I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Should it really be that close? We have one of the highest state income tax rates and Texas has the exact income tax rate of zero.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
$9K in Texas goes a lot farther than $11.5K in California.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
A better measurement would be the median rather than the average. That would show the significant difference in the funding methodology in the two states. Serrano v. Priest created the current rules of the game in California. Many states still utilize other less equitable means of determining school funding.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
There are many studies that refute the claims above about the relative quality of Texas and California schools on average. I have two granddaughters ages 6 and 12, and they go to very good schools (elementary and middle) in Pleasonton. However, I have seen their curriculum and homework. And for my liking, too much of their school time is spent on subjects like social justice, diversity, the evils of capitalism, etc. Also, I find their current methods for teaching math quite ludicrous and very difficult to understand, in spite of my extensive background in math from high school through graduate school at MIT. Too little time is spent on history and government. It's no wonder our population has become so dumbed down on the latter.sketchy9 said:Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?
I wonder if you'd even recognize political indoctrination if you saw it.sketchy9 said:Golden One said:
Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.
Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?
Golden One said:There are many studies that refute the claims above about the relative quality of Texas and California schools on average. I have two granddaughters ages 6 and 12, and they go to very good schools (elementary and middle) in Pleasonton. However, I have seen their curriculum and homework. And for my liking, too much of their school time is spent on subjects like social justice, diversity, the evils of capitalism, etc. Also, I find their current methods for teaching math quite ludicrous and very difficult to understand, in spite of my extensive background in math from high school through graduate school at MIT. Too little time is spent on history and government. It's no wonder our population has become so dumbed down on the latter.sketchy9 said:Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?
Cal84 said:
>I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.
I think what you meant to say is that the Texas public schools you encountered were superior to the California public schools you encountered.
Where I live in California, the public schools are better than the $50k/yr private schools. There's a fair inflow of families from out of state into the community and the parents are always saying how concerned they are about the school quality. My common response is "Just wait". I can remember one time, talking to a new parent who moved from Texas who was saying how her kids were in special programs when they went to Texas schools and how she wasn't impressed by the local high school. Fast forward three years and her kids weren't even in the top half of their graduating classes.
It just depends on which schools you are comparing. Taken as a whole, are Texas public schools better than California ones? Dunno. Don't care either. Didn't send my kids to 4,000 high schools in California. Sent them to one.
Personally I like Texas. Have had an awesome time every time I am down there. Wish we had a 0% state income tax and a legislature that met only once every two years. But we don't. Still chose to live in California.
How ****ing terrible.Golden One said:And for my liking, too much of their school time is spent on subjects like social justice, diversity,sketchy9 said:Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?
BearChemist said:Golden One said:There are many studies that refute the claims above about the relative quality of Texas and California schools on average. I have two granddaughters ages 6 and 12, and they go to very good schools (elementary and middle) in Pleasonton. However, I have seen their curriculum and homework. And for my liking, too much of their school time is spent on subjects like social justice, diversity, the evils of capitalism, etc. Also, I find their current methods for teaching math quite ludicrous and very difficult to understand, in spite of my extensive background in math from high school through graduate school at MIT. Too little time is spent on history and government. It's no wonder our population has become so dumbed down on the latter.sketchy9 said:Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?
Citations, not anecdotes, are still needed.
Not CA but a recent night helping my 7th grade daughter showed me an assignment which dealt with an ancient Middle East culture and city. As the text morphed from outlining an assortment of accomplishments to comparative analysis between it and Paris with the western culture called out as constantly infererior, one couldn't help but wonder about political indoctrination vs actual academics. This is the Common Core curriculum adopted by a private Catholic school.sketchy9 said:Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
I What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
I think football is uniquely dangerous and that means it has very different problems to address than say golf (cost, access as barriers to entry, etc).wifeisafurd said:
I hate to go back on topic, but colleges are going into huge debt for stadium remodels (Cal, USC, etc.) that may be fairly empty in a decade. Assuming college conference commissions are working to do something about that, and that those in the sport are looking at non- contact junior leagues (flag football) to bring kids and their parents into the game, especially from non-traditional participation groups (is there any reason Asian kids can't be active?
One thing that helped save golf, which was on decline, was being more inclusive with efforts to bring in more girls and minority players. For whatever problems Tiger has off the course and his Furdism, he helped bring incision to game and greater participation. In football art starts with changing attitudes, and great inclusion at the junior level.
tequila4kapp said:
I am merely pointing out that there is an absolute undeniable politicization of the classroom these days, it all flows in one direction and I don't remember it ever being like this when I was a kid.
If a point of view--or even a set of facts--agree with your preconceived notions, it or they are honest truth-based education. If they don't they are political indoctrination.dimitrig said:tequila4kapp said:
I am merely pointing out that there is an absolute undeniable politicization of the classroom these days, it all flows in one direction and I don't remember it ever being like this when I was a kid.
I mostly went to schools with a majority of conservative caucasian parents and I certainly remember all of the Jimmy Carter jokes like "Jimmy Peanut" and the playground song sung to the tune of the Oscar Mayer jingle which ended with "Jimmy Carter has a way of screwing up the USA!" I was in kindergarten or first grade when that all happened. Kids don't make that up on their own. I don't think we even knew what it meant. In 2nd grade Reagan was elected and most of the teachers did not hide their joy. I remember teachers who were anti-abortion doing a poor job of hiding their feelings when we discussed how certain political candidates felt about the topic with the implication that it was somehow bad if a candidate supported it.
In 4th grade was the Falkland Islands War and we studied it in great detail in class. Trust me when I say no students examined it from the Argentine point of view and I don't recall a lot of prodding from our teacher to do so.
Everything was always pro-West and pro-Judeo-Christian. It was only starting in 8th grade that I had teachers that made me question that. In 8th grade I had my first African-American - Jamaican born actually - teacher and apartheid was a big thing at the time. He exposed the class to a lot of unpleasant facts of the Civil Rights movement. Sure, we had all known about MLK but not so much about Malcolm X or the Black Panthers other than they were criminals that killed police. I had an excellent history teacher with a Ph.D. in world history who gave us reasons why maybe the much-demonized Yasser Arafat was fighting for a just cause, that the Shah of Iran wasn't necessarily a good guy, and spoke of the atrocities committed by Christopher Columbus. That is not to say that he was a communist or anything, but he gave us both sides of the story. Up until that point, I would say that I had been politically indoctrinated and that was the true beginning of my education. One reason I chose Cal was because I knew I would be exposed to more professors like that. I don't ever take people at their word, of course, but it is good to realize there are three sides to every story.
If you think that back in the day teachers and textbooks did not try to whitewash history (a form of politicization) or teachers showed bias in favor for certain political candidates or causes (like global warming; was the hole in the ozone layer back then) then you must have selective memory. Maybe it is good for your kid to know that the Eastern cultures (China, India, Persia) really were more civilized at times in history. If your kid has a brain (and you went to Cal so I hope so!) she is going to do his own thinking and form his own opinions no matter what she learned in some 7th grade class. I think the key is exposure. The more ideas we are exposed to the better decisions we make and the better opinions we form.
There are many high performing school districts in Northern California, but housing costs are prohibitive for a majority of Californians (places such as San Jose, Los Altos, Walnut Creek, etc.). There are some great school districts in Southern California (Beverly Hills, Santa Monica-Malibu, Culver City, South Pasadena, etc.) but there too costs are almost at Bay Area levels. Los Angeles has high housing costs, but the school district (largest in the state) is terrible. I know people who commute as much as two hours one way to work because they can't afford to live close to their work, which puts a strain on family life, particularly when it comes to helping children with their homework or being involved in the schoolGolden One said:There are many studies that refute the claims above about the relative quality of Texas and California schools on average. I have two granddaughters ages 6 and 12, and they go to very good schools (elementary and middle) in Pleasonton. However, I have seen their curriculum and homework. And for my liking, too much of their school time is spent on subjects like social justice, diversity, the evils of capitalism, etc. Also, I find their current methods for teaching math quite ludicrous and very difficult to understand, in spite of my extensive background in math from high school through graduate school at MIT. Too little time is spent on history and government. It's no wonder our population has become so dumbed down on the latter.sketchy9 said:Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?
Whatever floats your boat. Some people just live in perpetual denial.BearChemist said:
Citations, not anecdotes, are still needed.
Exactly! It's becoming less and less of a paradise each year. And I'm a native Californian.southseasbear said:Golden One said:sketchy9 said:
There are many high performing school districts in Northern California, but housing costs are prohibitive for a majority of Californians (places such as San Jose, Los Altos, Walnut Creek, etc.). There are some great school districts in Southern California (Beverly Hills, Santa Monica-Malibu, Culver City, South Pasadena, etc.) but there too costs are almost at Bay Area levels. Los Angeles has high housing costs, but the school district (largest in the state) is terrible. I know people who commute as much as two hours one way to work because they can't afford to live close to their work, which puts a strain on family life, particularly when it comes to helping children with their homework or being involved in the school
California has many attributes, but it's far from paradise for many.
Yes, very terrible, especially when it comes at the expense of math, science, reading, etc. education. And we wonder why we're raising a bunch of semi-illiterates who can't fill the high-tech jobs of this era. But they're great at espousing hyper liberal BS about the evils of capitallism, the oppression of people in the U.S., etc. It's all pure political indoctrination being sold as modern education.concernedparent said:How ****ing terrible.Golden One said:sketchy9 said:
And for my liking, too much of their school time is spent on subjects like social justice, diversity,
Amen!tequila4kapp said:Not CA but a recent night helping my 7th grade daughter showed me an assignment which dealt with an ancient Middle East culture and city. As the text morphed from outlining an assortment of accomplishments to comparative analysis between it and Paris with the western culture called out as constantly infererior, one couldn't help but wonder about political indoctrination vs actual academics. This is the Common Core curriculum adopted by a private Catholic school.sketchy9 said:Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
I What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Edit - I thought of more after posting the above. Social studies exploring the concept of generalizations and only using examples, with negative connotations, from our current president. English exploring a concept, which I frankly don't remember, and only using negative examples from our president. To be clear, I'm not defending Trump. I am merely pointing out that there is an absolute undeniable politicization of the classroom these days, it all flows in one direction and I don't remember it ever being like this when I was a kid.
As a public school teacher for 41 years, I'm not getting sucked int0- this exercise of generalized masturbation. However in terms of football - much easier to generalize!! haha! I just think football is going to reach an end point as other sports become more popular - for whatever reasons. It's not going to disappear. Rugby tackling is completely different and so is the game itself - so that comparison is whatever. I think many of us love football because of our own memories - and not what it is today.Golden One said:Amen!tequila4kapp said:Not CA but a recent night helping my 7th grade daughter showed me an assignment which dealt with an ancient Middle East culture and city. As the text morphed from outlining an assortment of accomplishments to comparative analysis between it and Paris with the western culture called out as constantly infererior, one couldn't help but wonder about political indoctrination vs actual academics. This is the Common Core curriculum adopted by a private Catholic school.sketchy9 said:Ah yes, political indoctrination was my favorite class in school. I was considering making a career of it. Also, the guy above you cited several statistics that showed CA is NOT in the bottom 10. Care to back up your claims?Golden One said:Yes, but it all depends where the funding is going. Texas spends a lot less on programs aimed at political indoctrination and common core type programs that aren't proving to be particularly effective. Plus living costs are a lot lower in Texas, so salaries of teachers, administrators, and general school staff personnel don't have to be as high as those in California. Effective education in the basics--reading, writing, math, history, science, etc. doesn't just depend on the dollars spent, as California educators are learning the hard way. We spend among the highest of all states, and our schools (K-12) are consistently rated among the bottom 10 among all 50 states.UrsaMajor said:Not sure when you were in Texas or where, but latest figures show California w/ $11.5K per pupil and Texas at $9K. Whether one is more superior probably depends on your criteria. Also, schools vary considerably within states.Golden One said:I've lived in both Texas (17 years) and California (54 years), and I can tell you that the quality of Texas schools (K-12) is far superior to California schools, and Texas schools are much better funded. Not sure about the rest of the South.UrsaMajor said:
I What was interesting is the decline in participation even in Texas and the Deep South. Also terrifying that a high school paid $70 million for a stadium (I guess you have the money if you don't bother and have books or hire teachers).
Edit - I thought of more after posting the above. Social studies exploring the concept of generalizations and only using examples, with negative connotations, from our current president. English exploring a concept, which I frankly don't remember, and only using negative examples from our president. To be clear, I'm not defending Trump. I am merely pointing out that there is an absolute undeniable politicization of the classroom these days, it all flows in one direction and I don't remember it ever being like this when I was a kid.
Please explain how the oppression of people in the U.S. is b.s. Please also explain how critiquing capitalism is a liberal viewpoint.Golden One said:Yes, very terrible, especially when it comes at the expense of math, science, reading, etc. education. And we wonder why we're raising a bunch of semi-illiterates who can't fill the high-tech jobs of this era. But they're great at espousing hyper liberal BS about the evils of capitallism, the oppression of people in the U.S., etc. It's all pure political indoctrination being sold as modern education.concernedparent said:How ****ing terrible.Golden One said:sketchy9 said:
And for my liking, too much of their school time is spent on subjects like social justice, diversity,
