ktownlowdown.com

"Jesus never says anything good about the family or family structures. This is why James Dobson & Co never say anything about Jesus."

Micah,
Not to jump back on this, but it is fun.....You are right, Jesus never talked about His Father....can't find that anywhere....oh wait...never mind I forgot to look at all FOUR Gospels

then here's your bumper sticker:

my boss was a jewish home-schooled pacifist.

This is a quote from a fiend of mine...I wish I had thought of this...
"you should point out to Micah that Jesus was home-schooled"

Glad to do my part--I thought this blog might use a healthy dose of Jesus to balance out its conservative bias...:)

Actually, I think I've exceeded my annual online discussion quota by about 27 words, so I'm probably back to lurking. Fun stuff, though.

This is awesome. My main point was I think handing out the pill to middle school students is wrong...the title about "homeschooling" was my attempt at humor, on which I am working....
but this little post has generated every bloggers dream....
1. regular readers
2. multiple comments
3. tangent subjects...public schools, abstinence, and Jesus

I hope I can follow this post up with something equally interesting or at least debatable.

Hi Todd,

After the fact, I figured that must be you. Hope you are well.

My initial point wasn't that Shawn isn't qualified to discuss this (its his blog, after all), but that he was overreading the statement concerning parents. The administrator in Portland isn't saying that all parents are worthless, but that with regards to this issue, they don't expect much help from the parents of the children in their school(s). So, to move from that to a position that says all schools think all parents are stupid is a bit of a stretch.
Which led me to my next point, that though public schools are gov't funded and monitored, they are very much a product of their communities. This is as basic as it gets--why else do school zoning laws have such an affect on property values? What happens in one public school system isn't necessarily indicative of any other public school system. So, again, what happens in one school/district doesn't out of necessity indicate anything else about any national trends. One administrator admitting that they don't rely on parents to help them with an issue doesn't allow for instant generalizations about all public schools.

I've said that I think its deplorable and depressing to hand out chemical birth control to any students. And yet, I've also tried to communicate that I *think* I understand the thought process--school systems, as we all know, are under extreme pressure to score well; all teaching and class activity is geared to the standardized tests mandated by NCLB; that which can't be quantified is useless for most schools anymore (thanks to this administrations butchering of public education). Abstinence takes character; not having sex before marriage depends on a complex matrix of convictions, narratives and character formation. You can't teach those things, *especially* when your primary focus is to get kids to score a certain number on a test so you don't lose what dear little funding you have. Pregnancy rates, however, are quantifiable and easily solved. So, given the circumstances, it makes total sense to address that issue. If the federal government were serious about abstinence, it would evaluate not just sex ed programs but the whole of public education. But, that's not ever gonna happen.

I didn't say Jesus instructs us to ignore our own children, and sending them to school actually requires its own special kind of parental vigilence. I said to care for our own kids at the expense of our neighbors was unchristian. Jesus never says anything good about the family or family structures. This is why James Dobson & Co never say anything about Jesus.

Ok, tangents, tangents now. Hope that clears up....

Micah,
To clear up any confusion, I posted my comment before you had posted your second one. The blog does not show this, but when I was reading it I only saw your first comment.

To that point, and I maybe in error, it seemed like you were saying that because Shawn went to UH and we grew up in the middle class, that he might not have the proper perspective to comment on the situation in Portland, Maine.
Would that be true or am I off?

Secondly, I will admit and want to clear the record that at no time did you attack Shawn or his blog. That was an over-statement on my part. I am sorry. I mean it is not like you called him a "phony blogger" or anything like that.

Thirdly, I still don't understand how a luxury is a sacrifice, seems like they are still opposites.

Fourth, I don't understand what practical reasons lead us to hand out birth control. What about teaching kids to be abstinent, unless we are under the assumption that kids can't or won't be abstinent, but isn't that lowering the bar, something I thought schools weren't supposed to do. Won't your students be better off if you teach them that they are in control of their bodies, they can wait to have sex until they are married,they aren't animals, and actually won't they be better students when not having to deal with the emotional, physical, and cultural problems that come with sex before marriage. Handing out birth control, only encourages sex, making the problem worse. As if pregnancy was the only outcome of sex that effects students negatively. Seems like they're treating the symptoms not the problem. No surprise!

Lastly,
"There’s certainly nothing in the Christian faith that would suggest caring for my children while ignoring my neighbors is a good thing–in fact, Jesus would suggest the opposite."

Jesus would suggest ignoring your children to care for your neighbors, where's that at? What about Paul calling elders in the Church to be good managers of their homes as a proving ground that they can minister to others. And how does sending your kids to these schools help your neighbors. Can I not help a neighbor whose children do not go to the same schools as mine? Okay that's it.

I promise to never call you a liberal and I would never think of calling you a conservative. Congratulation on the "funniest comment of the week", I think it comes with a T-shirt. You should ask the management of this blog

I thought the Jesus comment was funnier...

For this reason...
"And I can assure you that second only to my fear of being labeled a conservative is my fear of being labeled a liberal"

Micah is hereby awarded this week's funniest comment, that's why I am proud to have him as a brother from another mother and a commenter on this blog. Keep it coming.

SVD is my brother in law and a friend since Jr. High. "attacking the person" would imply that I had, in fact, attacked SVD, which I clearly didn't. "attacking the blog" would imply that I had, well, attacked the blog, which I didn't even mention, much less attack. I actually took the issue considerably farther than it was originally presented. So, not real sure which of my comments you read.

My points were all, I think, quite concise and clear. If there's a specific one you have issue with, please feel free to mention it directly. I clearly stated my thoughts on whether or not handing out chemical birth control is a good thing or not.

I suspect that you could get many inner city public school officials to say the same thing about parents.

And I can assure you that second only to my fear of being labeled a conservative is my fear of being labeled a liberal. Just because I brought up Jesus doesn't mean you have paint with such broad strokes, you know...

Micah,
To be very blunt, but what was your point?

Is handing out birth-control something a school should be doing?

What about a public school official saying blatantly that parents can not be depended on?

Or maybe that is just liberal-talk tactics of attacking the person, his blog, and not the issue? All for fun.

A sacrifice, sure, and not always a bad one, but a luxury nonetheless. Most luxuries are sacrifices, which is what makes them luxuries. My point is, though, a low-income single parent doesn't have the luxury to sacrifice for a home-schooling for his or her children the same way most middle class families have. In all of my years of listening to people tout the benefits of homeschooling, I've never heard anyone suggest any kind of program that would make it possible for low-income single parent homes to homeschool.

Schools and school systems are run by school boards, which are made up of elected folks from the local community. They have some quasi-governmental functions in that many can set tax rates, but the fed gov't funds and sets the standards. The actual work of running schools is left to local communities, which often depend on non-profits and Universities as much as anyone else for help.

The real tragedy of public education is not that gifted students get left behind, although that's hardly a good thing, but that we find ourselves in positions where our schools hand out chemical birth control to middle schoolers. A deplorable state of affairs to be sure. But it very much is a learning issue--pregnant and parenting middle schoolers probably don't participate in the learning process. I don't suspect that this decision was made for anything other than practical reasons, depressing though it may be.

As someone who lives in a low income, inner city environment, who now does a considerable amount of professional work in inner city environments, and who most likely will send his kids to low income inner city schools, the operative question isn't why would I want to (I don't know that I do want to), but how I can I faithfully care for the neighbors who have no choice but to send their kids these schools. There's certainly nothing in the Christian faith that would suggest caring for my children while ignoring my neighbors is a good thing--in fact, Jesus would suggest the opposite. Not a lot of black and white in this issue.

Oh, but this article is talking about Middle Schools...and for that I remind you, I attended Happy Valley...but that's dwelling on semantics.

And it's a myth that home schooling is a "luxury"; it's a sacrifice.

But I think you missed the point, (mainly because I am not very articulate)...

what does handing out the pill in school have to do with teaching kids to learn...

The point is a question that becomes easier to answer when I read things like this..."Why would I want to send my kids to public school?"

And to the best of knowledge.."gov’t funded, sure, and gov’t monitored, sure"...means government run, but then again I'm open for clarification.

The NCLB Program has left every child behind,
most tragically the gifted ones left in a quagmire of mediocrity of the lowest common denominator,

The full scale dumbing down of (all) public school students has been an unbridled success! Hands down!

Way to go US Dept of Education!

Rev. Joseph G. Steadman
Home Schooler since 2000

My hunch is that your very small, formerly private lab school in suburban east tennessee was just a tad bit different than the inner city schools of portland.
My other hunch is that your educated, professional parents offered you different types of support and resources than most inner city parents are typically able to offer their children.

So I don't know what you mean when you say "these same public schools."

Home schooling, while a vital and important option, is a luxury of the middle class, and rarely an option for low income folks. Private school is only an option for the truly affluent.

"Governement-run" is a talk radio farse--gov't funded, sure, and gov't monitored, sure, but most inner city schools are community ventures involving a variety of non-governmental and private players, including universities and non-profits.