no need for the state to be involved. You know, that "big Government" they are always so worried about? They want their faith prioritised but because the state often won't foot the bill & many parents and teachers have no desire to see religion infused into public schools they confuse that with persecution & anti-Christian bias. They want public schools to be a vector for proselytising Christianity.

 

We've tried to incorporate religious instruction into Australian schools with strict rules about what can and cannot be taught. Of course, the instructors & organisations put their hand on their hearts and swore they wouldn't evangelise but they have been caught over and over again. So much so that my state scrapped the whole programme. That story isn't unique. If you follow this stuff you see similar experiences in other parts of the world. Christianity, it seems, is simply not a faith that can be taught with no desire to convert. Indeed, it is a core tenant of the faith.

Then get an Atheist or an Agnostic to teach the classes. I don't attend church, so lets not start making this personal here. The point is, I would rather people go into these discussions with an idea beyond what non-objective sources tell them. And school is a place for that. Or do you think allowing misconceptions and ignorance about religion is a better alternative? This has nothing to do with converting people, but trying to eliminate the prejudice amongst people by providing an objective forum to learn about the topic.

But I suppose if you truly believe people cannot be trusted to be objective with religion then I guess eliminating it from the education system is a good idea. Though they seem to do a relatively good job being objective politically based on some of the research I've been doing both in private and public schools. And even at my Lutheran high school they were extremely objective when discussing opposing religions.

[DocM]

Back to the thesis of the OP

 

My wife is a teacher of over 30 years service in a Michigan Public School. There is ZERO question that her district and the others in Michigan and other states are government entities;

 

They are paid for by local, county  state and federal taxes. 

 

They are mainly controlled by the US Department of Education, State Department of Education, County Intermediate School District and locally, either by an elected School Board or by officials in the City government - sometimes a Mayor or one or more of his appointees with city council oversight. 

 

The school staff often belong to public employee (government) unions. Teachers unions are highly political because of the control state and federal politicians have over the schools.

 

The school staff receives public employee benefits, usually defined partly by the state and partly by contracts negotiated with  local government entities; school board, city government department etc.

 

Bottom line: regardless what you think of the politician in the OP, his description of the over 5,000 public schools in the US as being "government schools" is completely accurate.

 

The absolutely poor job goverent has been doing wrt these public schools is why so many parents are now moving their kids to private academies, parochial or charter schools - which are state funded but run like a private academy - some affiliated with a university system.

 

Some parents do home schooling under the support of an online charter school. Michigan has 9 online charter schools.

 

http://www.k12.com/participating-schools.html?state=michigan

 

Home  schooled kids very often achieve higher that traditionally schooled kids, and contrary to the meme are typically not socially isolated. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by DocM

[FloatingFatMan]

On 10/07/2016 at 9:42 PM, illegaloperation said:

Religion by definition cannot be objective.

You've got that 100% backwards. Religion is, and can ONLY EVER be, 100% subjective. There is no provable fact for it anywhere whatsoever.

[FloatingFatMan]

On 10/07/2016 at 11:28 PM, Emn1ty said:

You should learn about Christianity, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Scientology, Islam, Judaism, etc. Equally, objectively as a topic of study no different than Greek or Roman mythology.

I agree with you, but would just like to clarify something.

 

If ancient Greek and Roman religions are mythologies, then so are all of the others you mentioned. They're ALL based on the same thing, belief, and have no actual facts behind them. The correct teaching method for all of them should therefore be that they're all mythologies.

 

On 10/07/2016 at 11:31 PM, xendrome said:

Well technically none of these items are the governments, they are the peoples as a whole, since it is their tax dollars that are used to build and maintain the infrastructure.

Technically, the government also belongs to the people as a whole, unless you're in a dictatorship.

[Emn1ty]

5 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I agree with you, but would just like to clarify something.

 

If ancient Greek and Roman religions are mythologies, then so are all of the others you mentioned. They're ALL based on the same thing, belief, and have no actual facts behind them. The correct teaching method for all of them should therefore be that they're all mythologies.

Or we could avoid "truth" about them all together and just talk about them, and let people make their own decisions. We want to avoid bias in schools.

[shockz]

On 7/10/2016 at 0:56 AM, SpeedyTheSnail said:

The people that posted here are complete and obvious socialist, but I must tell you rich people got rich because they were willing to work hard to get where they are at (with the exception of actors and people who inherited wealth).

Am I read FoxNews? *puts glasses on* Oh, no, just an angry conservative using cliché talking points and calling people socialists, yet glazing over the fact they probably used multiple services derived from socialism just today alone.

[mudslag]

On 7/10/2016 at 5:28 PM, Emn1ty said:

Reality has no bias, learning about religions is different than preaching religion. I'm not asking for preaching, I'm asking for education. You should learn about Christianity, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Scientology, Islam, Judaism, etc. Equally, objectively as a topic of study no different than Greek or Roman mythology. As for the bias, I am not talking just about religion, evolution or global warming here. I'm talking about economics and sociology. Things like white guilt, etc.

But please, continue misunderstanding and putting words in my mouth as well as drawing lines where only extremes can be discussed.

 

You didn't say religion or anti-religion, you said they were anti-christian, which is singling out one specific religion as if all other religions are open to discussion, just not Christianity. I have no problem with a theology class in public schools as long as it covers all religions and doesn't lean towards one specifically. But when you make it seem public schools are anti-Christian it's being disingenuous. 

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by mudslag