Home SchoolingFollow

You have to watch out for that Pythagoras. He'll have us all perpendicular.

Then I assume you support the idea of school vouchers, right?


Yes, provided the schools are agenda free, ie: not religious, political, etc.



Oh wait! You don't! Which means it's not about making sure children have equal ACCESS to education, but that as many as possible attend a state run school...

Oh wait!

So public schools don't qualify?

Or did you mean: "Only schools with political/religious agendas that I agree with"?



Does a school that teaches religion not also provide sufficient education? See. This is where I have the problem. If your objective is to make sure that children reach some minimal amount of knowledge by the age of 18, then it should not matter to you how this is done. If they can qualify for college entrance while also studying a religion you don't like, does that in any way violate the criteria of them having "access" to education?


I would think that should be the *only* criteria for education funding. Does the result allow the citizen to obtain a job and/or go on to higher education? If the answer is "yes", then the education was sufficient. If someone wants to teach their child additional stuff, that ought to be their right.

That is, if your statement that it's just about making sure the child receives an education is correct. If your real agenda is to stamp out any teachings you don't like, then it both matches the reality of how federal funds for education are spent *and* your own personal beliefs a bit more.


Why should you care if the child receives religion along with the rest of his education?

So you DO think Madrasahs are OK.

Awesome!

Forcing students to attend religious services and pray to a god that they may or may not believe in is not "teaching" anything.

Therein lies the problem.

There would be no need for vouchers if public schools could be funded and get up to speed with the private schools.

It's not about quality. It's about control. Public schools will never "get up to speed" with private schools until vouchers become a reality.

No, they'll never get "up to speed" until they can refuse admission to the stupid children. The one's that do, Bronx Science, Boston Latin, etc. do as well as Exeter, Andover or Dalton.

This is an asinine point of yours, and in point of fact an argument you've made the OPPOSITE case for regarding Universities.

Comparing test scores from a school that can cherry pick students to one that's required to accept anyone who shows up with a pencil is about as intellectually dishonest as one can get.

No one wants to infringe on people's right to practice religion

I do.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, Gbaji. I'm saying that Smash says he'd be all for vouchers for private schools if the schools offered didn't have a religious agenda. As it stands now, the only private schools a parent can send a kid to are steeped in religious mumbo jumbo, and if you aren't a Catholic or a Christian, then you're stuck with the choice of having your kid forced into a religion you don't believe in or sending your kid to a public school. Where's the right in that? That's a horrible choice to have to make.

And how have I advocated violating the first amendment? I haven't, not at all. Just because I agree with Smash that vouchers to private schools with no religious agenda should be only ones offered, that doesn't violate anyone's right to practice a religion.



I call ******** on that. If public schools had access to the money that private schools had and could offer the GOOD teachers jobs with decent salaries and buy books and laptops and computers and all that other crap, then they could be just as good. It has nothing to do with competition and everything to do with not having the finances to compete on any level with a private school.

As you said, I'm honestly curious here. Do you mean you would set limits on how people could practice religion, or that you would not allow for the practice of any religion? Come to think of it, how do you reconcile either with the First Amendment?

Also, I think I found a cause for you to pump those gambling profits into now that you're not using them to buy $10 packs of ciggies.

Ok, here we go.



The number one factor within any school that determines student performance is the teacher. I've got news for you-- most teachers care about doing a good job, and competition is completely a non-issue. Teachers are ******* charity workers. 50% of them quit within the first 3 years (not an exaggeration). It's not a 9-5 (7-3) job with summers off. It's a lifestyle-- you can have your own life when summer starts. I'll tell you right now that almost every career teacher I've ever met has had the intellect and drive that they could have been anything... doctor, lawyer, etc., but the money is not an issue.



Of course they are. If schools were designed to promote competition we'd have the worst class stratification we've had since slavery.



And if they weren't, you just wouldn't have any schools at all in low SES areas. Sorry, we have to move. There's no school for Tyrone within an hour from here.



I would like to hear how you think this is true at all. Because of marginal amounts of per student money provided? What a joke. I'm seriously laughing. I can assure you, this has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.



What you mean to say is, despite measurably better results from parental involvement, because that is the factor here. Not home schooling. And as has been pointed out, children who are homeschooled are less likely to take college aptitude tests if their parents don't push them to go to college, whereas public school students are constantly pressured to take the tests even if they have any interest in college at all. So I hope that's not the only basis for your belief that it's better.

Trust me. It's no secret among teachers that the most a parent is involved, the better the student does. Actually, most consider it the number one factor, period.



The only reason private schools perform better are that the parents are more involved and typically more financially secure, neither of which has anything to do with the school itself. It's the demographic, not the schools, and this is common knowledge to educators. The whole competition/voucher theory amounts to the spouting of political blowhards.

Given that public school funding comes largely from property taxes and other local tax revenues, I fail to see how home school depletes the amount of money public schools receive. Really, it's the same scenario as a childless household living there instead. I suppose that, if a particular district was so heavily home schooled that the public student population was slashed, it might be a problem when they go to allocate funding -- but that's not a very likely scenario in most places.

If anything, home schooling provides more funds for the students & administration in the public schools since they still receive their share of your property tax revenue and don't have to spend a portion of it on your home-schooled kid.