The Santa Secret
Claire Petersky
> celebrations than Christian ones. Is there any celebration in Israel
> which materialistically mirrors the same kind of hoopla as happens here in
> the U.S. for Christmas?
Irrelevant -- Israel is a theocratic state; the US supposedly has a
separation of church and state.
> Would your qualms about all this be resolved if
> your children were to make the exact number of Stars of David as Christmas
> tree ornaments in school?
Argh. No child should be making Stars of David, Yin-Yang symbols,
crucifixes, or similar in the public schools.
I could accept it, if let's say, the 5th grade was going to study five
countries in Asia in a year, and so they did, let's say Israel, and
countries that were respectively primarily Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, and
Confusician, and as a part of their learning about these cultures, they
learned the religious symbology of each of these religions. This to me is
'way different than a first grader, let's say, shaking sprinkles on a Star
of David because a minor Jewish holiday is being promoted just because it
happens to fall near Christmas.
=====
Claire Petersky (cpet...@yahoo.com)
Please disregard ad below
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Marion Baumgarten
>
>
> I could accept it, if let's say, the 5th grade was going to study five
> countries in Asia in a year, and so they did, let's say Israel, and
> countries that were respectively primarily Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, and
> Confusician, and as a part of their learning about these cultures, they
> learned the religious symbology of each of these religions. This to me is
> 'way different than a first grader, let's say, shaking sprinkles on a Star
> of David because a minor Jewish holiday is being promoted just because it
> happens to fall near Christmas.
>
>
Actually this is pretty much my daughter's social studies cirriculum for
5th and 6th grades. They are studying world history and as part of that
learn about Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Budhism and Islam.
Including major holidays and reading some religious texts from each
religion.
Noreen Cooper
: > But, Joel, collectively for that week, more was done for Jewish
: > celebrations than Christian ones. Is there any celebration in Israel
: > which materialistically mirrors the same kind of hoopla as happens here in
: > the U.S. for Christmas?
: Irrelevant -- Israel is a theocratic state; the US supposedly has a
: separation of church and state.
<sigh> And this is a simplistic understanding of separation of church and
state taken out of historical context. I'm not going to rehash the
arguments of last year but whose God was evoked during the signing of the
Constitution during each congressional session?
: > Would your qualms about all this be resolved if
: > your children were to make the exact number of Stars of David as Christmas
: > tree ornaments in school?
: Argh. No child should be making Stars of David, Yin-Yang symbols,
: crucifixes, or similar in the public schools.
You did not address my point, Claire, that by making Stars of David
there's an opportunity for a cultural exchange which probably wouldn't
take place otherwise. Craftmaking is a principal duty of kindergarteners.
Christmas is a big time of year for Christian children. Christian
children usually make up the majority in public schools, not everywhere,
but in large segments of this country. I am so pleased my son gets to
decorate a Christmas ornament to hang on our tree and I don't mind that he
learns not everyone celebrates Christmas by decorating Stars of David,
etc. We probably will have to agree to disagree on this one. We can
always check www.deja.com if we need to review last year's arguments.
No need to worry for this year my son is exactly in a school -- happily
learning and playing -- that I'd want him to be in. All the rest is
theoretical. (And, yes, I was relieved to see Christmas fun was still
part of his December).
Noreen
Claire Petersky
> there's an opportunity for a cultural exchange which probably wouldn't
> take place otherwise.
If your son was in my daughter's K class, he would have had the chance to
decorate a sukkah. Then he would have learned about a more important Jewish
holiday than Chanuka, in the context of a fall K theme of "Harvest". Maybe
he would have have made a connection to the American Thanksgiving, and the
festival of Ch'usok, since there's some Korean kids in the class too,
although the level of abstract connection the kids make at this age really
varies.
I have done a Jewish holiday that's fun for kids each year in my kid's
public school, in the context of "here's something we do we'd like to
share". I know it would probably bug the more religious of Jews, but I
present the holiday with its cultural elements and strip it of its religious
ones, which I feel are inappropriate to the public schools. Food, games, the
"story" of the holiday, related craft projects -- I think these are all
fine. It is worth it to take a day off from work to do this sort of thing
because the kids remember it -- when a kid in our neighborhood, Kelly,
helped me and my kids haul the sukkah frame down to the school, he reflected
on the Sukkot presentation I did for his K class two years ago, and the
Purim one I did for his 1st grade class the year before.
I am also pleased when kids with families from other religious or cultural
traditions present something about what they do -- Vincent's mom is doing
something about his family's Mexican Christmas traditions this week in
Emma's K class, which is fine with me. When holidays are presented in the
context of "this is what my family does" rather than, "this is everyone here
does", it eases the hegemony of the dominant culture.
The point you missed -- what I find so irritating about the tokenism of
having K kids "do Chanuka" is that the only reason why it happens is because
Chanuka happens to fall near Xmas. If it didn't, it would be ignored. This
puts Chanuka into competition with Christmas. It's an unfair competition, in
which Chanuka is bound to be second-best, and reinforces the superiority of
the majority's culture.
Susan Cohen
Claire Petersky wrote:
> The point you missed -- what I find so irritating about the tokenism of
> having K kids "do Chanuka" is that the only reason why it happens is because
> Chanuka happens to fall near Xmas. If it didn't, it would be ignored. This
> puts Chanuka into competition with Christmas. It's an unfair competition, in
> which Chanuka is bound to be second-best, and reinforces the superiority of
> the majority's culture.
Heck, I don;t care that it's pointed out that Jews are a minority,
or that Chanukah "isna;t as fun as Xmas". I just tell my daughter
that we have Purim and Sukkos and the Xian kids don't.
It's the total misrepresentation of the holiday that gets me.
If non-Jews knew what Chanukah was all about, some of them
would be very offended. The rest of them would instantly
understand exactly why it is 110% inappropriate to "celebrate"
it as a "Jewish Xmas."
Susan
Susan Cohen
Noreen Cooper wrote:
> Claire Petersky (cpet...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> : > But, Joel, collectively for that week, more was done for Jewish
> : > celebrations than Christian ones. Is there any celebration in Israel
> : > which materialistically mirrors the same kind of hoopla as happens here in
> : > the U.S. for Christmas?
>
> : Irrelevant -- Israel is a theocratic state; the US supposedly has a
> : separation of church and state.
>
> <sigh> And this is a simplistic understanding of separation of church and
> state taken out of historical context.
By you, it seems.
> I'm not going to rehash the
> arguments of last year but whose God was evoked during the signing of the
> Constitution
Not yours. It was a generic, thank you.
> during each congressional session?
Only when they could get away with it.
I know the fundies have opposed getting other minsisters,
but that's been done as well.
> : > Would your qualms about all this be resolved if
> : > your children were to make the exact number of Stars of David as Christmas
> : > tree ornaments in school?
>
> : Argh. No child should be making Stars of David, Yin-Yang symbols,
> : crucifixes, or similar in the public schools.
>
> You did not address my point, Claire, that by making Stars of David
> there's an opportunity for a cultural exchange which probably wouldn't
> take place otherwise.
Which opportunity is not - in fact, *cannot* be adequately used
when carried out under an inadequate istructor, as most public
school teachers are (and which they should be - it's not their
business to be teaching religion in schools).
> Craftmaking is a principal duty of kindergarteners.
> Christmas is a big time of year for Christian children. Christian
> children usually make up the majority in public schools, not everywhere,
> but in large segments of this country.
So you are still saying "We're the majority, the rest of you better
learn to like it."
> I am so pleased my son gets to
> decorate a Christmas ornament to hang on our tree
I'm sure you are. But why you wouldn't be just as pleased if he
did so at home is beyond me. Why he's got to do this in public
school would mystify me if I hadn't seen this attitude before -
ad nauseum.
> and I don't mind that he learns not everyone celebrates Christmas by decorating
> Stars of David,
> etc.
How condescending of you.
> We probably will have to agree to disagree on this one. We can
> always check www.deja.com if we need to review last year's arguments.
>
> No need to worry for this year my son is exactly in a school -- happily
> learning and playing -- that I'd want him to be in. All the rest is
> theoretical. (And, yes, I was relieved to see Christmas fun was still
> part of his December).
So you abdicated your parental responsibility to the school?
I can't help but wonder if this isn't where all the fervor comes from.
Is this why you're so adamant about it being in school where it
doesn't belong instead of just in your home?
Susan
Joel Rosenberg
> > No need to worry for this year my son is exactly in a school -- happily
> > learning and playing -- that I'd want him to be in. All the rest is
> > theoretical. (And, yes, I was relieved to see Christmas fun was still
> > part of his December).
>
> So you abdicated your parental responsibility to the school?
> I can't help but wonder if this isn't where all the fervor comes from.
> Is this why you're so adamant about it being in school where it
> doesn't belong instead of just in your home?
>
As I understand it, some parents take the position that, in effect,
their particular version of Christianity is not primarily a home- or
church-based religion, but that the supposedly secular public schools,
supported by both Christians and nonbelievers, perform a vital
religious need. (The need seems to be more colonial and imperialistic
than anything else, and running into that is not new in the Jewish
experience.)
And, to a certain extent, I can understand that. If you take the
position that this is a Christian nation, it's understandable that you
would want the public schools to help instill various Christian
religious practices and values.
There is, though, that pesky Bill of Rights . . . but, in many cases,
it can be ignored, apparently.
Naomi Lynne Pardue
> decorate a Christmas ornament to hang on our tree and I don't mind that he
> learns not everyone celebrates Christmas by decorating Stars of David,
> etc. We probably will have to agree to disagree on this one. We can
> always check www.deja.com if we need to review last year's arguments.
You still have not told me exactly what he learned by making a Star of
David. Beyond the vague notion that it's a "Jewish symbol", what was
the educational value? If there was no educational value, how was
it better than making a sparkly blue Blue-Jay, (a good winter symbol, as
one of the few birds that dont' migrate)?
Naomi
Fred Rosenblatt
<jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
Does the fact that a religious holiday ("christ" is a religious term
in Greek, isn't it?) is also a national holiday prove that the holiday
is in fact also secular, or on the contrary prove that the nation has
in fact an official state religion?
H Schinske
>You still have not told me exactly what he learned by making a Star of
>David. Beyond the vague notion that it's a "Jewish symbol", what was
>the educational value? If there was no educational value, how was
>it better than making a sparkly blue Blue-Jay, (a good winter symbol, as
>one of the few birds that dont' migrate)?
Good point. It reminds me that in my family, we used to have a little Star of
David made out of straw that went on the Christmas tree. I asked my mother
about it one year, when I was at the stage to ask a lot of theological
questions, and she said she didn't know where it came from (that specific
ornament, I mean, not the symbol), but that if I just had to attach meaning to
it, I could think about Jesus being a Jew, and of the house and lineage of
David. So that's where a Christian might go with seeing a Star of David in the
middle of a lot of Christmas stuff.
I went on confusing it with the star over Bethlehem anyway, and wondering if
that one had six points or five.
Did you know that Hanukkah is mentioned in the New Testament? It's in John
10:22, I think (the Feast of the Dedication). Unfortunately it doesn't mention
anything about how it was celebrated, it's only a reference to the date that
something else happened.
--Helen
Noreen Cooper
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: >You still have not told me exactly what he learned by making a Star of
: >David. Beyond the vague notion that it's a "Jewish symbol", what was
: >the educational value? If there was no educational value, how was
: >it better than making a sparkly blue Blue-Jay, (a good winter symbol, as
: >one of the few birds that dont' migrate)?
: Good point. It reminds me that in my family, we used to have a little Star of
: David made out of straw that went on the Christmas tree. I asked my mother
: about it one year, when I was at the stage to ask a lot of theological
: questions, and she said she didn't know where it came from (that specific
: ornament, I mean, not the symbol), but that if I just had to attach meaning to
: it, I could think about Jesus being a Jew, and of the house and lineage of
: David. So that's where a Christian might go with seeing a Star of David in the
: middle of a lot of Christmas stuff.
Naomi, had we discussed the significance of the Star of David in class,
wouldn't that constitute bringing "religion" into the class. No, the
significance was not discussed other than to point out it was a Jewish
symbol. Likewise, the significance of reindeer and pine trees aren't
discussed in a religious context because they are secular symbols.
As I watched my 5yo son decorate the Star of David among a variety of
other crafts, and as he is totally clueless as to what the Star
symbolizes, I figured this great harm public schools are inflicting on
Jewish children by including secular reindeer, Santa, and pine tree
decorating existed mostly in the minds of their parents. We're no longer
in the 50's. Christians have been more sensitive to those who don't
celebrate Christmas or we wouldn't be going around saying "Happy
Holidays" when the chances are 8 out of 10 that were we to say "Merry
Christmas" to a stranger, we'd be hitting the mark.
So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
festival activities out of the classroom? Were we to resort to circle
cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles were
brought in. From my standpoint, although the Jewish parents of
school-aged children may have been injured by a less tolerant, less
multi-cultural attitude in public schools during the 50's and 60's, I see
far more inclusiveness these days. And so the choices are either
multi-culturalism, which in my mind is the true meaning of the melting
pot, or a sterile environment where everyone is walking on pins and
needles, trying not to offend anyone. I see it as a difference between a
positive freedom (to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas) or a
negative freedom (don't you dare let your child do something which is
against my religion).
Noreen
Joel Rosenberg
>
> Does the fact that a religious holiday ("christ" is a religious term
> in Greek, isn't it?) is also a national holiday prove that the holiday
> is in fact also secular, or on the contrary prove that the nation has
> in fact an official state religion?
The latter, but less so than it used to be, particularly since the
landmark Lemon vs. Kurtman case in 1971.
It was, in memory of folks still living, commonplace for Christian
prayers to be foisted upon children in the public schools, by the
administration of the public schools. While that's rare, it's by no
means unknown these days -- see
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n090100.html -- but it's primarily
weaseled in at extracurricular activities rather than as part of the
everyday public school program.
But, of course, it's not just done that way; see
http://www.aclu.org/news/n060396a.html.
Joel GAzis-SAx
[snipped]
>symbol. Likewise, the significance of reindeer and pine trees aren't
>discussed in a religious context because they are secular symbols.
>As I watched my 5yo son decorate the Star of David among a variety of
>other crafts, and as he is totally clueless as to what the Star
>symbolizes, I figured this great harm public schools are inflicting on
>Jewish children by including secular reindeer, Santa, and pine tree
>decorating existed mostly in the minds of their parents. We're no longer
[snipped]
You can call them secular all you like (and I'll agree that they are secular,
relative to, say, a crucifix, or when judged by a standard of whether they are
an obligatory religious practice for any Christian sect, or whether they are
really useful tools for teaching Christian children about their religion in
Sunday school). But they are still plenty associated with a Christian
holiday, and it is no more irrationally narrow-minded for Jews to wish their
children not to be obliged to participate in activities associated with
another religion's holiday than it was for the sainted Polycarp to choose
martyrdom over a mere pinch of incense to the Emperor. I'd call it, rather,
both in Jews and in St. Polycarp, an admirable devotion to one God.
I also suspect that people who have actually *been* Jewish children have a
better grasp on how Jewish children feel than you or I.
>So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
>festival activities out of the classroom? Were we to resort to circle
A start would be offering a completely secular (not just half-secular)
alternative, and offering it up front, so small children don't have to take
the initiative to ask not to be obliged to do things which are contrary to
their religion. Some of the Jewish posters have even indicated that they'd be
satisfied with just having the alternative (though some might still want
Christmas activities out of public schools altogether).
>cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles were
>brought in. From my standpoint, although the Jewish parents of
[snipped]
What's wrong with red, green, blue, yellow, and white sprinkles, with children
selecting any combination they like for those circle cookies? Or evergreen
trees, reindeer, trucks, dinosaurs, elephants, and turtles?
When you have offered alternative which you would like, it has been in terms
of adding more Chanukah activities, or activites for another Jewish holiday,
or adding more religions to the mix. But that still leaves a set of activites
which all children are expected to participate in (or go out of their way to
request an exemption) which are associated with another religion.
I'm all in favor of education about other religions, even for small children.
In the Meeting which I attended with Tom, before I relocated elsewhere, over
the course of different years we taught children about Chanukah and Passover,
let a neighboring organization use our grounds for a Sukkah, and one year had
lesson units covering Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. But I think comparative
religion for small children in the public schools is probably a trickier
balance to strike than in a Friends Meeting, and I am *not* in favor of the
kind of learning about other religion which involves children being expected,
in the public schools, to *participate* in activites associated with another
religion.
>needles, trying not to offend anyone. I see it as a difference between a
>positive freedom (to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas) or a
>negative freedom (don't you dare let your child do something which is
>against my religion).
>
>Noreen
>
Nobody's saying "Don't you dare let your child do something which is against
my religion." They are saying, "Don't you dare *ask my child* to do something
which is against my religion." I don't think that an unreasonable request.
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://www.notfrisco.com or http://www.alsirat.com
Susan Cohen
Noreen Cooper wrote:
> As I watched my 5yo son decorate the Star of David among a variety of
> other crafts, and as he is totally clueless as to what the Star
> symbolizes, I figured this great harm public schools are inflicting on
> Jewish children by including secular reindeer, Santa, and pine tree
> decorating existed mostly in the minds of their parents.
The fact that your son is totally clueless as to what teh Star of
David means is yet another reason why it should not be done
in a public school. And the fact that you miss this is just as telling
as the fact that you still insist that mixing Xmas decorations into
regular crafts projects isn't harmful - it's part & parcel of the same
thing.
> We're no longer
> in the 50's. Christians have been more sensitive to those who don't
> celebrate Christmas or we wouldn't be going around saying "Happy
> Holidays" when the chances are 8 out of 10 that were we to say "Merry
> Christmas" to a stranger, we'd be hitting the mark.
>
> So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
> festival activities out of the classroom?
You stop when they're all gone.
> Were we to resort to circle
> cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles were
> brought in.
You may, indeed, hear somplaints of this nature - especially
if it were *just* red & green sprinkles, and no purple or
yellow (for out-of-the-air instances).
> From my standpoint, although the Jewish parents of
> school-aged children may have been injured by a less tolerant, less
> multi-cultural attitude in public schools during the 50's and 60's, I see
> far more inclusiveness these days.
If you count badly placed tokenism as inclusiveness, yes.
But the point is that *none* of it should be in the schools.
> And so the choices are either
> multi-culturalism, which in my mind is the true meaning of the melting
> pot, or a sterile environment where everyone is walking on pins and
> needles, trying not to offend anyone.
Or, the choices are a thinly-veiled tokenism where the minority
is still inundated with the majority religion & their own ideals
marginalized, or an enivronment actually conducive to
SCHOOL WORK!!! (I can't believe how much some of the
posters have lost sight of this as the ultimate goal of being in
school!
> I see it as a difference between a
> positive freedom (to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas) or a
> negative freedom (don't you dare let your child do something which is
> against my religion).
Yes, you've made it clear that you think foisting Xmas on non-Xians
as good, and having Xians keep their religion to themselves in a
totally secular setting as bad.
Susan
Leah Adezio
Noreen Cooper wrote in message <91ga3j$bsbj$1...@hades.csu.net>...
>I figured this great harm public schools are inflicting on
>Jewish children by including secular reindeer, Santa, and pine tree
>decorating existed mostly in the minds of their parents.
And how would you *possibly* know that? You don't know what our children
are coming home and telling us about their feelings.
> We're no longer
>in the 50's.
Darn tootin'....but these things are still happening *today*. Last time I
had to have a specific conversation with a teacher about this was 1997. My
son's band concert on Dec. 7, *2000* featured 'Good King Wencenslas' as one
of the selections....he certainly doesn't know what the 'Feast of Stephen'
is.
> Christians have been more sensitive to those who don't
>celebrate Christmas or we wouldn't be going around saying "Happy
>Holidays" when the chances are 8 out of 10 that were we to say "Merry
>Christmas" to a stranger, we'd be hitting the mark.
And your point is?
>
>So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
>festival activities out of the classroom? Were we to resort to circle
>cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles were
>brought in. From my standpoint, although the Jewish parents of
>school-aged children may have been injured by a less tolerant, less
>multi-cultural attitude in public schools during the 50's and 60's, I see
>far more inclusiveness these days.
Yeah, that's why my children used to come home, after being innundated with
Christmas activities in public school, and tell me that they'd 'rather be
Christian so they could have Christmas, too.' I'm sure your child hasn't
come home and told you he'd rather be Jewish because he made *one* Mogen
David with sparkles on it.
>And so the choices are either
>multi-culturalism, which in my mind is the true meaning of the melting
>pot, or a sterile environment where everyone is walking on pins and
>needles, trying not to offend anyone.
First of all, you have to *stop* confusing 'multi-cultural' with *religion*.
I've given numerous examples of what might constitute 'multi-cultural'
versus 'religion'....I don't think I could be clearer if I tried. *sigh*
> I see it as a difference between a
>positive freedom (to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas) or a
>negative freedom (don't you dare let your child do something which is
>against my religion).
Whereas I see it as not 'secular' at all. Unless I start seeing Santas
bringing gifts on Flag Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, or Valentine's Day, you
simply *cannot* say that these elements are secular at all, despite all your
shouting that they are. Again -- they may not be Christian iconic symbols,
but if you really believe that these elements are not tied in with the
holiday of Christmas, then I'm not sure what to say. (Actually, I do, but I
don't want this post to be rejected.)
Leah
Banty
>>needles, trying not to offend anyone. I see it as a difference between a
>>positive freedom (to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas) or a
>>negative freedom (don't you dare let your child do something which is
>>against my religion).
>>
>>Noreen
>>
>
>Nobody's saying "Don't you dare let your child do something which is against
>my religion." They are saying, "Don't you dare *ask my child* to do something
>which is against my religion." I don't think that an unreasonable request.
>
>--
>Lynn Gazis-Sax
Well, I don't quite read the discussion that way (to say the least..).
But...to see where this is really going.....is there a viable modus vivendi
wherein participatory Xmas activities, secular or not, are cut way back and
totally non, um associated with a group, activities always be available as
alternatives, whilst not requiring that Christmas celebrants of all creeds,
or no particular creed, not be required to check their festival in at the
doors of the school? Can, for instance, celebrating teachers, students
and staff decorate the hallways?
Banty
Joel Rosenberg
>
> When you have offered alternative which you would like, it has been in terms
> of adding more Chanukah activities, or activites for another Jewish holiday,
> or adding more religions to the mix.
Yup; and that's been the consistent position of those who insist on
trying to foist their religion on kids in the public schools --
they're trying, consistently, to negotiate the payoff, in other
religious activities, for continuing to (out of perhaps the holiest of
motives) trying to foist their religion on kids in the public
schools.
Tampamom
> discussed in a religious context because they are secular symbols.
> As I watched my 5yo son decorate the Star of David among a variety of
> other crafts, and as he is totally clueless as to what the Star
> symbolizes, I figured this great harm public schools are inflicting
on
> Jewish children by including secular reindeer, Santa, and pine tree
> decorating existed mostly in the minds of their parents.
You really don't have a clue about that...my son, and friends of his
who also happen to be Jewish feel very put upon being read to by "Mrs.
Claus" and asked to make Thank You cards on X mas tree cut-outs.
We're no longer
> in the 50's. Christians have been more sensitive to those who don't
> celebrate Christmas or we wouldn't be going around saying "Happy
> Holidays" when the chances are 8 out of 10 that were we to say "Merry
> Christmas" to a stranger, we'd be hitting the mark.
>
> So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
> festival activities out of the classroom? Were we to resort to circle
> cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles
were
> brought in. From my standpoint, although the Jewish parents of
> school-aged children may have been injured by a less tolerant, less
> multi-cultural attitude in public schools during the 50's and 60's, I
see
> far more inclusiveness these days.
That depends entirely upon where you happen to live. I was brought up
in New York City during the 60's. No holiday associated with ANY
religion was ever discussed in public school. At our Winter party and
during the weeks prior, we cut out snowflakes, snowmen, mittens,
scarves, and made bird feeders for those birds who didn't migrate etc.
We made dioramas with cotton for snow, we made snow globes out of baby
food jars etc. These are crafts w/ no holiday association religious or
secular. Reindeer (especially those w/ red noses), Evergreen trees
(with lights &/or ornaments), and red and green decorations (to the
exclusion of other colors) are without question tied to Christmas.
Here in Florida however, even though we are in the year 2000, we have
umpteen worksheets, art projects, end of year gifts etc with a
decidedly Christmas flavor. I am usually requested to come in each
year to "do" Chanukah but it is a far cry from assuaging the discomfort
my son feels each time he is asked to do yet another Christmas craft.
In fact, it only serves to further emphasize the fact that he is a
minority, just as the well-meaning kindergarten teacher did when the
entire class was making Santa Clauses and she gave him blue and white
paper (instead of red and white) so that he could make "Chanukah Man"
(!!!)
And so the choices are either
> multi-culturalism, which in my mind is the true meaning of the melting
> pot, or a sterile environment where everyone is walking on pins and
> needles, trying not to offend anyone. I see it as a difference
between a
> positive freedom (to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas) or a
> negative freedom (don't you dare let your child do something which is
> against my religion).
Regardless of whether they are considered "secular" aspects of
Christmas, they still remain aspects of Christmas...a VERY religious
holiday and in my opinion while creating no problems in a X-tian
school; still can be problematic in a public school with diverse
religious backgrounds.
Marion-------Tampamom to Louis(7.5) and Erica(3.5)
--
Tomorrow is a mystery
Yesterday is history
Today is a gift...that's why it's called "The Present"
All children are gifted. Some just haven't opened their packages yet.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Joel Rosenberg
> Can, for instance, celebrating teachers, students
> and staff decorate the hallways?
Why is it necessary to conflate the students and state functionaries
in your question?
Joel Rosenberg
> > So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
> > festival activities out of the classroom?
>
> You stop when they're all gone.
Yup. And the sooner the better.
Naomi Lynne Pardue
> Naomi, had we discussed the significance of the Star of David in class,
> wouldn't that constitute bringing "religion" into the class.
There wouldn't be a problem, since it is entirely acceptable to teach
ABOUT religion in public schools.
No, the
> significance was not discussed other than to point out it was a Jewish
> symbol.
So it was a pointless exercise in tokenism.
Likewise, the significance of reindeer and pine trees aren't
> discussed in a religious context because they are secular symbols.
And because, presumably, the children in the class already KNEW how
decorated trees and flying reindeer relate to the celebration of
Christmas. (I'm guessing that trees and reindeer were not included out
of a sudden interest in botony and zoology.)
> decorating existed mostly in the minds of their parents. We're no longer
> in the 50's. Christians have been more sensitive to those who don't
> celebrate Christmas or we wouldn't be going around saying "Happy
> Holidays" when the chances are 8 out of 10 that were we to say "Merry
> Christmas" to a stranger, we'd be hitting the mark.
And the other 2 out of 10 don't count? I took Shaina to the pediatrician
this morning for her check-up. The doctor ALMOST asked her about her
plans for Christmas, then remembered and amended it to 'holidays' and
'break from school.' But the nurses and the receptionist ALL wished us
a merry Christmas, asked her about Christmas, and so on. Why would it be
SO hard to have simply avoided the subject entirely and asked about
school break, the weather, or some other nuetral topic?
> So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
> festival activities out of the classroom?
When you stop celebrating 'christmas' and assuming that, by changing the
name to 'holiday', it makes it suddenly ok.
Were we to resort to circle
> cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles were
> brought in.
If ONLY green and red sprinkles were brought in, perhaps. But if half a
dozen colors were brought in, so kids could decorate as they pleased, why
would anyone object?
From my standpoint, although the Jewish parents of
> school-aged children may have been injured by a less tolerant, less
> multi-cultural attitude in public schools during the 50's and 60's, I see
> far more inclusiveness these days.
Yes, there is more. But much of it is still tokenism, and the needs of
all students would be better served by removing ALL religious holiday
references,
and sticking to neutral ones like 'winter' and New Years.
Naomi
Susan Cohen
Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote:
> Noreen Cooper <nco...@wahoo.csu.net> wrote:
> > Naomi, had we discussed the significance of the Star of David in class,
> > wouldn't that constitute bringing "religion" into the class.
>
> There wouldn't be a problem, since it is entirely acceptable to teach
> ABOUT religion in public schools.
But it's not always entirely appropriate, given certain age levels
and competence levels of teachers.
As an illustration to the level of knowledge of the average teacher:
I remember a home-ec teacher when I was about 15 or 16
saying "The only difference betwen kosher meat & non-kosher
meat is that the rabbi blesses it." & boy was she mad when I
told her this was absolutely not true! And when I tried to explain
just what the difference was, she told me to stop disrupting the
class! By that age, I was confident enough to tell her that if she
hadn't brought it up, and incorrectly, I would never have had to
say anything in the first place. It was one of the few times in
my life when I not only wanted to have been sent to the office,
but knew darned well she would never have sent me.
[snip excellent observations of Naomi's]
> > decorating existed mostly in the minds of their parents. We're no longer
> > in the 50's. Christians have been more sensitive to those who don't
> > celebrate Christmas or we wouldn't be going around saying "Happy
> > Holidays" when the chances are 8 out of 10 that were we to say "Merry
> > Christmas" to a stranger, we'd be hitting the mark.
>
> And the other 2 out of 10 don't count? I took Shaina to the pediatrician
> this morning for her check-up. The doctor ALMOST asked her about her
> plans for Christmas, then remembered and amended it to 'holidays' and
> 'break from school.' But the nurses and the receptionist ALL wished us
> a merry Christmas, asked her about Christmas, and so on. Why would it be
> SO hard to have simply avoided the subject entirely and asked about
> school break, the weather, or some other nuetral topic?
I have to admit that I'm not nearly as upset about the average
stranger wishing me Merry Xmas - tho' I have to confess to
already having deliberately answering someone "Happy Chanukah"
when I *knew* it wasn't appropriate :-{ (In my own defense, I
felt he was pretty in-my-face about Xmas)
In fact, I like it that my child already knows that we aren't Xian
and don't celebrate Xmas - and is ready to tell people - since
the age of *two*!
People in public are going to behave any way they like.
It's just that *in schools*, where parents are supposed to have
some input, & which are supposed to be geared for *all* that
religiously related paraphenalia is not only unnecessary, but
intrusive. The kids have to be taught *reading* and *math*
for cryin' out loud!!
Susan
MarjiG
<npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> So where do we stop in accommodating your request to rid all December
>> festival activities out of the classroom?
>
>When you stop celebrating 'christmas' and assuming that, by changing the
>name to 'holiday', it makes it suddenly ok.
>
> Were we to resort to circle
>> cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles were
>> brought in.
>
>If ONLY green and red sprinkles were brought in, perhaps. But if half a
>dozen colors were brought in, so kids could decorate as they pleased, why
>would anyone object?
You answered your own question. No matter what changes are made, everything
done in December will be suspect, because "everyone knows it's really for
Christmas."
When some kids choose to use only red or green sprinkles, or one happens to
say, "I'm going to give this to Mom for Christmas" the whole activity will be
tainted and have to be stopped.
-Marjorie
Mom to Sarah (8.5) and Carys (6!)
Joel Rosenberg
> > festival activities out of the classroom?
>
> When you stop celebrating 'christmas' and assuming that, by changing the
> name to 'holiday', it makes it suddenly ok.
Yup. That's what's so frustrating to those who want to engage in the
maskirovka: we're just not buying it.
Fred Rosenblatt
<jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
Well, they haven't sweetened the offer enough yet - give me vouchers,
and I'm outahere - do what you want in public school, and Joel you're
on your own.
Joel Rosenberg
> all students would be better served by removing ALL religious holiday
> references,
> and sticking to neutral ones like 'winter' and New Years.
>
One quibble: I don't think that celebrating New Years is neutral --
ditto for Presidents Day, MLK Day, the 4th, Veterans Day, etc.
What they are, though, are secular, and entirely appropriate for the
public schools to celebrate, unlike Ramadan, Christmas, and Yom
Kippur.
Joel Rosenberg
>
> You answered your own question. No matter what changes are made, everything
> done in December will be suspect, because "everyone knows it's really for
> Christmas."
No, nobody has alleged that teaching, say, math in December is really
for Christmas. No, nobody has alleged that teaching, say, grammar in
December is "really for Christmas". No, nobody has alleged that
teaching, say, pottery in December is "really for Christmas". No,
nobody has alleged that teaching, say, pushups in December is really
for Christmas. No, nobody has alleged that teaching, say, physics in
December is "really for Christmas". No, nobody has alleged that
teaching, say, chemistry in December is "really for Christmas".
Hope this helps.
Nick Theodorakis
fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
[...]
>
> Well, they haven't sweetened the offer enough yet - give me vouchers,
> and I'm outahere - do what you want in public school, and Joel you're
> on your own.
>
IMO, one flaw in (some, many, most?) school voucher proposals is that
they don't do enough to help the really needy. If you give a poor
parent a $2000 voucher for her child to attend a private school for
which the tuition is $10000, are you really helping her? Or are you
just subsidizing the parents who could probably afford it anyway?
Nick
(apologizing for the non-Santa content of this post)
--
_______________________________________________
Nick Theodorakis
nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu
Fred Rosenblatt
>
>I have to admit that I'm not nearly as upset about the average
>stranger wishing me Merry Xmas - tho' I have to confess to
>already having deliberately answering someone "Happy Chanukah"
>when I *knew* it wasn't appropriate :-{ (In my own defense, I
>felt he was pretty in-my-face about Xmas)
I suspect that that person, like many participants in this thread,
wouldn't even mind being told "Happy Chanukah". They would merely
see it as you focusing on your holiday like they focus on theirs.
It's the original Greek notion of adding and idol to the Temple and
joining in the fun. They, too, could honestly not understand what
all the fuss was about.
>In fact, I like it that my child already knows that we aren't Xian
>and don't celebrate Xmas - and is ready to tell people - since
>the age of *two*!
>
>People in public are going to behave any way they like.
>It's just that *in schools*, where parents are supposed to have
>some input, & which are supposed to be geared for *all* that
>religiously related paraphenalia is not only unnecessary, but
>intrusive. The kids have to be taught *reading* and *math*
>for cryin' out loud!!
And, while you can make a conscious decision to keep your children away
from the mall or even the supermarket during this season, the state
mandates that they attend school.
>
>Susan
Joel Rosenberg
> And, while you can make a conscious decision to keep your children away
> from the mall or even the supermarket during this season, the state
> mandates that they attend school.
But, of course, if one doesn't like having Christianity foisted on
one's kids in and by the public schools, one is perfectly free to send
them to private schools that don't do such things.
And the law, in its majestic equality, equally prohibits the rich and
the poor from sleeping under bridges.
Susan Cohen
MarjiG wrote:
> In article <91lc10$gme$8...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Naomi Lynne Pardue
> <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> >
> > Were we to resort to circle
> >> cookies, I'm sure someone would protest if green and red sprinkles were
> >> brought in.
> >
> >If ONLY green and red sprinkles were brought in, perhaps. But if half a
> >dozen colors were brought in, so kids could decorate as they pleased, why
> >would anyone object?
>
> You answered your own question. No matter what changes are made, everything
> done in December will be suspect, because "everyone knows it's really for
> Christmas."
What part of "if all colors were brought in and not just red & green"
didn't you understand? I'm serious, here.
Of course, if you insist that all special December activities are really
for Xmas, I'll agree with you to eliminate them all.
> When some kids choose to use only red or green sprinkles, or one happens to
> say, "I'm going to give this to Mom for Christmas" the whole activity will be
> tainted and have to be stopped.
You've been missing everything that has been said.
It's when THE TEACHER says only to use red & green
& make it for Mom for Xmas that the trouble starts.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Nick Theodorakis wrote:
> In article <fredr5-1812...@mac99124170840.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > Well, they haven't sweetened the offer enough yet - give me vouchers,
> > and I'm outahere - do what you want in public school, and Joel you're
> > on your own.
> >
>
> IMO, one flaw in (some, many, most?) school voucher proposals is that
> they don't do enough to help the really needy. If you give a poor
> parent a $2000 voucher for her child to attend a private school for
> which the tuition is $10000, are you really helping her? Or are you
> just subsidizing the parents who could probably afford it anyway?
This has been my argument, only to have numbers thrown at me
which insist that it really does help - as far as I can remember, it
had something to do with the same amount of tax money being
spent in the schools on less children. However, these people didn't
tell me where all the money was coming from.
It's pretty stupid to make people pay school taxes if they're just going
to turn around & give the money back in the form of vouchers - that
only creates more work - more waste/money spent!! - and chaos!!
> Nick
> (apologizing for the non-Santa content of this post)
hee-hee
(Hey, I could manage to put it back in with how I think the whole
idea was thought up in order to funnel public money into Xian
religious schools....!)
Susan
MarjiG
>
>In fact, I like it that my child already knows that we aren't Xian
>and don't celebrate Xmas - and is ready to tell people - since
>the age of *two*!
>
It would be much better if he'd tell people, he doesn't celebrate Christmas
because he is Jewish, or because his religion forbids it.
There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas. I
think a great many people will be puzzled by his statement as given, since they
are likely not Christians either, but they don't have any problem celebrating
it.
Elizabeth Gardner
<ka...@scconsult.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:36:04 EST, Nick Theodorakis
> <nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
> > IMO, one flaw in (some, many, most?) school voucher proposals is that
> > they don't do enough to help the really needy. If you give a poor
> > parent a $2000 voucher for her child to attend a private school for
> > which the tuition is $10000, are you really helping her? Or are you
> > just subsidizing the parents who could probably afford it anyway?
>
> The proposal that was just defeated here in Michigan would have given
> parents half the standard allocation public schools receive in per-pupil
> funding, so each voucher would have been worth somewhere between $3,000
> and $3,300 (IIRC). That price should easily have covered tuition
> at/shored up Catholic elementary schools like the one at which my
> brother teaches within the Detroit city limits (and, I suspect, Lutheran
> or other parochial schools). So, really poor folks would have been able
> to afford religious schools for their kids, where they'd never been able
> to do so before.
Would the parochial schools have been able to handle a much higher
enrollment than previously?
>
> The private, non-parochial schools in the Detroit area of which I am
> aware are all high-end, and have tuition of easily five figures as you
> suggested above. Obviously, upper middle class parents would be more
> able to cover the costs with voucher money, but I think those schools
> (Cranbrook, Country Day, University Liggett, Grosse Pointe Academy) have
> scholarship programs. Maybe the voucher money could have replaced
> scholarship money for some families?
It seems to me that if a place actually passes a voucher program, there
has to be an expansion in capacity for private schools in order for it to
do anyone any good. And I suspect that would lead to opportunistic people
suddenly finding their vocation in teaching, and setting up private
schools that just happen to have the same tuition as the amount of the
voucher. Whether the kids would actually get an education there is
another question. One big news story yesterday, at least in our area, is
that the pipeline for new teachers and school administrators is running
dry. It's hard to imagine being able to set up a new private school on a
voucher-only budget that could afford to hire competent teachers. Or even
expand existing schools.
Susan Cohen
Kathy Cole wrote:
> The proposal that was just defeated here in Michigan would have given
> parents half the standard allocation public schools receive in per-pupil
> funding, so each voucher would have been worth somewhere between $3,000
> and $3,300 (IIRC). That price should easily have covered tuition
> at/shored up Catholic elementary schools like the one at which my
> brother teaches within the Detroit city limits (and, I suspect, Lutheran
> or other parochial schools). So, really poor folks would have been able
> to afford religious schools for their kids, where they'd never been able
> to do so before.
>
> The private, non-parochial schools in the Detroit area of which I am
> aware are all high-end, and have tuition of easily five figures as you
> suggested above.
This is precisely how I was able to tell that it was just
another way to funnel American tax dollars into Xian
religi ousinstitutions. Only the Xian religious schools
would take the kids; the secualr private schools
wouldn't bother.
Susan
Splanche
>think a great many people will be puzzled by his statement as given, since
>they
>are likely not Christians either, but they don't have any problem celebrating
>it.
This has always puzzled me.
What are you celebrating then?
I mean, what do you tell your kids about the reason for the celebration? Do you
give it a moral context (peace on earth, kindness to others, etc) or a seasonal
context (winter solstice, etc), or just a "join the party" type thing?
Possibly the answer will help some of us understand better the concept of
"secular Christmas stuff."
- Blanche
Susan Cohen
MarjiG wrote:
> In article <3A3E4FA4...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> writes:
>
> >
> >In fact, I like it that my child already knows that we aren't Xian
> >and don't celebrate Xmas - and is ready to tell people - since
> >the age of *two*!
> >
>
> It would be much better if he'd tell people, he doesn't celebrate Christmas
> because he is Jewish, or because his religion forbids it.
No, it would be much better if a small child wasn't forced to
stand out in such a way at such a young age.
While I am fortunate that my child doesn't mind, most children
are too sensitive to do this - hence the problem.
> There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas.
Goody for them.
> I think a great many people will be puzzled by his statement as given, since they
> are likely not Christians either, but they don't have any problem celebrating it.
They can be as puzzled as they like; it
*certainly* doesn't make them right!
Susan
Barbara
Etiquette and safety-wise, I disagree. There is no reason that a
child (or an adult, for that matter) should have to tell a stranger
what his / her religion is, or what it's rules are. It *is* a
practical necessity, in my experience, to tell the person inquiring
"I'm not Christian," in order to forestall further questioning about
why the Christmas holiday is not being celebrated. Most Americans
identify themselves as Christians of one denomination or another, and
most would correctly interpret this as meaning that the child's
religion excludes celebrating Christmas. Children should not be
encouraged to get into theological discussions with strange adults,
nor should these adults expect that they have a *right* to understand,
or to engage them further.
Barbara
MarjiG
(Splanche) writes:
>>There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas. I
>>think a great many people will be puzzled by his statement as given, since
>>they
>>are likely not Christians either, but they don't have any problem
>celebrating
>>it.
>
>This has always puzzled me.
>What are you celebrating then?
For those who celebrate Christmas secularly, it is the day when the fat man in
a red suit brings presents to children. Nothing more, nothing less. I remain
thoroughly convinced that there is zero religious content in such celebrations.
I'm aware that it is piggybacked somewhat on the Christian celebration of the
birth of Jesus Christ, which is in turn piggy-backed on other celebrations.
Some of those who do celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ are also frustrated by
the
attention paid to Santa Claus.
MarjiG
<ba...@optonline.net> writes:
>Etiquette and safety-wise, I disagree. There is no reason that a
>child (or an adult, for that matter) should have to tell a stranger
>what his / her religion is, or what it's rules are.
Ettiquette-wise, there is no reason anyone would tell anyone else what the
rules for a religion they don't practice are.
As for what a conversations a child has with a stranger, I pretty well
encourage mine to converse all they want with strangers we meet while shopping.
The "Don't Talk to Strangers" rule never did make any sense to me.
In article <3A3F94A4...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> writes:
>No, it would be much better if a small child wasn't forced to
>stand out in such a way at such a young age.
>While I am fortunate that my child doesn't mind, most children
>are too sensitive to do this - hence the problem.
But as long as he is responding, he should respond based on who he is, not who
he isn't. And, he should respond correctly. The response as stated is
incorrect.
>
>> There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas.
>
>Goody for them.
And there is the heart of the disagreement here.
Fred Rosenblatt
egar...@altavista.net (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
>In article <5dpt3tke4n8f88ird...@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole
><ka...@scconsult.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:36:04 EST, Nick Theodorakis
>> <nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > IMO, one flaw in (some, many, most?) school voucher proposals is that
>> > they don't do enough to help the really needy. If you give a poor
>> > parent a $2000 voucher for her child to attend a private school for
>> > which the tuition is $10000, are you really helping her? Or are you
>> > just subsidizing the parents who could probably afford it anyway?
>>
>> The proposal that was just defeated here in Michigan would have given
>> parents half the standard allocation public schools receive in per-pupil
>> funding, so each voucher would have been worth somewhere between $3,000
>> and $3,300 (IIRC). That price should easily have covered tuition
>> at/shored up Catholic elementary schools like the one at which my
>> brother teaches within the Detroit city limits (and, I suspect, Lutheran
>> or other parochial schools). So, really poor folks would have been able
>> to afford religious schools for their kids, where they'd never been able
>> to do so before.
>
>Would the parochial schools have been able to handle a much higher
>enrollment than previously?
Speaking for the Jewish schools, they would have to, since educating the
young is the most basic and important religious tenet, and, even more than
filling a pulpit, the principle business of the rabbi. Despite the
numerous differences in philosphy between the major streams of Judaism,
one thing that they have all come to agree on is that full time, daily
education is the only way to stem the tide of assimilation and intermarriage
and ensure Jewish continuity. Judaism is a religion of education, and
there is a lot more to teach than after school bar mitzvah lessons can
accomodate. My second grader, for instance, is in school from 8 am to
4 pm, spending a full half of the school day on Jewish subjects.
As for Nicholas' comments: It is true that $2000 (I think the CA number
was closer to $4000, still half what the public school spends per child)
will not cover tuition. A Jewish school, after all, has to maintain two
separate sets of teachers. As I said above, however, since education is
a major religious requirement, every effort is made to accomodate those
who wish to attend but cannot afford the full tuition. $2000 might just
enable more people to meet the reduced standard. It would certainly
reduce the financial strain on those who are subsidizing the scholarships
with their own necessarilu higher tuition. It's still $2000 per child
that is entering the system, and I don't see how that could hurt. Since
the recipients are parents who are paying taxes but getting nothing for]
their money, it's the moral thing to do. The only real argument against
is that, since they already have our money, however immorally obtained,
it might cost them something to give some of it back.
Fred Rosenblatt
<nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>In article <fredr5-1812...@mac99124170840.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>
>> Well, they haven't sweetened the offer enough yet - give me vouchers,
>> and I'm outahere - do what you want in public school, and Joel you're
>> on your own.
>>
>
>IMO, one flaw in (some, many, most?) school voucher proposals is that
>they don't do enough to help the really needy. If you give a poor
>parent a $2000 voucher for her child to attend a private school for
>which the tuition is $10000, are you really helping her? Or are you
>just subsidizing the parents who could probably afford it anyway?
There is a wide spectrum of people "who could probably afford it anyway."
There are the super rich and famous who can easily afford to pay any
tuition at a prestigious prep school. There are African American single
mothers who work long hours to send there children to Catholic school,
to ensure that they get a good education free of the negative social
and academic consequences of their local public schools. And there are
middle class parents who truly believe that without intensive Jewish
education the continuity of their 3000 year old way of life could be in
jeopardy. They tend to live in urban areas where enough Jews congregate
to make Jewish institutions possible (remember that, numerically, we are
much more of a minority than most of the others - around 1.5% of the
polulation), and these are among the more expensive places to live. Both
parents work to make a decent middle class (by any objective standards)
income, of which around 35% of the net goes to educate their children.
Thus, since "affording" education is a given, "not affording" a lot of
other things is also a fact.
Of course, a certain faction in the Congress would call such people "rich".
They are told, on the one hand, that "we support public education", which
is just a more politic expression of the often heard phrase "I don't want
*my* [sic] tax money going to private/religious education". Of course,
this is another way of saying, "If you want parochial school, pay for it
yourself", which in turn means "Work harder to make extra money for
tuition". That's bad enough, but what's even worse is that, once you've
earned that tuition money, it pushes your income over to the Dark Side,
and there is that "certain faction in the Congress" again to spend that
tuition money for you on other their pet projects to benefit the very
recipients of public education again! That hard earned tuition money
figures into your income when deciding who qualifies for tax cuts, who
gets the new college subsidies, etc.
Susan Cohen
MarjiG wrote:
> Some of those who do celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ are also frustrated by
> the attention paid to Santa Claus.
All the more reason to get it out of the schools.
Susan
Guest
In my family, it's primarily a celebration of the joy and power of
sharing. It falls just as the weather is about to turn really cold,
when many people need help the most. In addition to gift giving and
decorating (to show Santa that we appreciate his gifts), our customs
include going through our closets and donating warm clothing and, of
course, donating toys, food, and money to various organizations.
Joel Rosenberg
>. Since
> the recipients are parents who are paying taxes but getting nothing for]
> their money, it's the moral thing to do. The only real argument against
> is that, since they already have our money, however immorally obtained,
> it might cost them something to give some of it back.
The argument in favor of taxing everybody, whether or not they have
kids, to pay for the public schools is that they're a secular, public
good. The basis for this argument tends to fall apart when the public
schools are used to push religion on students, even when a bone is
thrown in the form of token acknowledgment of religions that aren't
being pushed on the students.
chelp
(MarjiG) wrote:
> In article <20001219114931...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, spla...@aol.com
> (Splanche) writes:
>
> >>There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas. I
> >>think a great many people will be puzzled by his statement as given, since
> >>they
> >>are likely not Christians either, but they don't have any problem
> >celebrating
> >>it.
> >
> >This has always puzzled me.
> >What are you celebrating then?
>
> For those who celebrate Christmas secularly, it is the day when the fat man in
> a red suit brings presents to children. Nothing more, nothing less.
Celebrated in homes with Christmas trees and traditional Christmas
decorations. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between
the homes of the few people that I know who celebrate Christmas as a
totally secular holiday (which doesn't mean that it is a secular holiday,
only that they choose to ignore the religious content) from those who have
deep religious convictions(I know more of these) from those who are mildly
religious(I know many in this catagory).
>I remain
> thoroughly convinced that there is zero religious content in such
celebrations.
> I'm aware that it is piggybacked somewhat on the Christian celebration of the
> birth of Jesus Christ, which is in turn piggy-backed on other celebrations.
>
> Some of those who do celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ are also
frustrated by
> the
> attention paid to Santa Claus.
>
Many, many people who celebrate the birth of Jesus, also have customs
related to Santa Claus. You personally may not, but there is certainly no
division between Santa Claus on the one hand and celebrating the birth of
Jesus on the other. And, even in those families (that I know) who do
celebrate the birth of Jesus, the children focus on Santa Claus/presents.
If you have issues with people who celebrate Christmas secularly, take
it up with them, don't insist that the rest of us deserve Santa Claus
inflicted on us.
I know several people who have secular Passover sedars (eat traditional
food, get together with but little to no praying). Does that make
Passover a secular holiday?
I think (to get back to the beginning of the note), saying "I'm not
Christian, I don't celebrate Christmas" is exactly right and am impressed
by a child self-confident enough to offer exactly those words.
Lisa
Banty
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:36:04 EST, Nick Theodorakis
><nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>> IMO, one flaw in (some, many, most?) school voucher proposals is that
>> they don't do enough to help the really needy. If you give a poor
>> parent a $2000 voucher for her child to attend a private school for
>> which the tuition is $10000, are you really helping her? Or are you
>> just subsidizing the parents who could probably afford it anyway?
>
>The proposal that was just defeated here in Michigan would have given
>parents half the standard allocation public schools receive in per-pupil
>funding, so each voucher would have been worth somewhere between $3,000
>and $3,300 (IIRC). That price should easily have covered tuition
>at/shored up Catholic elementary schools like the one at which my
>brother teaches within the Detroit city limits (and, I suspect, Lutheran
>or other parochial schools). So, really poor folks would have been able
>to afford religious schools for their kids, where they'd never been able
>to do so before.
Which might help poor kids whose parents consider religious schools an
alternative. And, assuming that these schools have the capacity to accept
a much larger number of students if vouchers become available. It's no
help (or not enough help - and in this case not enough help is no help) for
students whose parents don't want a religious school, or whose religion
isn't represented in area schools.
Although - - especially in the inner cities, but elsewhere, in the recent
past (like the '70s and '80s), many non-Catholic of all persuasions sent
their children to Catholic schools as an alternative to public schools.
They wanted away from the problems and influences of the public schools,
and valued the greater emphasis on discipline and basic education.
However, lately ('90s), in most places I'm aware of, there has been a
resurgence of interest in Catholic schools such that, one not only needs to
be Catholic, but also active in the parish, and still only snag a place on
the waiting list (no complaint about a private Catholic school catering to
their own). So - where will these voucher-enabled students go?
Banty
>
>The private, non-parochial schools in the Detroit area of which I am
>aware are all high-end, and have tuition of easily five figures as you
Susan Cohen
MarjiG wrote:
> In article <tu3v3t8lj1n7vu261...@4ax.com>, Barbara
> <ba...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >Etiquette and safety-wise, I disagree. There is no reason that a
> >child (or an adult, for that matter) should have to tell a stranger
> >what his / her religion is, or what it's rules are.
>
> Ettiquette-wise, there is no reason anyone would tell anyone else what the
> rules for a religion they don't practice are.
Thanks for making the poiunt of those who are trying to keep
religion out of the classroom.
This is EXACTLY our point, and it goes double for little children!
> As for what a conversations a child has with a stranger, I pretty well
> encourage mine to converse all they want with strangers we meet while shopping.
> The "Don't Talk to Strangers" rule never did make any sense to me.
I assume you are only referring to strangers she meets while
with you or her father??
> In article <3A3F94A4...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> writes:
>
> >No, it would be much better if a small child wasn't forced to
> >stand out in such a way at such a young age.
> >While I am fortunate that my child doesn't mind, most children
> >are too sensitive to do this - hence the problem.
>
> But as long as he is responding, he should respond based on who he is, not who he
> isn't.
This is hair-splitting. Sometimes that's precisely what we are.
And this still doesn't sidestep the inappropriateness of making
a small child handle complicated situations that have no business
being left up to him.
> And, he should respond correctly. The response as stated is
> incorrect.
Nope.
> >> There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas.
> >
> >Goody for them.
>
> And there is the heart of the disagreement here.
That it's fine for people to celebrate Xmas if they want?
If you think so, you are missing the point.
Susan
Banty
[snip]
>Etiquette and safety-wise, I disagree. There is no reason that a
>child (or an adult, for that matter) should have to tell a stranger
>what his / her religion is, or what it's rules are. It *is* a
>practical necessity, in my experience, to tell the person inquiring
>"I'm not Christian," in order to forestall further questioning about
>why the Christmas holiday is not being celebrated. Most Americans
>identify themselves as Christians of one denomination or another, and
>most would correctly interpret this as meaning that the child's
>religion excludes celebrating Christmas. Children should not be
>encouraged to get into theological discussions with strange adults,
>nor should these adults expect that they have a *right* to understand,
>or to engage them further.
>
>Barbara
Shouldn't "my family doesn't celebrate Christmas" be enough? Should a
child be coached to utter inaccuracies to "forestall questioning"?
This strikes me as a rationalization.
Banty
pe...@gaines.net
I'm fairly certain most non-Christians in the UK who celebrate Christmas
do so for any one of three reasons:
1) Happy memories of childhood Christmasses and wanting to give their
children that.
2) In England the 25/12, 26/12 and 1/1 are all public holidays, with
three working days in between. It gives them a chance to have a 9-day
break from work for only three days leave. We don't really have any
equivalent of Thanksgiving.
It is a very good time for a winter celebration.
3) Pressure from others (not neccessarily Christians). People who
opt-out tend to have a lot of pressure from those around to join
in with them. A "join-the-party" thing.
Christmas Day tends to be a family day, and Boxing Day (26/12) may
be a friends or family day. Anyone wanting a celebration for friends
tends to have it on New Year's Eve. Offices are open until 24/12.
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three
Barbara
>In article <tu3v3t8lj1n7vu261...@4ax.com>, Barbara
><ba...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>
>Ettiquette-wise, there is no reason anyone would tell anyone else what the
>rules for a religion they don't practice are.
Exactly. That means there is no reason the child should tell the
stranger that hir religion has a rule prohibiting hir from
participating in Christmas.
>
>As for what a conversations a child has with a stranger, I pretty well
>encourage mine to converse all they want with strangers we meet while shopping.
> The "Don't Talk to Strangers" rule never did make any sense to me.
>
Even if you don't feel that your child would be physically harmed by
talking to this hypothetical stranger, I doubt you would want that
stranger to be discussing religion with him or her, especially if you
belonged to a religion that is often targeted for conversion attempts
(yes, even the children are sometimes subjected to them).
>
>But as long as he is responding, he should respond based on who he is, not who
>he isn't. And, he should respond correctly. The response as stated is
>incorrect.
>>
He (actually in this case a She) is a small child responding according
to how s/he sees it, and according to hir parents' teachings, neither
of which are your concern unless they harm you in some fashion. Nor
can you legitimately claim that the answer is incorrect. Take the
Christ out of Christmas, drop the religious carols, and make nativity
scenes a thing of the past. Stop churches from holding Christmas
masses and from relating December 25 to the birth of Jesus. Ban "Jesus
is the Reason for the Season" signs and find a new name for plays that
feature Mary giving birth to Jesus that is not "Christmas pagent."
Print only greeting cards that do not have the holy family on them.
Then you will have a better argument that the new Xmas Holiday doesn't
have anything to do with christianity. As it stands, Christmas is a
Christian holiday that some people practice in a secular fashion.
Just as Chanukah is a Jewish holiday, even if some people who do not
actively practice Judaism most of the year light a menorah and give
their children Chanukah presents.
>>> There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas.
>>
>>Goody for them.
>
>And there is the heart of the disagreement here.
What is? That because some non-Christians celebrate Christmas all must
do so? Are all non-Christians the same?
Barbara
Barbara
>Shouldn't "my family doesn't celebrate Christmas" be enough? Should a
>child be coached to utter inaccuracies to "forestall questioning"?
>
>This strikes me as a rationalization.
The child has not necessarily been coached to say that she's not
Christian (you would have to ask Susan). Very likely she is repeating
the reason *she's* been given when she asks her parents why her family
doesn't celebrate Christmas, and her parents were also told the same
thing by her grandparents when they were small. As for her alleged
inaccuracy, see my other, lengthier post. It strikes me that saying
that Christmas is _not_ a Christian holiday is the rationalization
here.
Barbara
Gary Weiner
> As for Nicholas' comments: It is true that $2000 (I think the CA number
> was closer to $4000, still half what the public school spends per child)
> will not cover tuition. A Jewish school, after all, has to maintain two
> separate sets of teachers. As I said above, however, since education is
> a major religious requirement, every effort is made to accomodate those
> who wish to attend but cannot afford the full tuition. $2000 might just
> enable more people to meet the reduced standard. It would certainly
> reduce the financial strain on those who are subsidizing the scholarships
> with their own necessarilu higher tuition. It's still $2000 per child
> that is entering the system, and I don't see how that could hurt. Since
> the recipients are parents who are paying taxes but getting nothing for]
> their money, it's the moral thing to do. The only real argument against
> is that, since they already have our money, however immorally obtained,
> it might cost them something to give some of it back.
Your school taxes aren't to pay for the education of your children, they
are to pay for the education of all the children in community. That's
why people with no children pay them and why parents with five children
don't pay more than those with one.
The argument against school vouchers is mainly that public schools will
be harmed because money will taken away from them to pay the vouchers
and that poorer children will not be able to take advantage of the
voucher sytem. In addition, will private schools take problem children
or those with special needs? I expect not, therefore leaving the public
schools as dumping grounds for difficult students.
Public education is an investment. It is not a fee for service
arangement.
--
Gary J. Weiner \ "We've got a blind date with Destiny...and
webm...@hatrack.net \ it looks like she's ordered the lobster."
http://www.hatrack.net \ -The Shoveler, "Mystery Men"
"Hang Your Web With Us!"\
Elizabeth Gardner
fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
> In article <egardner-191...@egardner-router.soho.enteract.com>,
> egar...@altavista.net (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
>
> >In article <5dpt3tke4n8f88ird...@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole
> ><ka...@scconsult.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:36:04 EST, Nick Theodorakis
> >> <nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > IMO, one flaw in (some, many, most?) school voucher proposals is that
> >> > they don't do enough to help the really needy. If you give a poor
> >> > parent a $2000 voucher for her child to attend a private school for
> >> > which the tuition is $10000, are you really helping her? Or are you
> >> > just subsidizing the parents who could probably afford it anyway?
> >>
> >> The proposal that was just defeated here in Michigan would have given
> >> parents half the standard allocation public schools receive in per-pupil
> >> funding, so each voucher would have been worth somewhere between $3,000
> >> and $3,300 (IIRC). That price should easily have covered tuition
> >> at/shored up Catholic elementary schools like the one at which my
> >> brother teaches within the Detroit city limits (and, I suspect, Lutheran
> >> or other parochial schools). So, really poor folks would have been able
> >> to afford religious schools for their kids, where they'd never been able
> >> to do so before.
> >
> >Would the parochial schools have been able to handle a much higher
> >enrollment than previously?
>
> As for Nicholas' comments: It is true that $2000 (I think the CA number
> was closer to $4000, still half what the public school spends per child)
> will not cover tuition. A Jewish school, after all, has to maintain two
> separate sets of teachers. As I said above, however, since education is
> a major religious requirement, every effort is made to accomodate those
> who wish to attend but cannot afford the full tuition. $2000 might just
> enable more people to meet the reduced standard. It would certainly
> reduce the financial strain on those who are subsidizing the scholarships
> with their own necessarilu higher tuition. It's still $2000 per child
> that is entering the system, and I don't see how that could hurt. Since
> the recipients are parents who are paying taxes but getting nothing for]
> their money, it's the moral thing to do. The only real argument against
> is that, since they already have our money, however immorally obtained,
> it might cost them something to give some of it back.
If the school can educate the extra kids adequately at $2000 each (or
whatever the voucher amount is), then vouchers can pay for expansion. But
it doesn't really seem like enough, especially if you have to add
classroom space, since as I understand it, the idea behind vouchers is
that there's this vast pent-up demand for non-public schooling.
And of course, it's not just getting a refund of the $ you paid in, at
least around where we live. I would guess that we pay maybe $2K per year
to the schools out of the $3.5 K we pay per year in property tax, and we
only have one child. The person who owned the house before we did had
seven children. If they'd had vouchers when her kids were in school, she
could have gotten several times more voucher money than she paid in taxes
to send them to Catholic school.
I guess if you think taxes are "immorally obtained," then anything you get
back is only your right. But the people without kids currently in school
would be paying for vouchers, too. They're getting "nothing" for their
money either way, unless you count a community full of kids with enough
education to be able to seek gainful employment and not make their livings
dealing drugs and mugging old people. The people in our town seem to
think that's a good value (especially the old people).
Fred Rosenblatt
<webm...@hatrack.net> wrote:
I don't see why every public school should "take problem children" either.
They destroy the environment for all the other children and are a major
contributor to the inadequacy of the system.
As for the special needs children who are a favorite argument of the
antivoucher side, yes, they are no less required to get a Jewish education
than any other child. I don't suppose they benefit from the same resources
in private school, at the moment, that they receive in public school, but,
since the public schools have already appropriated the money to provide
these services, its disengenuus to compare them. Let all parents decide
where they'll spend their own hard earned education budget, and there will
be adequate resources to at least match the level of services provided
by the public schools (some services now are provided at the schools,
whether public or private, by other government agencies).
Lee
>It's still $2000 per child
>that is entering the system, and I don't see how that could hurt. Since
>the recipients are parents who are paying taxes but getting nothing for]
>their money, it's the moral thing to do. The only real argument against
>is that, since they already have our money, however immorally obtained,
>it might cost them something to give some of it back.
The way that $2000 hurts is that it uses funds which would
otherwise be available to increase funding of public schools.
The recipients are currently getting something for their tax
money, as are childless people. They're getting the benefit
of an educated society.
The real arguments against vouchers include the facts that they:
1. violate the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution.
2. siphon resources away from public schools (even though the
money is nominally "in addition" to public school funds).
Steve O'Neill
Elizabeth Gardner wrote:
And I suspect that would lead to opportunistic people
> suddenly finding their vocation in teaching, and setting up private
> schools that just happen to have the same tuition as the amount of the
> voucher. Whether the kids would actually get an education there is
> another question. One big news story yesterday, at least in our area, is
> that the pipeline for new teachers and school administrators is running
> dry. It's hard to imagine being able to set up a new private school on a
> voucher-only budget that could afford to hire competent teachers. Or even
> expand existing schools.
Well, they aren't required to all have credentials, at least here in
California, so they can work cheaper and more can qualify. Public
school teachers, even subs, have credentials.
I cry when I hear the word "competetition" in connection with this
subject.
--
Steve O'Neill
Michelle A. Mader
> >There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas.
>
> This has always puzzled me.
> What are you celebrating then?
> I mean, what do you tell your kids about the reason for the celebration? Do you
> give it a moral context (peace on earth, kindness to others, etc).
This is pretty much it for my atheist husband. To him it's a time to think
of family and friends.
Michelle
MarjiG
<ba...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>>>> There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas.
>>>
>>>Goody for them.
>>
>>And there is the heart of the disagreement here.
>
>What is? That because some non-Christians celebrate Christmas all must
>do so? Are all non-Christians the same?
>
Isn't that precisely what is being said in, "We aren't Christian, we don't
celebrate Christmas" ??? That no one who is not a Christian should celebrate
it? I have _never_ said that anyone must celebrate Christmas. Only that the
presence of those who do so secularly belies the claim that it must be
celebrated religiously.
Fred Rosenblatt
<ba...@banet.net> wrote:
>However, lately ('90s), in most places I'm aware of, there has been a
>resurgence of interest in Catholic schools such that, one not only needs to
>be Catholic, but also active in the parish, and still only snag a place on
>the waiting list (no complaint about a private Catholic school catering to
>their own).
I don't think that they are as heavily subsidized as they were traditionally.
So - where will these voucher-enabled students go?
The argument is that, under good old American free enterprise system, demand
will increase the supply, and supply will drive down the costs.
Susan Cohen
Barbara wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:50:55 EST, Banty <ba...@banet.net> wrote:
>
> >Shouldn't "my family doesn't celebrate Christmas" be enough? Should a
> >child be coached to utter inaccuracies to "forestall questioning"?
> >
> >This strikes me as a rationalization.
>
> The child has not necessarily been coached to say that she's not
> Christian (you would have to ask Susan).
Well, I tell her that we're Jewish, and I tell her that certain things
are for Xians. The rest she extrapolated on her own (We have
thankfully never gotten to the reasons why there are differences,
or what those differences are!)
> Very likely she is repeating
> the reason *she's* been given when she asks her parents why her family
> doesn't celebrate Christmas, and her parents were also told the same
> thing by her grandparents when they were small.
I honestly forget what my parents told me, which is, I think,
indicative of the fact that it was absorbed, rlike osmosis,
ather than taught by rote - the best type of learning
> As for her alleged
> inaccuracy, see my other, lengthier post. It strikes me that saying
> that Christmas is _not_ a Christian holiday is the rationalization
> here.
Me, too. As if the very name of the holiday isn't a dead giveaway.
Susan
Elizabeth Gardner
fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
> I don't see why every public school should "take problem children" either.
> They destroy the environment for all the other children and are a major
> contributor to the inadequacy of the system.
So what would you propose to do with them? There's no reason why every
class in every public school should take problem children, but if the
school as a whole doesn't have to take them on, then what happens? And
why shouldn't their parents be getting the services they're presumably
paying taxes for?
Elisabeth Riba
> So - where will these voucher-enabled students go?
> The argument is that, under good old American free enterprise system, demand
> will increase the supply, and supply will drive down the costs.
Supply and demand may affect certain costs shared by an entire school -- like
facilities, or a library.
However, many costs are on a per-pupil basis, so more students, more costs.
And, the most fundamental problem that comes to mind regarding this idea
is the ability to find good teachers. Because of an emphasis on low
student-teacher ratios, more voucher students means having to hire more
teachers. And teacher salaries will not be driven down by vouchers -- in
fact, there are already problems with teacher shortages because salaries
are so low.
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Elizabeth Levin
> You answered your own question. No matter what changes are made, everything
> done in December will be suspect, because "everyone knows it's really for
> Christmas."
Not really.
> When some kids choose to use only red or green sprinkles, or one happens to
> say, "I'm going to give this to Mom for Christmas" the whole activity will be
> tainted and have to be stopped.
Actually, no. If a classroom is doing all kinds of activities, very often
children decide to bring things home to give to their parents. Whether
it's for a birthday, Christmas, Sukkot, or because the child wrote her
_own_ name on the drawing, the urge to share their accomplishments with
their parents is wonderful and to be encouraged. I try not to make art
projects too directed, because young children need to be able to explore
stuff without constantly being told how.
In the same way, it's the parents' responsibility to teach their child
what holidays they celebrate, not mine. If a child draws a Christmas tree,
I'm not about to confiscate the crayons (unless it was not drawn on
paper...) At the same time, I'm not going to tell the kids to draw
Christmas trees when it might not be appropriate to some, and maybe even
the kid who is so hyped up about Christmas wants to do a picture of the
toy truck she wants to get.
--
Elizabeth Levin
Fred Rosenblatt
<s...@calweb.com> wrote:
There are any number of uncredentialed teachers in California. This was
even more true when speaking Spanish was an asset.
In my private school all the secular teachers are way beyond competent.
Can one say that that is the norm in the Los Angeles School District?
Our teachers are with us because they truly want to teach.
CA State officials recently mandated smaller classrooms. This has led
to a shortage of teachers, which I'm sure the people who reduced the
class size must expect this to be temporary. As long as the total
number of children to be educated in a certain number of classrooms
remains constant, what difference could it possibly make that some
of these classrooms are private?
Heather
>>There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas. I
>>think a great many people will be puzzled by his statement as given, since
>>they
>>are likely not Christians either, but they don't have any problem celebrating
>>it.
>
>This has always puzzled me.
>What are you celebrating then?
>I mean, what do you tell your kids about the reason for the celebration?
Because my entire family on both sides still does Christmas, it was
almost impossible for me to break entirely free of that. I did try
for a while in college to get my family to acknowledge that I would
celebrate Yule - or the Solstice - but not the Christian holiday (this
was after trying in vain - vein? - the first year to get out of ANY
celebration); however, my gifts still arrived on the 25th, cards still
featured Santa Claus (with a scribbled "Happy Solstice" underneath),
etc. It wasn't working. Perhaps the reason was I still gave THEM
Christmas related stuff - because in my mind, if I expected them to
accept my stand and choice of holidays, I figured I should accept
theirs. I think it just blurred the line even more.
I was raised by two non-religious parents: my father is an atheist,
and I'd say my mother is agnostic (she and I have never really
discussed religion; I do know she's a "recovered Catholic" at least
;)). We still celebrated Christmas. I don't really recall WHAT they
told me was the meaning of the holiday - I did learn that it was
related to the birth of Jesus, but that's certainly not how we
celebrated (nope, we are not among the many who now throw birthday
parties for Jesus on Christmas!). I knew it was a religious holiday,
but I also knew it was celebrated a bit differently in our family unit
than in most of my friends' houses and my relatives' houses: we did
not attend Mass being the main thing.
Now that I'm the mom, I gave a LOT of thought to it. I debated
between not doing xmas at all or going all out or what. I still have
reservations each year.
This evening, we're attending a Wiccan celebration of the Solstice at
my (Unitarian Universalist) church. We will probably let Rowan open
one gift this evening as a reflection of that, but we save the rest
for Christmas day. For the record, I'm not Wiccan either (though I
lean a LOT closer to Wiccan than Christian), but find the ceremonies
regarding the solstice are a lot more in line with my (And my
husband's) beliefs than the Candle Light Vespers Christmas sermon also
offered at the church.
We do NOT do Santa Claus. We took a few photos with him the past few
years, but she's developed a fear and I realized how silly it was for
me to have her get the photos done with someone we don't acknowledge
in our family. She knows he's associated with Christmas, just as
someday she'll know Jesus is associated with Christmas for most
people, but also that he is not part of our celebration.
The decision to do most of our celebrating on Christmas day vs. the
Solstice was also in large part practical: no one in the family works
on Christmas Day. It's much easier to plan a day's events around a
day off.
When we put up the tree, we talk about it in terms of Yule, and how
the evergreen is a special tree because even in the winter, it stays -
well - green. It's a reminder that even though it's dark and dreary,
life still goes on and will thrive again. The lights on the tree are
symbolic of the cycle of darkness and light through the year, and that
now (hard as it is to believe when it's pitch black when the alarm
goes off) the days are getting longer and sunlight is returning to us
more and more.
We do have ornaments on our tree, but they're all chosen for some
symbolic reason (each representing something from our family history)
or were gifts from others. Taking them out and putting them up is a
reminder of the history of our family within each of these cycles of
light and dark days.
Oh - and the stockings are just there because I think they're fun to
fill. ;) (My mother was an awesome stocking stuffer - uh, as in one
that stuffs stockings, not something stuffed in a stocking herself -
and I endeavor to live up to that with Rowan and my husband, finding
cute little trinkets that will be as well loved as the larger gifts.)
We exchange gifts on Christmas Day because we love each other, and in
our (larger) family, this is a special day we have to show others that
love through gifts and being together.
This is probably way more detail than you wanted, but, well, you DID
ask. ;)
Oh - and for the record, I'm still one of those who's completely
against having Christmas celebrated in (public American) schools.
Besides because of the religious issues, besides because it is painful
or confusing to many of the children who don't celebrate, but in
large part because it's unnecessary. There is so much to teach and so
little time to do it, why take out classroom time to focus on Santa or
flying Reindeer or Dreidels or Yule Logs at all (other than in the
realm of a study OF religious icons and celebrations)? Sure, the
children are excited at this time of year, and perhaps a little more
celebration is in order, but shouldn't a good teacher be able to work
within that or at least find something related to American or
regional culture as a whole (as in, the change of the seasons, the
change to the new year in January, the migration of the birds, phases
of the moon, whatever) rather than related to religion to celebrate?
It still strikes me as amazing that so many people are so grounded in
tradition that they can't see how some changes could stop HURTING
others. I can't see how -not- coloring Christmas Trees or Dreidels or
whatever in the classroom would hurt a child, but I certainly can see
how doing so could. Is what we really want to teach our kids that
those in the majority should just walk all over the feelings of
others?
*sigh* I suppose I'm still just wasting my breath or fingers or
something like that. But if someone could just explain to me how it
would hurt their child - exclude them, alienate them, make them
uncomfortable - to have NO child's religious holidays be part of the
school day, I'd be curious to hear it. Very very curious.
Heather
--
My real address is heather @ operamail dot com.
I very rarely read the one shown as a reply to/from address ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Much madness is divinest sense | Mommy to Rowan Justina (11/6/97)
To a discerning eye -Dickinson | Woman of many talents to myself.
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <fredr5-2012...@mac99124170840.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
>
>
> > I don't see why every public school should "take problem children" either.
> > They destroy the environment for all the other children and are a major
> > contributor to the inadequacy of the system.
>
> So what would you propose to do with them? There's no reason why every
> class in every public school should take problem children, but if the
> school as a whole doesn't have to take them on, then what happens?
Well, some kids won't be educated, and teachers will have more time to
deal with students whose needs can more easily be met. Might not the
overall success rate of the school system -- even including the
failure of the "problem children" go up significantly?
(I'm not, by the way, advocating the wholesale dumping of "problem
children" by any schools; I think that's a bad idea.)
And
> why shouldn't their parents be getting the services they're presumably
> paying taxes for?
Again, they're not paying taxes to educate their kids. They're paying
taxes because the public, putatively secular schools provide society
enough of a good to justify taxing (usually) property owners in the
school district/city/county. Same thing as if/when you can afford a
private security guard for your house/business/community -- you don't
get a refund for the police services that you're not using.
Joel Rosenberg
> Your school taxes aren't to pay for the education of your children, they
> are to pay for the education of all the children in community. That's
> why people with no children pay them and why parents with five children
> don't pay more than those with one.
That tends to get less and less persuasive when some
no-doubt-well-meaning people attempt to push their own religious
practices into the "public" schools.
Leah Adezio
Fred Rosenblatt wrote in message ...
Woah! Hold on, there. As the parent of a child with severe ADHD, he is a
'child with a problem', not a 'problem child', though he could easily be
seen (and has been seen) as being one.
Are you telling me that because of a neurological deficit that he and other
children like him are *not* entitled to an education? That there should be
no attempt to mainstream him?
Boy, now where does *that* attitude get the line drawn? Let's not educate
the mentally handicapped -- they cause problems in the classroom. Let's not
educate the kid in a wheelchair because hey, it's going to cause a problem
to build a ramp so he can get in the building. Let's not educate that blind
kid because he causes problems by bumping into tables and spilling jars of
paint on the floor. Let's not educate the kids with emotional problems, or
who have deficits because mom took drugs while she was pregnant, or the kids
who have developed emotional problems because they were abused because
they're only going to cause more problems in school -- and we all know
they're going to end up in jail or on welfare anyway?
>
>As for the special needs children who are a favorite argument of the
>antivoucher side, yes, they are no less required to get a Jewish education
>than any other child.
Yeah, that's what my shul said when they kicked my son out of Hebrew School
because the teacher 'couldn't handle him' -- this *after* a specialist from
Metrowest was brought in to instruct her and observe her and found a variety
of deficits in her teaching style and she *refused* any of the suggestions
the specialist made.
What happens in reality is that it gives license to the attitude of 'we
don't *have* to help'.
The problem with this logic is that there are so many different types of
difficulties that fall under the heading of 'special needs students' who
qualify for services and have IEPs done on their behalf. You can't compare
equally a child with an IQ of 40 and a child who may be bi-polar and also
has an IQ of 140. You can't compare a child whose physical impairments mean
they can't write or speak, yet has superior intellect to a child who is
deaf.
> I don't suppose they benefit from the same resources
>in private school, at the moment, that they receive in public school, but,
>since the public schools have already appropriated the money to provide
>these services, its disengenuus to compare them. Let all parents decide
>where they'll spend their own hard earned education budget, and there will
>be adequate resources to at least match the level of services provided
>by the public schools (some services now are provided at the schools,
>whether public or private, by other government agencies).
You do realize that it costs more to educate a special education student
than the amount the schools receive to educate them, yes? Now, if the
public schools end up being, in essence, the dumping ground for special
education students because everyone else has taken their vouchers and run
for the hills, that this is going to end up creating a 'special education
ghetto' because there is no way government is going to be able to make up
the difference between what the schools end up receiving and what it
actually costs to educate them.
Leah
Barbara
I still don't understand what the *heart of the disagreement* you
refer to is, possibly because of the cutting down to avoid
overquoting. Susan's child, who made these remarks to a stranger who
asked her about Christmas, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3
years old. <Forgive me, Susan, for not remembering exactly.> I am
frankly amazed by the offended tone taken by some. When my children
were that age I counted myself lucky if they didn't turn to the
stranger and say, "You're ugly."
If the *heart of the disagreement* is whether Christmas is or is not a
Christian holiday (sometimes celebrated in a secular fashion by people
who may or may not be Christian), I looked up the word "Christmas" on
www.dictionary.com today, and this is what I found:
Christ·mas (krsms)
n.
1. A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.
2. December 25, the day on which this feast is celebrated.
3. Christmastide. [defined, in turn, as "A Christian festival observed
from December 24, Christmas Eve, to January 5, the eve of Epiphany"]
By definition then (and several dictionaries were listed), a Christian
holiday, no matter who is celebrating it or what their individual
reasons for celebrating it are.
Barbara
Splanche
It also makes a lot of sense, is pretty well thought out, even with your own
qualms, and seems to be a good way to explain it all to children in a way that
can be meaningful. It sounds like you are passing on more to your children than
you yourself were given, which is a great and difficult thing.
- Blanche
Cathy
> <webm...@hatrack.net> wrote:
>
> >Fred Rosenblatt wrote:
> >
> >> As for Nicholas' comments: It is true that $2000 (I think the CA
number
> >> was closer to $4000, still half what the public school spends per
child)
The per student amount each school district in California varies
somewhat, depending on whether that school district was in a city,
suburban, or rural back in 1968 when the school districts were put into
these categories. For some reason, the state will not change a school
district's category, even if a city sprung up around it. So, looking
for real California numbers, the per student money received by the Los
Altos Elementary district is $4202.11. (It is categorized as rural) The
voucher money promised in prop 168(did I get that number right?) was
$4000.)
The problem is, no one is admitting how much it costs to have a special
education program. According to the Los Altos School District
Financial Report as of the first interim period, the Los Altos district
has 13 special education kids, and receives an extra $36,290 to educate
them. However, they require so much attention, they require two
teachers (at two different schools) and some number of aides to educate
them. I believe the assistant superintendent mentioned the Los Altos
school district has spent over 1 million dollars over the last year on
state and federal required special education programs that were not
reimbursed by the state or federal government. This cuts the per
student available funds to less than $4000. In this particular
district, if the vouchers had passed, voucher children would have
received more money per child than those in the public schools. As
this is a rather well off, entrepreneural district, I wouldn't have
been surprised if new schools did spring up to skim off the children
who could be educated for $4K, but that would leave the children who
could
not find a private school with public schools that were even more
underfunded, as the special education programs cannot be cut by law.
Now, this is a school district that has less than 7% of its students
speaking other than English at home. The average school in California
has approximately 50% of the students learning English as a second
language. The ESL programs are also underfunded, with the funds being
taken from the general fund. This is the problem, all children are not
the same. Some have a homelife that enables someone to teach anything
they didn't catch at school. They can be taught by uncertified,
teachers with little experience, as if they don't clearly explain
anything to the kids, their parents or care givers will. They don't
need the latest books or computers, they have those at home anyway, and
there is a good possibility their parents will chip in extra money to
get them. These kids are absolutely cheap to educate. Then there are
those whose parents, for some reason or another, cannot supply even
pencils, can't help with homework, and certainly can't donate
computers. These children need good teacher and special structured
learning programs they can complete in school, with little outside help.
They are more expensive to educate, and if we don't educate them, their
family won't either. They will be living lost opportunities. Then
there are the special education kids. They require specially trained
teachers, and are very expensive to educate. Studies show the vouchers
work for the first set of children, and even the second if additional
burdens are added on, such as needing bi-lingual teachers.(Black
children could find places in private schools, but no Spanish speaking
Hispanic children could be placed.) The special ed kids never get
picked up.
Cathy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Fred Rosenblatt
<l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>Fred Rosenblatt <fre...@juno.com> wrote:
>> So - where will these voucher-enabled students go?
>
>> The argument is that, under good old American free enterprise system, demand
>> will increase the supply, and supply will drive down the costs.
>
>Supply and demand may affect certain costs shared by an entire school -- like
>facilities, or a library.
>However, many costs are on a per-pupil basis, so more students, more costs.
>
>And, the most fundamental problem that comes to mind regarding this idea
>is the ability to find good teachers. Because of an emphasis on low
>student-teacher ratios, more voucher students means having to hire more
>teachers. And teacher salaries will not be driven down by vouchers -- in
>fact, there are already problems with teacher shortages because salaries
>are so low.
As I said, part of the problem in California is the sudden mandate to
reduce class size. (When my synagogue was in the market for some room
dividers a couple of years ago, the man researching the purchase bemoaned
the fact that the sudden demand from the public schools had driven the
price up). I don't see that as a necessarily permanent situation. Teachers,
presumably, like any other profession, is also subject to the laws of
supply and demand - as teaching comes to be perceived as a profession
where jobs are readily available, more people will train for the
profession. And, again, I don't see how this is a private school issue.
If you have a fixed number of students, and you need a certain number
of teachers to staff as many 30-child classrooms as they fill up, what
impact does it have on the number of teachers if some of those classrooms
happen to be in private schools?
Fred Rosenblatt
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please be sure any followups address the *parenting* aspects of this
topic. General discussion of holiday meaning/tradition would be
considered off-topic for this group.
=================================== END MODERATOR'S COMMENT
In article <91o9c...@drn.newsguy.com>, Guest <gues...@azphx.com> wrote:
>spla...@aol.com said:
>>
>>>There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate Christmas. I
>>>think a great many people will be puzzled by his statement as given, since
>>>they
>>>are likely not Christians either, but they don't have any problem celebrating
>>>it.
>>
>>This has always puzzled me.
>>What are you celebrating then?
>>I mean, what do you tell your kids about the reason for the celebration?
Do you
>>give it a moral context (peace on earth, kindness to others, etc) or a
seasonal
>>context (winter solstice, etc), or just a "join the party" type thing?
>>Possibly the answer will help some of us understand better the concept of
>>"secular Christmas stuff."
>
>In my family, it's primarily a celebration of the joy and power of
>sharing. It falls just as the weather is about to turn really cold,
>when many people need help the most. In addition to gift giving and
>decorating (to show Santa that we appreciate his gifts), our customs
>include going through our closets and donating warm clothing and, of
>course, donating toys, food, and money to various organizations.
That's a beautiful custom, but still one, I think, that has its basis
in Judaic tradition, localized to a Christian holiday season. That's
what was meant by, "a moral context (peace on earth, kindness to others,
etc)" above. The proof is that the wonderful things that you are doing
could be (and in some cases should be) done at other times of the year -
people are hungry the year round, kids always enjoy toys (do they really
want to wait until the end of December?) and it seems to me that in
many parts of the country warm clothing would be welcome long before
December 25 as well.
I'm not suggesting that peace and kindness should be banned from public
schools as religious expressions, but the implied message that good
behavior can only come as the result of a religious holiday symbolized
by these supposedly secular symbols is wrong and unnecessary.
Fred Rosenblatt
egar...@altavista.net (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
>
>If the school can educate the extra kids adequately at $2000 each (or
>whatever the voucher amount is), then vouchers can pay for expansion. But
>it doesn't really seem like enough, especially if you have to add
>classroom space, since as I understand it, the idea behind vouchers is
>that there's this vast pent-up demand for non-public schooling.
As I said, even $2000 may make the difference for some families, and even
if not, it certainly makes a difference to those whose tuition is also
providing scholarships.
>And of course, it's not just getting a refund of the $ you paid in, at
>least around where we live. I would guess that we pay maybe $2K per year
>to the schools out of the $3.5 K we pay per year in property tax, and we
>only have one child. The person who owned the house before we did had
>seven children. If they'd had vouchers when her kids were in school, she
>could have gotten several times more voucher money than she paid in taxes
>to send them to Catholic school.
And if she didn't, she still got several times more than she paid in taxes
in "free" public education. The fact that the monetary relationship is
never stated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>I guess if you think taxes are "immorally obtained,"
I'm not an antitax freak holing up in a compound somewhere. But taking
tax money from me in order to fund a school that would not be my choice,
even at the cost of preventing me from choosing at all due to the resulting
financial inability, seems like a problem with representation. Especially
when the schools emphasize socialization and assimilation over education,
enthusiastically espousing philosophies that I might not agree with, or
promoting multiculturism and ethnic sensitivity while at the same time
ironically refusing to recognize my culture's absolute need for education.
And its an even bigger problem when that public education system self-
righteously decries my need for religious education while at the same time
taking advantage of a legal fiction to socialize my children into the
dominant religious group which is not their own.
>then anything you get back is only your right. But the people without kids
>currently in school would be paying for vouchers, too.
They're currently paying for all the kids in public school, one way or
another
>They're getting "nothing" for their
>money either way, unless you count a community full of kids with enough
>education to be able to seek gainful employment and not make their livings
>dealing drugs and mugging old people. The people in our town seem to
>think that's a good value (especially the old people).
Even assuming that that is true anymore, that we're producing anything
more than muggers with high selfesteem, I don't see how that goal is
in any way hindered by allowing the education system to serve children
with different needs according to their needs.
Lee
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please be sure any follow-ups address the *parenting* aspects of this
topic. General discussion of holiday celebrations/interpretations
must be considered off-topic for this newsgroup.
=================================== END MODERATOR'S COMMENT
mar...@aol.com said:
>
>For those who celebrate Christmas secularly, it is the day when the fat man in
>a red suit brings presents to children. Nothing more, nothing less.
Who are you speaking for? That doesn't fit anybody I know
who celebrates a secular Christmas.
It's the climax of the season of sharing good fortune with
others by giving to the man ringing the bell, and to food
drives and toy drives, etc.
It's a celebration of family and friends, children's wonder,
peace, prosperity, and the joy of caring about other people.
Just as Valentine's Day is primarily a celebration of romantic
love for one person, Christmas Day celebrate's altruistic love
for mankind. Neither day has to be associated with any single
religion to have meaning.
Elizabeth Gardner
<jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> egar...@iw.com (Elizabeth Gardner) writes:
>
> > In article <fredr5-2012...@mac99124170840.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> > fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I don't see why every public school should "take problem children" either.
> > > They destroy the environment for all the other children and are a major
> > > contributor to the inadequacy of the system.
> >
> > So what would you propose to do with them? There's no reason why every
> > class in every public school should take problem children, but if the
> > school as a whole doesn't have to take them on, then what happens?
>
> Well, some kids won't be educated, and teachers will have more time to
> deal with students whose needs can more easily be met. Might not the
> overall success rate of the school system -- even including the
> failure of the "problem children" go up significantly?
Maybe, but the overall success rate of society is another issue.
>
> (I'm not, by the way, advocating the wholesale dumping of "problem
> children" by any schools; I think that's a bad idea.)
>
> And
> > why shouldn't their parents be getting the services they're presumably
> > paying taxes for?
>
> Again, they're not paying taxes to educate their kids. They're paying
> taxes because the public, putatively secular schools provide society
> enough of a good to justify taxing (usually) property owners in the
> school district/city/county. Same thing as if/when you can afford a
> private security guard for your house/business/community -- you don't
> get a refund for the police services that you're not using.
_You_ know that and _I_ know that--it's the "give us back _our_ money for
school vouchers" crowd that doesn't know that. However, they are paying
taxes to educate kids in general, and if the schools declare a certain
number of the kids ineducable because they can't deal with those kids'
problems, then none of us are getting our money's worth, and _especially_
not the parents of those kids.
Actually, when I lived in a condo building in Chicago, we did get a rebate
from the city for hiring our own garbage collection service. I can only
assume it worked out to the city's benefit or they wouldn't have done it.
I doubt it would have been the same story if we'd had a security guard.
Leah Adezio
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please be sure any followups continue to address the parenting aspects
of these issues.
=================================== END MODERATOR'S COMMENT
MarjiG wrote in message <20001220142718...@nso-ct.aol.com>...
>In article <9d704t0vq869u2c3d...@4ax.com>, Barbara
><ba...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>>
>>>>> There are plenty of people who aren't Christians who celebrate
Christmas.
>>>>
>>>>Goody for them.
>>>
>>>And there is the heart of the disagreement here.
>>
>>What is? That because some non-Christians celebrate Christmas all must
>>do so? Are all non-Christians the same?
>>
>
>Isn't that precisely what is being said in, "We aren't Christian, we don't
>celebrate Christmas" ??? That no one who is not a Christian should
celebrate
>it?
No, it means that 'I'm not Christian; I don't celebrate Christmas.' Period.
Not 'I'm not Christian; I don't celebrate Christmas, therefore *you* can't
celebrate it either in the comfort of your own home.'
There's a difference between that and 'Christmas has always been in our
schools, so get used to it, deal with it'.
>I have _never_ said that anyone must celebrate Christmas. Only that the
>presence of those who do so secularly belies the claim that it must be
>celebrated religiously.
Look, I'm not responsible for those people who choose to observe a holiday
that they don't know what they're observing, or who make a choice to observe
something that they don't believe in because they like to socialize, or like
pretty lights on their house or think little ceramic Nativity sets are cute.
It's not *my* fault that people continue to believe that it's okay to
separate elements of a religious holiday, especially to rationalize the
continuation of putting elements of a religious holiday into public schools.
Like it's been mentioned before, some people and organizations choose to
'celebrate' a Seder and take things out of it. That doesn't make it any
less what it is -- a Jewish holiday. Just because, for example, the local
Methodist church decides to make a Seder because they're a) trying to 'be
sensitive' or b) to illustrate that (AFAIK) the Last Supper was a Passover S
eder to help teach their own children about Easter...and they put out a
Seder plate, with the appropriate foods and items on it, yet they do not use
a Haggadah (or pick and choose elements from a Haggadah), and alter the
Seder -- that doesn't make what they're doing *secular*.
An American family, for example, who adopts the idea of Santa Lucia from
Scandanavian tradition, a girl with a wreath of candles on her head that is
part of their Christmas tradition and has religious origins, and does so
without understanding the tradition but thinks it's sweet to 'adopt a
tradition from another country and isn't she a sweet image' doesn't make
that *secular* just because they don't understand the traditions origins.
Since, as has been mentioned by a poster that in Germany, for example, Santa
Claus is called 'Christmas Man', it seems to me that it's primarily the
American majority faith (or at least, big parts of it), that continues on
insisting that elements of what is very much a religious holiday can have
*no* connection to that holiday whatsoever.
Kind of reminds me of last night's episode of 'The Geena Davis Show' --
Geena's character, who is engaged to a man with two children, tries to do a
'Christmas Around the World' in her first attempt at being 'Mom doing
Christmas'. She incorporates elements of various Christmas traditions from
other countries, yet doesn't understand the traditions themselves.
I will admit that the scene where the young daughter is helping a friend of
the family hanging ornaments was funny -- they are putting Pokemon ornaments
on ('You can't have two water Pokemon on the same level!' she protests) the
tree...Geena comes in and objects because she has the tree all planned out.
The daughter is proudly showing her the Pokemon ornaments and Geena sighs
and says, 'Well, that's okay -- they can represent Japan.'
Now, *that's* secular!
Leah
Elizabeth Gardner
> In article <3A40CD25...@calweb.com>, "Steve O'Neill"
> <s...@calweb.com> wrote:
>
> >Elizabeth Gardner wrote:
> >
> > And I suspect that would lead to opportunistic people
> >> suddenly finding their vocation in teaching, and setting up private
> >> schools that just happen to have the same tuition as the amount of the
> >> voucher. Whether the kids would actually get an education there is
> >> another question. One big news story yesterday, at least in our area, is
> >> that the pipeline for new teachers and school administrators is running
> >> dry. It's hard to imagine being able to set up a new private school on a
> >> voucher-only budget that could afford to hire competent teachers. Or even
> >> expand existing schools.
> >
> >Well, they aren't required to all have credentials, at least here in
> >California, so they can work cheaper and more can qualify. Public
> >school teachers, even subs, have credentials.
> >
> >I cry when I hear the word "competetition" in connection with this
> >subject.
>
> There are any number of uncredentialed teachers in California. This was
> even more true when speaking Spanish was an asset.
>
> In my private school all the secular teachers are way beyond competent.
> Can one say that that is the norm in the Los Angeles School District?
> Our teachers are with us because they truly want to teach.
How do salaries, benefits, working hours, etc., stack up to what public
school teachers get? And how does the amount of the proposed CA voucher
compare with what you pay in tuition?
In other words, if they had to run the school only on voucher money, could
they keep up the standards?
Fred Rosenblatt
"Problem child" was not my term, I was merely responding to the term
used in the original post. I can certainly distinguish between a
"problem child" and a 'child with a problem'. *Your* problem is not
with me but with the standard antivoucher argument that public schools
are geared towards "problem children", with the clear implication that
these children consume an inordinate and disproportional share of the
resources.
>Are you telling me that because of a neurological deficit that he and other
>children like him are *not* entitled to an education? That there should be
>no attempt to mainstream him?
See above. I know of no Orthodox Jewish day school that wouldn't accept
your child.
>Boy, now where does *that* attitude get the line drawn? Let's not educate
>the mentally handicapped -- they cause problems in the classroom. Let's not
>educate the kid in a wheelchair because hey, it's going to cause a problem
>to build a ramp so he can get in the building.
Our building is certainly accessible. One of my best friends is a kid in
a wheelchair - and he attends our school.
>Let's not educate that blind
>kid because he causes problems by bumping into tables and spilling jars of
>paint on the floor. Let's not educate the kids with emotional problems, or
>who have deficits because mom took drugs while she was pregnant, or the kids
>who have developed emotional problems because they were abused because
>they're only going to cause more problems in school -- and we all know
>they're going to end up in jail or on welfare anyway?
I don't think that there is a blanket solution to your concerns - it
probably comes down to a case-by-case decision. Children who require
special assistance to function in a mainstream classroom, at some
inconvenience to the rest of the class, I would think should be almost
certainly given the assistance they need. They are able to benefit from
the experience, and any inconvenience to the other children is more than
made up for by the positive experience of getting to know and understand
this child. Note, however, that even in the public schools this assistance,
such as an aide for a blind or wheelchair-bound child, is *not* funded out of
the school systems budget but from another government agency. This assistance
is by law also available to private, even parochial school, students.
If children are merely incorrigibly disruptive ane patently unwilling or
unable to learn, then I am afraid that there must come a time when they
are removed from the general population and put in a school that can
more efficiently address their problems to whatever extent possible.
>>As for the special needs children who are a favorite argument of the
>>antivoucher side, yes, they are no less required to get a Jewish education
>>than any other child.
>
>Yeah, that's what my shul said when they kicked my son out of Hebrew School
>because the teacher 'couldn't handle him' -- this *after* a specialist from
>Metrowest was brought in to instruct her and observe her and found a variety
>of deficits in her teaching style and she *refused* any of the suggestions
>the specialist made.
I presume that by "Hebrew School" you mean the afterschool lessons given
once or twice a week? I don't think that a shul (synagogue) is as equipped
to administer a full scale education program the way an accredited (yes,
there are accreditation agencies for private schools) can. In my youth,
I think the teachers were moonlighting public school teachers, but I don't
think there is any guarantee of even that.
The people and shuls who run "Hebrew Schools" do not believe in the
absolute requirement to get a Jewish education. They don't acknowledge
absolute requirements in general.
>What happens in reality is that it gives license to the attitude of 'we
>don't *have* to help'.
>
>The problem with this logic is that there are so many different types of
>difficulties that fall under the heading of 'special needs students' who
>qualify for services and have IEPs done on their behalf. You can't compare
>equally a child with an IQ of 40 and a child who may be bi-polar and also
>has an IQ of 140. You can't compare a child whose physical impairments mean
>they can't write or speak, yet has superior intellect to a child who is
>deaf.
But, as I said, none of these assessments, nor the remedies that attempt
to provide relief, are paid for out of the public school budget. They
happen at the public school because that is where the child *is*, but
beyond that the school doesn't deserve the credit. The same assessments
and remedies are available to children in private schools.
>
>> I don't suppose they benefit from the same resources
>>in private school, at the moment, that they receive in public school, but,
>>since the public schools have already appropriated the money to provide
>>these services, its disengenuus to compare them. Let all parents decide
>>where they'll spend their own hard earned education budget, and there will
>>be adequate resources to at least match the level of services provided
>>by the public schools (some services now are provided at the schools,
>>whether public or private, by other government agencies).
>
>You do realize that it costs more to educate a special education student
>than the amount the schools receive to educate them, yes? Now, if the
>public schools end up being, in essence, the dumping ground for special
>education students because everyone else has taken their vouchers and run
>for the hills, that this is going to end up creating a 'special education
>ghetto' because there is no way government is going to be able to make up
>the difference between what the schools end up receiving and what it
>actually costs to educate them.
See above. A lot of that money comes from other agencies already.
If I were to list all the special needs students at our Orthodox Jewish
day school, I think you would find that they pretty much run the gamut.
It is an age old Jewish maxim that when it comes to Torah learning it is
it is the effort, rather than the result, that is important. One who
uses all one's abilities to learn one thing has done more than someone
who has learned much more but only expended minimal effort. And the merit
of that first person's acheivement enriches the whole community. So no
child who wants to learn will be denied the opportunity. We are doing
everything we can, and obviously there is room for improvement. I think
it is unfair to compare private schools as they are now to public schools
in the area of public education, since whatever efforts the private school
undertakes can only be after the public school's demand for money has been
satisfied.
Fred Rosenblatt
egar...@iw.com (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
>In article <fredr5-2012...@mac99124170840.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
>
>
>> I don't see why every public school should "take problem children" either.
>> They destroy the environment for all the other children and are a major
>> contributor to the inadequacy of the system.
>
>So what would you propose to do with them? There's no reason why every
>class in every public school should take problem children, but if the
>school as a whole doesn't have to take them on, then what happens?
There used to be schools (and still are, in some cases) that were
particularly geared to and trained to deal with these children. There is
no reason why they should be shuttled from school to school in an attempt
to maintain their self esteem by being mainstreamed. But in that case
the fact that not every school is equipped to deal with them ceases to
be an indictment of that school, as seems to be the case with private
schools. We have something in L.A. called "magnet schools" which, as
I understand the concept, not being a public school parent, attempts to
draw of some of the more competent students into a more favorable learning
environment. As far as I know they don't have accomodations for problem
children either, and I'm not sure about special needs.
>And why shouldn't their parents be getting the services they're
>presumably paying taxes for?
Which is all I'm asking for myself.
Fred Rosenblatt
>the per student money received by the Los
>Altos Elementary district is $4202.11.
I think it is closer to 8k in L.A., bu then we provide extra services
like building 2000 million dollar building shells over toxic sites.
>This is the problem, all children are not the same.
I have no problem understanding that. My problem comes when other
people can't understand that my children aren't the same either.
I hear a lot of First Amendment arguments, but the truth is that most
teachers have ideological problems with children learning religion.
If they didn't, I'm sure they could come up with a way to justify it.
The industry that proposed teaching in Ebonics could justify anything.
>(Black children could find places in private schools, but no Spanish speaking
>Hispanic children could be placed.)
One could ask why there are suddenly so many non-English speaking Hispanic
children in the system, but that's another discussion. However, that seems
like another entrepreneurial niche - either full time Spanish language
schools, or ESL transitional schools that prepare the students for English
classes while keeping them up with the subject matter
>The special ed kids never get picked up.
Again. Are you entirely satisfied with your districts assessment of cost?
If it were L.A., for instance, I would automatically assume that some of
the district personnel drawing a paycheck for their work in the special
ed program have been dead for years. Why couldn't private schools compete
in this area as well? There are private schools for "troubled" children,
for instance. Why couldn't private schools compete for the government
money available for special education that is currently outside the
public school budget? And do a better job?
MarjiG
In article <3A401A39...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> writes:
>
>Thanks for making the poiunt of those who are trying to keep
>religion out of the classroom.
>This is EXACTLY our point, and it goes double for little children!
>
MY religion is already out of the school. Santa Claus is NOT part of my
religion.
I don't happen to feel that elves and flying reindeer are a threat to my
religion, so I choose to play the Santa Claus game. Some Christians choose not
to, but I can't speak for them as to why not.
You might find though, that if you'd stop saying Santa Claus is part of the
Christian religion, that you'd have allies instead of enemies.
Joel Rosenberg
> MY religion is already out of the school. Santa Claus is NOT part of my
> religion.
Not part of mine, either. Which is why I don't want Santa Claus, or
other foreign religious practices foisted on my kids in the public
schools.
Fair enough?
Rosalie B.
>Noreen Cooper <nco...@wahoo.csu.net> wrote:
>> celebrate Christmas or we wouldn't be going around saying "Happy
>> Holidays" when the chances are 8 out of 10 that were we to say "Merry
>> Christmas" to a stranger, we'd be hitting the mark.
>And the other 2 out of 10 don't count? I took Shaina to the pediatrician
>this morning for her check-up. The doctor ALMOST asked her about her
>plans for Christmas, then remembered and amended it to 'holidays' and
>'break from school.'
We have gotten to Ft. Lauderdale on the Intercoastal, and one thing about
this area is that it is rife with bridges. These bridges must be opened
for sailboats to go through. Each bridge has a different schedule and a
bridge tender. I know that the bridge tenders are both men and women (can
tell from their voices), and by looking I can see that some are black and
some are white, and sometimes they have accents of various types (NY,
southern, foreign), but I can't of course tell their religions from 50 feet
below them. I think it is a good bet that many are Xian. Yesterday we
went through 20 bridges.
For each bridge, we have to get on the VHF radio and request an opening.
Usually after we go through (unless the bridge tender has been
exceptionally difficult and uncooperative), I get back on the radio and
thank the bridge tender. Commonly the tender will offer a comment in
return. Sometimes it is "have a nice day", or "have a safe trip".
Sometimes they say "have a good holiday". Rarely do they mention Xmas
specifically. I don't know if that is because of increased multi cultural
awareness, or is a coincidence.
>
> From my standpoint, although the Jewish parents of
>> school-aged children may have been injured by a less tolerant, less
>> multi-cultural attitude in public schools during the 50's and 60's, I see
>> far more inclusiveness these days.
>
The first time I was really aware of Judaism was in 8th grade social
studies. I think we were studying segregation - this was in 1950.
But the first time I really had it brought home to me that Jews did not
celebrate Christmas was in July 1956. I attended a language school to make
up for the fact that I had flunked college French. There were a lot of
Jewish high school girls from NYC in our dorm. We were trying to do some
type of singalong. None of the songs they knew (popular songs of the time)
were ones that I knew the words or music to. None of the songs I suggested
(folk songs, things like "My Grandfather's Clock" etc. did they know the
words to. The only song we all knew was -- Jingle Bells. I considered it
really weird to be singing Jingle Bells in July. But I realized that they
probably didn't really associated it with Xmas - it isn't really a Xmas
song. And we did all know it.
While the pervasiveness of the Xian culture may be a problem, **outside**
of school (as in the pediatricians office) it is not a separation of church
and state problem.
grandma Rosalie
Leah Adezio
Fred Rosenblatt wrote in message ...
>egar...@iw.com (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
>
>>In article <fredr5-2012...@mac99124170840.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>>fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't see why every public school should "take problem children"
either.
>>> They destroy the environment for all the other children and are a major
>>> contributor to the inadequacy of the system.
>>
>>So what would you propose to do with them? There's no reason why every
>>class in every public school should take problem children, but if the
>>school as a whole doesn't have to take them on, then what happens?
>
>There used to be schools (and still are, in some cases) that were
>particularly geared to and trained to deal with these children.
Even then, if a private, specialized school is determined to be the 'least
restrictive environment' for a special needs child under state and federal
law, the public school must pay for this.
My son is currently in this situation now. He attends such a school and
will for one more year (before being mainstreamed back into our local high
school) and between tuition and transportation, costs the district something
along the lines of 25K per year. The school doesn't get equivalent dollars
from the government to pay for this....and if we were to go to a voucher
system, even with half of the approximate 5,500$ our district spends per
child on average, there's no way I could afford to send him there privately.
>There is
>no reason why they should be shuttled from school to school in an attempt
>to maintain their self esteem by being mainstreamed.
Most special needs children are *not* shuttled from school to school.
Schools that do not have a specific program that will meet a child's
specific needs have several options, one of which is 'trading services' with
other local schools. For example, our grade school does not have a program
for children with severe physical handicaps. The grade school the next town
over does. Our school has an excellent program for children with mental
handicaps, the other school does not. The schools 'swap' and work out the
dollars between them.
Most children don't even have to do that -- their needs can be met by a
combination of some specialized programming within the school and
mainstreaming, mainstreamed with an aide (very common with deaf children who
might only need an ASL interpreter to remain within their regular
classroom), or adaptive equipement.
>But in that case
>the fact that not every school is equipped to deal with them ceases to
>be an indictment of that school, as seems to be the case with private
>schools. We have something in L.A. called "magnet schools" which, as
>I understand the concept, not being a public school parent, attempts to
>draw of some of the more competent students into a more favorable learning
>environment. As far as I know they don't have accomodations for problem
>children either, and I'm not sure about special needs.
Our county, fairly rural, has *one* magnet school -- a technology/math
school for junior high students. It's run out of the county's only
technical school, falling under the adminstration of another town, since the
school is located within their borders. My son, even with his special
needs, would have easily qualified for this school and the school would have
accommodated him. Admission is done on a lottery basis, however, and he
didn't get in via the lottery draw.
And you keep tossing out 'problem children' -- could you define what *you*
mean when you use that term? And further explain why you seem to feel it's
okay to let them fall through the cracks.
Leah
Leah Adezio
Fred Rosenblatt wrote in message ...
>In article <3a413...@nntp2.nac.net>, "Leah Adezio" <slad...@nac.net>
wrote:
>
>>>antivoucher side, yes, they are no less required to get a Jewish
education
>>>than any other child.
>>
>>Yeah, that's what my shul said when they kicked my son out of Hebrew
School
>>because the teacher 'couldn't handle him' -- this *after* a specialist
from
>>Metrowest was brought in to instruct her and observe her and found a
variety
>>of deficits in her teaching style and she *refused* any of the suggestions
>>the specialist made.
>
>I presume that by "Hebrew School" you mean the afterschool lessons given
>once or twice a week?
Yes, that's what I mean. That's what our shul *has*. The closest day
school to us is an hour's drive away. Since I am not only the sole driver
in the family due to medical reasons, and am the one who works full time
outside the home (and no other parents send their children to the day
school, so there's no one to carpool or offer to pay to drive my children),
day school is not within possibility.
> I don't think that a shul (synagogue) is as equipped
>to administer a full scale education program the way an accredited (yes,
>there are accreditation agencies for private schools) can.
They had the specialist in several times. She was willing to come more
often -- there were two special needs students -- my son, and a girl in the
same grade with perceptual impairments.
The regular teacher (complicating things further was that she's my cousin),
although not a public school teacher, was capable of teaching Hebrew School,
but was *not* willing to follow the specialists suggestions in regards to
these children.
The shul finally found a Rabbinical student who was willing and qualified to
come be the 'special needs teacher', but I was still told that my son was
'too involved' for him to be in that class.
Leah
Cathy
<cathy_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >the per student money received by the Los
> >Altos Elementary district is $4202.11.
>
> I think it is closer to 8k in L.A., bu then we provide extra services
> like building 2000 million dollar building shells over toxic sites.
>
> >This is the problem, all children are not the same.
>
> I have no problem understanding that. My problem comes when other
> people can't understand that my children aren't the same either.
> I hear a lot of First Amendment arguments, but the truth is that most
> teachers have ideological problems with children learning religion.
> If they didn't, I'm sure they could come up with a way to justify it.
> The industry that proposed teaching in Ebonics could justify anything.
My husband is Jewish, I am Catholic, and our children are raised in both
religions. I went to 12 years of Catholic school, and our schools
celebrated Christmas in a very non-secular manner. Since my children
are part Jewish, I am very sensitive to whether they are bringing home
Christmas trees or not. The only Christmas songs my daughters sang this
year were in Chorus, not during school. My eldest daughter's winter
school concert did include an incredible version of Winter Wonderland
for the brass instruments. They sang two songs, neither of them holiday
songs. These schools teach of cultures, they learn Japanese tea
ceremonies, Chinese New Year, Kris Kringle, Hannakah, and Cinco De Mayo,
among others. None take more than one day. They are trying hard to
include everyone, and leave religion out of the schools.
> >The special ed kids never get picked up.
>
> Again. Are you entirely satisfied with your districts assessment of
cost?
> If it were L.A., for instance, I would automatically assume that some
of
> the district personnel drawing a paycheck for their work in the
special
> ed program have been dead for years. Why couldn't private schools
compete
> in this area as well? There are private schools for "troubled"
children,
> for instance. Why couldn't private schools compete for the government
> money available for special education that is currently outside the
> public school budget? And do a better job?
Los Altos Elementary district is six K-6 grammar schools and two middle
schools. Entire district enrollment is about 3900. The superintendant
knows every teacher in the district, and every dollar is not only
accounted for to her, but to us. Last board meeting their budget, in
full gory detail, was handed out to whomever showed up. Eight of those
thirteen kids are in my daughter's school. So no, I don't wonder where
the money went. I see the 5 aides with the 8 children. I wonder where
they get that much money, are those aides working for free?
The LA school district is the behmoths of school districts, and behaving
as such. If I lived in that school district I would work with the folks
attempting to make it smaller. It has many problems, and its size does
not help.
animzmirot
wouldn't accept
> your child.
Accepting and keeping are two very different things. I know
of NO Jewish Day School that will keep a profoundly gifted
child. They are not cut out to handle a child with such
severe learning differences, and eventually the child is
asked to leave. Fred, you know that I'm speaking from
experience here. We're going to try the absolute last day
school in our area next year, but I'm not holding my breath.
Nobody in education wants to radically accelerate a child,
and I've got a kid who is now 2 full grade levels
accelerated. Next year he'll probably need to skip another
grade. Day schools can't handle that because the
Hebrew/Judaica gets lost in the acceleration shuffle. My
child is a 3rd grader in Hebrew and a 5th-6th grader in all
other subjects. How do day schools handle that? Do you keep
the kid in day school well past when they're doing college
work? :-)
>
> The people and shuls who run "Hebrew Schools" do not
believe in the
> absolute requirement to get a Jewish education. They
don't acknowledge
> absolute requirements in general.
I would agree with this statement, although the person that
runs our shul "Hebrew School" is also the Judaica head of
our day school. But the commitment isn't the same and you're
right, they don't acknowledge absolute requirements, ime.
>
> But, as I said, none of these assessments, nor the
remedies that attempt
> to provide relief, are paid for out of the public school
budget. They
> happen at the public school because that is where the
child *is*, but
> beyond that the school doesn't deserve the credit. The
same assessments
> and remedies are available to children in private schools.
Yes, any child attending a private school CAN get an
assessment at their local public school, but they're at the
back of a long line, and they won't qualify for the 45 day
waiting period like public school kids do. Plus, I wouldn't
trust an assesment run by the public schools. They're not
really trained to assess things of a medical nature, and
they aren't licensed to give many of the tests for GT kids,
for example.
Agreed.
>
animzmirot
>
> Again. Are you entirely satisfied with your districts
assessment of cost?
> If it were L.A., for instance, I would automatically
assume that some of
> the district personnel drawing a paycheck for their work
in the special
> ed program have been dead for years. Why couldn't private
schools compete
> in this area as well?
This area is in such desperate need of private schools for
special needs kids it's not funny. There is ONE, yes ONE
school for the gifted in the entire Peninsula. And that
school isn't REALLY for the gifted, it's for very rich kids
who have talents in art and music and happen to be smart.
Not gifted, smart.
There is one school that focusses on dyslexic kids. There
are hardly any private schools at all. It's just shameful
how Silicon Valley prides itself on it's intellectual
property, but refuses to come to the aid of the next
generation.
meirm...@erols.com
fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) posted:
>In article <egardner-201...@egardner-router.soho.enteract.com>,
>egar...@iw.com (Elizabeth Gardner) wrote:
>
>>In article <fredr5-2012...@mac99124170840.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>>fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't see why every public school should "take problem children" either.
>>> They destroy the environment for all the other children and are a major
>>> contributor to the inadequacy of the system.
>>
>>So what would you propose to do with them? There's no reason why every
>>class in every public school should take problem children, but if the
>>school as a whole doesn't have to take them on, then what happens?
>
>There used to be schools (and still are, in some cases) that were
>particularly geared to and trained to deal with these children. There is
That is what I thought you meant. I have a friend who taught English
at Sterling High School I think it is, in Chicago for over 20 years.
The kids there are both physically and mentally disadvantaged** and I
don't think anyone has suggested mainsteaming them, but I'll ask.
**without gettilng into it, is there a set of approved of and
disapproved of words here. I have my own views on English, unrelated
to this issue, that makes me ask.
>no reason why they should be shuttled from school to school in an attempt
>to maintain their self esteem by being mainstreamed. But in that case
>the fact that not every school is equipped to deal with them ceases to
>be an indictment of that school, as seems to be the case with private
>schools. We have something in L.A. called "magnet schools" which, as
>I understand the concept, not being a public school parent, attempts to
>draw of some of the more competent students into a more favorable learning
>environment. As far as I know they don't have accomodations for problem
>children either, and I'm not sure about special needs.
>
>>And why shouldn't their parents be getting the services they're
>>presumably paying taxes for?
>
>Which is all I'm asking for myself.
Remove the QQQ to
email a reply by hand
meirm...@erols.com
fre...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt) posted:
I should have said that Sterling is a public school, and I know of one
in another city too.
I don't know what they do with kids with lesser handicaps.
Michelle A. Mader
> In article <wkitoed...@winternet.com>, Joel Rosenberg
> <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Again, they're not paying taxes to educate their kids. They're paying
> > taxes because the public, putatively secular schools provide society
> > enough of a good to justify taxing (usually) property owners in the
> > school district/city/county. Same thing as if/when you can afford a
> > private security guard for your house/business/community -- you don't
> > get a refund for the police services that you're not using.
>
> _You_ know that and _I_ know that--it's the "give us back _our_ money for
> school vouchers" crowd that doesn't know that.
I'm not pro-voucher (although I am pro tax-credit) but it's not quite as
simple as presented, above. If you are paying for police services through
taxes but you don't get police services and end up paying for a private
security guard in self-defense your view on whether your taxes are providing
a public good is somewhat different.
This is what is happening in some areas of the country. Where I live,
the public schools simply do not provide a real education to the students.
While it sounds good to say "Change the schools", that's not simple
either. School boards are elected, it's a big city, anyone can vote,
politics can be more important than quality education. I am paying for a
private education for my children because I really don't have the choice
of educating them in the public schools (I could put them in the
public schools but they wouldn't be educated there).
Michelle
Elizabeth Levin
> I have no problem understanding that. My problem comes when other
> people can't understand that my children aren't the same either.
> I hear a lot of First Amendment arguments, but the truth is that most
> teachers have ideological problems with children learning religion.
> If they didn't, I'm sure they could come up with a way to justify it.
> The industry that proposed teaching in Ebonics could justify anything.
I have no problems with children learning religion. I have a problem with
_me_ being expected to teach it in a classroom where the kids are all over
the spectrum, and I've other work to do, anyway.
Look at it this way: I get 3-4 year olds, and I'm expected to make sure
they all: know the basic colors and shapes, letters, numbers, and common
items; develop fine and gross motor control; know the basics of how we use
the library (basically that it's a place with books, and we have story
time); find out a little about how their world works; and a number of
other skills. Am I to be expected, on top of all that, to teach Hanukkah
to the Jewish kids (while somehow not offending the pacifist's child),
Christmas (in all it's forms) to the various Christian kids, and whatever
other holidays may be occurring to a child in my class???!
My goal is to help the children begin learning. I honestly hope that the
parents share my goal and are teaching the kids at home, too. I hope the
parents are involved in their kids lives, and working to help their kids
develop into the kind of person they want to have around. I can't possibly
hope to totally shape the world of these children when I have them for
only a few short hours in the day (excluding holidays, weekends, days
their parent keeps them home for whatever reason...)
If you want your child to be learning your religion, either teach that
child yourself, or arrange for the child to be taught in the way you
approve, but don't expect me to teach it. I can't. My student body is
_way_ too diverse for me to hope to teach each child everything about
their own tradition.
--
Elizabeth Levin
Elisabeth Riba
> How do salaries, benefits, working hours, etc., stack up to what public
> school teachers get? And how does the amount of the proposed CA voucher
> compare with what you pay in tuition?
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ps/ is a statistical profile on private schools in
the US, 1993-1994. I know it's a bit out of date, but may still be
relevant to this discussion.
Private school teachers earn base salaries, on average, less than
two-thirds of average public school teachers' salaries; and principals
earn slightly more than half of their public school counterparts' salaries
(tables 3.7 and 3.12). Private school teachers, on the other hand, are
more likely to receive in-kind compensation: 15 percent receive tuition
waivers for their children, 20.2 percent receive free meals, and 7 percent
receive housing support (table 3.13). Such in-kind compensation is rarely
available to public school teachers.
This site also notes that:
The objective qualifications of private school teachers and principals,
on average, are less than those of public school teachers and
principals.
* About 30 percent of private school teachers are not state certified in
the field of their main assignment, compared to 3 percent of public
school teachers (table 3.3).
* More than 6 percent of private school teachers do not have a
bachelor's degree, compared to fewer than 1 percent of public school
teachers; and 34 percent have at least a master's degree, compared
to 47 percent of public school teachers (table 3.4).
* About one in four private school principals has no degree beyond a
bachelor's degree, compared to 1.4 percent of public school
principals (table 3.9).
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
MarjiG
writes:
In article <20001220214556...@nso-ca.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com
(MarjiG) writes:
>I don't happen to feel that elves and flying reindeer are a threat to my
>religion, so I choose to play the Santa Claus game. Some Christians choose
>not
>to, but I can't speak for them as to why not.
>You might find though, that if you'd stop saying Santa Claus is part of the
>Christian religion, that you'd have allies instead of enemies.
>
Yeah, fair enough. We'll take out the religious content, and keep Santa Claus
the myth, because he happens to be fun.
Elisabeth Riba
> The industry that proposed teaching in Ebonics could justify anything.
Well, I'd like to know what industry that is (cites, please) because
I never heard of a K-12 school planning to TEACH Ebonics.
The Oakland story was a case of the media finding out about two completely
separate things at the same time and drawing an incorrect conclusion.
First thing was that Oakland decided to have a policy of not insulting
kids for their accent: teachers had to speak in North American Corporate
English [NACE], and the grammar classes would teach NACE, but if students
spoke in their born dialect, and the teachers could understand them, they
wouldn't go out of their way to correct them. They figured that they
could teach English in English class, and teach everything else without
shaming the kids for how they talked.
Now, you can agree or disagree with the policy, but it wasn't ridiculous.
Many of my older relatives speak in the Yinglish dialect -- Yiddish was
their first language, they speak fluent English, but with some Yiddish
grammar. [For example, offering a "glass tea" instead of a "glass OF tea"]
Correcting their English every time they write or speak would probably
make them just shut up around me. In this thread, we've been talking
about how much more vulnerable children are, so you can see how much
more silencing constant corrections would be.
The other thing that happened at the same time was that professional
linguists were studying the way that urban Blacks in the US spoke, and
discovered that there were consistent grammatical and accent
characteristics that were consistent throughout the US -- an urban Black
person in San Francisco spoke more like an urban Black person in New York
than like a suburban White person in SF. More or less, I'm making up the
examples, and I don't remember what areas they studied. But they noticed
that they could find specific rules, and actually wrote down the grammar
of the dialect, which they called "Black Standard English", or, more
whimsically, "Ebonics."
The media decided, on their own, to put these two stories together and
report that Oakland was teaching Ebonics.
[Information written by my husband was used in this post]
Elisabeth Riba
> Teachers,
> presumably, like any other profession, is also subject to the laws of
> supply and demand - as teaching comes to be perceived as a profession
> where jobs are readily available, more people will train for the
> profession.
Only if society is willing to pay teachers a salary comparable to other
professions requiring the same level of education.
animzmirot
> You do realize that it costs more to educate a special
education student
> than the amount the schools receive to educate them, yes?
But it doesn't HAVE to. It does now because mainstreaming is
often essentially dumping children with learning differences
into classrooms with aides. And those aides cost a LOT of
money. So, instead of every single child with a special need
being mainstreamed where s/he is likely to cause
disturbances, take time away from other learning students,
and often slow down the entire class, why not reintroduce
tracking. I know, people are petrified of tracking, so the
entire school system, public and private have been dumbed
down to teach to the lowest common denominator and the smart
kids are dying of boredom. And while we're dumbing down our
classrooms, we're also sticking a bunch of kids with special
needs into the classroom as well, which causes even more
problems.
With tracking, gifted children can learn at their radically
accellerated pace without parents tearing their hair out.
Kids with ADHD can learn in a calmer environment with more
frequent breaks, less disruption, use of carals instead of
group seating, and with materials that cater to their
learning issues. Kids with LDs can be using teaching tools
like Lindamood Bell for reading, instead of struggling on
and on and on trying to learn an alphabet that appears to be
a bunch of lines and squiggles.
We tried to homoginize our classrooms and everyone has lost.
Smart kids, sick kids, problem kids, slow kids...they're all
not learning. We made a big mistake by mainstreaming
everyone and eliminating tracking. It's time we look into
both of those educational issues again.
Now, if the
> public schools end up being, in essence, the dumping
ground for special
> education students because everyone else has taken their
vouchers and run
> for the hills, that this is going to end up creating a
'special education
> ghetto' because there is no way government is going to be
able to make up
> the difference between what the schools end up receiving
and what it
> actually costs to educate them.
>
> Leah
>
>
animzmirot
varies
> somewhat, depending on whether that school district was in
a city,
> suburban, or rural back in 1968 when the school districts
were put into
> these categories. For some reason, the state will not
change a school
> district's category, even if a city sprung up around it.
So, looking
> for real California numbers, the per student money
received by the Los
> Altos Elementary district is $4202.11. (It is categorized
as rural)
Los Altos is RURAL? RURAL? No way! Los Altos Hills, maybe.
But there is no way that Los Altos could possibly qualify as
rural. I don't think there's an empty acre in the entire
town.
I have to say, when I moved here from MA 2 years ago I was
SHOCKED at how low the per pupal costs were. In my old town
in MA, per pupal expenditures were almost 9K per student.
Twice the price of an education in Los Altos.
>
> The problem is, no one is admitting how much it costs to
have a special
> education program. According to the Los Altos School
District
> Financial Report as of the first interim period, the Los
Altos district
> has 13 special education kids,
That could NOT be right. 13? That must mean that they are
not counting GT kids, LD kids, or ADHD kids. Those figures
must be off.
and receives an extra $36,290 to educate
> them. However, they require so much attention, they
require two
> teachers (at two different schools) and some number of
aides to educate
> them. I believe the assistant superintendent mentioned
the Los Altos
> school district has spent over 1 million dollars over the
last year on
> state and federal required special education programs that
were not
> reimbursed by the state or federal government. This cuts
the per
> student available funds to less than $4000. In this
particular
> district, if the vouchers had passed, voucher children
would have
> received more money per child than those in the public
schools. As
> this is a rather well off, entrepreneural district, I
wouldn't have
> been surprised if new schools did spring up to skim off
the children
> who could be educated for $4K, but that would leave the
children who
> could
> not find a private school with public schools that were
even more
> underfunded, as the special education programs cannot be
cut by law.
>
> Now, this is a school district that has less than 7% of
its students
> speaking other than English at home. The average school
in California
> has approximately 50% of the students learning English as
a second
> language. The ESL programs are also underfunded, with the
funds being
> taken from the general fund.
I live in the next town, and in our town we have 70% of
students with English as a second language. And as far as I
know, ESL programs are no longer allowed in the public
schools in CA. Weren't they outlawed? I know that the
Mandarin program taught in our town is completely funded by
the PTA and not the public schools. Ditto for PE, btw.
This is the problem, all children are not
> the same. Some have a homelife that enables someone to
teach anything
> they didn't catch at school. They can be taught by
uncertified,
> teachers with little experience, as if they don't clearly
explain
> anything to the kids, their parents or care givers will.
They don't
> need the latest books or computers, they have those at
home anyway, and
> there is a good possibility their parents will chip in
extra money to
> get them. These kids are absolutely cheap to educate.
Then there are
> those whose parents, for some reason or another, cannot
supply even
> pencils, can't help with homework, and certainly can't
donate
> computers. These children need good teacher and special
structured
> learning programs they can complete in school, with little
outside help.
> They are more expensive to educate, and if we don't
educate them, their
> family won't either. They will be living lost
opportunities. Then
> there are the special education kids. They require
specially trained
> teachers, and are very expensive to educate. Studies show
the vouchers
> work for the first set of children, and even the second if
additional
> burdens are added on, such as needing bi-lingual
teachers.(Black
> children could find places in private schools, but no
Spanish speaking
> Hispanic children could be placed.) The special ed kids
never get
> picked up.
>