Texas GOP Platform Opposes Critical Thinking in Education

• rzetlin wrote on 2012-06-29 19:56

  
  Texas Republican Party Calls For Abstinence Only Sex Ed, Corporal Punishment In Schools
  
  In the section titled "Educating Our Children," the document states that "corporal punishment is effective" and recommends teachers be given "more authority" to deal with disciplinary problems.
  
  Additionally, the document states the party opposes mandatory pre-school and kindergarten, saying parents are "best suited to train their children in their early development."
  
  The position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."
  

  
  
  [video=youtube;lp7IfxKarzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp7IfxKarzE&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=9&feature=plcp[/video]
  
  Wow, just wow.
  
  The GOP representatives are not hiding their agenda to make Americans stupid anymore.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-06-29 20:11
  WOW. This is so absurd. So incredibly absurd. They should be outlawed.
  
  Luckily I live in a country where insane parties who openly threaten the foundation of society actually can be and are outlawed.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-06-29 20:11
  Not that public schools teach very much critical thinking in the first place...
  
  This is why we need to de-regulate education and give more control over to private schools and parents. That way, we won't have so many arguments about what to teach and what not to teach in "our" schools.
• paladin wrote on 2012-06-29 20:41
  Corporal punishment donest work
  Have they not been spanked in their life time,anyone can tell you spanking only makes you angry or fearful which makes no since
  Critical thinking is not an easy concept but is still imporant regardless
  We still likley would be in the dark ages without it
  Dark age as in pre industrial revolution period
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-06-29 20:43
  Protip: Many small car crashes are as bad as one big one.
  
  The size of the individual accidents doesn't matter, what matters is to build up a system that prevents or reduces them alltogether.
  
  This way at least they're all concentrated and easily identified.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-06-29 21:04

  Quote from paladin;897432:

  Corporal punishment donest work
  Have they not been spanked in their life time,anyone can tell you spanking only makes you angry or fearful which makes no since
  Critical thinking is not an easy concept but is still imporant regardless
  We still likley would be in the dark ages without it
  Dark age as in pre industrial revolution period

  
  
  Corporal punishment does work, but it depends on how it's done.
  
  Random violent beatings done out of anger =/= Consistently administered spankings for well defined misbehavior
• Sekwaf wrote on 2012-06-29 21:04
  Er Paladin...the time before the Industrial Revolution was the Renaissance...just sayin'.
  
  OT: I'm pretty Conservative, but I can't state how much stupidity I see in the statements my state's legislation is making. Rest assured, not all of us Texans are this stupid.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-06-29 21:07
  if they remove TAMS, they're assholes.
• Rin wrote on 2012-06-30 00:04
  Okay. Now I fear for my little sister's future.
  
  I am not going to let this happen to her. The last thing I want her to get into, is to repeat my mistake because of my parents.
  
  

  Quote from Sekwaf;897448:

  OT: I'm pretty Conservative, but I can't state how much stupidity I see in the statements my state's legislation is making. Rest assured, not all of us Texans are this stupid.

  
  
  The problem is, the previous generation of Texans living here are pretty wealthy and make it difficult to budge current politics they have interests in.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-06-30 07:12

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;897416:

  Not that public schools teach very much critical thinking in the first place...
  
  This is why we need to de-regulate education and give more control over to private schools and parents. That way, we won't have so many arguments about what to teach and what not to teach in "our" schools.

  
  This is going to cause problems. Poor people will get stuck with shitty schools/cheaper teachers while rich people get the good ones. Education is one of the only things the government should control. I'm not saying this doesn't already (kind of) happen, but the difference will become huge.
  
  Does it have bad side effects? Sure, but there's still private school, homeschooling, and whatever option you want if it's bad enough to cause a problem for someone. Complaints about how public school works have more to do with the schooling system and less to do with whether the government controls it or not.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-06-30 11:39

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;897914:

  This is going to cause problems. Poor people will get stuck with shitty schools/cheaper teachers while rich people get the good ones. Education is one of the only things the government should control. I'm not saying this doesn't already (kind of) happen, but the difference will become huge.
  
  Does it have bad side effects? Sure, but there's still private school, homeschooling, and whatever option you want if it's bad enough to cause a problem for someone. Complaints about how public school works have more to do with the schooling system and less to do with whether the government controls it or not.

  
  
  As of now, private schools and homeschooling are heavily regulated and restricted
  
  If Public Schools were abolished, and all the tax money returned to the taxpayers, then resources will be opened up for more private schools to start up. As more private schools open up, competition between the schools will force prices down and force quality up. Not only that, but all the arguments about what to teach in schools would end overnight. If a school wants to teach creation instead of evolution (and vice versa), then all it has to do is find students/parents who are willing to enroll. No need to worry about tax dollars going to fund an educational program that offends you.
  
  The only problem is the temporary transition period between the abolishing of public schools and the rise of new private schools to fill in the gap.
• rzetlin wrote on 2012-06-30 16:17

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;898007:

  As of now, private schools and homeschooling are heavily regulated and restricted
  
  If Public Schools were abolished, and all the tax money returned to the taxpayers, then resources will be opened up for more private schools to start up. As more private schools open up, competition between the schools will force prices down and force quality up. Not only that, but all the arguments about what to teach in schools would end overnight. If a school wants to teach creation instead of evolution (and vice versa), then all it has to do is find students/parents who are willing to enroll. No need to worry about tax dollars going to fund an educational program that offends you.
  
  The only problem is the temporary transition period between the abolishing of public schools and the rise of new private schools to fill in the gap.

  
  
  Poor people still have to pay for private schools regardless whatever low prices they offer.
  
  Compared to public schools where poor people have to pay $0 to enroll their students in the classroom.
  
  So the future will be students who don't have an education because they cannot pay for it or students who have the money to get whatever they can.
  
  As for the free market as the solution to the problem - how well did that work for the American banks when they failed and ended up crying for Uncle Sam for money?
  
  Because that will happen to private schools - there will be only a few dominant schools to teach the millions of students.
  
  Despite what people think, being a corporation does not make you effective and lean.
  
  The whole point of a corporation is to maximize shareholders value by any means necessary.
  
  This means firing teachers and using less supplies to try to make a profit.
  
  If they don't make a profit, these corporations will end up like the banks - crying to Uncle Sam for money because they will simply be too large to fail.
• Rin wrote on 2012-06-30 16:50

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;898007:

  As of now, private schools and homeschooling are heavily regulated and restricted
  
  If Public Schools were abolished, and all the tax money returned to the taxpayers, then resources will be opened up for more private schools to start up. As more private schools open up, competition between the schools will force prices down and force quality up. Not only that, but all the arguments about what to teach in schools would end overnight. If a school wants to teach creation instead of evolution (and vice versa), then all it has to do is find students/parents who are willing to enroll. No need to worry about tax dollars going to fund an educational program that offends you.
  
  The only problem is the temporary transition period between the abolishing of public schools and the rise of new private schools to fill in the gap.

  
  
  We already have an example of your idea.
  
  They're called "colleges and universities". Simply not the best idea to implement it to lower levels of education.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-06-30 18:21

  Quote from rzetlin;898092:

  Poor people still have to pay for private schools regardless whatever low prices they offer.
  
  Compared to public schools where poor people have to pay $0 to enroll their students in the classroom.

  
  
  Do you actually think that public school is free? Take a look at your property taxes and see if it comes out to $0.
  
  

  So the future will be students who don't have an education because they cannot pay for it or students who have the money to get whatever they can.
  

  
  
  Formal schooling =/= education
  
  A trip to the public library will more than make up for "bad" schools. Wanna learn astronomy, then go to the library and check out all the books on astronomy.
  
  

  As for the free market as the solution to the problem - how well did that work for the American banks when they failed and ended up crying for Uncle Sam for money?

  
  
  I have never supported the banker bail out, and I would not support a private school bail out either.
  
  

  Because that will happen to private schools - there will be only a few dominant schools to teach the millions of students.

  
  
  If in fact we have a free market, and if in fact we end up with a few dominant schools, then all that means is that those schools are the best competitors, and that they provide the best services at the best prices.
  
  

  Despite what people think, being a corporation does not make you effective and lean.

  
  
  Indeed corporations that receive exclusive government help (subsidies, bail outs, monopoly grants, etc.) have no need to be effective and lean. In a free market without government assistance however, businesses that are not effective go out of business
  
  

  The whole point of a corporation is to maximize shareholders value by any means necessary.

  
  
  Increase in share value is based on increase in productivity.
  
  

  This means firing teachers and using less supplies to try to make a profit.

  
  
  Fewer supplies and teachers means lower quality education which leads to lower enrollment rates which leads to lower profits.
  
  

  If they don't make a profit, these corporations will end up like the banks - crying to Uncle Sam for money because they will simply be too large to fail.

  
  
  Once again, I do not approve of Uncle Sam handing out tax dollars to corporations.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-06-30 18:33

  Quote from rzetlin;898092:

  The whole point of a corporation is to maximize shareholders value by any means necessary.

  
  That is not set in stone. It's only a cultural value, and can be done with, albeit it might be hard work. And furthermore, it is factually wrong. By far not all corporations are joint-stock companies. And even so, some of these are actually controlled by non-profit foundations or the founder's families, who often may have more refined goals than simply increasing shareholder profits.
  
  But considering that this can be abused for good purposes as much as bad purposes, it's not really an argument for either side.