Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Home SchoolingFollow

#52 Mar 12 2008 at 2:56 AM Rating: Good
***
2,374 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
The Duodenum of Doom wrote:
It seems the same for me, it's all dependent on whether the child applies themselves.


No, it's mostly dependent on who teaches them.

This idea that somehow state schools are inherently inferior to private schools or, god forbid, home-schooling, is ludicrous. Lots of people consider Korea to have one of the best educational system in the world. It's a bit hardcore, but it's certainly effective, and they have almost no private schools to speak of. In France we also have very few private schools, and plenty of brilliant state schools.

It's always the same. State schools will only be as good as the effort the government and citizens put into them, in terms of money obviously, but also in terms of teacher training, of teacher exams, of the cultural value society places on it. If you arrive at a system whereby "state schools" have become synonimous with "degenerate wasteland for disadvantaged coloured kids", then you have a serious problem. Not just in terms of education, but in terms of society in general. And no amount of "American dream rags-to-riches" stories can make up for the fact that when the discrepancy between public and private systems is too wide, there is in effect segregation from birth.

As for home-schooling, it might work out great in some cases, but the socialising process of schools is just as important for development as the educational process. I can't imagine that kids that haven't left the house for 18 years will seemlessly adapt to the wider world.


Are you saying a teacher can make a student apply themselves? I have seen some of the best teachers get absolutely flustered because a student just doesn't give a damn. I've also seen (myself) get taught by the worst teachers, but still study my *** off and learn what is intended to be learned. I do agree that to an extent, the teacher helps the student get involved, but it boils down to whether or not the student wants to learn it.

I went to public schools K-12 grades, and saw some excellent teaching as well as some crappy teaching. Students with the same teachers had a wide variety of successes and failures.

As far as the social aspects of home schooling, I will completely agree that it is much more difficult to get involved in social activities. A lot of it is because there really is no outlet for it, aside from programs the child might be involved in that have nothing to do with school (i.e. church, skating, etc.)
#53 Mar 12 2008 at 3:07 AM Rating: Decent
The Duodenum of Doom wrote:
Are you saying a teacher can make a student apply themselves?


Absolutely.

Have you not seen Dangerous Minds? Smiley: rolleyes

I'm not stupid enough to argue that the kids don't have some form of autonomy in deciding whether to apply themselves or not. But if the "worst teacher" can get his students to work hard, he can't be that bad. By the same token, a "great teacher" whose pupils do fUck all is not a "great teacher".

Lots of other factors come into it: Class sizes, lagged effects of previous teachers, material teached, etc... And from the kids point of view, it's not all about will-power: your parent's influence, your diet, your sleep patterns, your emotional state, all of that will affect your performance much more than your "decision to apply youself".
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#54 Mar 12 2008 at 6:39 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
I wish I had jumped in on this discussion sooner.

As someone intimately involved in educational philosophy who spends on the order of hours a day considering social and educational reform, and someone who utterly detests Smash's hubris, I have to say that I agree with him on almost all points.

Quote:
On the issue at hand, the law is blatantly unconstitutional. It's simply not the governments job to tell parents how they should educate their children. If a parent wants to have their child be a total failure, then that's their right.


Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


14th amendment.

Quote:
Your problem is that you think it's the state's responsibility to take care of everyone. It's not. Once you realize this, it's pretty obvious how wrong you are...


Plus compelling state interest (from 5th and 14th amendments).

The two together say that you're wrong on both counts. States have the prerogative and most would agree the responsibility to implement laws that benefit its people. Those laws only need be reasonable and fair.

Children are not the property of their parents. They are their responsibility, and they are the state's responsibility. You might also be interested to know that teachers are required by law to report any suspicions of child abuse. This is an important function of the school. And as Smash has pointed out in some iteration, the idea of equality in freedoms and opportunities lies primarily in the public education system, which is intended to serve as a means of reducing social stratification.

But I guess it's worth noting that I'm somewhat of a socialist myself.
#55 Mar 12 2008 at 6:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Just a smidgen of UK perspective.

Since 1944 it's been compulsory for children from 5 to 15 to attend an accredited school.

This does allow for home schooling, but it's rare, as few parents are able to meet the criteria required for accreditation. (A sound level of numeracy, literacy, science, history etc., and a safe and nurturing environment with access to social interaction).

The argument was made earlier that to monitor the quality of all home-schooling parents makes it unrealistic? Why? Set criteria for an appropriate level and breadth of knowledge for any school or educator and there you go.

Put the onus on the school/parent to staisfy that they are respecting the child's right to a rounded edjamacashun.

And yes, I said 'right' to education. Bloody grown-ups arguing semantics about amendment x or y while children are left to enter an adult world with a fraction of the knowledge they'll need to fulfill their potential.

All the home schooled people I've met have been social cripples who had fully formed views imposed on them from an early age. Most of us play with other kids and develop and form our thinking through peer challenge. Taking that away sounds stupid.

The over-riding question for me is why would a parent deny their children the right to a range of educational perspectives and to routinely interact with other kids?

The answers often boil down to religious paranoia, racism or blind ignorance at the range of knowledge that's out there for kids to learn. Even with the interwebs, I couldn't possibly contribute the knowledge and experience of the 20-odd teachers at my kids' school, even if some of those teachers are Artards.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#56 Mar 12 2008 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The only people I can sympathize with home schooling their kids are those who live far enough away from a school district as to make it a burden to drive them there daily.

That's a vanishingly small number of people.

On the other hand (back to the original point), passing the credential (any one, presumably, of the dozens of levels available) should certainly not be much of a challenge to anyone who feels qualified to take on the job of educating their kids from K-12. It's not exactly hard.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#57 Mar 12 2008 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
In the words of Buffy Summers: "It's not just for crazy religious people anymore."

My aunt in California homeschooled her middle child for a while because their school district had some absurd-assed way of assigning which student gets sent to which school when making the transition from elementary school to middle school that would have taken her daughter all the way to the other end of town and put her in a school with none of the same kids that lived near her and with whom she'd gone to elementary school. My aunt is a college-educated professional, but she is NOT a licensed teacher. Her daughter re-entered the school system after two years of homeschooling more advanced than her classmates, using pre-made curricula freely available from homeschooling support associations.

I know several families that are homeschooling, and not one of them is doing it for religious reasons, or to facilitate abuse. They do it because there is something lacking in the public school system, or because there's something in the public school system to which they don't want their kid exposed. I'm considering it myself for a number of reasons, namely the fact that I feel the kind of "socialization" kids get in school is not necessarily healthy. I think a kid who is endlessly the target of bullies will not, in fact, find that socialization beneficial. I can provide my child with dozens of other children with whom to socialize without abandoning them in the barely-supervised bully factory overcrowded classrooms tend to be.

By homeschooling, I can select which vaccines my child gets, and when, without being under the crunch to have several dozen shots done before he enters kindergarten, and without having to jump through hoops to claim an exemption that allows me to avoid being forced to give absurdly unnecessary vaccines such as Hepatitis B, a disease from which I can say with absolute certainty that my pre-kindergarten child, who is neither a healthcare worker nor an IV drug user, nor is he having unprotected sex, faces absolutely no risk of contracting.

By homeschooling, I can be sure that if my child is advanced, he's not left bored and idle and frustrated while the teacher gives all his or her attention to his plodding peers. And if the opposite is true (perish the thought!) then I can be confident that he will get the assistance he needs and not be left to flounder along failing because the school system does not notice that he's quietly struggling and falling behind.

In short, Smash is making some pretty wild and idiotic assumptions about people's motivations for homeschooling, none of which I have encountered amongst the many people I know who are homeschooling or plan to do so. And those intelligent, reasonable people and their thriving children are in jeopardy of losing their freedom to give their child the kind of education they wish for him or her to receive if this California ruling holds up.

Is oversight and evaluation of homeschooled children necessary? Absolutely. Is a licensed teacher necessary? No, there are plenty of resources available to parents who wish to homeschool that can give them all the tools they need to provide their children with an effective, even superlative, education. The kind of education, in fact, that universities are clamoring to see in their applicants.

Edited, Mar 12th 2008 8:45am by Ambrya
#58 Mar 12 2008 at 7:49 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Ambrya wrote:
In short, Smash is making some pretty wild and idiotic assumptions about people's motivations for homeschooling, none of which I have encountered amongst the many people I know who are homeschooling or plan to do so. And those intelligent, reasonable people and their thriving children are in jeopardy of losing their freedom to give their child the kind of education they wish for him or her to receive if this California ruling holds up.
Ummm, I think your post pretty much just gave evidence to Smash's assumptions being spot on.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#59 Mar 12 2008 at 7:49 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
The argument was made earlier that to monitor the quality of all home-schooling parents makes it unrealistic? Why?


I think it's more that only a laughably irrelevant number of parents are both qualified and willing to homeschool and developing assessment criterion for such a small amount of people based largely on their personal preference moreso than the interests of the child-- doesn't really seem like a good investment of tax dollars.

Quote:
On the other hand (back to the original point), passing the credential (any one, presumably, of the dozens of levels available) should certainly not be much of a challenge to anyone who feels qualified to take on the job of educating their kids from K-12. It's not exactly hard.


Care to clarify what you're referring to by passing one of the credentials available? Are you talking about some kind of homeschooling credentials or teaching credentials?

I wouldn't want to count how many different areas there are of teacher certification. Essentially there are a few options in the K-8 range, special education, and then a certification for virtually every content area 9-12, including electives like foreign languages. Actual certification varies by state, but I can assure you that for many states passing the required tests for certification without having gone to college specifically for that degree would be a near-impossibility.
#60 Mar 12 2008 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Teaching credentials. And that's my point: the California proposal only says parents who home school their children need to have a teaching credential, without reference to which one or what level.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#61 Mar 12 2008 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Is oversight and evaluation of homeschooled children necessary? Absolutely. Is a licensed teacher necessary? No, there are plenty of resources available to parents who wish to homeschool that can give them all the tools they need to provide their children with an effective, even superlative, education. The kind of education, in fact, that universities are clamoring to see in their applicants.


Homeschooling can work purely based on the increased attention the child gets from the person supervising the education. That assumes that the parent is at minimum a caring, intelligent person. As for the quality of social skills, that really depends on the variables. Many teachers do a poor job of fostering positive social skills. Many do a fair to good job.

But the thing is, if you're really a caring, intelligent, and involved parent, there's no reason why your child shouldn't do just as well in a public school. The school can provide plethoras of learning experiences that most homeschooling parents cannot even at the most fundamental levels. Can you teach your child from home how to cope with a diverse variety of authority figures? Consider the difference between a child who's had dozens of different teachers with different styles and expectations by college versus the child who primarily has only had to abide their parents. Consider that by protecting your child completely from the negative peer influences, you are depriving them of many first-hand experiences of the reality of the world, it's people, and their peers.

Some schools really are that bad that I could sympathize with wanting to homeschool. Some parents are really that good that I could see the merits. The problem is being able to fairly discriminate between them for the child's benefit.

Personally I would be a bigger proponent of homeschooling if it required children to spend a part of each day/week in school. 100% home school is rarely a good idea in my opinion, but then so is 100% public school. Parents need to play a role in their child's education, some more than others. Homeschooling is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, period. Public schooling is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, provided that the parent does not play an active role in the education and development of the child. It's for that reason that I see little need for homeschooling.
#62 Mar 12 2008 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Many of the problems with public schools right now would be solved if parents were willing to volunteer to help in the classrooms and in other capacities. If you have time to home school, you have time to volunteer in your kid's public school AND possibly do some other kids some good as well.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#63 Mar 12 2008 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Teaching credentials. And that's my point: the California proposal only says parents who home school their children need to have a teaching credential, without reference to which one or what level.


At that point you might as well just give students the option to be self-taught. I could see someone with a secondary teaching credential doing ok at homeschooling an elementary school child because the pedagogical classes they take generally cover all ages and they obviously have the requisite knowledge. I couldn't see someone with K-6 credentials or even a single set of 7-12 credentials doing an especially good job at providing a secondary education at home without have the content knowledge. Personally I wouldn't want someone who's certification was in art to be responsible for my high school physics education, or even vice versa.

#64 Mar 12 2008 at 8:30 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Many of the problems with public schools right now would be solved if parents were willing to volunteer to help in the classrooms and in other capacities. If you have time to home school, you have time to volunteer in your kid's public school AND possibly do some other kids some good as well.


Thank you. What I was trying to say only less gbajiesque.
#65 Mar 12 2008 at 8:40 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,504 posts
Nexa wrote:
[If they're not individuals, I say abortion til 18 is on the way! Woot! I still have time!

Nexa


Rectroactive abortion? I support this idea.
____________________________
"If you ask me, we could do with a little less motivation. The people who are causing all the trouble seem highly motivated to me. Serial killers, stock swindlers, drug dealers, Christian Republicans"

George Carlin.

#66 Mar 12 2008 at 8:42 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Historically it's actually been a common practice :d Still is in some nations, I think.
#67 Mar 12 2008 at 8:52 AM Rating: Decent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Ambrya wrote:

In short, Smash is making some pretty wild and idiotic assumptions about people's motivations for homeschooling, none of which I have encountered amongst the many people I know who are homeschooling or plan to do so.


While I admire your desire and your ambition and think you're one of the right people to undertake such an endeavor, I've bolded the pertinent part of your statement here. While you and your friends may have the best of intentions, the current non-standard of homeschooling is preventing some children from valuable public (or private) school resources, such as exposure to mandated reporters, not to mention denying them exposure to such fine subjects as evolution if they parents choose not to teach it. WHILE YOU may be doing right by your children, that doesn't mean that everyone is. Why not have standards? Perhaps California is asking too much, but if we liscense daycare facilities in people's homes, I don't see why one can't be liscensed to teach their own children at home.

Nexa

____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#68 Mar 12 2008 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Just to throw some facts from the National Center for Education Statistics in here:

As of 2003, reasons for homeschooling as cited by parents:

Quote:
The reason for homeschooling that was most frequently cited as being applicable was concern about the environment of other schools including safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure. Eighty-five percent of homeschooled students were being homeschooled, in part, because of their parents’ concern about the environment of other schools. The next two reasons for homeschooling most frequently cited as applicable were to provide religious or moral instruction (72 percent) and dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools (68 percent).

Parents were asked which of the reasons they homeschooled was the most important reason. Figure 2 and table 4 show the most important reasons students were being homeschooled in 2003, as reported by parents of homeschooled students. Concern about the environment of other schools and to provide religious or moral instruction were the top two most important reasons cited. About a third of students had parents who cited concern about the environment of other schools as their most important reason for homeschooling (31 percent). Approximately another third of homeschooled students had parents who were homeschooling primarily to provide religious or moral instruction (30 percent). Sixteen percent of homeschooled students had parents whose primary reason for homeschooling was dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at other schools, making this the third most common primary reason for homeschooling.


From the same large study:

Quote:
Between 1999 and 2003, homeschooling rates increased for a number of groups. Homeschooling rates increased from 0.9 to 1.7 percent among students with parents who have a high school diploma or less, from 2.0 to 2.7 percent among White students, from 1.6 to 2.4 percent among students in grades 6–8; and from 0.7 to 1.4 percent among students in single-parent households where the parent was in the labor force.


Nexa

Edited, Mar 12th 2008 1:28pm by Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#69 Mar 12 2008 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
A child generally can't learn all of the skills they need in life from a single person. The most important of which is to think for themselves. Children need to hear different opinions and different ways of communicating those opinions from a variety of people in order to learn how to create proper, efficient thought processes for themselves.

Parents like to think they know everything their child needs to know, and they might. What they don't realize is that they have no effective means of communicating that knowledge in a way that allows a child to consider it's authenticity. The child may come out knowing everything under the sun, but they won't be able to come up with new ideas the same way a child with multiple teachers, and by extension teaching methods can, because they've never been given alternate opinions on what they are being taught.

Edited, Mar 12th 2008 1:46pm by Yodabunny

Edited, Mar 12th 2008 3:24pm by Yodabunny
#70 Mar 12 2008 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Parents like to think they know everything their child needs to know, and they might. What they don't realize is that they have no effective means of communicating that knowledge in a way that allows a child can consider it's authenticity.
Smiley: nod

Preserve us from those who accept absolutes without question.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#71 Mar 12 2008 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
TL;DR if you like, but this epigraph by Stephen Fry, even though it was written as a satirical piece, is one of the most insightful I've ever read on the subject and is worth ploughing through:

Stephen Fry (in the guise of Prof. Donald Trefusis) wrote:
Hugely so to you all.

Firstly I would like to thank the obliging undergraduate of the School of Mauritian Studies at the University of East Anglia in Norwich who so kindly retrieved my valise last night. I am sorry he had to look into it in order to discover its rightful owner, and I assure him the sum required in used banknotes will be left at the assigned place. I look forward to the safe return of the appliances.

Now, I'm particularly glad I caught you just now because I wanted very much to have a word about this business of education. I have visited so many schools, universities and polytechnics in this last week, listened to the tearful wails of so many pupils, students and teachers, that I feel I should speak out. As one who has spent his entire life, man, boy and raving old dotard, in and out of educational establishments I am the last person to offer any useful advice about them. Better leave that to politicians with no education, sense or commitment. They at least can bring an empty mind to the problem. However I would like to alienate you as much as possible at this time by offering this little canap‚ from the savoury tray of my experience. If you would like to kill me (and you would not be alone in that ambition) forget poison, expunge strangulation from your mind, and entirely fail to consider the possibility of sawing through the brake cables of my Wolseley, there is a much simpler course open to you. Simply creep upon me when I am least expecting it and whisper the phrase 'Parent Power' into my ear. Stand back and admire the effect. Clubbing cardiac arrest.

Parent power: schmarent power, I say. Don't misunderstand me, oh good heavens remove yourselves as far as possible from the position of not understanding me. Democracy and I have no quarrel. But on this head if on no other believe me, parent power and democracy are as closely related as Mike Gatting and the Queen Mother, and unless someone has been keeping a very fruity scandal from me, that is not very closely at all. Parent power is not a sign of democracy, it is a sign of barbarism. We are to regard education as a service industry, like a laundry, parents are the customers, teachers the washers, children the dirty linen. The customer is always right. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. And what in the name of boiling hell do parents know about education? How many educated people are there in the world? I could name seventeen or eighteen.

Because of course education is not the issue. 'Heaven preserve us from educated people,' is the cry. Ask Norman Tebbit, for whom a leering naked teenager in a newspaper is no different from a Titian nude, I ask him what education means. Ask the illiterate ghouls of Fleet Street or Wapping Street, or whatever unfortunate thoroughfare they now infest, what education is. A poem with swear words has to be banned from television or they will squeal for weeks. They've dealt with the socialists in the town halls, now they want to turn on those clever people who mock them in their plays and hooks.

This new England we have invented for ourselves is not interested at all in education. It is only interested in training, both material and spiritual. Education means freedom, it means ideas, it means truth. Training is what you do to a pear tree when you pleach it and prune it to grow against a wall. Training is what you give an airline pilot or a computer operator or a barrister or a radio producer. Education is what you give children to enable them to be free from the prejudices and moral bankruptcies of their elders. And freedom is no part of the programme of today's legislators. Freedom to buy shares, medical treatment or council houses certainly, freedom to buy anything you please. But freedom to think, to challenge, to change.
Heavens no.

The day a child of mine comes home from school and reveals that he or she has been taught something that I agree with is the day I take that child away from school.
'Teach Victorian values, teach the values of decency and valour and patriotism and religion,' is the cry. Those are the very values that led to this foul century of war, oppression, cruelty, tyranny, slaughter and hypocrisy. It was the permissive society it is so horribly fashionable to denounce that forced America to back out of the Vietnam War, it is this new hideously impermissive society that is threatening to engulf us in another. I choose the word 'engulf' with great care. Look at those Islamic cultures in the Gulf for moral certainty, for laws against sexual openness, for capital punishment and flogging, for a firm belief in God, for patriotism and a strong belief in the family. What a model for us all. Heaven help us, when will we realise that we know nothing, nothing. We are ignorant, savagely, hopelessly ignorant - what we think we know is palpable nonsense. How can we dare to presume to teach our children the very same half-baked, bigoted trash that litters our own imperfect minds? At least give them a chance, a faint, feeble glimmering chance of being better than us. Is that so very much to ask? Apparently it is.

Well, I'm old and smelly and peculiar and I've no doubt everything I said is nonsense. Let's burn all those novels with naughty ideas and naughty words in them, let's teach children that Churchill won the Second World War, that the Empire was a good thing, that simple words for simple physical acts are wicked and that teenage girls pointing their breasts at you out of newspapers are harmless fun. Let's run down the arts departments of universities, let's string criminals up, let's do it all now, for the sooner we all go up in a ball of flame, the better. Oh dear, listening back I can't help feeling that some of you may have got the impression that . . . well, it's only because I care. I do care so very much. And when I'm away from home and see how poor and ignorant a people we are, well it upsets me.

I think I should take one of my slow-release capsules and perhaps snuggle up with an Elmore Leonard and a warming posset.

If you have been, I wonder why.


My favourite line:

The day a child of mine comes home from school and reveals that he or she has been taught something that I agree with is the day I take that child away from school.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#72 Mar 12 2008 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Stephen Fry: Genuis.
#73 Mar 12 2008 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

In the words of Buffy Summers: "It's not just for crazy religious people anymore."

My aunt in California homeschooled her middle child for a while because their school district had some absurd-assed way of assigning which student gets sent to which school when making the transition from elementary school to middle school that would have taken her daughter all the way to the other end of town and put her in a school with none of the same kids that lived near her and with whom she'd gone to elementary school.



Was this absurd thing referred to as "desegregation" by any chance?


My aunt is a college-educated professional, but she is NOT a licensed teacher. Her daughter re-entered the school system after two years of homeschooling more advanced than her classmates, using pre-made curricula freely available from homeschooling support associations.


Who gives a ****? If you had taken me out of school in 2nd grade and just pelted me with grapes 24/7 for two years, I'd have re-entered the school system more advanced than my classmates.



I know several families that are homeschooling, and not one of them is doing it for religious reasons, or to facilitate abuse.


I know 1000 families that only do it so they can rape children with crucifixes. Since I know more families than you, I guess I win the argument. That's how it works, right? You take personal examples that you alone are aware of, then measure those against another person's personal experience then tally the result, right? What other method could we possibly use to try to understand an issue other than what we know of it personally.

This is why all black men are named Gary.


They do it because there is something lacking in the public school system, or because there's something in the public school system to which they don't want their kid exposed.


What's lacking is parents being willing to get involved in the school system to help children they didn't squeeze out. What your imaginary friends don't want their children exposed to are almost certainly the other children.


I'm considering it myself for a number of reasons, namely the fact that I feel the kind of "socialization" kids get in school is not necessarily healthy. I think a kid who is endlessly the target of bullies will not, in fact, find that socialization beneficial. I can provide my child with dozens of other children with whom to socialize without abandoning them in the barely-supervised bully factory overcrowded classrooms tend to be.


Or you could raise them not to be giant cowards who are easy prey for bullies. Just a ******* THOUGHT. How did we possibly as a society get from "I'll teach my kid to stand up to bullies, because he'll encounter them in all walks of life at all ages forever" to "I'll REMOVE MY KID FROM SCHOOL so I can shield them from reality, then be confused when they're blowing sailors for quarters down by the docks later in life"

Your children aren't made of ******* glass. They're not special. Making them feel so, does them a massive disservice later in life. You know the one overarching commonality in the least successful people in our society? Overprotective know it all self righteous mothers.


By homeschooling, I can select which vaccines my child gets



Do you hear that? Is it just me, or do you hear that crazy calliope carnival music playing now? Either the circus is having a parade in town, or we're entering crack smoking tin foil hat paranoia about perfectly average children again. Oh I see it's that second one.


, and when, without being under the crunch to have several dozen shots done before he enters kindergarten, and without having to jump through hoops to claim an exemption that allows me to avoid being forced to give absurdly unnecessary vaccines such as Hepatitis B, a disease from which I can say with absolute certainty that my pre-kindergarten child, who is neither a healthcare worker nor an IV drug user, nor is he having unprotected sex, faces absolutely no risk of contracting.


Dun dee do dun dee do dun dun dun. There it goes! Round and round the ******* merry ground we go! Wheeeee!!!


By homeschooling, I can be sure that if my child is advanced, he's not left bored and idle and frustrated while the teacher gives all his or her attention to his plodding peers.


No, he'll be left bored and resentful of his smothering mother, at least until he finds a rough trick named "Butch" who can take him away from all that.



And if the opposite is true (perish the thought!) then I can be confident that he will get the assistance he needs and not be left to flounder along failing because the school system does not notice that he's quietly struggling and falling behind.


Well, let's see, when I hit the button with the sledgehammer here at the "my child is a unique and precious snowflake" pavilion, it rings a bell under a sign that reads "Everyone thinks their little pumpkin is above average"


In short, Smash is making some pretty wild and idiotic assumptions about people's motivations for homeschooling, none of which I have encountered amongst the many people I know who are homeschooling or plan to do so. And those intelligent, reasonable people and their thriving children are in jeopardy of losing their freedom to give their child the kind of education they wish for him or her to receive if this California ruling holds up.


You're a ******* looney. I'm ashamed to live in a nation that allows you to have power over children's educations in any way shape or form.



Is oversight and evaluation of homeschooled children necessary? Absolutely. Is a licensed teacher necessary? No, there are plenty of resources available to parents who wish to homeschool that can give them all the tools they need to provide their children with an effective, even superlative, education. The kind of education, in fact, that universities are clamoring to see in their applicants.


********* Yeah, colleges are clamoring for unvaccinated spawn of paranoid overprotective nut cases, because they just make such great higher ed students.

Get professional help. Honestly. See someone.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#74 Mar 12 2008 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
You know what I'd really like to see? A website that contains all of the information taught to our children organized in the same way it is taught at school, right up through University, for every course in existence. That way, parents could actually look at what their kids are supposed to be learning and realize they don't know half the sh*t they think they do.

Actually, I want it so I can teach myself all of the things I don't know.

Edited, Mar 12th 2008 4:35pm by Yodabunny
#75 Mar 12 2008 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

That way, parents could actually look at what their kids are supposed to be learning and realize they don't know half the sh*t they think they do.


This is a real problem, frankly, given that maybe 2% of the adult population could pass a 9th grade trigonometry test.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#76 Mar 12 2008 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:

So forced education run by the government with the parents not allowed an option to educate their children in outside schools instead of these government schools, that sounds like something Hitler would espouse.


Hitler? Isn't that overstating it? He sent the Jews to Death Camps. He didn't force them to get public school educations.

I am skeptical about parents educating their kids without a lot of oversight. I think I worry about kids mostly not having any exposure to any type of major institution or civic life. Maybe it's working with so many troubled kids but I'm worried about children being isolated at home in an environment with possibly unchecked abuse. I am concerned about how increasingly we are obsessed with personal privacy, wanting the freedom away from society at large and with social institutions-- it's not a model that really promotes family or social stability and its something that is not historical in the fact that people have never existed in these insular households where kids aren't exposed to wider social values in any major sense. Where is their sense of belonging going to come from?
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 154 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (154)