Christian education ?
- Thread starter wincam
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
For many years I taught in a church sponsored k-12 school. I taught grades 4-12 all academic subjects; using Alpha Omega lifepacks. Rather than trying to equip science labs to teach to a college entry standard; we had our students co-enroll in Community College and take the 'High School remediation' lab science and advanced math classes.
Most of our students finished High School with 40 to 70 semester units of college credit and had little difficulty being accepted in the colleges or universities of their choice.
Most of our students finished High School with 40 to 70 semester units of college credit and had little difficulty being accepted in the colleges or universities of their choice.
Thanks for the response, but this isn't data; it's an anecdote, and it doesn't even really deal with the previous claim about prayer/bibles and education.
You could actually test to see if prayer in schools is causally related to a decline in education. But you need data. You would have to demonstrate that there has actually been a decline in education, which you would require you to use some sort of objective measurement (like SAT scores, graduation rates, college admission rates, high school and college GPAs, job placement, etc..) You would also have to show (a) that there was a significant difference between schools with prayer/bibles and schools without and (b) that the lower education in prayer-less/bible-less schools was related to the removal of prayers and bibles. You would also have to control for things like location, demographics, incomes, family education/history, etc.. that might be are more critical variable in education levels. For example, I bet private schools are on average better than public schools due to location, parent involvement, income levels, and family history, among other factors.
It's hard to find studies done previously, but here is one from 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics:
NAEP Studies - 2006461: Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling
This just looked at all private schools vs all public schools and then specifically at Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools vs public schools by sampling from 4th grade and 8th grade. If your idea about prayer in schools was correct, then you should, as a consequence, expect Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools to outperform public schools. But I will let the data speak for itself:
For reading in grade 4:
IOW, no significant difference.
For math in grade 4:
IOW, there was a statistically significant difference between private Catholic and Lutheran schools and public schools - and it's not good.
For reading in grade 8 :
IOW, though Catholic and Lutheran's scored higher, this wasn't across the board to all Christian schools. Conservative Christian schools scores showed no difference. So it would be difficult to believe that prayer accounted for the Catholic and Lutheran difference. Then again, maybe God was answering only their prayer?!?
For math in grade 8:
So, Catholic private schools performed about the same as public schools, the Lutherans did better, and the Conservative Christian schools did worse.
I believe it's going to be an uphill battle to prove that it's the removal or prayer and bibles that accounts for these differences in education levels.
Anyways, I would encourage reading the entire study - as well as the cautions in interpreting the data.
You could actually test to see if prayer in schools is causally related to a decline in education. But you need data. You would have to demonstrate that there has actually been a decline in education, which you would require you to use some sort of objective measurement (like SAT scores, graduation rates, college admission rates, high school and college GPAs, job placement, etc..) You would also have to show (a) that there was a significant difference between schools with prayer/bibles and schools without and (b) that the lower education in prayer-less/bible-less schools was related to the removal of prayers and bibles. You would also have to control for things like location, demographics, incomes, family education/history, etc.. that might be are more critical variable in education levels. For example, I bet private schools are on average better than public schools due to location, parent involvement, income levels, and family history, among other factors.
It's hard to find studies done previously, but here is one from 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics:
NAEP Studies - 2006461: Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling
This just looked at all private schools vs all public schools and then specifically at Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools vs public schools by sampling from 4th grade and 8th grade. If your idea about prayer in schools was correct, then you should, as a consequence, expect Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools to outperform public schools. But I will let the data speak for itself:
For reading in grade 4:
IOW, no significant difference.
For math in grade 4:
IOW, there was a statistically significant difference between private Catholic and Lutheran schools and public schools - and it's not good.
For reading in grade 8 :
IOW, though Catholic and Lutheran's scored higher, this wasn't across the board to all Christian schools. Conservative Christian schools scores showed no difference. So it would be difficult to believe that prayer accounted for the Catholic and Lutheran difference. Then again, maybe God was answering only their prayer?!?
For math in grade 8:
So, Catholic private schools performed about the same as public schools, the Lutherans did better, and the Conservative Christian schools did worse.
I believe it's going to be an uphill battle to prove that it's the removal or prayer and bibles that accounts for these differences in education levels.
Anyways, I would encourage reading the entire study - as well as the cautions in interpreting the data.
I advise looking up the parameters that make the report applicable only to school administrators. The commonly cited phrase "After adjusting for selected student characteristics" has many pages of parameters in the Appendix, which take into consideration factors like subgroup of Hispanic origin, number of family members residing with the sampled student, poverty level, etc.
One idea was to eliminate any advantage of a student receiving more teacher:student relationship, with students receiving a church or private education typically better afforded, in smaller classes, etc.. There's no telling how many millions were spent coming up with all those adjustments that likely disqualify the study statistically. Where's the raw data? They won't supply it, giving only a generic reply to inquiries. It appears filtered to present the desired outcome, sort of like Climategate data.
I'll refer you to a nice article that's typical of current comparisons of school choices. Private schools top public in average ACT, SAT scores | www.daytondailynews.com
I let the experts condense the data from around the world, practically all agreeing private schools in general result much higher ACT/SAT scores, some saying smaller classes are the only significant difference. Many believe that while parents have choices available, it's along the lines of "can we afford a Carribean cruise for us 6, or do we tent camp in the woods again, on an income of $35K a year?" Most just can't afford a private education, even the free school bus program alone making it possible for lots of parents to live where they do.
In our state the professionals, the upper middle-class, and the wealthy, with school-age children are flocking to rural living where if there's a public school, it's a magnet school too far to bus from town. If not that, then it's a church sponsored school requiring attendance in a particular church, or setting very high fees that are sometimes offset for parents of that church. I'm sure there are some private schools out there not part of a church, but can't name one right now.
In town here there's two magnet public schools, a community college, and several facilities for really bright students. In theory all public school students have a right to attend those, that is if they work hard on their own, meeting admission requirements. The two magnets are divided into higher ed, and "special ed" for not so bright or problem students, creating two focus efforts with two very different goals.
Raw, unfiltered, unadjusted comparisons of data, such as percent attending college, receiving scholarships, etc. are quite common online if you really want to get into the numbers. I've come to realize any government report from the U.S.D. of Education, which ought o be abolished.
One idea was to eliminate any advantage of a student receiving more teacher:student relationship, with students receiving a church or private education typically better afforded, in smaller classes, etc.. There's no telling how many millions were spent coming up with all those adjustments that likely disqualify the study statistically. Where's the raw data? They won't supply it, giving only a generic reply to inquiries. It appears filtered to present the desired outcome, sort of like Climategate data.
I'll refer you to a nice article that's typical of current comparisons of school choices. Private schools top public in average ACT, SAT scores | www.daytondailynews.com
I let the experts condense the data from around the world, practically all agreeing private schools in general result much higher ACT/SAT scores, some saying smaller classes are the only significant difference. Many believe that while parents have choices available, it's along the lines of "can we afford a Carribean cruise for us 6, or do we tent camp in the woods again, on an income of $35K a year?" Most just can't afford a private education, even the free school bus program alone making it possible for lots of parents to live where they do.
In our state the professionals, the upper middle-class, and the wealthy, with school-age children are flocking to rural living where if there's a public school, it's a magnet school too far to bus from town. If not that, then it's a church sponsored school requiring attendance in a particular church, or setting very high fees that are sometimes offset for parents of that church. I'm sure there are some private schools out there not part of a church, but can't name one right now.
In town here there's two magnet public schools, a community college, and several facilities for really bright students. In theory all public school students have a right to attend those, that is if they work hard on their own, meeting admission requirements. The two magnets are divided into higher ed, and "special ed" for not so bright or problem students, creating two focus efforts with two very different goals.
Raw, unfiltered, unadjusted comparisons of data, such as percent attending college, receiving scholarships, etc. are quite common online if you really want to get into the numbers. I've come to realize any government report from the U.S.D. of Education, which ought o be abolished.
First, thanks for the response and actually at least looking at the study. I doubted most people would read it.
Yes, there are adjustments to the data, but it's not for nefarious reasons. In statistics you should only be making "apples-to-apples" comparisons in determining statistical and/or causal relationship between dependent variables. If I'm interested in the relationship between education level and, let's say, prayer in school, I have to control for other variables that may be relevant. Is it really a good comparison to compare a public school in the inner city of Birmingham Al with a private Christian school in La Jolla/San Diego, CA? Probably not because there are other factors that make this comparison difficult. Inner city B'ham has rather low income compared to La Jolla. Couldn't there be a relationship between income and education? Family history will be different, as will other demographic facts, all of which may have a more critical relationship with education level. Should I compare a special-needs public school with a rich and affluent private Christian school? Probably not. You have to control for those factors. These are what the "adjustments" are in the study (see fig 1-1 for this study's specifics).
Said in statistical jargon, public schools and private schools are both highly heterogeneous. You have to try to control for heterogeneity, otherwise your statistics aren't very useful. Take an extreme example to demonstrate the point: if I compare special-needs public schools with private Christians schools and point out how the Christian schools scores are statistically significantly higher, I have obviously not controlled for a high degree of heterogeneity. I have to control for it best I can.
No, it's not a vast conspiracy to disprove the ideas posed in this thread's opening post. Controlling for heterogeneity is proper statistical analysis.
So I have the Dayton Daily News vs. the statistical analysis in the previously listed study. Does the journalist of the Dayton Daily use the correct statistical techniques for the issue in question? No, she just naively uses raw data. Private schools in Miami are really better than public schools in Miami? No kidding. I wonder if things like income or various demographics might play a key role in this?
But if you want to know if private schools are "better" than public schools, you would have to control for heterogeneity. Maybe it's not simply that private schools are better, but that private schools are more likely to have well-to-do families, families who care, more involved/better paid teachers, females, smaller classes, better equipment, etc.. Maybe the key variable is something other than religion or the removal of prayer/bibles from school (the topic of this thread).
(btw, I have nothing against private schools, I like them better myself for a variety of reasons).
I think they're better too - even the study I cited agrees that, generally speaking, private schools outperform public schools. That's not what I've had issue with on this thread though. Yes, at some general aggregate level, private schools outperform public schools. The interesting question though, is why? Is it because "private schools" have allowed prayer (not all of them do, btw)? Is it because public schools have banned prayer and bibles? Or is it something much more mundane, but of more critical importance? Previously on this thread the proposal was that removal of prayer from schools was causal in the decline of education.
The Dayton Daily doesn't really deal with why private schools outperform (not in any statistical way at least), much less the topic at issue on this thread, nor does it consider aggregate data; it only looks at Dayton (makes sense since it's their newspaper).
Raw, unfiltered numbers only tells you so much. It won't establish relationships between variables and won't establish causal connections.
I don't know why. There's nothing inherently wrong with the statistical methods used in the paper I linked to.
Yes, there are adjustments to the data, but it's not for nefarious reasons. In statistics you should only be making "apples-to-apples" comparisons in determining statistical and/or causal relationship between dependent variables. If I'm interested in the relationship between education level and, let's say, prayer in school, I have to control for other variables that may be relevant. Is it really a good comparison to compare a public school in the inner city of Birmingham Al with a private Christian school in La Jolla/San Diego, CA? Probably not because there are other factors that make this comparison difficult. Inner city B'ham has rather low income compared to La Jolla. Couldn't there be a relationship between income and education? Family history will be different, as will other demographic facts, all of which may have a more critical relationship with education level. Should I compare a special-needs public school with a rich and affluent private Christian school? Probably not. You have to control for those factors. These are what the "adjustments" are in the study (see fig 1-1 for this study's specifics).
Said in statistical jargon, public schools and private schools are both highly heterogeneous. You have to try to control for heterogeneity, otherwise your statistics aren't very useful. Take an extreme example to demonstrate the point: if I compare special-needs public schools with private Christians schools and point out how the Christian schools scores are statistically significantly higher, I have obviously not controlled for a high degree of heterogeneity. I have to control for it best I can.
No, it's not a vast conspiracy to disprove the ideas posed in this thread's opening post. Controlling for heterogeneity is proper statistical analysis.
So I have the Dayton Daily News vs. the statistical analysis in the previously listed study. Does the journalist of the Dayton Daily use the correct statistical techniques for the issue in question? No, she just naively uses raw data. Private schools in Miami are really better than public schools in Miami? No kidding. I wonder if things like income or various demographics might play a key role in this?
But if you want to know if private schools are "better" than public schools, you would have to control for heterogeneity. Maybe it's not simply that private schools are better, but that private schools are more likely to have well-to-do families, families who care, more involved/better paid teachers, females, smaller classes, better equipment, etc.. Maybe the key variable is something other than religion or the removal of prayer/bibles from school (the topic of this thread).
(btw, I have nothing against private schools, I like them better myself for a variety of reasons).
I think they're better too - even the study I cited agrees that, generally speaking, private schools outperform public schools. That's not what I've had issue with on this thread though. Yes, at some general aggregate level, private schools outperform public schools. The interesting question though, is why? Is it because "private schools" have allowed prayer (not all of them do, btw)? Is it because public schools have banned prayer and bibles? Or is it something much more mundane, but of more critical importance? Previously on this thread the proposal was that removal of prayer from schools was causal in the decline of education.
The Dayton Daily doesn't really deal with why private schools outperform (not in any statistical way at least), much less the topic at issue on this thread, nor does it consider aggregate data; it only looks at Dayton (makes sense since it's their newspaper).
Raw, unfiltered numbers only tells you so much. It won't establish relationships between variables and won't establish causal connections.
I don't know why. There's nothing inherently wrong with the statistical methods used in the paper I linked to.
Without defining the parameters and why they should be considered to evaluate educational opportunity, the conclusions fail to answer the question "Which is better?". The "adjustments" are adding a huge amount of subjective opinions that twist the data. There can't be anything wrong with averaging SAT or ACT scores between the school groups. Do that first, report the actual raw data summary, then apply various adjustments to change the analysis to one's heart's desire, but leave the data alone. Otherwise, the adjustments serve only to equalize every school such that the analysis mostly judges the parameters, not quality of education. I don't believe family background changes a school's curriculum for a whole classroom. Public schools follow government curriculum, private schools being required only to meet minimum state requirements. Some public schools have stopped use of test score numbers, even forbidding the scoring of ball games.
There is no way any sensible person can demonstrate, for instance, an inner city failing school in a broken district full of dropouts, plagued with violence against teachers, with relatively few students able to read or do simple math is statistically equal to an elite private school producing a very high percentage of graduates averaging very high SAT/ACT scores, successful employment, professionals, etc. Of course, manipulation of data through enough statistical analysis techniques can be made to demonstrate 'whatever', "adjusted" by parameters that don't fit all schools sampled. The parameters listed in that study indeed compares apples to prunes to bananas, not school type to school type. All the school types are obviously made the same type through manipulation of the data. Nobody with a lick of sense believes they are all the same. The approach of the study was skewed, even if they used typical statistical tools.
Our public schools are sold on Common Core, leaving parents unable to help their kids with homework. They can't find out how the teachers are trying to teach kids to do math. We haven't found one student that can do simple math without a bar graph on paper, or rows and columns to add, subtract, etc. But we know the private/church schools are teaching the old tried and true methods of rational thinking, and what the state requires. That's just one example of blindly following D of E guidelines, or doing what has been working.
The differences between the schools are huge! But our government is blind to that.
There is no way any sensible person can demonstrate, for instance, an inner city failing school in a broken district full of dropouts, plagued with violence against teachers, with relatively few students able to read or do simple math is statistically equal to an elite private school producing a very high percentage of graduates averaging very high SAT/ACT scores, successful employment, professionals, etc. Of course, manipulation of data through enough statistical analysis techniques can be made to demonstrate 'whatever', "adjusted" by parameters that don't fit all schools sampled. The parameters listed in that study indeed compares apples to prunes to bananas, not school type to school type. All the school types are obviously made the same type through manipulation of the data. Nobody with a lick of sense believes they are all the same. The approach of the study was skewed, even if they used typical statistical tools.
Our public schools are sold on Common Core, leaving parents unable to help their kids with homework. They can't find out how the teachers are trying to teach kids to do math. We haven't found one student that can do simple math without a bar graph on paper, or rows and columns to add, subtract, etc. But we know the private/church schools are teaching the old tried and true methods of rational thinking, and what the state requires. That's just one example of blindly following D of E guidelines, or doing what has been working.
The differences between the schools are huge! But our government is blind to that.
I think that your statistical analysis was skewed by the following factors:
Lutheran Schools were generally established before prayer and bible were removed from public schools; with the intent to improve educational standards. They generally hired competent teachers, and carefully chosen curriculum.
Conservative schools were often established in reaction to secular values being taught in public education. Unfortunately many were hastily put together without sufficient attention to quality. Their faculties were largely well intentioned but incompetent.
If you compare public schools with those conservative schools which used quality staff and curriculum; those conservative schools will outperform all others.
The school I taught in for many years, at my insistence, was financed like any other ministry of the church; by freewill offerings. We NEVER charged tuition. Parents were responsible to pay for their own children's curriculum; and gave, as they were led to support the school. I know that we received significant support from people who did NOT have children enrolled; but I had no knowledge of who gave what. I never had any difficulty in meeting my financial needs.
The only problem I see with some homeschooling kids is that they do not develp social kids like they should and learn about life problems at an early age. They often become isolated and uncommunicative at a young age. I would highly recommend any parent to keep their kids in some type of youth activities program if they plan on homeschooling their kids. That way they can develop their social skills at a young age like they should be doing. Keeping your kids from talking to other kids is not healthy (IMO).
But when they were children, were they very social with others? Or did they seem withdrawn, shy, anti social, or unresponsive around others who were new? Granted, a dominant personality type could change this.
Also, working at jobs that requires them to be social is a necessity to one's success. It is a given in the fact that they had to force themselves to learn that skill if they didn't do so as a child. Hence, why I encourage parents who homeschool their kids to learn how to deal with rejection and acceptance by others at an early age (by including their kids in some type of activity that would involve other children).
Also, working at jobs that requires them to be social is a necessity to one's success. It is a given in the fact that they had to force themselves to learn that skill if they didn't do so as a child. Hence, why I encourage parents who homeschool their kids to learn how to deal with rejection and acceptance by others at an early age (by including their kids in some type of activity that would involve other children).