|
|
|
brownschat.clevelandbrowns.com Forums Main Index General Discussion Teen birth rates highest in most religious states Topic Closed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
 |
Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
Link may be due to communities frowning on contraception, researchers say By Jeanna Bryner U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests. The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn't successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise. Mississippi topped the list for conservative religious beliefs and teen birth rates, according to the study results, which will be detailed in a forthcoming issue of the journal Reproductive Health. However, the results don't say anything about cause and effect, though study researcher Joseph Strayhorn of Drexel University College of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh offers a speculation of the most probable explanation: "We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself." The study comes with other significant caveats, too: The same link might not be found for other types of religious beliefs that are perhaps more liberal, researchers say. And while the study reveals information about states as a whole, it doesn't shed light on whether an individual teen who is more religious will also be more likely to have a child. "You can't talk about individuals, because you don't know what's producing the [teen birth] rate," said Amy Adamczyk, a sociologist at the City University of New York, who was not involved in the current study. "Are there just a couple of really precocious religious teenagers who are running around and getting pregnant and having all of these babies, but that's not the norm?" Strayhorn agrees and says the study aimed to look at communities (or states) as a whole. "It is possible that an anti-contraception attitude could be caused by religious cultures and that could exert its effect mainly on the non-religious individuals in the culture," Strayhorn told LiveScience. But, he added, "We don't know." Bible states Strayhorn compiled data from various data sets. The religiosity information came from a sample of nearly 36,000 participants who were part of the U.S. Religious Landscapes Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted in 2007, while the teen birth and abortion statistics came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For religiosity, the researchers averaged the percentage of respondents who agreed with conservative responses to eight statements, including: ''There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion," and ''Scripture should be taken literally, word for word." They found a strong correlation between statewide conservative religiousness and statewide teen birth rate even when they accounted for income and abortion rates. More abortions among teens in less religious states For instance, the results showed more abortions among teenagers in the less religious states, which would skew the findings since fewer teens in these states would have births. But even after accounting for the abortions, the study team still found a state's level of religiosity could predict their teen birth rate. The higher the religiosity, the higher was the teen birth rate on average. John Santelli of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University calls the study "well-done," adding that the results are not surprising. "The index of religiosity is tapping into more fundamentalist religious belief," Santelli said. "I'm sure there are parts of New England that have very low teen birth rates, which have pretty high religious participation, but they're probably less conservative, less fundamentalist type of congregations." Other factors that may have been important to consider include ethnic backgrounds of state residents, according to Adamczyk, the City University of New York sociologist. "We know that African American women on average tend to underreport their abortions, which means they could also underreport the likelihood that they got pregnant," Adamczyk said. "If you're dealing with states with a high number of African American women, you might run into that problem." Adamczyk's own, separate research has shown a nearly opposite correlation, at the individual level. "What we find is that more religious women are less likely to engage in riskier sex behaviors, and as a result they are less likely to have a premarital pregnancy," Adamczyk said during a telephone interview. But for those religious teens who do choose to have premarital sex, they might be more likely to ditch their religious views and have an abortion, she has found. Cause and effect? Adamczyk says the idea that anti-contraception principles could be behind the link is controversial, as studies on the topic have varied results. "The idea is that in the heat of the moment, a young woman who has said, 'I'm going to be a virgin on my wedding night,' is with her boyfriend and she says 'Let's just do it.' And since they didn't plan it, nobody has a condom. And so it increases their chances of a pregnancy," Adamczyk said. Earlier marriage among religious individuals could also partly explain the finding. "In the south, there is a higher rate of marriage of teenagers. And one possible explanation is just that in the southern states, which are also more religious, people just get married earlier and have planned pregnancies and those have perfectly good outcomes," Strayhorn said. He added that he doesn't think the earlier marriage idea explains the religion-birth link. Teen birth rates and religiousness in the United States This table shows data that reflect birth rates and religiousness throughout the United States. "Birth rate" is the state’s national ranking by rate of teen births according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and "religiousness" is the state’s national ranking based on responses to a survey of religious beliefs taken by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Asterisks indicate that no data are available. link |
||
|
 |
It's because they're all conservatives.
 Just kidding. I think it can be contributed to the fact that these religious people only want to teach abstinence and not teach kids about safe sex. By safe sex I mean using a condom or contraception to prevent pregnancy, not necessarily safe sex from an STD standpoint. However, one is not necessarily mutually exclusive of the other. I am all for teaching abstinence as a birth control method, but in today's high peer pressured world it is very unlikely for most teens to maintain abstinence. I also like the idea of having kids be parents of an egg or baby doll to give them a semblance of what having a baby requires. Too many kids these days don't understand what it means to be a parent until they already are and then they are behind the eight ball. |
|||
|
 |
Here's another article on the study:
Religious Beliefs No Barrier to Teen Pregnancy By Peggy Peck, Executive Editor, MedPage Today Published: September 16, 2009 Teen birth rate is very highly correlated with religiosity at the state level (P<0.0005), with more religious states having a higher rate of teen birth. That's the conclusion drawn by Joseph M. Strayhorn, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with faculty appointments at Drexel University College of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh, in an analysis published in the open access journal Reproductive Health. Strayhorn and co-author Jillian Strayhorn came to that conclusion by correlating Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in 2008 data with teen birth rate data from the CDC and income data from the U.S. Bureau of Census. Not surprisingly, states with a higher religious index score had a lower abortion rate, so religiosity was predictive of both more teen births and fewer abortions (P=0.002), Strayhorn found. The "correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate remained highly significant (P<0.0005) when income was controlled for," he wrote. Strayhorn speculated that a "possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception." Adding that it was possible that "conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself." He also cautioned against using the results to conclude that religious teens get pregnant more often. "The associations we report could still be obtained if, hypothetically, religiosity in communities had an effect of discouraging contraceptive use in the whole community, including the nonreligious teens there, and only nonreligious teens became pregnant." The "religious index" used in this analysis was based on responses collected by a Pew phone survey in 2007. The survey included 35,957 participants who were asked to respond to eight statements concerning religious beliefs. On a state-by-state basis, the authors calculated the percentage of survey participants who endorsed these statements: Belief in God or a universal spirit: Absolutely certain. There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion. Scripture should be taken literally, word for word. Religion is very important in my life. Attend church at least once a week. Pray at least once a day. Receive an answer to specific prayer request at least once a month. Finally, Stayhorn wrote that the findings "by themselves, of course, do not permit causal inferences." No funding source was reported for the study. The authors reported no competing interests. Primary source: Human Reproduction Source reference: Stayhorn JM and Strayhorn JC "Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States" Hum Reprod. http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/16013 _______________________ When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). |
|||
|
I have some teacher friends and this confirms what they tell me. Religious parents are way more likely to refuse to let their kids attend sex education classes. Quite a disservice to those kids, you can't bury your head in a pile of bibles and pretend teens aren't going to have sex, they always have and always will.
|
||||
|
Yea, the 4th graders should all be forced to read the book "WHY JOHNNY HAS TWO DADDYS"!
Liberals say they simply want to help but always have their hidden agenda. Religious parents have become skeptical of the system. You know, the system that started with "OH my, we shouldn't force non religious kids to say morning prayers" and then proceeded to abolish ANY religious activity in our schools. |
||||
|
That's right, separation of church and state is part of the foundation the country, you can thank Jefferson for that. You have the freedom to put your kids in religious school and I have the freedom as a jew/muslim/buddhist/athiest for my kids to get a secular education and if we allowed religious activities in schools, 90+% of those activities would be christian and we would end up teaching creationism as science, the bible as law and having 2 daddys is a sin. |
||||
|
|
|
As a person who doesn't tolerate anybody telling you what you should tolerate I have a hard time understanding why you would want a teacher to have your child participate in worshiping in a way that is not part of your beliefs. As far as agendas. The right has a NOT so hidden agenda to force all American students to be taught that the world is only something like 6,000 years old, because that's what the bible teaches. The main thing this study indicates is that teaching abstinence doesn't work as a strategy to curb teen pregnancy, which is ANOTHER agenda of the far right. Don't tell kids how they get pregnant or how to avoid it and then force the girl to deliver the baby. This from the party that insists on the rights of the individual. I guess it's only CERTAIN individuals you're actually concerned about. The level of hypocrisy that you guys blame liberals for is nowhere close to what you practice. |
|||
|
 |
Obviously, the rejection of birth control is a factor in this...
...but so is the fact that Christianity teaches that sexuality is forbidden and sinful. That makes it so much more rebellious and cool for teenagers. It's the same principle that makes the United States the world capital of binge drinking. |
|||
|
Its not that sex is forbidden and sinful, it is meant to be between the husband and wife. It use to be easy to teach that value to kids, but with the teen magazines, tv shows, and movies our society has devalued it like everything else God has meant to be good.
|
||||
|
|
|
Your homophobic nature is showing.  However, I wouldn't completely disagree with your view on religious parents. I too am against not allowing prayer in school, although I don't think it should be mandatory. I believe that all religions can be accommodated in schools whether you are Baptist and pray to God or your Muslim and pray to Allah. Intolerance is the thing that needs to be eliminated not prayer in school. |
|||
|
|
|
I think you'll find that it is because the United States is so up tight about sex it couldn't squeeze a penny out of its butt that is the major reason for the increase in teen pregnancies. Look at the European teen pregnancy rate they are less than half of that of the United States on average. The reason for this is that in European countries they do not down play sexuality in schools or anywhere else. They inform their children about sex and its consequences. Almost identical to drinking here as compared to overseas. |
|||
|
 |
Oh Lawdy, Lawdy...
Now ain't this jest one of the finest example of: Statistics doan lie... Howsumever, doan liars jest love to use theyseffs Statistics? A-from the specious article: Mississippi topped the list for conservative religious beliefs and teen birth rates, according to the study results... Well! Ain't it jest the most marvellous coincidence that Mississippi also has the largest percentage of its citizenry what is African Amurcan. A-from sum 'nuther article (specious or not, doan seem to matter): 38% - Percentage of Mississippi’s population that is black, highest of any state.. Could it posserbly be that teen pregnancy an' teens givin' birth is more driven by the racial makeup of population than by its religious affiliations? Doan dasn't say that, though! BTW: Check out t'other most heavily populated by African Amurcan States an' see if'n they doan ring true with the same States what is s'posedly the most "religious." Okee dokee, then. A-from sum 'nuther CNN article: ...while Mississippi and West Virginia were the poorest states in the Union. Wunst again... could it posserbly be that teen births an' pregnancies associate more strongly with median income ruther that with what prayer gets itseff said over dinner? Doan dasn't say that though! (Again, compare an' contrast the 10 poorest States with those what is s'posedly the most Gawd-fearin') An' then... Mah final "Statisitic" a-from a sumwhat dated article rankin' Schools by State: Bingo! Dead last, coming in at No. 51. Yes, ...Mississippi. Howsumever, ignernce is no excuse fer babies poppin' out'n babies... ... s'posedly, only the Bible is responsible fer that phenomenon. Sorry wienerdog, I prefer to make sure I know what is the REAL CAUSE fer sum EFFECT... A-from 15 minutes worth of research, it's flat evident the authors of yer article didn't do the first sensible thin' whilst formin' they's opinions: Namely, rulin' OUT t'other posserble causes.  |
|||
|
Hairdog, sometimes it takes 20 minutes to understand what you're sayin', but you hit it on the head. In general, religion and poor go hand in hand, and poor usually translates into unexpected pregnancies (no birth control, condoms etc)
 |
||||
|
|
|
Actually you can pray in school. Whether it's before lunch or before an exam. What's not allowed is the state paid employee to lead the children in prayer or for religious organizations to gather for prayer on state property. |
|||
|
 |
I would say boredom is the biggest cause of teen pregos... lol
And I'll state again for the "Religion in schools" debate... Do away with public schools and problem solved...
I am not apart of nor do I speak for "The far right", but I can tell you my reason against teaching sex ed in public schools... It should be up to the parent when, how and by whom their kids learn sex ed... but it should not be up to the parents if their kids can live or not... I know you understand this, but somehow feel a parent should not be allowed to take control of their kids education but should be allowed to decide to end their life... it really does not make since... I believe in individual rights, some of those are suspended until you are old enough to make your own decision (law states age) but the right to live is never suspended. |
|||
|
|
|
I know that you will always disagree with me about forcing women to be breed machines due to your religious beliefs. |
|||
|
|
|
I know I told you this before, but just incase you are confusing me with another poster... I could not care less about religion... I disagree with you because I believe in individual's rights and the right to live trumps all the others, including the right to not be prego... |
|||
|
|
|
Oh yea! Sorry. But actually it's only American babies that you're concerned about. Now I remember. Any other innocents that are killed, like Iraqi unborn during that war is cool with you. |
|||
|
|
|
Lol you crack me up weiner. No, unborn Iraqi kids being killed is not "cool with me". Side note: I was against going into Iraq. I only defended the "Reasons for going into Iraq" when people were saying it was a Bush family conspiracy to get oil. What you are referencing is during the "Abortion" debate some were trying to equate foreign wars to abortion to get at the religious right on these forums. I stated that no U.S. law on abortion would effect people outside of the U.S. and therefore the debate on abortion being legal or not did not have anything to do with war casualties. I also stated that if any wanted to debate any U.S. wars, casualties, ect that they should start a thread for it. You twisted that into...
|
|||
|
|
|
Like then I'm again puzzled about how to classify which innocent lives are to be saved and appropriate discussions about them. If a discussion is about the sanctity of life then why shouldn't a comment about the lives of ALL innocents be part of it? At what point in life's development does innocent change to "acceptable war casualty"? So can we cavalierly accept our government dropping bombs into neighborhoods in an attempt to kill a smaller group within? Do "political boundaries" really have an effect on classifying what lives are innocent? Especially if we're discussing the "legality" of changing laws within our boundaries so that the government is forcing women to breed against their will. The issue is you're fine with the government legally protecting its interests abroad, but against a woman here having the right to legally protect hers. |
|||
|
Maybe the issue is the conflicting messages kids receive. Yes, I other Christians, we teach abstinence until marriage. The result is that those teens, that not only attend our churches but agree with what we teach, are not likely going to be prepared with condom's. They are also heavily influenced by the sexual culture of the irreligious. Porn beamed into homes through cable and internet, oversexualization on networks, magazines, and yes teaching within the school system.
It is difficult to teach teens to abstain when you have a million other voices in their ears telling them and enticing them to do otherwise. As looked at though there is no reason to say Christian teens have more pregnancies than non Christian teens but they are just carrying those babies to term and delivering them rather than aborting them. So the Christians are not necessarily less effective at curbing teen pregnancy but maybe more affective at teaching their teens not to take the "easy" way out and abort him/her but give birth and raise him/her. Not to mention those teens in the church, I would guess, would have a larger support system around them that may give them more confidence to give birth knowing they will be helped in raising and supporting the child. |
||||
|
This shows how little you truely know about what happens at public schools on a daily basis. At the public school I went to and the public schools that my children go to have a prayer at the pole(flag pole) every morning, there are afterschool religious programs such as the fellowship of christian athletes, and many other sorts of religious programs. The only thing that is not allowed is forced prayer, and unless you are ok with your child being forced to say muslim, or buddist, or wikken prayers, then you should thank your god that forced prayer is not allowed in school. |
||||
|
|
|
[
Because we were discussing what laws to pass or not pass in the U.S. regarding abortions. I can start lamenting the trials and tribulations of the average woman living in the Congo, but that really doesn't further our discussing on U.S. laws on abortion now does it?
The discussion was about U.S. law on abortion and it's effect on the sanctity of the life of U.S. citizens, cause there the ones effected by it... A talk on the sanctity of all life on earth is fine but I feel it would be more of a theological discussion.
I do not feel that there is a such thing as "acceptable war casualty". I also do not feel that because we can not save every innocent life that we should give up on all innocent lives.
Yep, was against the Iraqi war. If you are referencing Afghanistan then it is because the number 1 purpose of the U.S. Government is to protect U.S. citizens. The attack on Afghanistan was felt to be needed to prevent any more attacks on the U.S. I do not like the idea of dropping bombs anywhere, but if your goal is to propose the idea that the U.S. government has equal duty to protect non U.S. citizens as it does to protect U.S. citizens then I wholeheartedly disagree.
Innocent? No. Priority? Yes. It is the number 1 priority of a nation to protect it's citizens. You really do not understand this?
Absolutely not. The government should never force women to breed, that would be nationally sanctioned rape, disgusting. The government should mandate and enforce laws that condemn murder, even if it is a parent murdering their very own child. Being a parent, mother or father, should not give me the right to decide if my child lives.
A woman can legally protect her interests here. As long as those interests don't involve killing other people... |
|||
|
HA! When your taxes go to pay for my kids in religious school like mine go to pay for your kids in public school, then we can discuss that issue! You are quick to use the Founding fathers in your statement, so tell me where they garaunteed our freedom FROM religion! No way bucko, its freedom OF religion! I don't think any kid should be forced to say a prayer. If you listened to what I was saying, you would see my complaint is when the Liberals say one thing and then run the extra mile with it! Everyone can get behind "no kid should be forced to pray". Then they make it so no kid is allowed to pray! |
||||
|
This shows how little you truely know about what happens at public schools on a daily basis. At the public school I went to and the public schools that my children go to have a prayer at the pole(flag pole) every morning, there are afterschool religious programs such as the fellowship of christian athletes, and many other sorts of religious programs. The only thing that is not allowed is forced prayer, and unless you are ok with your child being forced to say muslim, or buddist, or wikken prayers, then you should thank your god that forced prayer is not allowed in school.[/QUOTE] Very good for you and your school! If you tried that in my school district, you would be arrested and your kids expelled for such an "open showing of religion on school property"! |
||||
|
|
|
No religion was allowed at my school either, I was fine by that. My kids go to a private school that has no religion. Of course I'm still forced to pay for the public school and have little say over what goes on there. If there were no public schools then you would have more money and choices as to what type of education your child received. The debate over religion in schools would be gone. |
|||
|
AMEN!
|
||||
|
 |
CAN I GET A WITNESS?!?!?!!?
|
|||
|
|
|
So what happens to those people who cannot afford to pay for their kids primary education? Eliminating public schools is not an option. Can it be improved? Of course, but not gotten rid of. We already have a large portion of the population that get an inadequate education and they are attending school. The problem isn't public school, it is how public schools are run and the fact that teachers are one of the lowest paid professionals in our country. Check out how much teachers get paid in other countries comparably speaking to those in the U.S. |
|||
|
What's to stop a kid from praying on his or her own> Do you have any examples when kids were forced not to pray when they were on their own? |
||||
|
|
|
School should not be guaranteed or forced. You can give tax credit, public vouchers, grants, scholarships, ect. to pay for the schooling of those not able to pay themselves. It would be waaaay cheaper than our current public school system. Teachers then, like most workers in America, would be paid depending on their quality of work. The fact that public schools, on average, are run poorly is because they are public schools. The solution is not more money it is a different system. Private schools with an "educational welfare" system in place to make sure all U.S. kids that want to try and better themselves through education will be given that opportunity regardless of their financial situation. Those that do not want to try are not forced through at the tax payer's expense. |
|||
|
|
|
Schools should absolutely be a guaranteed right of every citizen of the United States and it should be mandatory for everyone under the age of 18 to attend. No one is better off without an education, no one. Schools should be supported by state and federal funding this includes paying teachers a respectable wage. Teachers should be paid well because they are teachers, it is the responsibility of the administrators to ensure that teachers are doing the job well. If they are not then you get rid of them and get a new teacher just like any other work place. You are wrong in stating that public schools are run poorly because they are public schools. That statement is ridiculous. Public schools are run poorly because the administrators are not doing their jobs and are not held to a high degree of accountability. So tell me what you do with the millions of uneducated people that your theory of education would lay on the American public? If you think we have well-fare problems now, imagine what we would have an education system that only the rich or ultra bright could get into. If you think that your private school theory would let any kid that wanted an education in, you are completely out of your mind. And if it did then what would be the difference between that and a public school, because your tax dollars would have to go to paying for their education in your scenario. |
|||
|
why do you care what babies are killed in iraq? why should anyone care? and what's a innocent anyway? |
||||
|
|
|
Are you serious, because if you are you might want to see someone. |
|||
|
|
|
And if they don't? Lock em up? What is the current drop out rate in inner city schools? Ya, that system is working...
I agree. If you shove that idea down their throats you think everyone will agree with you though? Give them a choice and help pay for the ones that TRY! Not for kids that don't want to be their and will do nothing in school, it is money wasted as evident by our funding to success ratio nation-wide.
I believe the private sector can do this better and turn a profit from the citizens on the U.S. that afford it and taxes can help the ones that can't. You eliminate paying for kids that don't want to be their/will not comply with your idea of mandated schooling and give everyone a choice of the style of school their kid attends.
There is no accountability because it is GOVERNMENT RUN! Sorry I get frustrated
Wait? You think we don't have millions of uneducated now? The system I suggested only pays for those that WANT an education. Guess what, the ones that don't want an education in your system are currently not getting an education but still costing the U.S. millions of dollars.
Re-read my idea please.
The "poor" students would be paying the same amount just using tax money instead of parents money. We do have discrimination laws in place if you are suggesting private schools would disallow a student because his/her money came from taxes instead of parents. Can you imagine a grocery store disallowing a customer to use his/her EBT card? lol no, they want the business.
Tax dollars would help the ones that can't afford it. And in this scenario you choose what type of school your kid goes to Christian, Muslim, normal, ect. Some might have bus's to pick up your kids some might be drop off only. Some might hold 3,000 some might hold 300. Some will have better testing than others. It is choice. There is choice right now you know. Crappy public school or nice private school (only for the rich currently). |
|||
|
|
|
I completely disagree with you on this subject. First, I do think that people who could not afford to have their kids go to your type of school would be left out, regardless of who you think is going to foot the bill. Private schools are private schools for a reason, so that they can pick and choose who they let in. If this weren't so then there would be no all girls schools, or schools that don't allow all religions to attend only the one they want in their school. This country is divided enough and you want to make it mandatory to go to a private school that separates people by race, sex, and religious preference. So much for the Equal Rights Bill, right, who the hell needs that right? I don't know you or if you were born into money or went to private school or what, but your scenario will not work and will never happen here. If you want your kids to go to private school that is your choice, but you are still paying for the kids that go to public school. I know there are problems with public schools, but forcing everyone to go to a private school that can pick and choose who they want to attend. I hate to tell you that private schools can and will be able to determine who they want to attend their school, it's just the facts. |
|||
|
|
|
I am open to suggestions. I feel the "Public School" system that we use right now is financially and statistically a failure. This is an idea I have for one that works and allows all that want an education in.
I think the government should spend some of the money they currently spend on our atrocious public school system to pay for the poor kids to go to school, through tax credits, vouchers, grants, ect. If you can not afford to send your kids to school you can get "educational welfare". This would be a social program less expensive than our current public school system and more effective, IMO.
Yes, because currently their are public schools for everyone not spending the big bucks on an education for their children. There is no market for middle to lower class kids in the private school industry as it is 100% supplied via public schools, that the parents of middle to lower class families pay for regardless of their choice. You will still end up with rich kids getting a better education than poor kids, but you get that now anyway. My goal with this idea is to stop wasting tax money on poor results and kids that don't want to be there. Get more bang for the buck as it were and give everyone more choices not provide everyone with the same exact education as I feel that is impossible.
I got news for you, the country is divided right now. There are 90% black schools and 90% white schools all over the place and this system does not work. Besides I do not feel that every private school under this system will be like they are now. It will be a business and need to turn a profit, they will look to gain admitance not cater to the wealthy. Like I said, the private schools of today only have a market for kids of wealthy families as everyone else is forced into public schools. Private schools under my idea will not have these limitations.
I was born into a poor family. I went to public schools. As an adult I paid my way through college.
No one is forced to go to school, that is part of my point. Right now you are forced to go to a public school in a system that does not work for a very large portion of it's precipitants. Can Wal-Mart pick and choose who shops there? Would Wal-Mart want to? |
|||
|
|
|
Me4- I think under your scenario you would end up closely to where you are now. That voucher system would most likely grow, many parents would decide to use it, instead of paying more money imo. Then you would have the divide again with higher priced private and public.
When I grew up, I went to public school, but I have friends that went to catholic schools that were private and theirs parents weren't rich. It wasn't cheap, but I think the price puts it mid-tier. My one friend had a single mom working that did it, and she had a near entry level insurance job. The other guy his parents made pretty good money, but not 'rich'. I agree the system needs work, but I do not think its has to be scrapped...If thats whats deemed best, then I guess so...But I think theirs many options that could be used. I also know people that do home schooling, but unless its done with a great plan, I find that these kids are worse off than public school kids. They don't get that socialization and some of these parents have a horrible game plan and no orginization. Is their anything stopping someone from opening a school that you would call a 'mid-level' private school that is in your target area now, with the system the way it is? I am not a school regulation expert, but I don't know of any, and if you have demand/need, then it should be succesful. Could be a business idea for you. Your own 'walmart' lol. If it worked, it would transform the public system, because they would have to compete with you and people would get fed up with them, if you made it work, at a affordable cost. You could go into districts and close down a lot of schools, buy school buildings, and open up shop... Then you could put regulations in, varied education, and continuing admitance standards, throwing out anyone that slips and has a sub 2.0 GPA for two quarters or whatever you deem is best. Then those people would be sent back to the public school. |
|||
|
i’m dead serious and i have seen someone, lots of someones, their called teachers. they taught me about history and evolution. evolution says survival of the fittest, so why should anyone care if babies are killed in iraq? that’s evolution in progress right before your eyes. i read darwins books, have you? he talks about inferior races, just like the iraqis. what difference does it make if we kill them, they’re an inferior race, right? that’s what darwin believed, that’s what he wrote about, don’t you believe what he said about it? they can’t build stealth bombers, we can. bomb the hell out of them and its survival of the fittest right you can watch on cnn. we’re more fit to survive than they are. what’s the matter don’t you believe in evolution? it’s a scientific FACT! maybe science aint your thing. how about history? iraq got oil. we want it. kill them iraqis to get it. it’s the natural thing to do. that’s what people have always done and it’s just survival of the fittest. indians got land. kill em and take it away from them. i don’t see you giving up your house to some indian that’s on the land that somebody got by murdering innocent indians to eventually sell to you. you want to get all up in arms about killing iraqis for their oil, then FIRST prove you mean it by giving up your house to some indian. people have always killed people for their stuff. it’s just evolution and survival of the fittest. it’s natural. we been doing it for thousands of years. now you come along and say, oh no, that’s wrong we shouldn’t kill them people. like hell. who are you to say what’s right and wrong? haven’t you ever heard god didn’t create man, man created god? morals is the same way. want to know why good always triumphs over evil? because the winner always gets to DEFINE good. WE KILL PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US. we’re supposed to kill people who disagree with us. that’s survival of the fittest. plantation owners say its ok to own black slaves. northerners disagree and go about killing the slave owners until theres no more people who disagree with the northerners. then the northerners say THAT’s GOOD. WE KILLED ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US. GOOD HAS TRIUMPHED OVER EVIL. if the south had won the war, they would of kept their slaves and they would have said THATS GOOD. WE KILLED ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US. GOOD HAS TRIUMPHED OVER EVIL. hitler says jews is evil and says killing every one of them is good. then he goes about trying to do it and says that’s good we’re destroying the evil jews. we disagree with that so we start killing people who disagree with us until there aint no more who disagree with us. then we say THAT’S GOOD. WE KILLED ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH US. GOOD HAS TRIUMPHED OVER EVIL. you believe in evolution so the only way you can define who is good and who is evil and what is right and what is wrong is by killing the people who disagree with you. the basis for your morals are no different than hitlers and because of that your morals aint no better than hitlers. they’re equally valid with the final judge being whoever is strongest. when you die your morals die with you, the morals disappear, they don’t last. the morals of the victor survive. that’s survival of the fittest in action. you believe in survival of the fittest don’t you? i don’t. i believe god created man and man is special. god is eternal and put forth laws for man to live by. but we sinned. we rebeled against god and we still rebel against god and think we’re so smart doing it. when i die, god’s law, god’s morals live on. when you die, your morals die with you. i care about the death of Iraqi babies just like i care about the death of murdered babies in the womb. i have a basis and an eternal foundation for caring that lives on after i’m long gone. you have nothing except killing and survival of the fittest. |
||||
|
|
|
I see your point, but I still don't think it is a viable solution. Many kids get an education today that would not under your system because right now they are forced to school. Once they get into school many realize that it is there way to a better life, many don't and turn to crime. However, with your plan these kids and their parents would not be made to go to school and would not. Not only does that enlarge the wealth disparity of the nation it also would increase crime because these kids that are not getting an education would be left on their own to provide for themselves as well as not having a place that occupies 8 hours of their day as school would. I don't have the answers to fix it, and it's good that you are looking for a solution, I just don't think that your idea would work. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed brownschat.clevelandbrowns.com Forums Main Index General Discussion Teen birth rates highest in most religious states|
Copyright 2001 - 2007 Cleveland Browns | Site powered by DigiKnow Privacy Policy | Employment Opportunities | Terms of Use | RSS/XML Site Help |
|