Looks like a few people are trying to edit this page at the same time. Between this and my initial screw-up with providing references, I think my edit should be alright. I'll work on some more names later.--Jimmy 14:45, 7 December 2007 (EST):Oh my bad. I hate it when people edit conflict me so I always try to wait, but I guess I wated too long. I'm not sure why you undid the formatting though. In general we bullet any lists because it's so much easier Please read sections below to readascertain that your point has not already been covered. I'll chalk it up to an edit conflict and undo it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:12, 7 December 2007 (EST) == Atheistic Public Schools? ==''
==Atheistic Public Schools?==
Public schools are not atheistic institutions. Just because they obey the constitution and don't promote prayer, it doesn't make them atheistic. In addition, they don't promote atheism at all, they merely don't promote religion. If no one minds, I'll remove the first section from the article.--[[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 19:17, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:I agree completely. Saying that because public schools do not preach christianity means that they are "atheistic" is ridiculous. Aren't conservatives the ones who say parents should educate their children about morals, not the government? Schools should teach math, science, history, writing, art, and foreign language and leave the rest for people to decide on their own. ''That'' is limited government. --[[User:Mars2035|Mars2035]] 21:21, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
::My high school had agnostic students--thought they were atheist--with many Christian/Catholic teachers. +_+ <sub>always tired</sub> [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 14:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Religion is censored from [[public schools]]: there is no classroom prayer, no religious symbols, no emphasize on moral right and wrong, etc. Sure, students may be agnostic or religious, but they better not try to say a group prayer during class time or they risk being punished. That's an atheistic culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Mr Schlafly: It is one thing to assert something and another to actually provide a reference. Is there any chance you could provide a valid reference that states American public schools are atheistic? In my daughter's school, students are allowed to pray during class hours, moral values are taught and emphasized during civics and other classes, and she has never seen anyone punished for praying. The atheist tag you are placing on this article wouldn't be constantly challenged if you could provide a solid reference. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 16:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There is no classroom prayer in any [[public school]] in the [[United States]]. Does that really need a reference? No morals are taught either and no religious symbols are displayed. The [[Ten Commandments]] cannot be found either. References could be supplied for these obvious facts; indeed, you could add them yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please reference my last comment. There is obviously prayer allowed and morals taught at my daughter's PUBLIC SCHOOL which is in AMERICA so you are wrong about asserting, without evidence, that prayer in public schools is prohibited in America. And yes, your assertion needs a reference because it flies in the face of every statement issued by the Clinton and Bush administrations concerning prayer in public schools. This is even mentioned in the article. I even posted other evidence concerning the opinions of many civil liberties groups and their support of the constitutional right of students to pray in public school but you declared that edit was 'liberal' and deleted it. Now if you want to insist that both Clinton and Bush are completely wrong and the advice they got from their legal advisors is completely without merit, please post a valid reference that disputes the opinions of our country's leaders and legal experts. I don't have the slightest clue where I would find a reference that supports what you are claiming or I would gladly assist. Please provide the reference to your assertion so we can all lay this matter to rest. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
This article states that public schools are "atheistic," and atheism is defined by this encyclopedia as the denial of the existence of God. I don't mean to get overly technical here, but it seems illogical that a broadly defined institution such as American public schools could be said to deny the existence of God, unless there has been some statement (or a rash of statements) that I am not aware of (and is not cited) on behalf of public schools specifically denying that God exists. The thrust of this article seems to be not that public schools are atheistic but that they are Godless institutions, lacking in the moral fundamentals of religion and defining themselves as expressly secular. Therefore, I am changing "atheistic" to "Godless" in the header. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
: Public schools are not "secular", which means reflective of society as a whole. Rather, they are deliberately exclusive of faith, morality and religion. "Godless" is a pejorative term, and atheistic is better because it encompasses atheistic ideologies like evolution that are taught in schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::I suppose you're right, although "secular" is often used to mean "exclusive of religion." Yes, "Godless" is a pejorative, but so is "atheistic," as least as it is defined in this encyclopedia. I also contest that evolution is an (exclusively) atheistic ideology, as many scientists who believe in evolution are theists. Finally, do you have any citations to support the fact that public schools specifically deny the existence of God, or are you using "atheistic" more as a catch-all to describe the godless mindset in general (and, if so, I'd like a better definition of the term). [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 13:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::: There may or may not be theistic evolutionists, but evolution is predominantly an atheistic ideology. Ditto for other things taught in public school, such as materialism. Schools are not merely "godless", as they exclude teaching of "right" and "wrong". The term "secular" is misused to mean "exclusive of religion." That is not its actual meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Sorry, just one more point here, regarding the definition of "secular:" according to dictionary.com, which may not be the best source, the first 3 definitions specifically mean "non-religious" and there is no definition given for "reflective of a society as a whole." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 14:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I just checked Merriam-Webster and ''none'' of the definitions mean "non-religious." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: As usual, I hate to differ with you, but 'I' just checked Merriam-Webster, and the first two definitions say "non-religious." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:01, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::You probably knew because I already said "I'll move on to other discussions if your position still remains unclear." Also, 100% of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, in violation of our [[90/10 Rule]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we help students and others here and nonstop talk doesn't advance that goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)
== Uncited Assertions==I just thought I would chime in here. I currently attend a public school, and they aren't atheistic. We have a world religions class, there is a religion diversity mural painted on one wall of the school, and lastly, in te library, there is a whole religion section with only one atheist book, which is only about 100 pages long.
==Uncited Assertions==
I would like to see evidence for the assertion that public schools are atheistic and spoken prayer is forbidden in the classroom. The idea that this should be present without a reference goes against the standards of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 13:56, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:Then go ahead and help find it. If I can find such references within the time it takes you to complain about the lack of them, then you can find them as well and help contribute to the building of this encyclopedia. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Um, last time I checked, only teacher led/mandatory prayer in schools was banned. Students/Teachers can pray, however, they can't be disruptive to the class or make others pray that don't want to. Anyways, then there is the matter of which religion's prayers/worship style should be used. That would show favoritism to one religion and annoy other people who get offended. This leads to either having the class do prayers, etc.. of every religion or not having any prayer mandatory. The first option is infeasible because it would detract from time that could be used to learn subject material. So that is why teacher led/mandatory prayer isn't allowed in public schools. Willing individuals can pray together, however it must not be a distraction to a class. This is my two cents.[[User:JudgeKing|JudgeKing]] 13:00, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
== Unjustified Edits ==
Mr. Schlafly:
::Look at the edits I made earlier that were reverted. Notice how many times 'atheistic' was replaced with 'secular' before it wasn't reverted. A list showing a broad coalition of civil liberties groups supporting public school prayer was removed for being 'liberal'. I've had no luck removing the 'disclaimer' about prominent Americans being educated in public schools. It still states prayer is banned and no 'prominent Americans' have been educated in public schools even though I have demonstrated otherwise. I've made continuous requests for references to support the opinions expressed in the second sentence of this article only to be ignored and threatened. Will you offer any assurance that what I write will not be summarily dismissed? I'd hate to waste my time.--Jimmy 00:07, 6 January 2008 (EST)
== Reference List ==
Something happened to the reference list after my last edit. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:33, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:*points to #25 and #26* +_+ <sub>always tired</sub> [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 17:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
==Drop out rates==
It's worse in some districts. Less than 25% of students in Detroit graduate. That is one big reason why I am working on getting certified to teach in the inner city - the need is so great. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
: God bless you for doing that, Dan. If I could hold classroom prayer to start the class with those kids and get rid of the liberal ideology, I could double that graduation rate. But the liberals won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Actually, it's probably because the No Child Left Behind Act. The NCLBA forces teachers to teach to the test instead of the subject matter. Schools that don't meet the requirements loose funding and find themselves in financial holes that are kind of hard to get out of (that was an understatement). It also forces schools to reduce funding in the science arts in favor of basic skills. While the basic skills are important, the sciences and arts are absolutely paramount to society. Anyways, the government as a whole must take the blame for this because of the negative effects. [[User:JudgeKing|JudgeKing]] 13:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
==Political Correctness as a Hindering Factor==
It's frequently noted that private schools tend to do better than public schools, and that other countries (India, China, and so forth) are turning out more and better-equipped scientists and engineers than America at present.
Apologies for the rant, but as a teacher in a public school myself, I'm frequently frustrated by having my hands tied. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
== A suggestion about references ==
Mr. DeanS: The references for the claim that public schools are atheistic are downright embarrassing. The first reference deals with Kennedy's assertion that public schools are atheistic; no need for him to give any evidence, just blah, blah, blah. The second reference is from WND, that by itself is bad enough, but after taking 30 seconds to read the article, I actually laughed out loud for a few seconds. I don't quite understand, the reference says the school is allowing football players to pray as a group, and this is your evidence that public schools are atheistic? I thought public school students weren't allowed to pray in public schools? That is the completely unsupported claim made by one of the editors of this article. Yet you posted a reference that stated kids are allowed to pray? The third reference actually said students have the right to pray during discretionary time. It stated at the beginning of the article, ''"It ended in the spring of 2006 when the Knox County School Board promised in writing to allow students "religious expression" during "discretionary time."'' And you insist on saying this is a quality reference for your assertion that public schools are atheistic? Please give me a break. You can do much better than that. If your claim can actually be supported that is.
This article is a complete piece of junk because it has so many contradicting claims. Every claim that public schools are atheistic or doesn't teach morals is backed up with lousy references that don't support the claim while the entries I wrote used reliable references. Is there any chance this article can be edited to reflect reality? I realize some people just can't grasp the concept that students in America's secular public schools are allowed to pray, out loud, even during classes, and are allowed to read the Ten Commandments, etc. I know this because this is what happens at every public school my children have attended and this is what our current president even says. Now if you want to claim Bush doesn't know what he is talking about, go right ahead and say he is a clueless fool for insisting that public school students don't have the religious freedoms he claims. But please post intelligent and meaningful references, if they can be found, that way this encyclopedia won't look ignorant. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 00:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:Jimmy, don't make emotional arguments to promote an editorial suggestion; as you say, it's embarrassing. Follow your own advice, such as, "You can do much better than that. If your claim can actually be supported . . ." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::Uh. Jimmy's post is dated '''"June 11, 2008"'''. As you say he says, it's embarrassing. Jimmy has also been banned for all eternity more than two weeks ago. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:01, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
==Atheistic and secular==
The secularism of the US public schools promotes atheism. Let's not pretend otherwise. [[User:Human]], you do indeed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Public_schools&diff=prev&oldid=507180 risk your editing rights] to assert otherwise.
::Late comment: I'd prefer the term "nontheistic." "Atheistic" implies explicit denial of the existence of a higher being; "nontheistic" implies that the schools just don't address the concept. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:59, 16 November 2008 (EST)
== Removal of Section on Famous Americans ==
There are ''so'' many things wrong with the section on famous Americans who have attended public school. How do you define "attended": is it graduates only, or those who have spent even a day in a public institution? How do you define "prominent American"? Politicians, musicians, artists, owners of large corporations, athletes, who counts? Also, note that the list would probably require several hundred pages, considering that virtually ever American who has a graduate-level education (GED-worthy) attended a public school, including a vast, vast majority of Americans that would be considered "prominent." And what's up with that statistic that claims that fewer prominent Americans have come out of the public school system since prayer was banned? There is absolutely no way that a claim like that can be tested, measured, or even looked at in a serious light. I vote to delete the section entirely. And mind you I have many, many friends who graduated from the public school system who are doing just fine, which is remarkable considering that I live in Los Angeles, which has one of the highest dropout rates in the country. I remember my mother still works at a particularly prominent school in Hollywood, and at the end of each year she takes several students who graduated out to lunch to congratulate them because it's such an achievement at some schools in the city. I don't think that has anything to do with prayer though (religious children fail to graduate just as often as secular ones). -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 17:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)
::If you already believe something will be reverted when you begin to edit, that is a good indicator not to do so. Also please remember to sign your posts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:59, 25 February 2010 (EST)
== Statistics ==
*A few comments on the recently-added statistics:
:*Illegal drugs: The survey that statistic comes from includes both public and private schools. (See [http://monitoringthefuture.org/purpose.html])
:::::Because I don't challenge all of the statistics, my criticisms can't be taken seriously? Also, note that all I deny is that you are correctly interpreting the statistics. Finally, you still haven't responded to my comments regarding the samples. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 21:34, 21 December 2008 (EST)
== Where is your proof? ==
Why did you insert that 77% statistic into the [[public school]] article? The article provided did not say that statistic. Where is your proof?
--[[User:Metzky|Metzky]] 20:42, 2 January 2009 (EST)
==Textbook CBN story==
This might fit in here or some other article as an external link.
: Great point. Please add to this entry where you think best. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 22 August 2009 (EDT)
== Statistics, Sampling and The Truth ==
Generally the statistics given are a good picture of public schools all over America. What is to be gained by parsing the language to weaken the statement, obfuscate it, to make it appear they have better results than they do? Oh, wait, I forgot that liberals want to hide from obvious truths! Public schools are mostly cesspools. That a precious few excel doesn't alter reality. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 17:13, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
== Source for 10% pregnancy rate? ==
If the statistic that 10% of public school girls get pregnant is true, it's a very powerful statement about public schools. The source given doesn't include this fact, though. Pregnancy rates are deplorably high in public schools, but I can't find any sources that put the number as high as 10%. I need help finding a source on this. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 21:56, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
:I'm getting some conflicting data on this as well. [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf This] (PDF file) states that in 2006, the teen pregnancy rate for ALL women was 71.5 in 1,000 (~7.2%). However, [http://www.livestrong.com/article/12504-teen-pregnancy-rates-usa/ This] article states that 1/3 of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. If the latter is the case, I would say that 10% pregnancy rate is an ''under-estimation'' given that most children are in the public school system. I'm still searching, though ... -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 22:09, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
::::All the evidence seems to point to a percentage even higher than 10%, so I don't see why the 10% estimate would be considered unacceptable for somehow being too high. I wouldn't expect public schools to admit to this problem or for precise data to be available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::We don't really have any evidence to point to a particular number. We have a number from a ''single'' school (and an atypical one, at that) giving us about 14%. The only piece of data that evaluates the whole nation gives us about 7%, but that's just pregnancy rates among 15-19 year olds in general, and doesn't mention schooling at all. We could technically say that "One public school has a pregnancy rate of over 14% among its female students," but that would be kind of weaselly. We don't have any evidence from which to draw conclusions about a typical public school or public schools as a whole. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 13:34, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::If no source has been provided to back up this statistic, I'll remove it on June 24th. (Two weeks after this issue was raised.) [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:55, 19 June 2010 (EDT)
==30% of public schools fail to graduate from high school? ==
I found a rather major and embarrassing error in the opening lines. The list of statistics are said to be "characteristics of public schools" when they are in fact describing their students. I edited the heading sentence before the list to reflect this, but my edits were reversed, because "the public schools create the students." I agree that we do need to find a way to emphasize this, but the error still needs removal. Any suggestions on how to accomplish both goals while keeping everyone happy? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 21:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:Jim, the schools teach and train the students. That's what the schools are paid to do, at astronomical costs. When someone refers to "public schools," it does not mean merely the bricks in the buildings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::To me "public schools" refers to the lessons, the students, the teachers and the rubbish that is being taught. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::As 'schools' it doesn't make logical sense. I'll try and fix it. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 17:05, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
::::Thanks, AE. [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 22:19, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
==Claim of dubious worth==
60% of students in one region watch more than 3 hours of TV vs. 35% nation wide. Since that national population with 35% over the line is 90% public school students I think that it's safe to say the 60% number has a lot more to do with the region than public schools. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 17:36, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
==George Orwell's account of Public Schools in England==
* These are not public 'national schools', but something quite the opposite: exclusive and expensive residential secondary schools, scattered far apart. Until recently they admitted almost no one but the sons of rich aristocratic families. It was the dream of nouveau riche bankers of the nineteenth century to push their sons into a Public School. At such schools the greatest stress is laid on sport, which forms, so to speak, a lordly, tough and gentlemanly outlook. Among these schools, Eton is particularly famous. Wellington is reported to have said that the victory of Waterloo was decided on the playing fields of Eton. It is not so very long ago that an overwhelming majority of the people who in one way or another ruled England came from the Public School. [http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/ukrainian-af-pref.htm]
If we are to rely on Orwell's account, we'll have to revise the article somewhat. In fact, we may need to rewrite the article a good deal, and expand it.
We need to write about education in the English-speaking West, for that is the topic of which "Public schools" or [[Public schools in the United States]] is only a part. Also, we should write a bit more about the strengths, for schools in North America have had many good aspects or elements. Let's take the good with the bad, and write a balanced article (or series of articles). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
==Picture of school with security cameras==
I have a bit of an issue with the picture at the top of the article. It is of Charlotte High School in Punta Gorda, FL. I happened to graduate from this high school two years ago. The original school was destroyed by Hurricane Charley and the new school was rebuilt with all of the cameras. There were hardly any problems with violence or vandalism (unless you consider leaving lunch trays on the table vandalism). In fact, the school's academic team consistently defeated the area's best private schools' teams. Not only is the school a bad example of the bad things about public schools, it is a terrific example of some of the best accomplishments of public schools.--[[User:BubbaRomney|BubbaRomney]] 21:50, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
:I have no idea who you are, but that's not how I remember the kids at that school; I graduated from Punta Gorda Middle School in 2006 (probably the same year you did, whoever you are) and school choiced into the Port Charlotte school because of the violence and drama at the Punta Gorda one. Of course, no one ever said that CHS is the worst school in the world or anything, just saying that public schools are becoming more and more violent every year. Welcome to Conservapedia! [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:36, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
==4-day week==
(moved from entry re: 4-day week) This above paragraph is not completely true, as, at least in Missouri, there are classes taught by teachers five days a week, and between 7 and 8 hours a day. <small>unsigned</small>
:The entry does not say that all schools in Missouri use a 4-day week, but apparently it is allowed for some to shorten their week.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
Please do clarify that in the real article, because it is obvious to anyone who has stopped out of homeschool that you are trying to distort the truth.
==Reorganization==
This article is badly out-of-date and does not reflect the fact that [[Donald Trump]] and [[Betsy DeVos]] have taken over leadership of the federal role in US public education. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Public_schools_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1363386 I have started to reorganize the article]. Does anyone have objections to making it more aligned with current developments? I will add more about special education and pre-K. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:08, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
:The fact that DeVos is the SoE does not change the fact that public schools still promote left-wing, anti-Christian beliefs. '''Much''' more is needed than a Republican administration to change public schools -- if they can even be changed at all at this point. Besides, your edit takes away the fact that public schools promote left-wing views from the intro. Having a GOP administration does not make that change OK. If that is the main part of your proposal, then I oppose such an edit. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:23, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
::I will wait another day to see what other people think, but the current article is very out-of-date and does not explain what public education in the US is, before it is criticised. I did not remove any of the criticisms. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:09, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
:::I know you did not remove the criticisms, but you diluted the article by moving them further down. Most readers don't look that far down. They only read the intro. The fact that public schools promote secular and left-wing views is probably the most important and most overlooked fact about public schools. Why state the obvious in the intro when this is more important? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:17, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
::::It is true that the lede paragraph should provide an overall summary of the topic covered by the encyclopedia article. It is also true that Commandment #5 is "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." and a lot of the current article is personal opinion and should probably be deleted. [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] says, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long." I believe that the introductory paragraph that I wrote better fit our long-standing policy than what is there now. With a conservative President, a conservative Secretary of Education, many conservative Governors, thousands of conservative members of local Boards of Education, why do you believe that public schools "promote secular and left-wing views?" If you have recent sources, please add them to the article, because I am not impressed by studies of students who graduated high school in 2001. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:33, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::First off, it is way too premature to change the article to make it seem that public schools are all of a sudden bastions of conservatism when the new administration just started. Second, once again, having conservatives in power is not automatically going to lead to a more conservative education system. Public schools became more left-wing during the presidencies of Reagan and both Bushes, and the bureaucracy continued to grow. This isn't Eastern Europe, where conservative governments can easily institute what could almost easily be called propaganda in schools. Teachers and teachers unions remain powerful forces, and they are overwhelmingly liberal. The federal deep state bureaucracy remains very liberal even with a conservative president (and besides, states still have most of the say).
:::::This is a major CP article. If you want to make major changes like this, I strongly recommend asking Andy. It's his website, after all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:44, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
::::::How do you define a "major article"? I welcome every editor to comment, and please do not misrepresent my views. I am not saying that public schools are "bastions of conservatism". I am saying that many conservatives have become active in school policy over the last two decades and things keep changing. I don't know whether '''your''' claim that "public schools still promote left-wing, anti-Christian beliefs" is true or false today, but I know that that debate needs more than being squeezed into the lede paragraph. So, the logical organization is a lede to explain the scope of public schools, a brief history, and then the various issues and controversies. The reader can better follow the discussion of the issues and controversies after reading the introduction and history. Finally, Conservapedia is a team effort, and we are all working hard to make the best possible articles. This is a group effort refecting "the best of the public" and not a personal blog. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:04, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::::I graduated from a public school a relatively short time ago. I still know people who attend my public school (which is in a relatively red county where Republicans hold office in nearly every position). My old school was and is still very left-wing. Trump's election is not changing that. From experience, my claim is definitely true. Also just because conservatives are active in school policy does not mean they are ''reversing'' changes made by liberals. There is a general trend of liberals making many changes while in office, but when conservatives take control, they merely act as seat warmers and keep the status quo until liberals take their positions back and enact more left-wing policies. Also, this article does not need to be "a personal blog" in order to notify people about the important state of public schools. It must be at the top for people to see. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:16, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
[undent]]I would think that 1990sguy meant that either you were born in the 1990s (and were 27-30 years old) or that you left school in the 1990s and were 40-50 years old.
For sometime, the article has a section titled "Suppression and intolerance of alternative views" which claimed that the teaching of Islam as a religion was excluded from public school teaching. I added some sentences and a reference to snopes.com. You then move the material to "Views on morals" section but kept back one uncited opinion sentence. I then tried to work everything in to the "Views on morals" section, but you just reverted me, resulting in a strange split of this idea into two different places. Please pick one place for the discussion of Islam: "Views on morals" or "Suppression and intolerance of alternative views"? Since you are talking about teaching kids not to hate all muslims, it might better fit in the latter, because by definition nobody is advocating adoption of Islamic views on morals.
Finally, 1990sguy has a very odd understanding of judicial activism and legal precedent. Once the Supreme Court decides a Constitutional question, all other judges assume that cases should be decided consistent with that decision. Perhaps '''policy activists''' bring new lawsuits to court, but the judges that decide those new cases consist with the earlier Supreme Court case are not "activist judges". The local school board in the intelligent design case ended up costing the school district over a million dollars in legal fees. Many parents felt this was a waste of time and money. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:33, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
:As for my user name, the former, and I'm a bit younger than that. As for the info, it is much more appropriate in the "Teaching of Islam in the public schools" section, not the "Suppression and intolerance of alternative views" section. This info has to do with the teaching of Islam in public schools. Seems easy to me. Also, I did not change what you added, other than removing a snippet that stated that Islam classes did not present religious indoctrination.
:Regarding the courts, the Constitution remains the same regardless of what the Court says. It can technically say whatever it wants. We see this in decisions on issues such as civil rights and labor unions, which had changed precedents. Just because the Supreme Court says something does not mean the judges are not influenced by the "living constitution" view, nor that they are trying to improve society through their decisions (which should not be a factor in court cases -- only the Constitution). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:44, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
::Perhaps you should read more about the legal system and also go back and read the arguments in these cases. Getting back to this article, the subtitle on the paragraph begs the question of whether it belongs in the "Views on morals" or "Suppression and intolerance of alternative views" section. Please explain your preference, because it seems that the point has nothing to do with how morals are included in the curriculum. I have been reading all of the concerns on this talk page, and there are many editors' concerns which are not addressed by the current version, which as I noted above is badly out of date. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:55, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I have studied many Supreme Court cases. You are making the mistake of viewing the Court as the infallible interpreter of the Constitution that is never wrong. As for the Islam stuff, the info clearly belongs in the section entitled "Teaching of Islam in the public schools," because it is about the teaching of Islam in public schools. Maybe the parent header ("Views on morals") could be renamed for clarity? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:12, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
== Sources? ==
A lot of the comments on this thread seem to share a common critique, that the evidence used in this article is misleading or insufficient. William Beason talks specifically about the statistics used, and I agree with what he’s saying about the flawed statistic analysis. A lot of the sources used to support the arguments being made in this article aren’t reliable, if they exist at all. Many links lead nowhere when clicked, as is the case in references 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Similarly, a lot of the evidence used to cite claims, especially those making broad statements, like “public schools are predominantly liberal and atheistic” and “liberals unrolled a large-scale campaign that blanketed the district with pro-Satan propaganda” use very little evidence. In both cases, the only source that can actually be read is a single article. A single article demonstrating a single instance of something occurring does not necessarily represent a trend. This is talked about in the earlier section, Atheistic Public Schools, specifically about the word choice used.
This really isn’t enough information to completely condemn public schools, particularly because there is a lot of evidence that public schools do very well by their students when properly funded. Increasing school funding has been correlated with increased test scores, and increased educational and economic success, according to studies from the [http://www.nber.org/papers/w20847%20National%20Bureau%20of%20Economic%20Research%5D National Bureau of Economic Research] and [http://cdn.equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/16081142/031616-rothstein-schoolfin1.pdf the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.].
Public education is a very nuanced and complex topic, and public schools themselves are very flawed institutions. This article does not comprehensively address this. This article needs to be significantly expanded to do this. Liberals often cherry-pick sources to support their claims, and it’s important not to do the same. Presenting all the evidence informing an opinion allows other people to come to the same conclusion, and as others have pointed out, there are multiple instances where reasonable arguments are presented, but there isn’t enough evidence to back them up Conservapedia is a resource for people who want the truth. It’s not a place for liberal opinions, but for facts. By not presenting ample evidence that can be reliably examined, this article fails to provide readers with the whole truth.
To provide the whole truth, this article needs to be expanded to highlight important aspects of public education. A section with statistics to highlight how public schools fail low-income and minority students, the unequal allocation of resources, and comparing the schools of the United States with other countries seems needed. Similarly, this article doesn’t mention segregation. This is a really important part of public education history, one that reflects very poorly on the system. Addressing the less-than-illustrious history of public schools demonstrates their failings almost more than the statistics.
These are just suggestions, but looking at articles like this and their sources in order to make reasoned arguments seems more aligned with Conservapedia’s guidelines, and could help lend credence to Conservapedia as a whole. Best, [[User:Robert-Anderson|Robert-Anderson]]
:[http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43700153 ‘I was a teacher for 17 years, but I couldn’t read or write’][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 17 April 2018 (EDT)