Tom Usher commented or added the following:
"In 2006, Beverly M. Klecker published an analysis of the gender gap in NAEP test scores. She found something remarkable: A gender gap favoring girls — visible in the fourth grade — grows worse with each passing year.
"Why are schools failing boys so badly? No one knows for sure, but a simple answer may lie in the books we ask boys to read.
"In 2003, Beverley Freedmon conducted focus groups with boys to try to find out why they were slipping behind. The boys complained that they hated not being given a choice about what to read, and they wanted more action stories and science fiction."
The biggest problem with schools has been the same for as long as I can remember. On average, they aren't stimulating or challenging. They hold people back. People who could easily go on and do excellent work to then contribute back to society ten-fold or more are held back for lack of money. It's stupid. It's been stupid.
Chris Cut Wars McCabe
Hmmmm; my criticism of co-education started when we noticed how long No2 Stepson spent tarting up in the bathroom for school.....but there's also a tendency for schools in UK now to focus almost exclusively on academic 'achievement', with sports a poor 2nd, no vocational/skills teaching; lathes (which cd be used by girls & boys) sitting unused for fear of accidents & litigation. Thankfully, dyslexia is now recognised & not addressed with slaps & insults.
There are some schools over here that are being taken over by the teachers and turned into what are called charter schools. There have been mixed results, but some of the teacher-led schools have raised standards and achievements across the board. They've brought back all sorts of things that were considered too expensive and done it on the same level of funding. The biggest problem right now seems to be teaching to the tests. That's a great way to kill creativity, and just look at how the US has been slipping in that department.
The UK is even a greater "nanny state" than is the US.
Wood shop was a great learning experience. I also took auto mechanics. I wouldn't have minded being shown a thing or two by some chefs though. We had music and art and athletics (too much of the Big Three though: football (American, not what we call soccer over here), baseball, basketball). I liked it when we tried other things. I liked summer camp for that reason. A well-rounded education is a great thing. It definitely pays huge dividends back to the society that pays for it.
Chris Cut Wars McCabe
Cert, as with driving tuition, teaching merely to Pass the Test doesn't produce good drivers.
I learned a lot on our Church Youth Group work camps, skills + other cultures, & learned some auto mechanics from my ex-husband - v handy! My 1st secondary school was rubbish except for a few teachers, & the odd thing was that a few boys were able to opt for 'Housecraft' (cookery) with parental/ward lobbying, but no girl got to do metal or woodwork.
Yes, no girls got to do wood or metal work here either. Of course, those were the days before it took two incomes to pay the household bills and a journeyman machinist could provide a middle-class house for a family of four or even six.
Frankly, I do consider homemaking as being every bit as valuable as a job on the outside. There was also something to be said for Mom's being home when the kids got out of school. Boys did not get to act up as much. They weren't loose on the streets as much. The women also knew each other in the neighborhoods better and could cooperate to keep places safer.
I wonder how many women secretly long for a return to some of that life.
Chris Cut Wars McCabe
Not even secretly; feminism intended to give women choice, not for all to do the same.......Or a few blokes whose woman is the higher earner wd like to be at home with their own kids. The downside was the prejudice against single professional women, who were seen as a threat by being able to undercut working men with families to feed. There's still a nasty disrespect for 'menial' (vital!) work, & people are leaving their young ones in the care of barely trained, low-paid workers in day care. A lot of women in manufacturing were able to work part-time & still have time for children & home.
Feminism was used by the superrich to undercut salaries and wages to deliberately weaken the family structure, which structure they have always seen as a threat to their ill-gotten supremacy. It has been a divide and conquer strategy.
They have been weakening marriage and flesh and blood loyalty for centuries now.
There have also been radical anti-moralists who have worked long and hard to undercut the family in order to allow those anti-moralists to get away with tricking the people into falsely believing that clear errors are not only okay but good.
It's up to Christians to work to counter all of this by raising the standards of the spiritual and flesh and blood family to the level Jesus has had in mind and that he demonstrated toward his closest friends.
We are to call each other to righteousness and not to coercion. Hearts must change. They can't be abused into it and have it be real and lasting. Abuse has promoted more hardness. It's been counter-productive.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)