In other words, 87.8 percent of U.S. families send their children to private schools v. 78.5 percent for urban public school teachers. Not much difference there, is there? Remember the optimists’ creed:

As you go through life, my friend,
whatever may be your goal,
keep your eye upon the donut,
and not upon the hole.

Besides, you are comparing apples and oranges — all US families v. urban public-school teachers. What about suburban and rural public-school school teachers?

Figures don’t lie but liars figure.

–In the urban (inner city) schools the figures are much higher:
Los Angeles – 24.5%
New York City area, 32.5%–

Are these the figures for the entire metro areas, or just the figures for the inner cities? A lot of the Los Angeles metro area is suburban. Also, though inner-city public schools tend to be inferior, inner-city residents tend to have lower incomes and are less able to afford private schools, so I am surprised that these figures are so high. However, with “gentrification,” some inner cities tend to have high-income residents — this is particularly true of the borough of Manhattan in New York City. There are so many factors that affect these figures that these figures are essentially meaningless.

–And most in Chicago, where the proposed U.S. Secretary of Education runs the district, 38.7 percent of public school teachers, versus 22.6 percent of the general public, send their children to private schools. –

So in Chicago, 77.4 percent of the general public uses the public schools v. 61.3 percent of the public school teachers. The difference doesn’t look so great now, does it? Again, I am surprised at the high figures for public school teachers – I would think that in Chicago, even inner-city school teachers would tend to live in the suburbs, where schools tend to be better and safer.

–In Washington D.C., the Heartland Institute further points out: “One of the revelations that helped pass the DC voucher legislation was the disclosure in the news media that the politicians opposing school choice in that city did not enroll their own children in District of Columbia public schools.”–

That doesn’t seem to make sense — these politicians would benefit personally from vouchers because they already send their kids to private schools, but these politicians may be so rich that this potential personal benefit doesn’t matter to them. Where they send their own kids should not have been an issue.

Also, private schools are not cheap:

–”According to the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), the median tuition for their member private day schools in 2005-2006 in the United States was close to $14,000 for grades 1 to 3, $15,000 for grades 6 to 8 and $16,600 for grades 9 to 12. The median tuition for their member boarding schools was close to $29,000 for grades 1 to 3, $32,000 for grades 6 to 12. Note that of the 28,384 private schools in the United States, about 1,058 are affiliated with NAIS. The Digest of Education Statistics 2005 from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that for the 1999-2000 school year, the average private school tuition was about $4,700.

Parochial schools generally charge less. According to the National Catholic Educational Association, in their annual statistical report in 2005-2006, the average elementary school tuition for Catholic schools (in 2005) was $2,607; the average freshman tuition (for 2002-2003) was $5,870. Catholic Schools enroll more students (49%) than any other segment of private schools. “–
– from http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/ca/197

The cost of that tuition would pay for a lot of private tutoring and extra-curricular educational enrichment (special summer camps, private music lessons, etc.).

However, maybe these tuition figures don’t tell the whole story because some private-school students may be getting scholarships or grants.

Furthermore, K-12 tuition (with some exceptions) is generally not tax-deductible (college tuition is tax-deductible).

I wonder how often the quality of the local public schools enters into the decision to attend private schools. It seems that those families that can afford private tuition can also afford to live in the better neighborhoods where the public schools tend to be better and safer. It seems that only very wealthy families would be likely to choose a private school over a good public school.

No, however, the stats on public teachers with their own children attending private schools are well known. According to the Heartland Institute and the report “Where Do Public School Teachers Send Their Kids to School?” issued by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation:

“While just 12.2 percent of U.S. families send their children to private schools, that figure rises to 17.5 percent among urban families in general and to 21.5 percent among urban public school teachers, almost twice the national average.”

In the urban (inner city) schools the figures are much higher:

Los Angeles – 24.5%
New York City area, 32.5%

And most in Chicago, where the proposed U.S. Secretary of Education runs the district, 38.7 percent of public school teachers, versus 22.6 percent of the general public, send their children to private schools.

In Washington D.C., the Heartland Institute further points out: “One of the revelations that helped pass the DC voucher legislation was the disclosure in the news media that the politicians opposing school choice in that city did not enroll their own children in District of Columbia public schools.”

Does anyone really believe in U.S. public education anymore? Perhaps only the well meaning Liberals who want to send your kids there (but not their own).

We can, however, give a big thank you to President Bush for not only keeping the U.S. safe, but leaving office with a better educational system.

I was just looking through my Amazon.com wishlist for something I could use to qualify for supersaver shipping, and lo and behold, there was:

Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science (Hardcover) by Robert Aunger

I’ve usually seen the talks on BookTV, and add those to my wishlist to await the coming of the paperback version. Would it have been more appropriate to call it “Dawkinizing” culture? Memetics is a great thought experiment that has captured the imagination of the culture and stimulated much productive research. I found it stimulating, but I’m a skeptic, who finds it difficult to avoid seeing memes at work everywhere.

“Darwinism”, “theory” and “weaknesses” — must the usual meanings of these words be abandoned in this process? They are not tainted because fundmentalists have used them, if you keep your wits about you, you can keep the words and still make distinctions relevent to the discussion. Why is there social pressure to run from using them in the humanist/freethinker/atheist subculture? You get personally attacked if you are willing to use them.

I don’t think the book is going to make it to paperback, at over $60, I’ve got 4 other things on my list that I can get for that.

No I don’t. I think it is a form of self defense. Not every religious fundy can afford private school or the premium parental investment of homeschooling. It is not suprising at all that they elect someone like Dunbar. She seems more than willing to serve, even though she homeschools, her children have to live with the products of the public education. I suspect they would be very happy to give up control in exchange for vouchers and school choice. They would be well advised to do it, because they may not win the next election, or they may be doomed to battle constantly to protect their minority views. Freedom is the best option.

On this, ag, we agree. However, discounting or dismissing facts that are a bit inconvenient to a particular religious stance should not be part of a state board of education’s agenda, as it seems to be with this one, especially including Ms. Dunbar.

Whether or not public-financed education is constitutional or not, do you not find it odd that someone who, on a religious basis, believes it is unconstitutional wants to direct its mandates? In America Ms. Dunbar is guaranteed the freedom to believe whatever she likes, but she is not guaranteed to be taken as anything but a wacko religious crackpot if she thinks her peculiar version of religion must prevail in America, and by extension, in Texas and on the Texas SBoE.

“Uneducated” peoples certainly can contribute to civilization. Native intelligence is not in question; education is. I don’t want Hank Williams, however much he may have to offer society in your opinion, teaching biology instead of someone educated in biology.

Knowledge has an annoyingly obstinate way of appearing and reappearing no matter how much zealots want to squash it in favor of their pet beliefs. Gravity doesn’t care what religion you hold. Does gravity “shove itself down the throats” of the religious anti-science crowd? Darn the luck!

TFN’s explanation is that vouchers drain money from the school system, but I’ve never seen a plan where the per student voucher was greater than per student funding in the schools, it is always less . Since the funding comes from the same pot, it isn’t likely that those benefit from the vouchers will vote against the funding It looks like the only thing threated by the funding of vouchers , is that ultimately fewer teachers may be needed in the public school sector, even though it has much more funding available per student. So even though the only constituency negatively impacted by the voucher system is the teachers union, they have still managed to defeat it?

Hopefully knowledge is about more than facts, it is also about how to learn and critically analyze facts.

Yes, I did homeschool my children. My philosophy was to take advantage of and encourage the interests of the child, and to emphasize depth of understanding over breadth, trusting that the child with the skills to master one subject will be able to master others. I avoided the “jack of all trades and master of none” type of education. Over the years, since their curiosity was turned not off by having things they weren’t interested in shoved down their throats, they did achieve some breadth.

Jefferson didn’t address whether federal funding or control of education was constitutional. If you read his quotes, he favored funding and control at the local level. He usually referred to “counties”. He opposed central control:

“If twelve or fifteen hundred schools are to be placed under one general administration, an attention so divided will amount to a dereliction of them to themselves. It is surely better, then, to place each school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct.” –Thomas Jefferson: Plan for Elementary Schools, 1817. ME 17:417

He also opposed compulsory education:

“It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father… What is proposed… is to remove the objection of expense…”

Some of his quotes that seemed to apply at the federal rather than his just speaking in generalities about what he thought best or a good idea, involved land grants. I wonder if this was the origin of our land grant institutions. Although the Federal government is give given any authority over education by the constitution, and powers not granted to it are reserved for the states and the people, something like the power to make land grants, might just follow from property rights. The legal decisions surrounding the founding of the land grant institutions and the strings that were probably attached to the grants, will probably shed light on the issues.

Since, you have an opinion on the constitutionality issue, please share your analysis, or do you just think that if you want it, it couldn’t be unconstitutional?

In my reading of history and anthropology, I’ve come to appreciate how intelligent so-called “uneducated” and “uncivilized” peoples are. All humans are descended from a long line of winners, who got their genes to the next generation. If you study Archimedes or appreciate how many different societies were able to predict eclipses, determine the equinoxes, etc, if you look at the genius required to create writing and number systems, to master bronze or iron smelting technology, to tan leather, to figure out what herbs to eat and which have medicinal value, etc, you come to appreciate that these minds of ours are not new, and it is hubris to think we are smarter than the peoples of the past. The had our minds and applied them. Taking the children from the parents and sending them to “Indian schools” to civilize them was an atrocity. A Hank Williams has as much to offer society as a biology teacher, whether Hank was familiar with evolution or not. We should have room for all this diversity. Yes, some cultures, such as wahabism are virulent and if allowed to survive, must be put on reservations or something. People should be free to leave or escape their cultures, and by corrollary, they shouldn’t be allowed to shove their cultures down other peoples throats. I don’t see how you get from “Knowledge is universal” to shoving it down other peoples throats. Jefferson was in favor of opportunity not conformity.

Did I tell you I homeschooled my children?

We’re talking about education. The dissemination of knowledge and the skills that go along with it. When it comes to education, should there be different “mainstreams” for Texas and the rest of the nation, if not the world? Is knowledge a regional thing?

Knowledge is universal. A fact in Barbados or anywhere else is the same fact in Texas. We need to align with a wider mainstream than just the one that plays in our own back yard.

“Education might be argued to be unconstitutional at the Federal level..”

Tell that to this guy: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1370.htm

And you say you home-schooled your children?

Education might be argued to be unconstitutional at the Federal level, but I know of no argument at the state level. Evidently Dunbar was relying upon scripture for her constitutional insights? Federal involvement at the federal level passes constitutional muster by exerting control via purse strings.

“Perversion” has moralistic overtones, and probably refers to the teaching of values such as political correctness and to the peer culture that dominates these age segregated factory model schools and is pressuring sexual activity at ever younger ages. The parents interests and values probably are better served by keeping homosexuality socially unacceptable, since that phenotype may reduce the likelyhood of tranmitting genes to another generation. Early sexual activity would seem to be a plus, but these young teens and preteens are probably not considered ready to make the level of parental investment that increases the odds of success, and the mate choices may not be of the highest quality at this young age. While our society’s prolonged adolescence may be unnatural, and mating generally occurred at younger ages over most of our evolution (unless maturation was delayed by nutritional issues), in those societies there was often more mature parental input into the choice of mates.

After this people respond that her views are “mainstream”, and that it’s “just a ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ kind of thing.”

And the evidence that talk radio has achieved its intended consequence keeps mounting.