I thought you guys might be interested in discussing this

[Gav]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4023335.stm

Well what do you think?

Personally, I agree with quote from Mike Long

"If we need a special school for homosexuals, maybe we need a special school for little short fat kids, because they get picked on too."

Or Blacks, or kids who listen to heavy metal, or kids with bad acne ...

The list goes on. Where do you draw the line once you start breaking children down into minority sub cultures and should the tax payer be forced to foot the bill. For once I am with the conservatives, I think that this is unnecessary, potentially harmful to the children and sends out the wrong message. Where segregtion has been attempted in the past it has only led to further problems (I can only refer to the history of Apartheid or the problems of the American South as real, albeit extreme examples). And is it really fair to not expose these groups to wider society? What opinion are they likely to form [about wider society as a result of isolation] as they grow up?

[ls14evar]

Isolating those groups from the rest of their peers is only going to lead to even worse treatment when they are reintegrated. Silly idea.

[Black Jeebus]

That is ridiculous. Just plain ridiculous. Do these kids plan on dodging the rest of society after high school as well. Instead of whining about it, they need to learn to deal with the pressures they are going to have to face at some point.

[Soldier]

This pisses me off to no end. Two of the biggest and most important things you learn in school are the unspoken ones:

1. People suck. Deal with them. Get a thicker skin.

2. You don't have to conform, but if you want to be treated somewhat normally, act at least something like the people around you. Dress/act "freakishly", expect to be treated as such. Go all-out goth, expect to be a freak to everyone but your goth friends. Embody the image of the well-groomed rich jock/prep, expect to be a freak to all but your clique. Be a completely, flamingly, flamboyant homosexual, expect to be treated as such by pretty much everybody else. It's only going to get worse in the business, whether you're gay or gothic or something else remarkably different.

And, as has been said above, there's no reason for taxpayers to be paying for gays to get their own special school. Hell, I was picked on to no end through my elementary and middle school days. Why didn't I get a special school for the tall skinny kids that people like to pick on?

If anybody were to say, "Gays are unnatural, so they should be put in separate schools," or "Gays are wrong, so they should have to go to separate restaraunts," there would be no end to the howling about "separate but equal is a load of crap", "it's just as bad as when we did it to blacks", etc. And rightly so.

So why are they now allowed to go and do it themselves, with our money?

Like I said, this seriously pisses me off.

[esskreemr]

There are Christian Schools. Nobody has a problem with that.
There are boarding schools that "specialize" in overweight children.
There are schools for children who are gifted.
There are schools for children who are not so gifted.
There are schools for children of the "economic elite".
There are schools for children that specialize in sports.
There are schools for Asians that specialize in teaching from a more "Asian" perspective
There are schools for children with autism.

Do I have to go into "special programs"?

I guess the decision is affected by how "hard" the homosexual student has been treated in his/her prior school. How much of an education do you think you get if you are threatened, bullied, beaten up, harassed? Feeling suicidal, depressed and afraid for your life would most certainly have a detrimental effect on the learning process.

I'd say it's a toss up between the support of "people like you" and risking a permanent sequester from the rest of society.

[Soldier]

And how many of these are state-funded?

[Soldier]

P.S. I think your list above, with the exception of Christian schools, are a bad idea as well. I don't have as much of a problem with the Christian school, since it doesn't preclude having a mix of the various social groups. Of course, it does prevent Christians from getting a realistic taste of the secular world around them, so nevermind.

[telkanuru]

And how many of these are state-funded?

Aye, there's the rub...

[esskreemr]

P.S. I think your list above, with the exception of Christian schools, are a bad idea as well. I don't have as much of a problem with the Christian school, since it doesn't preclude having a mix of the various social groups. Of course, it does prevent Christians from getting a realistic taste of the secular world around them, so nevermind.

Sorry, I tried to space and ended up prematurely posting.

[esskreemr]

This pisses me off to no end. Two of the biggest and most important things you learn in school are the unspoken ones:

1. People suck. Deal with them. Get a thicker skin.

In the town next to a small town I used to live in, a homosexual was beaten and then ran over. I don't think the thicker skin would have helped him.

2. You don't have to conform, but if you want to be treated somewhat normally, act at least something like the people around you. Dress/act "freakishly", expect to be treated as such. Go all-out goth, expect to be a freak to everyone but your goth friends. Embody the image of the well-groomed rich jock/prep, expect to be a freak to all but your clique. Be a completely, flamingly, flamboyant homosexual, expect to be treated as such by pretty much everybody else. It's only going to get worse in the business, whether you're gay or gothic or something else remarkably different.

You're assuming that being gay is a choice. I doubt that you could provide the evidence that homosexuality is not biological.

And, as has been said above, there's no reason for taxpayers to be paying for gays to get their own special school. Hell, I was picked on to no end through my elementary and middle school days. Why didn't I get a special school for the tall skinny kids that people like to pick on?

Is the school teaching them to be gay? Do they have Gay English classes, Gay Math classes, Gay Science, do they "fornicate" and sodomize each other during PE and lunch break?

A 95% graduation rate in any inner-city school is nothing to be snarfed at. Sounds like money well spent.

Besides, wouldn't you pay the extra money so your kids ( hypothetical ) aren't exposed to that "lifestyle"? Sounds like a win situation for the Christians.

If anybody were to say, "Gays are unnatural, so they should be put in separate schools," or "Gays are wrong, so they should have to go to separate restaraunts," there would be no end to the howling about "separate but equal is a load of crap", "it's just as bad as when we did it to blacks", etc. And rightly so.

The difference is choice. If I, as a school principle, were to forcibly segregate Christians for their close-mindedness ( hypothetical generalization), people would scream and threaten to feed my dog to my kids. If I were to offer specialized "Science" classes that teach Creationism as fact and not myth, many Christians would see me as a step below the Pope.

So why are they now allowed to go and do it themselves, with our money?

Why spend their own money when they can spend yours? Do you live in New York by the way? If you don't, it's NOT your money, or you're problem. It's theirs...

Like I said, this seriously pisses me off.

Indignation is duly noted.

[Moonitic]

I can just about assure, based on the kids I've known, that Christian schools are no different than public schools. Sometimes, unfortunately, they're worse.

Gifted kids should have their own programs. They get bored in regular programs.
Special education children sometimes HAVE to have special programs because public schools don't have the resources for those children. Particularly children with severe disabilities (thinking on that, public schools don't necessarily have the best resources for gifted kids either). Should these kids be completely segregated? I don't necessarily think so.

I don't believe that the taxpayer should have to pay for someone to send their kid to a special school. If they want to send junior to private school, they should foot the bill (& perhaps get a tax break since they don't have a child in public school...same with people without kids...maybe they should get a break. I don't know.). I went to a 90% black school from elementary to my first year of junior high. I learned to deal, even when I was the ONLY little white girl in my class. In fact, I had some great friends that were not little, not white & not always girls.

Now, special education is different. Yes, it IS state funded. However, some parents don't have the choice. If that's the program a child needs in order to learn to function, then that's what the child needs. In special education, the kids aren't merely taught academics. They're also taught life & social skills. I will say that the educators do whatever they can to expose the children to "mainstreamers" as much as possible. My son was in a half gifted/half special ed school for a year (in the special ed program...he's supposedly got "mild c.p."). He needed that year there. Both "types" of kids got to have some classes together. Now, he's in a cross categorical classroom (that means, kids of different disabilities) & mainstreams for gym, music & art.

I know far too much about special education, & why special ed schools are so important.

But I'm sorry, if you want to go to a special school because of your color, shape, height, sexual orientation (you should pay more attention to your schooling instead of sex!), who your parents are, etc....pay for it yourself.

Excuse the rambling. I'm already getting stirred up for a night of girlie movies, games & junk food with my friends.

[cornflower]

P.S. I think your list above, with the exception of Christian schools, are a bad idea as well. I don't have as much of a problem with the Christian school, since it doesn't preclude having a mix of the various social groups. Of course, it does prevent Christians from getting a realistic taste of the secular world around them, so nevermind.

I disagree with you, Soldier. Gifted/special ed. students should be given a special program that will help cultivate and develop their skills at a pace that suits them. Christians can practice their religion at any time and anywhere, at a church or at home; however, special ed. and gifted students need way more than that. They need professional educators who know how to teach them and help them reach their full potential. That comment sounds to me, a judgement based on personal beliefs coming from experience with Christianity.

[Gav]

There are Christian Schools. Nobody has a problem with that.

I do.

I think that I am going to annoy a few people on this board by suggesting that I do not believe that the state should fund religous schools at all. In Scotland we have a few RC state funded schools. I do not believe that the state should promote any form of religion whether that religion is Muslim, protestant, RC, Moonie or anything else. State funded schools are there to educate.

And on top of that many object to these schools.

I do believe that the state has a duty to provide the option of special schooling to those who may need them - not force them to go there. Kids with special needs frequently need additional assistance which can be lost in the greater morass of state education. However the children in the article I posted, sexual preference aside, do not have what might be termed "special needs".

For the record, I was bullied at school but at no point did I think that I should be moved to some special school. Why would I? I had a great many friends at my school and a rich social life. To move to another school because of a minority would have been crazy. Similarly I knew some "out" people at my school, they got some bullying not anything worse than I did. To suggest that sexual proclivities means that they deserve the same treatment as someone who has very real special needs is absurd.

[Philistine]

As I understand the stated rationale on cost--many openly gay students are the subject or harrassment and beatings, and do not feel safe at school. The the cost of actually preventing student-on-student violence against openly gay students would be much less than providing a school for those who feel threatened to go to.

Whether you buy it or not is up to you--but apparently that is New York's position on why the school is publically funded.

--Philistine

[jeff]

I agree with Gav and Philistine. To Gav's points, I don't want my tax dollars to be funding somebody else's religious beliefs, or for that matter, my own. Subsidizing secular classes in an otherwise religious institution just means they can shift money to the religious classes. Where do you want to draw the line? The most popular religion's most popular sect?

To Philistine's point: neither homosexual kids nor any other group should have to feel unsafe at their schools, and they deserve some solution to prevent violence against them. Maybe it's just too darned hard to stamp out the homophobia (not to mention racism and other prejudices) at the local schools, but to blame the gay kids is to blame the victims. I would prefer it if they were able to attend their local schools (and of course many still will - I really doubt that all the other schools will be 100% hetero) and be more integrated into society, but this reflects more on general society than on the gay kids.

[Inquartata]

And yet somehow I doubt that this school is now free of cliques, bullying, harassment and cruelty. It's probably just targeted based on different criteria there.

Stereotyping, social stratification, and in-group behavior are integral parts of the human thinking process, especially in the young. Segregation will cure nothing, I'm afraid.

[Philistine]

And yet somehow I doubt that this school is now free of cliques, bullying, harassment and cruelty. It's probably just targeted based on different criteria there.

However, physical violence is probably much much lower.

According to a study (albeit from Massachusetts):

A study of Massachusetts high school students published in the journal Pediatrics reports that nearly one-third of gay teens had been threatened in the past month with a weapon at school, compared to 7% of heterosexual students surveyed.

* * *

The study of Massachusetts youth published in Pediatrics found that more than 25% of self-identified gay teens said they had recently missed school out of fear for their safety, while only 5% of heterosexual teens had missed school out of fear.

The Pediatrics study found that among self-identified gay and lesbian teens in the Massachusetts sample, more than one-third reported having attempted suicide. This is three times the 9.9% of self-identified straight teens reporting suicide attempts.

Link

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

However, physical violence is probably much much lower.

I see no reason to believe so. A new group of alphas will emerge, that is all. Or have you reason to believe that gays are somehow different than straights in some essential psychological respect?

[Philistine]

I see no reason to believe so. A new group of alphas will emerge, that is all. Or have you reason to believe that gays are somehow different than straights in some essential psychological respect?

Well yes. I believe that they are different in that gays are unlikely to offer violence to other people based solely on the fact that those others are gay.

Thus, I would expect the level of gay-on-gay school violence to at most equal the level of straight-on-straight school violence. This would be a substantantial reduction from the level of straight-on-gay violence referenced in the report in my previous post.

--Philistine

[jBirch]

I agree with Gav and Philistine. To Gav's points, I don't want my tax dollars to be funding somebody else's religious beliefs, or for that matter, my own. Subsidizing secular classes in an otherwise religious institution just means they can shift money to the religious classes. Where do you want to draw the line? The most popular religion's most popular sect?

Well, a Catholic school, for example, is funded the same as any other private school (or British Public School). Are you proposing that all students should be forced to attend state sponsored schools?