homeschooling

[andave_ya]

I'm homeschooled. What do you all think of the issue of homeschooling. Yes, no, socialization, all that stuff.

I'm doing a speech on homeschooling and I'd love to get your input. And, I'm really glad I'm homeschooled, too.

[byquist]

I've known or seen some, and homeschoolers can definitely become smarter is my opinion via hours and hours available for reading. The few I've known are more on the quieter side. Not at all socially maladjusted; just quieter. They seem more poised and self-possessed; not bothered by worldly problems.

And, as a teacher, I've seen a lot that I WISH were homeschooled!

[Virgil]

I'm not a teacher but the few experiences with kids of home school was also good. Kids seemed very bright.

[Weisinheimer]

I was home schooled for most of my education. It has it's ups and downs. I'm naturally a quiet/shy person. I don't think it has much to do with my being home schooled, but maybe. I definitely know plenty of homeschoolers who are extremely outgoing.
Academically, it definitely has it's benefits. The students and parents are way more in control of the course content and quality. While public (and private) schools are limited in the courses they offer, one can find a book on almost any subject and turn it into credit for home school. Homeschooling isn't perfect of course, and I'm not sure it's for everybody. Since my mom worked, we kids were left to ourselves a lot and I got pretty behind my last year. It's also a lot of work for the parents.
Anyway, overall, I think homeschooling is a great option. I'm glad I did it.

[jon1jt]

I'm homeschooled. What do you all think of the issue of homeschooling. Yes, no, socialization, all that stuff.

I'm doing a speech on homeschooling and I'd love to get your input. And, I'm really glad I'm homeschooled, too.

check out writer jedediah purdy's book For Common Things in which he devotes some discussion to his homeschooling experience where he learned about life, which he considered foundational to his later 'formal' ivy league education.

[kilted exile]

The only part I would be concerned about would be the ability of the parent to teach all courses as well, and the ability to fully explain the subject if they have not studied it themselves. I realise for some subjects (and also at the high school level) this is kinda redundant as the majority of the info can be found on the internet in various ways but for the scientific subjects I think it is important.

[andave_ya]

I will check out the book, jon, thanks.
About the teaching, the books are, depending on the curriculum, thoroughly comprehensive. Also, there are teachers guides, homeschool support groups, counseling, peer groups, and lessons on videotape so that doesn't happen. It's just up to the parent to utilise them. And after a certain point, the parent isn't really needed anymore. I'm in tenth grade now and the only thing my mom does is help me out with my algebra.

[Virgil]

The only part I would be concerned about would be the ability of the parent to teach all courses as well, and the ability to fully explain the subject if they have not studied it themselves. I realise for some subjects (and also at the high school level) this is kinda redundant as the majority of the info can be found on the internet in various ways but for the scientific subjects I think it is important.

Kilt makes a good point. The homeschooled kids I have run across have mothers who were teachers. I assume there are aids (in the form of kits) to help the parent.

[Scheherazade]

Kilt makes a good point. The homeschooled kids I have run across have mothers who were teachers.Isn't that ironic?

[Virgil]

Isn't that ironic?

I guess, but it seems natural that they feel they know what to do. Plus a lot of teachers i know don't think much of schools. I guess everyone thinks they can do something better themselves.

[Domer121]

I was homeschooled for all of my education and as I look forward to college I will admit that one thing I will miss is all the free time I got being homeschooled...I would be able to get my work done and then go roam the countryside if I wanted... I was also able to do a ton of free study.. I think it will be a huge change to go to college, though I am very anxious to get there:)

[dramasnot6]

I have always wanted to try homeschooling. I am self taught in most things I do love to learn about, like philosophy, psychology and up until a year ago literature. I certainly have learned some good non-academic skills in school like how to deal with beauracracies, how to work with authority figures you know are wrong most of the time,how to cope with the stupidity of busy work and many more which I am sure I will find useful in "the real world". But in terms of education as well as socializing I think homeschooling is certainly as good as any other schooling, and probably much better in some aspects.

[genoveva]

My two children are unschooled. As we should know, each child/student learns differently. School works for some children and their families. For others, it does not work at all. Likewise, homeschooling/unschooling is not for every child. Nor is it workable for every family. Most families have two parents who work full time. It's hard to homeschool with two full time working parents. Perhaps the most desirable situation is when parents actually want to spend time with their kids and help them learn. Some not to miss lit regarding homeschooling includes John Holt and Grace Lewllyn (The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quite School and Get a Real Life).

Have fun!!

[rae_of_light]

I am being homeschooled, and with how the schools are turning out(drugs, etc.), I cannot imagine ever going to school. The only thing I miss out on is the friends. I have lived in the same town my entire life, and I don't have any friends there, because I never had the chance to meet any! I have friends, I am not unsocial, but just not in my town!!
~Rae~

[andave_ya]

My two children are unschooled. As we should know, each child/student learns differently. School works for some children and their families. For others, it does not work at all. Likewise, homeschooling/unschooling is not for every child. Nor is it workable for every family. Most families have two parents who work full time. It's hard to homeschool with two full time working parents. Perhaps the most desirable situation is when parents actually want to spend time with their kids and help them learn. Some not to miss lit regarding homeschooling includes John Holt and Grace Lewllyn (The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quite School and Get a Real Life).

Have fun!!


wait, unschooled? what does that mean? I don't deny that each person learns differently, but despite appearances not all homeschoolers stay home and laze around all day.

[genoveva]

wait, unschooled? what does that mean?

There are lots of definitions that stem from John Holt's coined term of "unschooling". I'll paste one below. For more information, see
The Teenage Liberation Handbook
www.sandradodd.com/unschooling
www.unschooling.com

Mary Griffith's definition

Mary Griffith is the author of The Unschooling Handbook

What is Unschooling? from the Texas Unschoolers site

From a longer Q&A article on getting into college by Alison McKee, here is Alison's clarification on what unschooling is and isn't:

Q: What is unschooling?
A: Unschooling is a term that the late John Holt coined in the late ‘70's to describe learning that is based on a child's interests and needs. Unschooling does not begin with a parent's notion of what is important to learn and then turn the choices of how to learn the content over to a child. Rather, it begins with the child's natural curiosity and expands from there. Unschooling is not "instruction free" learning. If a child wants to learn to read, an unschooling parent may offer instruction by providing help with decoding, reading to the child, and giving the child ample opportunity to encounter words. If the child is uninterested in these supports, the parent backs off until the child asks for help. The most important thing about the unschooling process is that the child is in charge of the learning, not the adult. Unschoolers often do no traditional school work, yet they do learn traditional subject matter. They learn it as a natural extension of exploring their own personal interests.

[dramasnot6]

Looks really interesting genoveva! I would be curious to see how different families choose to structure it.

[Laindessiel]

I and Toni are homeschooled. June this year, I'll be in college and I'm still going to be homeschooled. It is my choice (and my mom's) because of certain situations that compel me to go homeschool; one major reason is time. You are definitely more in control of your time and the pace in your studies but that doesn't go showing that everyone is qualified to go homeschooling. In my university for instance, they make you take exams to see if you're really fit and eligible to be a homeschool student - meaning you have to be DISCIPLINED and FOCUSED with your studies but if you're not, you don't qualify.

Homeschooling, though having a lot of advantages, also has its setbacks. As some LitNet members said, some students are anti-social or to put it less harshly, not very much in tune with the outside world. Some tend to be more shy, more introverted, but I guess it depends on the way their parents supported them through the whole process. Parental guidance really is important. (although I don't think becoming a full-time teacher will do the trick ;) The school gives out modules for the student and once a week, they go to the school for the weekly exams - at least that is how it is in my country for grade school and high school).

Thanks Uncle Virg for telling us that we're smart. ;) :p

[Schokokeks]

Homeschooling seems very interesting, I have never heard of it before. Here in Germany, it would be illegal, as every child under 16 (I think) is lawfully required to frequent some kind of school (there are more types of schools over here than just middle and high school, including some schools providing vocational education, and schools for children with special needs of whatever kind, among which students and their parents may choose).
I'm curious to know how this is done:
The school gives out modules for the student and once a week, they go to the school for the weekly exams - at least that is how it is in my country for grade school and high school
Do homeschoolers also take the senior final exams at high school to qualify for university entrance ?

[andave_ya]

Unschooling depends rather heavily on the likes and dislikes of the child, doesn't it? No, my family actually homeschools. We have a full curriculum. I'm in tenth grade this year, and we did/are doing Algebra II, biology, full English (Literature, Grammar, Composition, Spelling and Poetry), geography, Arabic. and two general education courses in Speech Fundamentals and Intro to Art.

Lain(d'ye mind if I call you that?:) ): anti-social? That depends. I'm sure you know that there are homeschool support groups that get together and go on field trips and do stuff together. Then there's church, if you are of that persuasion; you make a lot of friends at church.

Anyways, I'm glad there are a couple of fellow homeschoolers on the Lit-Net.

I'm not denying that homeschooling is given a shabby name and face now. When most people think of homeschoolers, they think that they're just utilizing a way to stay out of public school. That is not always the case. As rae said, some homeschooling parents decide to homeschool because they don't like the possibility that their children might get hooked on drugs or other nasty stuff. Mind, my words are possibility not definite. --I've yet to meet an unpleasant lit-netter, you are all fantastic.:D

Schokokeks: homeschooling (at least in California where I live) is schooling your kids at home. My Mother teaches me and my Dad is considered the principal. What's nice about homeschooling is that you can structure it according to how you please. If the child doesn't understand something, you can take as long as you need to teach it to him. Case in point: me. Last school year I did Algebra I and it took me the entire year, summer, and partway into this school year to finish it but with the major grace of God I finished!
Other benefits include: you can get up at what time you think best.
You can work as fast as you like.
You can take emergency time off according to your needs.
You are free to go on vacation if you want to.

If I can answer any questions I will. :)

[Koa]

I had never heard of homeschooling before I heard of it on this forum (in other occasions as well), and Schoko's post reminded me that it must be because it's illegal (I suppose it is in most countries in Europe).

I have never given much thought about it but since you ask, it seems a very very weird thing to me, probably because it is completely alien to my mentality. I think I'd be against it. I do think a kid needs to socialise in the school kind of way, with all its crap included (I am even quite against people not sending their children to preschool or whatever it's called). It's a way to form a personality. Someone here mentioned he/she is glad of being homeschooled because of how schools are, with drugs and bullying etc. Well I don't know in which state schools are in the USA (all I know about it makes me think really really bad about it), but still I think it's a part of real life and someone needs to experience it - I don't mean experiencing drugs (!) but experience what a 'difficult' environment can be like (and if your parents are homeschooling you, I think they'd carefully choose a good school for you if they were to send you to school). I've grown up in one of the worst areas of my city and went to school there and I'm proud of it, and I'm not into drugs or shooting people in the street ;)
Another reason is that personally I can't learn anything out of a class environment - even face-to-face lessons are difficult for me, there is not enough discipline (I am taking some lessons with a guy who is teaching me his native language, just for fun, and if he wasn't super motivated it'd be difficult to keep me concentrated). Of course that is highly personal and being out of class might work for other people.
Still, this homeschooling thing seems to me like a form of repression (American style? :blush: From outside it might seem so...). And I am definitely not a social person like those you see in American tv series about high schools (tons of them spring to mind), but I can't imagine people not going to school. Especially at a later age, I can sort of picture it for small children, but not for teenagers.
I know my opinion is somehow biased by the fact, as I said, that this is so unusual for me (I'd have the same reaction if you said that you spend all your holidays on Mars or Jupiter, or actually that would even make more sense to me :blush:), but count me as against that.


My Mother teaches me and my Dad is considered the principal. What's nice about homeschooling is that you can structure it according to how you please. If the child doesn't understand something, you can take as long as you need to teach it to him. Case in point: me. Last school year I did Algebra I and it took me the entire year, summer, and partway into this school year to finish it but with the major grace of God I finished!
Other benefits include: you can get up at what time you think best.
You can work as fast as you like.
You can take emergency time off according to your needs.
You are free to go on vacation if you want to.

If I can answer any questions I will. :)


You reminded me of another aspect here: discipline/structure. I think that another reason for real schools is that you learn to face real life issues like having to get up stupidly early, have to take an overcrowded bus, face unpleasant schoolmates and unpleasnt teachers, the possibility of unfair situations, the pressure of working for a long time without holidays, of having to do things you detest... all very unpleasant but all very typical of real life.
Don't you think you'd have a harsher impact with the world by being homeschooled?

[andave_ya]

hey, no problem, everyone's entitled to his own opinion. But there are other ways to form a personality than in guarding against certain aspects of public schooling. Seriously, I never attended a public school as a student my entire life, but my personality has been formed by the company I keep, my faith, and the books I read. But like I said(I'm paraphrasing), going to public school doesn't necessarily mean you will get into drugs, it's just a possibility. The same for homeschooling. Just because you homeschool doesn't mean you haven't formed a personality.

[Koa]

I'm sure you know that there are homeschool support groups that get together and go on field trips and do stuff together. Then there's church, if you are of that persuasion; you make a lot of friends at church.

That's not referred to me but I thought I'd comment - I obviously didnt know about these support groups since I barely knew about homeschooling itself, but I consider church somehow a more 'dangerous' thing than school - surely this won't be appreciated on this forum and is totally off-topic, but I wouldn't like it if someone's only (or almost only) social environment would be the church. I never made friends at church since I only met hypocrites, but I made my best friends at school, we've been through literally anything together in this past 11 years, and I wouldn't change then for anything.

Geez, you're even making me happy about the 13 years of hating maths and having to take it anyway (no way to skip maths for the whole of your education in our school system). At least I know what it's like to go through that kind of suffering ;)
(oops, math, as I'm talking with Americans, maths is British apparently)

Anyways, I'm glad there are a couple of fellow homeschoolers on the Lit-Net.



As rae said, some homeschooling parents decide to homeschool because they don't like the possibility that their children might get hooked on drugs or other nasty stuff. Mind, my words are possibility not definite.

That's what I call overprotection/repression. And lack of faith in your children, and in the education you're giving to them, if you think they're not clever enough to stay away from crap.



--I've yet to meet an unpleasant lit-netter, you are all fantastic.:D

Well, you've just made my acquaintance :D

[andave_ya]

:) same time post.

Discipline/structure is one of the most important things you learn, no matter what the school. My teacher is also my Mom, but just because that is the case it doesn't mean she lets me sleep till ten everyday. I have homework. Responsibilities. Chores. Places to go and things to see.

But this aspect is probably where most homeschoolers fall short. Not all homeschoolers are interested in disciplining themselves to learn their studies. My Mom has always said that this is the fault of the parents/teachers. Discipline is vital but only as much as the parents enforce it because children need guiding and won't discipline themselves.

[Koa]

hey, no problem, everyone's entitled to his own opinion. But there are other ways to form a personality than in guarding against certain aspects of public schooling. Seriously, I never attended a public school as a student my entire life, but my personality has been formed by the company I keep, my faith, and the books I read. But like I said(I'm paraphrasing), going to public school doesn't necessarily mean you will get into drugs, it's just a possibility. The same for homeschooling. Just because you homeschool doesn't mean you haven't formed a personality.

Sure, well I was expressing myself to broadly but I didn't mean to generalise. Still, I think someone needs not only to be sociable with other kids, but also to experience difficult environments to have a wider view of the world. And sorry I'm an atheist by choice (my family is religious) so the argument about faith just makes me worried instead of convincing me ;) (with all due respect for your beliefs of course).
Possibilites, yeah. There are tons of people without a personality even in school, believe me (well sure you do ;)) and they're even the ones more likely to be into drugs out of peer pressure, but some people do learn through those experiences. It's part of growing up, there are people who are into light drugs as teenagers cos they think it's cool, then grow up and get bored of it. It's just the silliness of youth (not talking of heavy drugs of course!).
As I said, at least one of the schools I went to was terrible, there were only 2 or 3 people in my class who vaguely cared about learning something... yet that gave me wonderful cultural basis (somehow! :lol: I guess I had mostly good teachers) and made me see a world that is different from that of 'intellectuals' (I mean, people who are into culture in any way, even if their job is a plumber ;))


:) same time post.

Discipline/structure is one of the most important things you learn, no matter what the school. My teacher is also my Mom, but just because that is the case it doesn't mean she lets me sleep till ten everyday. I have homework. Responsibilities. Chores. Places to go and things to see.

But this aspect is probably where most homeschoolers fall short. Not all homeschoolers are interested in disciplining themselves to learn their studies. My Mom has always said that this is the fault of the parents/teachers. Discipline is vital but only as much as the parents enforce it because children need guiding and won't discipline themselves.


Yeah, we'll be same-time-posting for a while because I'm getting carried away with ramblings and I like to contradict :D
But don't you find it strange to have your mum teaching you? Or even... I assume you're a teenager, don't teenagers like to be away from their parents as much as possible? :D :p



Q: What is unschooling?
A: Unschooling is a term that the late John Holt coined in the late ‘70's to describe learning that is based on a child's interests and needs. Unschooling does not begin with a parent's notion of what is important to learn and then turn the choices of how to learn the content over to a child. Rather, it begins with the child's natural curiosity and expands from there. Unschooling is not "instruction free" learning. If a child wants to learn to read, an unschooling parent may offer instruction by providing help with decoding, reading to the child, and giving the child ample opportunity to encounter words. If the child is uninterested in these supports, the parent backs off until the child asks for help. The most important thing about the unschooling process is that the child is in charge of the learning, not the adult. Unschoolers often do no traditional school work, yet they do learn traditional subject matter. They learn it as a natural extension of exploring their own personal interests.

Isn't that dangerous? I wouldn't be able to do 2+2 with that system, because I'd never ask someone to teach me that :D Though I'd probably be fluent in 10 languages (assuming someone would teach me those :lol:) instead of wasting time with chemistry or physics... :crash: :lol:

[andave_ya]

Yes, church can be ...repressive, I guess, is the word...if it is the only environment. I'm not saying anything against church because I am a Christian but there is more than church for socialization. I'm taking some college courses so I do have a slight knowledge of what gives. I will say it took some getting used to. I've never been to Europe so I don't know what the schools are like here, but it's odd! They curse and swear their faces blue without realizing what they're saying. And they talk about...improper stuff...:blush: ...without caring! !!!!!! But I think that's partly my fault. I'm not really a people person -I stick to old British novels-so I'm used to rather reticent British gentlemen.

I'm afraid I didn't quite follow on the maths. I can't skip it for even one year!

As for the not trusting your kids,
In elementary school especially, a lot of kids just don't have the proper grounding to be able to resist peer pressure. One has to be really solid in who they are. Also, you get influenced by your surroundings and there is no way to deny it.
Kids just don't listen, either. I have a little friend who didn't know who Christopher Columbus was!

And I still don't think you're an unpleasant lit-netter. :D Pleased to make your acquaintance.:)

No, my Mom's cool. Another benefit of homeschooling socialization is that you learn how to socialize with adults. My parents are really cool, even though I'm a teenager.

[Koa]

I was home schooled for most of my education. It has it's ups and downs. I'm naturally a quiet/shy person. I don't think it has much to do with my being home schooled, but maybe. I definitely know plenty of homeschoolers who are extremely outgoing.
Academically, it definitely has it's benefits.

Like knowing when to spell it's and when its :lol:
Sorry, I know I'm pedantic but that was toooooo funny :blush:



I have always wanted to try homeschooling. I am self taught in most things I do love to learn about, like philosophy, psychology and up until a year ago literature. I certainly have learned some good non-academic skills in school like how to deal with beauracracies, how to work with authority figures you know are wrong most of the time,how to cope with the stupidity of busy work and many more which I am sure I will find useful in "the real world".

Precisely...


But in terms of education as well as socializing I think homeschooling is certainly as good as any other schooling, and probably much better in some aspects.

Such as?


I was home schooled for most of my education. It has it's ups and downs. I'm naturally a quiet/shy person. I don't think it has much to do with my being home schooled, but maybe. I definitely know plenty of homeschoolers who are extremely outgoing.


That can work either way of course, but for example in my teens I was rather quiet and shy and being forced into a social place like school did help me. You don't have that in English but in my language there is a formal way to address people, such as teachers, and you start doing that in middle school, at the age of 11... I thought I would never be able to do that, but of course it just became natural. Just one little thing of life that I was forced to adapt to...
Actually, but that was my problem, from the age of 14/15 to 19, school was the only social activity I had, since I was a rather reclusive person. Without that I'd probably be writing from a mental asylum now :lol:


Yes, church can be ...repressive, I guess, is the word...if it is the only environment. I'm not saying anything against church because I am a Christian but there is more than church for socialization.

It's not (just) about it being repressive, but well it gives you its point of view... which is just one point of view... I know this is my experience, but the only people I've met in church were hypocrites.


They curse and swear their faces blue without realizing what they're saying. And they talk about...improper stuff...:blush: ...without caring! !!!!!!

Yes, and that's life.
I suppose you only read 18-century novels, you have never watched TV, you have never spent a few hours with someone who swears?

Question: is homeschooling commonly related to being religious?


As for the not trusting your kids,
In elementary school especially, a lot of kids just don't have the proper grounding to be able to resist peer pressure. One has to be really solid in who they are. Also, you get influenced by your surroundings and there is no way to deny it.
Kids just don't listen, either. I have a little friend who didn't know who Christopher Columbus was!

Yes, true, but again, that's life. That's why I said it seems repressive to me... you need to make your own mistakes and learn from that... It's like trying to preserve someone by keeping them living in a bubble, but the bubble will have to break sooner or later I guess...

[Weisinheimer]

Like knowing when to spell it's and when its :lol:
Sorry, I know I'm pedantic but that was toooooo funny :blush:

Yeah, that is funny.:lol: How in the world did I do it twice in one post?:blush:

[Laindessiel]

Do homeschoolers also take the senior final exams at high school to qualify for university entrance ?

Yes, ofcourse. As with the usual process of normal schooling, it is also done with the homeschool program. If you don't pass, you repeat a year, but that doesn't happen very often, thank goodness.



Lain(d'ye mind if I call you that?:)

Nah. LitNetters call me that. :)


anti-social? That depends. I'm sure you know that there are homeschool support groups that get together and go on field trips and do stuff together. Then there's church, if you are of that persuasion; you make a lot of friends at church.

Yeah I was too harsh on "anti-social". Yes, we do that too, field trips, get-togethers, orientation. All I was saying is that homeschoolers tend to be more introverted and shy.


Anyways, I'm glad there are a couple of fellow homeschoolers on the Lit-Net.

:nod: I thought Toni and I were the only ones.


I'm not denying that homeschooling is given a shabby name and face now. When most people think of homeschoolers, they think that they're just utilizing a way to stay out of public school. That is not always the case. As rae said, some homeschooling parents decide to homeschool because they don't like the possibility that their children might get hooked on drugs or other nasty stuff.

Nice take on homeschooling. Never thought of that.


Mind, my words are possibility not definite. --I've yet to meet an unpleasant lit-netter, you are all fantastic.:D

Wow. :blush: Do I count?

[Pensive]

I am being homeschooled, and with how the schools are turning out(drugs, etc.), I cannot imagine ever going to school. The only thing I miss out on is the friends. I have lived in the same town my entire life, and I don't have any friends there, because I never had the chance to meet any! I have friends, I am not unsocial, but just not in my town!!
~Rae~

Then, how are you going to cope with people in your adult life? To me, I can't imagine living a life without school. Already, I have been lucky enough unlike 40% of the girls in my country who don't have opportunity to educate themselves there. I don't plan on wasting this wonderful opportunity, and hope to make the best of it.

I think "learning in school" ought to be compulsary. I don't think I am learned enough to be very sure, but it's just an opinion hudging by my own experience. In Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and especially Mathematics; what teachers have taught me; my parents could never have (though both of them are quite educated), but in the school it is different. There are "specialized" fields. You have time to discuss things with most people of your own age, and even learn to tolerate those whose opinions are totally different from yours. Most of all, there is a sense of competition which is, I believe, quite good for academics.

And it has already been mentioned, there are things (especially in engineering and medical fields) which you can't learn without being schooled.

[andave_ya]

It's not (just) about it being repressive, but well it gives you its point of view... which is just one point of view... I know this is my experience, but the only people I've met in church were hypocrites.



Yes, and that's life.
I suppose you only read 18-century novels, you have never watched TV, you have never spent a few hours with someone who swears?

Question: is homeschooling commonly related to being religious?



Yes, true, but again, that's life. That's why I said it seems repressive to me... you need to make your own mistakes and learn from that... It's like trying to preserve someone by keeping them living in a bubble, but the bubble will have to break sooner or later I guess...


I'm sorry the only Christians you've met turned out to be hypocrites...Even if I am a Christian, I am far from perfect merely because I am human.

About what I read, that's basically the lot of it. 18th century stuff. It's only recently I've been getting into some more modern literature. My favorite author is Dorothy L. Sayers and she wrote primarily in the 30s...The movies I like are Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, and lots of old movie musicals from the 30s and 40s. Hence my Ginger Rogers avatar. I don't watch a lot of tv simply because there are no shows I like.


Is homeschooling commonly related to being religious?:
I don't really know. Sorry. Don't have that wide of an experience. :(

true that's life, but it's jarring after a course in polite British novels. It just seems really tacky to me to speak of improper things when there is SO much else to talk about! And the swearing? I told my Mom about the swearing and her opinion was that people who swear left and right really don't have a grasp of language and I agree with her.

And about making your own mistakes and learning from them, that option is open to whoever wants it. As time has almost always proven my parents right, I opt to do what my parents would. Not because I have to but because it makes sense.

Pensive: your parents don't teach you through college. Does that answer you somewhat? My Mom loves books, but just because she does doesn't mean she can teach me library science. As for discussing things with people your age, sometimes you don't want to. All the girls my age are interested in boys, makeup, breakups and other stuff that I'm not interested in. Whenever I try to speak to them I end up being a sounding board for all their fears, regrets, tears, and jokes that aren't even funny. They aren't interested in anything vaguely philosophical or even smacking of academic stuff. At the most I'll be able to talk to them about movies. That's all well and good, but even Johnny Depp gets boring after a while. I don't want to talk about boys, I'm fifteen, I don't want to get romantically attached until after college and I have never been romantic with anyone in my entire life!

I am sorry for such an outburst, it's just that the idea of trying to talk to someone whose head is stuck in a different cloud than mine is really maddening. It's here on the LitNet that people talk sense. And people that live in Europe or perhaps in other parts of the USA than California.

[Virgil]

Is homeschooling commonly related to being religious?:
I don't really know. Sorry. Don't have that wide of an experience. :(

I've heard of both religious and non-religious people being home schooled. I don't think it has anything to do with it, although perhaps it motivates certain people to withdraw from the school system if it doesn't share their values.


Pensive: your parents don't teach you through college. Does that answer you somewhat? My Mom loves books, but just because she does doesn't mean she can teach me library science. As for discussing things with people your age, sometimes you don't want to. All the girls my age are interested in boys, makeup, breakups and other stuff that I'm not interested in. Whenever I try to speak to them I end up being a sounding board for all their fears, regrets, tears, and jokes that aren't even funny. They aren't interested in anything vaguely philosophical or even smacking of academic stuff. At the most I'll be able to talk to them about movies. That's all well and good, but even Johnny Depp gets boring after a while. I don't want to talk about boys, I'm fifteen, I don't want to get romantically attached until after college and I have never been romantic with anyone in my entire life!
I've never heard of home schooling beyond high school. A parent that I know that home schools also arranges when possible to get other home schooling parents with their kids together for a group class. Also there are other activities that you can sign up your child for (sports, museums, music, dance, etc) that allows interaction with others their age. The children are not isolated in a bubble if that's the concern.


I am sorry for such an outburst, it's just that the idea of trying to talk to someone whose head is stuck in a different cloud than mine is really maddening. It's here on the LitNet that people talk sense. And people that live in Europe or perhaps in other parts of the USA than California
No need to apologize, Andave. You sound like a really bright and well adjusted young lady.

[juketay]

Then, how are you going to cope with people in your adult life?

What's the impact or reason that it's bad to not being able to cope with people in your adult life? How dose this link to homeschooling if you are talking about after college?
Could you please explain what you mean by that?

Another great benefit of homeschooling is that the parents have the freedom to choose the curriculum that their children will use. Parents don't really have control over the curriculum of the public schools. So if the curriculum doesn't have the same beliefs or teaching style, then your children get taught something that you don't want them to get taught.

[genoveva]

Question: is homeschooling commonly related to being religious?





My experience within the homeschooling community is that you have polar opposite extremes within the community. You have the very religious who homeschool their children because the public school system here in the USA does not include any religious teachings, and they want their child to learn creationism, etc. Plus, many interpret the Bible as telling parents to be their children's teacher so they interpret that as needing to homeschool.

On the other spectrum, there are very liberal families who don't send their children to public schools because they think the school system is dysfunctional, brainwashing, controlling, etc. etc.

It is so interesting that you have these two extremes that highly value the same thing: the freedom to teach your own.




I think "learning in school" ought to be compulsary.

:sick:

Eek. Perhaps in other countries where there are not laws protecting children's rights or countries where females are largely oppressed, but here in the USA I would advocate for just the opposite. Unfortunately, every state except for Texas has compulsary schooling laws. Personally, I don't like the idea of anything being compulsary. Freedom of choice rules!:thumbs_up


It's a way to form a personality.

this homeschooling thing seems to me like a form of repression (American style? :blush:

It is really interesting to hear other world view perspectives on homeschooling.
In the USA, many homeschoolers find school to be a form of repression. Outside of it, you have so much more freedom. The world is our classroom!

And, as far as forming a personality....well, personalities get shaped outside of school too... There are so many elements regarding this...family, friends, genetics?


I think that another reason for real schools is that you learn to face real life issues like having to get up stupidly early, have to take an overcrowded bus, face unpleasant schoolmates and unpleasnt teachers, the possibility of unfair situations, the pressure of working for a long time without holidays, of having to do things you detest... all very unpleasant but all very typical of real life.


But, real life does not need to be unpleasant. Yes, there are some unpleasant things in this world, but why purposefully include more unpleasant experiences in your life? This doesn't make sense. More good things and pleasant experiences are what we need!

Social justice activist Angela Davis says that "schools are prep schools for prison!":eek:


My teacher is also my Mom, but just because that is the case it doesn't mean she lets me sleep till ten everyday. I have homework. Responsibilities. Chores. Places to go and things to see.

children need guiding and won't discipline themselves.

What's wrong with sleeping until 10am everyday? Sleep is very important!
One of the greatest things about homeschooling is that you can make your own schedule. That could include sleeping until 10am. Learning doesn't start at 8am and end at 3pm. Learning can happen any time/ all the time!

Also, I highly disagree with you when you say that children won't discipline themselves. I think this underestimates children/ youth in general. I know lots of children who discipline themselves quite well. It's amazing what children can do if they are only given the opportunity and trust.


I wouldn't be able to do 2+2 with that system, because I'd never ask someone to teach me that :D

You probably would never have to ask someone to teach you what 2+2 is because you would probably figure it out yourself, naturally. Hmm..2 pieces of chocolate + 2 pieces of chocolate = 4 yummy!:lol:



Kids just don't listen, either. I have a little friend who didn't know who Christopher Columbus was!



That is ridiculous! Of course children listen. I find the flip side to be more true. Adults often do not listen to children.

Anyhow, at least here in the USA, school systems brainwash kids into thinking Christopher Columbus was some kind of hero who discovered the USA. Like, no one else had figured that out before... Plus, the school system suppresses the fact that Christopher Columbus raped, killed, and kidnapped natives. For more info see James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me About Christopher Columbus: What Your History Books Got Wrong and Rethinking Schools' Rethinking Columbus.

[Pensive]

What's the impact or reason that it's bad to not being able to cope with people in your adult life? How dose this link to homeschooling if you are talking about after college?
Could you please explain what you mean by that?

She/he mentioned in her post that she is free from the company of drugists and all that by being home-schooled. But the thing is you can't spend your adult life in such a sheltered way. You have to cope with people who drink. You have to sometimes bear the company of people who oppose your views. And this is what schools teach you: to spend time with all sorts of people and to learn how to cope with them even though their views are different from yours.

It links with "homeschooling" because, if you are not taught something in the beginning, it's more difficult (possible, yes, but hard) to get used to those ways later in your life. Wouldn't you feel a lot more comfortable if you have been through that "out-of-your-world" atmosphere?


I

Pensive: your parents don't teach you through college. Does that answer you somewhat? My Mom loves books, but just because she does doesn't mean she can teach me library science.

Where did I say that they do?


As for discussing things with people your age, sometimes you don't want to. All the girls my age are interested in boys, makeup, breakups and other stuff that I'm not interested in. Whenever I try to speak to them I end up being a sounding board for all their fears, regrets, tears, and jokes that aren't even funny. They aren't interested in anything vaguely philosophical or even smacking of academic stuff. At the most I'll be able to talk to them about movies. That's all well and good, but even Johnny Depp gets boring after a while. I don't want to talk about boys, I'm fifteen, I don't want to get romantically attached until after college and I have never been romantic with anyone in my entire life!

Again, this is what I have been trying to give my views on: you say the girls are interested in boys but you are not. Is it necessary you also get interested in boys just because they are? Do you really have to get influenced by others? You can't possibly run away from school just because of this. Why leave a good education? Why waste the opportunity of having proper specialized teachers just for the sake of some differences in opinions? Why leave a school where you have got other people to compete with you?


I am sorry for such an outburst, it's just that the idea of trying to talk to someone whose head is stuck in a different cloud than mine is really maddening. It's here on the LitNet that people talk sense. And people that live in Europe or perhaps in other parts of the USA than California.

Oh, you know what? We all think we are the only ones who talk sense (well, majority). :p And don't worry, and don't judge others too harshly. Maybe, they like their life-style. Let them have the time of their life if they prefer it that way, as long as they are not hurting you. Many girls dress in short blouses and all this - but it doesn't make them bad unless they start being nasty to you or some other person for no reason at all.

And don't worry. We all are something like this. We like to express ourselves when we feel the things around us are not fine, not caring if we are right or wrong in our own judgement. :D

[kilted exile]

If the child doesn't understand something, you can take as long as you need to teach it to him. Case in point: me. Last school year I did Algebra I and it took me the entire year, summer, and partway into this school year to finish it but with the major grace of God I finished!

I think this goes somewhat to the point I made earlier: Do you not think that if you had access to a trained maths teacher on a daily basis you would have been able to resolve your problems with algebra in a more timely fashion?

[Schokokeks]

I think "learning in school" ought to be compulsary.
:sick:

Eek. Perhaps in other countries where there are not laws protecting children's rights or countries where females are largely oppressed
Such as Germany, for example ? :lol:

[juketay]

You are right Pensive. In order for children to become assimilated into society properly, it is important to have a variety of experiences and be exposed to differing opinions and views. This enables them when they are an adult to think for themselves and form their own opinions. In a way this is exactly what public education does not promote; public education is for the lowest common denominator and influencing all of the students to share the same views ("group-think") and thought-control through various means, including peer-pressure. (If you want more you can pm me)
Go to your local public school, walk down the hallways and see what behaviors you would want your child to emulate.

In the public school system, children are segregated by age, and have very little interaction with other adults (except for their teachers). This environment only promotes alienation from different age groups, especially adults. This is beginning to look like the real socialization trouble.


Homeschooling in no way “alienates you from society”. The “real world” is all around us; through the TV, newspaper, grocery store, driving down the street, gas station and weekend outings. Just because you homeschool doesn’t mean that you live in a bubble.

[Virgil]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going strong and such passion on both sides. Great discussion.



Go to your local public school, walk down the hallways and see what behaviors you would want your child to emulate.

This ties in with the other thread out there on youths and their behavior.


In the public school system, children are segregated by age, and have very little interaction with other adults (except for their teachers). This environment only promotes alienation from different age groups, especially adults. This is beginning to look like the real socialization trouble.
That is a great point that I've never heard anyone else make. Good insight Juke. I bet lots of bad behavior is picked up from other kids. More adult interaction would serve the kids well.


Homeschooling in no way “alienates you from society”. The “real world” is all around us; through the TV, newspaper, grocery store, driving down the street, gas station and weekend outings. Just because you homeschool doesn’t mean that you live in a bubble.

I said somthing similar. What is surprising to me is that many teachers prefer their kids home schooled. They know how bad schools can be. There are pluses and minues to both sides here, but I think homeschooling is on balance a plus. If I had children and the time to teach them, I would choose homeschooling.

[andave_ya]

Again, this is what I have been trying to give my views on: you say the girls are interested in boys but you are not. Is it necessary you also get interested in boys just because they are? Do you really have to get influenced by others? You can't possibly run away from school just because of this. Why leave a good education? Why waste the opportunity of having proper specialized teachers just for the sake of some differences in opinions? Why leave a school where you have got other people to compete with you?


No, they can like whatever they please and I don't have to like it, but then, don't make me talk to them. It's not for lack of trying that I say this, Pensive, I KNOW people like that and seriously, I'd rather watch Barney the purple dinosaur.
Furthermore, I don't have to be influenced, I am influenced regardless. Even though I like to think I am beyond it, I'm not. As I said in an earlier post, I've started taking college courses where people curse every other word and not think anything of it. Coming from a Christian background, every word was like an electric shock but now I find the words creeping into my thoughts and I find that seriously alarming.
Differences in opinion? I don't care if people believe that God doesn't exist as long as they don't try to make me believe He doesn't. It isn't differences of opinion, it's differences in aspects of faith. Public schools want to brainwash people into believing evolution without even telling them of creationist viewpoint. Public schools don't want people to believe in God because the propaganda is that man is self-sufficient, all-wise and all-powerful. All I need to do is look at history to see for myself that it is otherwise.
And, you're assuming my mom is untrained. My Mom had a thorough education through college in Lebanon. She was computer programmer, trained in logic. When one has mastered logic, other stuff isn't difficult to master.

I think the main problem is that people see homeschoolers as unstylish lazy slobs who don't care anything about education. Please, please, dig underneath that surface and find the dedicated people. Visit

www.hslda.org

for more information.

Competition. Why do I need competition if I already want to learn?

Real life experiences. I don't live in a bubble. I take classes outside my homeschool courses. I go on field trips. I go on the internet. I take vacations. I go to concerts. I go shopping. I take road trips. I visit friends. I read the newspaper. I watch TV. I go to the movies.
The only difference is that I select what I want to see, and that doesn't include young people swearing themselves blue and doing all sorts of unpleasant stuff.

And finally, Pensive, I don't think I'm particularly amazing. I understand a multitude of stuff but the only place I can actually be "brilliant" is when I am speaking of obscure literary stuff that nobody cares about.:D


I think this goes somewhat to the point I made earlier: Do you not think that if you had access to a trained maths teacher on a daily basis you would have been able to resolve your problems with algebra in a more timely fashion?

My Mom understood everything perfectly, and if that didn't work, my uncle is an algebra teacher. The only problem was with myself. It took me longer to comprehend the material.

[Koa]

I fully agree with every single syllable written by Pensive.

Isn't it funny how all (or most) people here who believe in homeschooling are from the USA? It never ceases to amaze me how the USA-mentality is completely different from what I'm used to and mostly impossible for me to comprehend.



As for discussing things with people your age, sometimes you don't want to. All the girls my age are interested in boys, makeup, breakups and other stuff that I'm not interested in. Whenever I try to speak to them I end up being a sounding board for all their fears, regrets, tears, and jokes that aren't even funny. They aren't interested in anything vaguely philosophical or even smacking of academic stuff. At the most I'll be able to talk to them about movies. That's all well and good, but even Johnny Depp gets boring after a while. I don't want to talk about boys, I'm fifteen, I don't want to get romantically attached until after college and I have never been romantic with anyone in my entire life!

Well, maybe you are like that because you have never related with people your age? And I don't mean that you should be the same as them, but I think that this is giving you a reason not to ever mingle with people who are different from you. As a teenager, I used to be very selective, in a way I understand some of your concerns... when I was about 12 I didn't care about talking of boys and clothes, I did care about books and later on music, and that's why I completely dismissed (?) the group of people I grew up with - we had really little in common. Then I went to high school and that's where I made my long-lasting friends, because many of us shared similar interests, views, experiences (not all of us, there were the slutty girls I had nothing in common with, but a lot of people were like me, with no other friends to share things with, and we became close and in some cases still are). So I know where you are coming from to some extent, and maybe later in life it will change, as it is different for me now - just last night I was thinking of how my American friend is different from me in her ways and values, she's addicted to shopping and clothes since she was 9 and I wouldnt even care what I was wearing till I was 17, she had the typical teenage 'romance' experiences while I've never been 'romantically attached', as you put it, till I was 20... Yet, I had a pleasant experience at school. I understand this can go either way and school was where I was fitting, while the rest of society wasn't. I didn't like to go out, at Uni I did study on Sundays out of boredom and overhear on Mondays conversations about amazing weekends other people had... I'm not sure where I'm heading to, but maybe what I want to say is that school doesn't forbid you to be yourself and get bored of Johnny Depp (mmmm Johnny Depp :D) if you're willing to fight for that. This way you have it more comfortable, but maybe you're not developing the skills to defend your personality from peer pressure etc. As Pensy said, it makes me wonder how you'll cope with people and things in your adult life.
And of course I don't mean to judge you and this 'you' can be any person, all I know is what you said here so I'm certainly not drawing conclusions or judgements, juts imagining scenarios to prove my opinion...

Ehy, can I ask you, do you study a foreign language in your programme? How is language learning dealt with in general in homeschooling, assuming not all parents are fluent in another language?


But, real life does not need to be unpleasant. Yes, there are some unpleasant things in this world, but why purposefully include more unpleasant experiences in your life? This doesn't make sense. More good things and pleasant experiences are what we need!

Well I personally prefer to be prepared for the worst :D Which is, for me, the bubble we are talking about, not just a social bubble which, as you all say and I guess I can agree, is not always the case. But a bubble of protection from reality.


What's wrong with sleeping until 10am everyday? Sleep is very important!
One of the greatest things about homeschooling is that you can make your own schedule. That could include sleeping until 10am. Learning doesn't start at 8am and end at 3pm. Learning can happen any time/ all the time!

Then let's hope that your homeschooled-sleeping-till-10 child will find a job that starts at 11 every day, because they might not like to get used to the idea of a real-world kind of discipline... (I'm lazy enough being a University student, when I have to go to work early I feel it's a tragedy and wonder how I did 6 days a week when I used to go to school :D :lol:)


Also, I highly disagree with you when you say that children won't discipline themselves. I think this underestimates children/ youth in general. I know lots of children who discipline themselves quite well. It's amazing what children can do if they are only given the opportunity and trust.


I do underestimate youth :D I also base this on myself, and I know that discipline is my first enemy ;)



You probably would never have to ask someone to teach you what 2+2 is because you would probably figure it out yourself, naturally. Hmm..2 pieces of chocolate + 2 pieces of chocolate = 4 yummy!:lol:

I'm still not sure I would know that's called 'four' ;) :D


Anyhow, at least here in the USA, school systems brainwash kids into thinking Christopher Columbus was some kind of hero who discovered the USA. Like, no one else had figured that out before... Plus, the school system suppresses the fact that Christopher Columbus raped, killed, and kidnapped natives. For more info see James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me About Christopher Columbus: What Your History Books Got Wrong and Rethinking Schools' Rethinking Columbus.

Pardon me the very rude joke, but no one can be an hero for having discovered "the USA". And to my knowledge he discovered a continent called America, and to be really fussy the USA certainly didn't exist back then. My pendaticness (?) aside, I was never taught nor told that he killed and raped, though I know that all those who subsequently conquered America did, so why not him. We don't spend a substantial amount of time on him though, and what is also funny is that in Italy we're told he was Italian, in Spain they're told he was Spanish or anyway that it's Spain's merit because it was Spain that gave him the ships... but I digress.
I don't believe all I'm told, so what makes your sources more believable than those used at school? The fact that they're not officially used? Any school student can go out of school and deepen his/her knowledge by reading the book you recommend or others. Not many do, of course, and those who do are considered nerds for sure. I was also thinking how funny it is how you consider school so bad while I'm used to seeing kids who like school as some kind of 'nerds', I mean you know, the clever kid that only likes to study as opposed to the lazy other ones...


Public schools want to brainwash people into believing evolution without even telling them of creationist viewpoint. Public schools don't want people to believe in God because the propaganda is that man is self-sufficient, all-wise and all-powerful. All I need to do is look at history to see for myself that it is otherwise.

History and faith are two different things. Anyway this is another discussion... As for what is taught at school, couldn't for example you go to school and listen to what is told there, and be religious at home? I don't know, I can't see a school totally deprived of slight religious concepts since (unfortunately) in my country, despite being officially secular, religion still pervades and influences way too many aspects of society and politics (though maybe it's less prevalent in schools now that we have so many kids from other cultures/religions)... we had one hour of religious education per week, which wasn't compulsory so if someone didn't want to hear it they could opt out (it's still like that). I did came home once asking my mum what really happened, did we evolve from monkeys or did God created us? She gave me her explanation...



I think the main problem is that people see homeschoolers as unstylish lazy slobs who don't care anything about education. Please, please, dig underneath that surface and find the dedicated people.

I have the opposite idea, since I first heard of this concept I imagined homeschoolers as bookworms that spend all their time studying and being intellectual instead of doing things appropriate for their age... like throwing in the occasional swearing to feel 'adult' and being generally silly.

[Virgil]

Isn't it funny how all (or most) people here who believe in homeschooling are from the USA? It never ceases to amaze me how the USA-mentality is completely different from what I'm used to and mostly impossible for me to comprehend.


Yeah, it amazes me too. And I think it comes down to we in the US don't trust and want to rely on the government for things. It sucks away our freedom. We feel that when we can do it ourselves, we pefer to.

[Schokokeks]

Ehy, can I ask you, do you study a foreign language in your programme? How is language learning dealt with in general in homeschooling, assuming not all parents are fluent in another language?
Do you necessarily have to, if English is your first language ? :D

[Pensive]

You are right Pensive. In order for children to become assimilated into society properly, it is important to have a variety of experiences and be exposed to differing opinions and views. This enables them when they are an adult to think for themselves and form their own opinions. In a way this is exactly what public education does not promote; public education is for the lowest common denominator and influencing all of the students to share the same views ("group-think") and thought-control through various means, including peer-pressure. (If you want more you can pm me)
Go to your local public school, walk down the hallways and see what behaviors you would want your child to emulate.

In the public school system, children are segregated by age, and have very little interaction with other adults (except for their teachers). This environment only promotes alienation from different age groups, especially adults. This is beginning to look like the real socialization trouble.

Homeschooling in no way “alienates you from society”. The “real world” is all around us; through the TV, newspaper, grocery store, driving down the street, gas station and weekend outings. Just because you homeschool doesn’t mean that you live in a bubble.

Okay, the image you give of pubic schools doesn't seem very pleasant, but here, the problem lies with "schools". If only good conditions would be provided there, things would be better. Schooling in an institution should be made compulsary because it makes sure that a child is getting education. I don't know whether you will ever understand it or not, but with the culture like that in my country, what's necessary is education and here the concept of homeschooling means the child wouldn't be taught much about Geography, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Maths (in most cases). Wouldn't it be better if the Government makes this necessary for children to go to schools? Many children in my country don't have telivisions, newspapers, computers, and don't have proper access to books. On the other hand, if they go to a public school, they have a chance of getting a scholarship, and books for free if they give good result. And remember the geography and history of your school is not easy to learn without having books/proper guidance.

And now you will say that children can have their parents teaching them but what should they do if their parents don't even know how to write down their names? And this is the condition in most of the developing countries. There are even some parents who think "education" would take their children nowhere. If only government set school compulsary, parents will have to send their children to schools.


No, they can like whatever they please and I don't have to like it, but then, don't make me talk to them. It's not for lack of trying that I say this, Pensive, I KNOW people like that and seriously, I'd rather watch Barney the purple dinosaur.

Who says you have to have long friendly conversations with them? You just have to learn to live with them, bear the sight of them without resenting them.


Furthermore, I don't have to be influenced, I am influenced regardless. Even though I like to think I am beyond it, I'm not. As I said in an earlier post, I've started taking college courses where people curse every other word and not think anything of it. Coming from a Christian background, every word was like an electric shock but now I find the words creeping into my thoughts and I find that seriously alarming.
Weren't you yourself critisizing the girls you wear make-up? If you have a right to critisize, then they do have it as well. :)


Differences in opinion? I don't care if people believe that God doesn't exist as long as they don't try to make me believe He doesn't. It isn't differences of opinion, it's differences in aspects of faith. Public schools want to brainwash people into believing evolution without even telling them of creationist viewpoint. Public schools don't want people to believe in God because the propaganda is that man is self-sufficient, all-wise and all-powerful. All I need to do is look at history to see for myself that it is otherwise.
I am sorry for that, didn't know public schools at your place were like that. In my area, they are vice-versa as a matter of fact.


And, you're assuming my mom is untrained. My Mom had a thorough education through college in Lebanon. She was computer programmer, trained in logic. When one has mastered logic, other stuff isn't difficult to master.

Oh my goodness, why would I assume your mother is trained or untrained? It doesn't matter, really. What matters is that every child doesn't have a trained mother. Neither do they have uncles who are professors of Algebra. :)


I think the main problem is that people see homeschoolers as unstylish lazy slobs who don't care anything about education. Please, please, dig underneath that surface and find the dedicated people. Visit

www.hslda.org

for more information.

I never saw homeschoolers as unstylish lazy slobs or something like that. Nor do have I any reasons to think so. My reason to why "schooling should be made compulsary" has nothing to do with this. I have explained this in the very start of this post.


Competition. Why do I need competition if I already want to learn?
Wouldn't it be easier for you to learn with a group of students who "have interest in studies"?


Real life experiences. I don't live in a bubble. I take classes outside my homeschool courses. I go on field trips. I go on the internet. I take vacations. I go to concerts. I go shopping. I take road trips. I visit friends. I read the newspaper. I watch TV. I go to the movies.
The only difference is that I select what I want to see, and that doesn't include young people swearing themselves blue and doing all sorts of unpleasant stuff.

Good for you. Being an idealist can be good, and can't be other times. You don't often come across good people in life: and afterwards you have to cope with people swearing themselves blue and doing all sorts of unpleasant stuff. I wouldn't like to go deep into that argument, for the sake of being on the topic. But even if you disagree with me here, you might agree that every child can't afford these road trips, newspapers and tv, and that's why I think schooling should be made compulsary.


And finally, Pensive, I don't think I'm particularly amazing. I understand a multitude of stuff but the only place I can actually be "brilliant" is when I am speaking of obscure literary stuff that nobody cares about.:D

When did I say you thought you were amazing? All I meant was we all stick to our opinions, otherwise why would we be here giving our opinions like this? Even if we are confused between our opinions, we do have this thought that "our opinions matter too". :D

And people do care about literary stuff, at least here in this forum. :)


My Mom understood everything perfectly, and if that didn't work, my uncle is an algebra teacher. The only problem was with myself. It took me longer to comprehend the material.

As I already mentioned, everyone doesn't have an uncle who is an algebra professor or a mother who understand everything perfectly.

I am sorry for having repeated things so many times, but couldn't restrain myself from that.

[andave_ya]

I fully agree with every single syllable written by Pensive.

Thank you kindly. :lol:



Well, maybe you are like that because you have never related with people your age? And I don't mean that you should be the same as them, but I think that this is giving you a reason not to ever mingle with people who are different from you

My Mom felt the same way a year or so ago and always tried to push me to go talk to other girls with different interests. I tried and it just didn't work. In order for us to click, I had to change. That didn't sound appealing, but for the sake of fitting in I tried. Joining Girl Scouts, I tried to laugh and giggle without having something to laugh at. I tried to be knowledgeable about fashion. And still, whenever I said something there would be an embarrassed silence. It wasn't the girls fault that I didn't fit in; they did their best to make me feel comfortable. But it just didn't work. I left and went back to my normal self and didn't burden them with a wallflower.

I've got tons more to say but I've got to go to class. Talk to you later.:)

[Pensive]

Thank you kindly. :lol:

My Mom felt the same way a year or so ago and always tried to push me to go talk to other girls with different interests. I tried and it just didn't work. In order for us to click, I had to change. That didn't sound appealing, but for the sake of fitting in I tried. Joining Girl Scouts, I tried to laugh and giggle without having something to laugh at. I tried to be knowledgeable about fashion. And still, whenever I said something there would be an embarrassed silence. It wasn't the girls fault that I didn't fit in; they did their best to make me feel comfortable. But it just didn't work. I left and went back to my normal self and didn't burden them with a wallflower.

I've got tons more to say but I've got to go to class. Talk to you later.:)

Oh, andave-ya, you don't have to be what you are not or there is no need to pretend. Just be the way you are. I am sure people would accept you that way. Just be careful while critisizing someone. Girls of fourteen and fifteen don't usually like negative comments on their make-up.

I myself don't approve of a few things my classmates do (like make-up) but that's their life. There are good things in them as well which puts their penchant for make-up aside. :)

[Virgil]

Okay, the image you give of pubic schools doesn't seem very pleasant, but here, the problem lies with "schools". If only good conditions would be provided there, things would be better. Schooling in an institution should be made compulsary because it makes sure that a child is getting education. .

I believe there are tests that the kids have to pass that are independent of their schooling. Yes if only the schools were perfect. Some are good and some aren't. That's why the parent has to make a decision.

You also said what if the parent doesn't know how to write their name. I think this only works with parents who are college educated. Like I said, a lot of the home schoolers that I've known have moms that are teachers.

I can understand how the conditions in your country might not make this desirable. Actually if one were in a very good public school system here, then it would not be desirable here too. But schools vary, teachers vary, like all human beings. A parent has to assess.

[juketay]

Okay, the image you give of pubic schools doesn't seem very pleasant, but here, the problem lies with "schools". If only good conditions would be provided there, things would be better. Schooling in an institution should be made compulsary because it makes sure that a child is getting education. I don't know whether you will ever understand it or not, but with the culture like that in my country, what's necessary is education and here the concept of homeschooling means the child wouldn't be taught much about Geography, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Maths (in most cases). Wouldn't it be better if the Government makes this necessary for children to go to schools? Many children in my country don't have telivisions, newspapers, computers, and don't have proper access to books. On the other hand, if they go to a public school, they have a chance of getting a scholarship, and books for free if they give good result. And remember the geography and history of your school is not easy to learn without having books/proper guidance.


Just for clarification, there is a big difference between "homeschooling" (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Homeschooling) and "unschooling" (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Unschooling)
Homeschooling in the US (in my state) require 'actual learning' that they check on. And if the parents don't wan't to report directy to the state, then they can join an umbrella group (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Umbrella_school).

[andave_ya]

I'm back. :)


I'm not sure where I'm heading to, but maybe what I want to say is that school doesn't forbid you to be yourself and get bored of Johnny Depp (mmmm Johnny Depp ) if you're willing to fight for that.

Why do I have to fight for it? Do I not have the right to be myself without any opposition from people who don't like who I am? As a homeschooler I don't have to fight for it because people will recognize that individuality is good.



This way you have it more comfortable, but maybe you're not developing the skills to defend your personality from peer pressure etc

No offense, but what exactly am I doing now? offending my personality?
Furthermore, I'm still here defending what I agree with to the best of my ability. You want me to change my views on homeschooling. Is this not considered peer pressure?

And furthermore, you are yourselves a product of your schooling. Most if not all the people posting from outside the USA have never heard of homeschooling but have already decided that it is unhealthy without even looking at the benefits of it.

I know what I believe in but I'll listen to what you have to say.

Again I say this not to offend but to prove my point. It seems to me that we're just going through the same loopholes -socialization and teaching- and I'm just saying the same thing over again.


Ehy, can I ask you, do you study a foreign language in your programme? How is language learning dealt with in general in homeschooling, assuming not all parents are fluent in another language?

Yes, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention it. My mother teaches me and my sister Arabic because we hail from the Middle East. Here in the States, a foreign language isn't required until high school, so if the parents don't know a language the student can take college courses, online courses....we're not just limited to the curriculum.


Well I personally prefer to be prepared for the worst Which is, for me, the bubble we are talking about, not just a social bubble which, as you all say and I guess I can agree, is not always the case. But a bubble of protection from reality.

What's the difference? I'm not saying that to be flippant; I'm not quite sure what you mean.


History and faith are two different things. Anyway this is another discussion... As for what is taught at school, couldn't for example you go to school and listen to what is told there, and be religious at home?

There is a verse in the Bible that says that you cannot serve two masters. For me to believe in evolution during schooldays and creationism during the weekend is hypocritical. I can't do both because I can't be true to both. They are both contradictory.


I have the opposite idea, since I first heard of this concept I imagined homeschoolers as bookworms that spend all their time studying and being intellectual instead of doing things appropriate for their age... like throwing in the occasional swearing to feel 'adult' and being generally silly.

If one acts like an adult and thinks like an adult and does the same actions as an adult he doesn't have to swear to "feel" adult.
Being silly with a cause is a far cry from being silly with no reason at all. Even I like some kinds of silliness. I like the silliness of Peter Pan and the Wizard of Oz because it's ok for them to be silly. However I do not think I need to laugh when someone tries(and doesn't succeed) in being witty.


And now you will say that children can have their parents teaching them but what should they do if their parents don't even know how to write down their names? And this is the condition in most of the developing countries. There are even some parents who think "education" would take their children nowhere. If only government set school compulsary, parents will have to send their children to schools.

In this circumstance my opinion must and does change. Education is vital to well-being no matter what. In a setting like that, however, there would be no distinctions between people; one would be able to relate because they would all be in the same boat.:)


Who says you have to have long friendly conversations with them? You just have to learn to live with them, bear the sight of them without resenting them.

But you want me to socialize and there's no one else my age that I know personally that is engaging to me. That person doesn't have to agree with me but just like to talk about different stuff. I don't mind if people talk to me about crushes for a short while; that I can handle and am glad to be a dumping ground for. But a day or two is all that I can give.



Wouldn't it be easier for you to learn with a group of students who "have interest in studies"?

Why? I don't follow.


Weren't you yourself critisizing the girls you wear make-up? If you have a right to critisize, then they do have it as well.

I don't criticize those girls. My Mom wears makeup. It's the idea of eight-year-olds wanting to grow up too fast. Not wanting to believe in fairies and Peter Pan until they are too old to. Understated makeup is fine. Girls with neon pink hair(is that considered makeup?) and vibrant blue eyeliner is eye-catching.


I am sorry for that, didn't know public schools at your place were like that. In my area, they are vice-versa as a matter of fact.

They are. That's the difference between the UK and the US. (I'm assurming you live in the UK) If the difference in 30s literature is credible, the UK is a rather classy place.:D


Good for you. Being an idealist can be good, and can't be other times. You don't often come across good people in life: and afterwards you have to cope with people swearing themselves blue and doing all sorts of unpleasant stuff. I wouldn't like to go deep into that argument, for the sake of being on the topic. But even if you disagree with me here, you might agree that every child can't afford these road trips, newspapers and tv, and that's why I think schooling should be made compulsary.

There are unpleasant people everywhere, regardless of anything. Especially if someone at the store asks if you shouldn't be in school. they're practically ready to pummel my Mom when she answers we homeschool.


Oh, andave-ya, you don't have to be what you are not or there is no need to pretend. Just be the way you are. I am sure people would accept you that way.

I don't pretend. I learned my lesson. People do accept me, just not everyone which ties in all over again to the socialization aspect. I do socialize, but I prefer not to be with people who don't want to be with me.


I think, in the end, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. If you won't be persuaded you won't.

Again, I don't mean to offend anyone.

[Koa]

One thing that was clear to me from the start is that no one here is trying to make the other side change their opinions... you asked for opinions, we are giving them - I will never agree with you and I'm conscious you'll never agree with me and I don't care, but both now know more about the other side - you have the view of European and Asian people here, to which the idea of homeschooling is totally foreign. This is the kind of issue where people stick to their idea and their values, and discussion is only a gym for ideas.

And Pensy is not from the UK, unless you consider the UK a developing country, as she defined her country...;)


Why do I have to fight for it? Do I not have the right to be myself without any opposition from people who don't like who I am? As a homeschooler I don't have to fight for it because people will recognize that individuality is good.

See, to me this is like hiding. There are three ways: assimilate, stand in front of other people but remain yourself, or hiding because you can't face to be different in the presence of other people, and are only proud to be different in your shelter. But this is getting far from homeschooling per se.



No offense, but what exactly am I doing now? offending my personality?
Furthermore, I'm still here defending what I agree with to the best of my ability. You want me to change my views on homeschooling. Is this not considered peer pressure?

Never tried to change them, I'm just stating mine. Peer pressure is something else, and I've always thought the 'peer' was to be taken literally, and since we don't have the same background, this is not peer ;) But I might be wrong on that and I'm splitting hair just for the sake of it. :D



And furthermore, you are yourselves a product of your schooling. Most if not all the people posting from outside the USA have never heard of homeschooling but have already decided that it is unhealthy without even looking at the benefits of it.

I don't see too many benefits, that's just it.


I know what I believe in but I'll listen to what you have to say.

Do you want me to buy you a halo now? ;)



Again I say this not to offend but to prove my point. It seems to me that we're just going through the same loopholes -socialization and teaching- and I'm just saying the same thing over again.

Welcome to the world of discussions...


Yes, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention it. My mother teaches me and my sister Arabic because we hail from the Middle East. Here in the States, a foreign language isn't required until high school, so if the parents don't know a language the student can take college courses, online courses....we're not just limited to the curriculum.


What's the difference? I'm not saying that to be flippant; I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Let me try to explain... what I meant is, people might have said to you that homeschooling is like being kept in a 'bubble', that is apart from socialisation - that is not even my biggest concern, because to me the 'bubble' it makes is creating an alternative reality, living in a shelter where everything is homely and perfect and made for you and cosy like your family - and that can't last unless you live all your life in this shelter, which seems hardly possible as one day you'll have to have a job and face all the crap of life, which might seem even harder if you're not prepared for it (of course this is highly simplified and generalised, but it's a hypotetic point).
The socialisation aspect doesn't have to be a positive one. To me a child/young person has to be put in a social situation whether he/she likes it or not, in order to learn how to live in a community, with all the aspects you might not like of it. It's the community aspect, not the "let's all be friend and like the same make-up" aspect.


There is a verse in the Bible that says that you cannot serve two masters. For me to believe in evolution during schooldays and creationism during the weekend is hypocritical. I can't do both because I can't be true to both. They are both contradictory.

No one says you have to believe in evolution... no one says you have to believe in everything they tell you at school... Maybe the fact that education for you identifies with your family, makes you think you have to identify with school...


If one acts like an adult and thinks like an adult and does the same actions as an adult he doesn't have to swear to "feel" adult.
Being silly with a cause is a far cry from being silly with no reason at all. Even I like some kinds of silliness. I like the silliness of Peter Pan and the Wizard of Oz because it's ok for them to be silly. However I do not think I need to laugh when someone tries(and doesn't succeed) in being witty.

Yes, but that's all part of living in the real world, which includes things you don't approve...


They are. That's the difference between the UK and the US. (I'm assurming you live in the UK) If the difference in 30s literature is credible, the UK is a rather classy place.:D

The UK is not what you think... it's not that classy really, not that perfect as it was in my dream. Not that I have huge complaints about it besides one or two, but unfortunately most visitors do find it different from what they thought...



I don't pretend. I learned my lesson. People do accept me, just not everyone which ties in all over again to the socialization aspect. I do socialize, but I prefer not to be with people who don't want to be with me.

The socialisation thing is a bit misleading. I went to school, I had maybe 5 friends to relate with. It doesn't mean that school makes you a social being (I became vaguely sociable only in my 20s), and not even that it makes you all the same (unless you want to be the same as all them), just that we cannot imagine life without that kind of experience, with all its pros and cons.

[Koa]

Do you necessarily have to, if English is your first language ? :D

That's exactly why I like to provoke on this issue :D :p


And I think it comes down to we in the US don't trust and want to rely on the government for things. It sucks away our freedom. We feel that when we can do it ourselves, we pefer to.

That comes as a surprise to me... from outside the impression is that you do tend to trust your government to a certain extent - not everybody of course and not fanatically, but from where I stand that's the impression, compared to a lot of countries in Europe and especially with Italy, where we only think that a government is there to take advantage of people (what can you expect from a country that had like 62 governments in 61 years of republic :lol:)

[Virgil]

That comes as a surprise to me... from outside the impression is that you do tend to trust your government to a certain extent - not everybody of course and not fanatically, but from where I stand that's the impression, compared to a lot of countries in Europe and especially with Italy, where we only think that a government is there to take advantage of people (what can you expect from a country that had like 62 governments in 61 years of republic :lol:)

Actually that's true. We are not as cynical about government, but I think we feel that it can't run things very well, so we're better off doing it ourselves when possible.

[juketay]

One thing that was clear to me from the start is that no one here is trying to make the other side change their opinions... you asked for opinions, we are giving them - I will never agree with you and I'm conscious you'll never agree with me and I don't care, but both now know more about the other side - you have the view of European and Asian people here, to which the idea of homeschooling is totally foreign. This is the kind of issue where people stick to their idea and their values, and discussion is only a gym for ideas.


You are right. The purpose of this "argumentation" is not to convince the other side but to convince the people who will read this thread.

[andave_ya]

Do you want me to buy you a halo now?

I'm sorry, that was self-righteous of me to say. I got a little too carried away...:blush: :blush:


I don't see too many benefits, that's just it.

based on what?

The rest of the stuff in your post, Koa, I've already addressed in previous posts. No offense but I've written myself out today.

[Laindessiel]

A wider-scoped discussion on homeschooling... I'm learning a lot.

[Koa]

based on what?



:rolleyes: on what I said so far perhaps?

[andave_ya]

which I've already answered. Sorry Koa, this isn't going anywhere.

[Koa]

:rolleyes: Never thought it would go anywhere, I just answered to your hint by underlining that, if you hadn't noticed, that was what I had to say...
Some people take themselves too seriously.

[Scheherazade]

To All> This thread was started to discuss pros and cons of home schooling. If you don't like having your views challenged or questioned, you might like to refrain from posting as by expressing your views here, you readily agree that there will be people disagreeing with you as well as those who agree.

Resorting to ad hominem arguments will do little to move the discussion forward.

[Domer121]

Thanks Scheherazade..:)

[andave_ya]

apologies all. I'm notoriously stubborn. :blush: :( :sick:

[genoveva]

Just for clarification, there is a big difference between "homeschooling" (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Homeschooling) and "unschooling" (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Unschooling)
Homeschooling in the US (in my state) require 'actual learning' that they check on.

The main difference between homeschooling and unschooling is that homeschooling usually always consists of some particular curriculum that is followed by the student. In unschooling, however, there is no "forced" curriculum. Homeschooling is more parent led learning whereas unschooling is more child led learning.

[Nightshade]

Homeschooling seems very interesting, I have never heard of it before. Here in Germany, it would be illegal, as every child under 16 (I think) is lawfully required to frequent some kind of school


I had never heard of homeschooling before I heard of it on this forum (in other occasions as well), and Schoko's post reminded me that it must be because it's illegal (I suppose it is in most countries in Europe).


Actually youll find there is a loop hole in that law. Around where we live here in the uk there are groups of Travllers and fairground people who do still travel and becasue they do obvioulsy they dont attend school instead the government supplies travlling teachers who go along with them when they are on the eroad and if they are in a town for a certain time they have to attend that school. I know there are kids in my mums school who through te year will go to about 4 differant schools. Also child actors etc can be home schooled but again by special government supplied teachers.

My mum got us a homeschooling thing once , becasue the summer holidays were 3 months long ( from may to the middle of spt) and we got bored so she decided to teach us. and the idea was it would continue through school. But I do have to say it those 3 months well rather some of the books that came as part of course have shaped me more than anyothers the history book was FASCINATINg and then theyre were 2 books on myths.

But at the same time I know of alot of homeschool kids who just fall to pices when they go off to university.

True story: This boy was home schooled all his life in a very religious home he was bloody genius and miles ahead academically so hegot accepted to college/university ( which is it in the states?) when hed just turned 16. within six months he was on drugs, failing...I think he got kicked out... prison, etc etc etc

The problem was hed never really been in contact with 'thoses kinds of peopel' also he lacked the social maturity despite the academic and intellectual ones at 16 to deal with be pushed out of the nest as it were.

The greatest thingabout school and I practillcly lived in a school enviroment from when I was 2 is that you do meet bullies, and liars and cheats you get the obressive bigioted idiots and the free thinkers ( and thats just the teachers) you learn to survive people or you sink.


Do you necessarily have to, if English is your first language ? :D

almost completly OT but yes everyone should learn a second languge...especially people in the EU but even more paticually the UK. YOu get continet nearly everyone can speak english but do we even try properly to learn other languges? Nooo I think the EU schol make it compulsory to start learning a secondlanguge right from the first day of school at 5/6 . end rant.

[Koa]

Actually youll find there is a loop hole in that law. Around where we live here in the uk there are groups of Travllers and fairground people who do still travel and becasue they do obvioulsy they dont attend school instead the government supplies travlling teachers who go along with them when they are on the eroad and if they are in a town for a certain time they have to attend that school. I know there are kids in my mums school who through te year will go to about 4 differant schools. Also child actors etc can be home schooled but again by special government supplied teachers.

Oh we used to have kids from the circus that would come to school for like 1-2 months while the circus was there, and then moved to somewhere else...of course it was a kind of weird situation...


My mum got us a homeschooling thing once , becasue the summer holidays were 3 months long ( from may to the middle of spt) and we got bored so she decided to teach us. and the idea was it would continue through school. But I do have to say it those 3 months well rather some of the books that came as part of course have shaped me more than anyothers the history book was FASCINATINg and then theyre were 2 books on myths.

I recently learnt that Italy is the only place where you get homework to do during the holidays...
And well my mum taught me to read before I went to school, but that's because I was costantly asking about letters...



But at the same time I know of alot of homeschool kids who just fall to pices when they go off to university.

True story: This boy was home schooled all his life in a very religious home he was bloody genius and miles ahead academically so hegot accepted to college/university ( which is it in the states?) when hed just turned 16. within six months he was on drugs, failing...I think he got kicked out... prison, etc etc etc

The problem was hed never really been in contact with 'thoses kinds of peopel' also he lacked the social maturity despite the academic and intellectual ones at 16 to deal with be pushed out of the nest as it were.

That was my concern...


The greatest thingabout school and I practillcly lived in a school enviroment from when I was 2 is that you do meet bullies, and liars and cheats you get the obressive bigioted idiots and the free thinkers ( and thats just the teachers) you learn to survive people or you sink.

That's what I was saying too


almost completly OT but yes everyone should learn a second languge...especially people in the EU but even more paticually the UK. YOu get continet nearly everyone can speak english but do we even try properly to learn other languges? Nooo I think the EU schol make it compulsory to start learning a secondlanguge right from the first day of school at 5/6 . end rant.

That would totally make it another topic...

***
I remembered today that I forgot to ask one thing: what about employers? What happens when a homeschooled kid looks for a job? Assuming that anything at all happens, but you get me... is it a plus, or doesn't it matter at all?

[Nightshade]

I recently learnt that Italy is the only place where you get homework to do during the holidays...
And well my mum taught me to read before I went to school, but that's because I was costantly asking about letters...


No they do that here too but at the most it takes you 2 days to get through it if you do it all in one go unless its the holidays between years 10-11 and 12-13 mostly becasue the exams are at the the end of the second years so its just like a long holiday in the middle of the one year.
:D

[Virgil]

I recently learnt that Italy is the only place where you get homework to do during the holidays...
And well my mum taught me to read before I went to school, but that's because I was costantly asking about letters...

What???:eek2: I used to get lots of homework during the holdays!!! Lots!!! Kids don't know how good they have it today. :p ;)

[Adolescent09]

Hello everyone... I've got a topic which I recently posted which alludes to some of the views discussed in this Homeschooling topic. I believe that homeschooling results in antisocialism which is an EXTREMELY light form of a situation which can turn into a major problem (similar to mine) if left unabated. Leaving antisocialism unabated in homeschooling children can evolve into drastic Unibomber type-thinking (dramatic mood changes, anger strikes(which can last several weeks), thoughts of suicide and killing and plans of running away from home). I have felt all of these through my experience with homeschooling but DON'T let this deter some of you older forum members here who might be thinking of homeschooling their children. My situation perhaps is a singular one because I am the only child and I have a mother who is completely oblivious of everything that isn't learning-oriented. But OTHER situations where antisocialism might not be too much of a problem, because there is more than one child in the family, the child has relatives, or social friends...I believe homeschooling can be very helpful. On the bright side, homeschooling puts the participating child at a very high advantage over normally schooled kids, many of the reasons for this have been stated previously...(freedom to take whatever classes, addition and lessening of time needed for specific subjects, and no dress code).

Yes, I believe the "no dress code" part of homeschooling is the most comfortable liesure of this system. I do most of my work either in my boxers or topless pajamas and the only individuals who see me are my dog and mom.. There is a great deal of comfort in the environment of homeschooling mainly because... its your living environment lol.. It's home..

The downside is.. most homeschoolers (or maybe its only me?) have full work loads all during the summer, Christmas, all the other major holidays... and their birthdays. Actually it was worse for me on my birthday. I had a full work load plus I had to volunteer for hours at the Museum of Discovery.

[andave_ya]

Yes, you're right. I agree with you because you're saying that homeschooling isn't necessarily bad but isn't necessarily good either. Homeschooling does not work for all people because of various circumstances but that doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. But I'm sorry you had full work loads throughout the year. My family does that only if we're behind on anything.

[Adolescent09]

Glad you agree, andave ya :)

[Pensive]

Speaking of homework, this is a wrong concept that those who go to schools don't get enough homework now a days. We get so much homework in Summer Vacations that my happiness (which is always present when Summer holidays are going to come) is getting lesser and lesser day by day, just thinking of the dreaded homework I would get.


And even in regular days, we get homework on daily basis. Not too much to overload us, but three homeworks per day are quite common, not counting Math work which we get daily.

[Nightshade]

only three wow your lucky then agian I never did my homework and was always getting in trouble for that :D

[Dave Scotese]

Andave invited me to check out this thread after I had posted Anti-school sentiment (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44335).

Many here in this thread have agreed that they are "just discussing" and not trying to sway each other - and admitted that they themselves will not be swayed. I find that disconcerting and kind of embarrassing for you all. I see a lot of intelligence here and it has swayed me...

I am convinced that I must watch out for my own children, that they not be so unprepared for the idiots in the world that university drives them crazy.

I like the idea of being prepared for the real world, but subjecting my children to the horrors of school so that they will be prepared for similar horrors in the "real world" is ridiculous. The real world imposes organic laws, provided by the nature of man and human society, not made up by legislatures and teachers. If you don't see the differences, do a little more digging. Some philosophy on the nature and origins of authority might be useful.

I suppose there are legislated laws that the real world imposes - taxes, for example. And school is certainly a good preparation if you want your children to peacefully accept whatever burden their state heaps upon their backs without any protest. "Good schooling" could have prevented the American Revolution, I guess. Maybe the French Revolution too. Hmm...

We in the USA use the terms college and university interchangeably, but college is a bit less "elite". We have places of higher learning called "community college," as well as other places called "four-year universities". Community colleges are very rarely called university, but the four-year universities are often called college.

For anyone intelligent enough to recognize that being swayed is a good thing, check out mises.org for discussion of the interplay between freedom and government. You can also check out The Underground History of American Education (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm) for a specific example of this playing out in the USA in the area of education. The entire book is free online.

Is it called "compulsive schooling" rather than "coercive schooling" because of the connotation?

[1n50mn14]

I know this is an older thread, but as it has just resurfaced and it is something I might be able to articulately phrase an opinion on, I'm going to comment...

I agree with neither public schooling (institutional) or homeschooling.

Having always attended public school, I've found it extremely troubling that so many morals and ideals are instilled in children by teachers. Frankly, especially once we reach the high school age, I think school should be a place to go, and learn, and leave. Not to be shaped morally and socially. *massive eye roll*. That is the parents responsibility, and it scares me that it is so subtly put into the hands of institutions and teachers- teachers who view things subjectively and are subject to a personal opinion which they often try to press onto children. Example: I am a believer in eugenics, and ALWAYS had history teachers tell me that was WRONG. That is NOT their place to say. It is their place to teach me FACT. FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT. Also, I never believed in standing for the National Anthem, and despite having my own reasons, it caused me a lot of problems up until the very day I dropped out.

I think the exposure offered in public schools is important. I hated the social environment of highschool and public school, but I still believe it was important to me learning to communicate and socialize properly. Being exposed to strangers and a variety of peer issues and decisions obviously taught me some important lessons.

I also do not agree with homeschooling. While there are benefits, such as the flexibility of time, curriculum, etc, one never really has that social exposure. I can't imagine what it would be like to go from being homeschooled my entire life to going to University. o_O. There would be thousands of loud, weird strangers running around me, some of whom were mutual friends since Kindergarten, or even grade 6, or 9, and I wouldn't have that social connection. I wouldn't know how to cope in large crowds or participate in group discussions. I would be used to my Mother or Father's appraisal, not a big red 'b+' with the comments, 'Good, but needs work', on it. I would have no common ground with anybody. I just think it would be a very lonely world, home schooling... the biggest benefit I can see is that instilling moral values and beliefs is in the hands of the parents, not the institution. I do think however that it is more realistic. Instead of being in a created, controlled, environment like at public school, you are in your own environment and constantly in the 'real world', not switching back and forth between 'I'm at school' and 'I'm out living'. At least that's my personal opinion.

Blahblahblah...


I told my Mom about the swearing and her opinion was that people who swear left and right really don't have a grasp of language and I agree with her.



Do you think I don't really have a grasp of language? :lol:...

[andave_ya]

I know this is an older thread, but as it has just resurfaced and it is something I might be able to articulately phrase an opinion on, I'm going to comment...

I agree with neither public schooling (institutional) or homeschooling.

Bec, I enjoyed reading your opinion - you put it very nicely. But, what do you agree with, then?


Do you think I don't really have a grasp of language? :lol:...

Today at math class I overheard one guy say to another "I don't understand this [bleep]"

My (mental) response? "Oh there's not much to understand. It's just food that's gone through your digestive system.

A couple weeks ago in my theater class a guy walked up to me to get his stuff from the seat next to me. Out of the blue, he says "To be or not to be, that is the [bleepbleepbleep] question.

Actually, the question is, can a question do that? :idea: And, what's the mother of a question? :sick:

So, I still think people who swear don't have a grasp of the English language. I can understand swearing to vent, although I don't like it, but why else would one need to?

[Virgil]

So, I still think people who swear don't have a grasp of the English language. I can understand swearing to vent, although I don't like it, but why else would one need to?

:blush: You should have seen me in Junior High and High School. Every other word was a four letter word. :lol:

[The Walker]

I just found this discussion and wanted to share my story.
I went to normal school until 7th grade then i switch to homeschooling.
Becca got good points. I think public school is just another bubble; though it really helps you to develop social skills.
In other hand, homeschool is good too. It build a disciplined character in me and left me develop my own mind without any direct outward influence.
I think that for me, church was a really good help in the social part of my life. There I learned to share with other people and know them. But yeah the common interest made it easier.
Soon, i'll be going to college. I know it will be hard to adjust myself to receive classes again but I have friends who had gone through that and adjusted perfectly with the time.

I think homeschooling is not a very good idea for a shy person since you really miss the social advantage of the public school but for an outgoing personality person it wont be an obstacle in his life.

[Renrut]

I feel the need to try address some of the issues brought up in Becca's post.

First so people know where I'm coming from I was "homeschooled" for basically all of my schooling. But it wasn't strictly "at home". I took some classes from a Professor at Emory University that attended also my church and offered some classes for homeschooled highschool students. I also did dual-enrollment during my senior year of highschool at Clayton State University. So thats my background and my homeschooling experience.



There would be thousands of loud, weird strangers running around me, some of whom were mutual friends since Kindergarten, or even grade 6, or 9, and I wouldn't have that social connection. I wouldn't know how to cope in large crowds or participate in group discussions. I would be used to my Mother or Father's appraisal, not a big red 'b+' with the comments, 'Good, but needs work', on it. I would have no common ground with anybody.

1. Not knowing people. It's true when I started College classes my senior year of Highschool I didn't know very many people, hardly anyone really. But it wouldn't been any different then going to a college in a different state. Not having an already established social connection is just a part of life. It will happen almost any time you change jobs, schools, houses, etc. If you don't know how to cope with people you don't already know it's not because you were homeschooled.
2. Not knowing how to cope in large crowds or group discussions. I think I came to college knowing more about how to respect other people and carry on a meaningful conversation then at least 50% of the other freshmen. My parents did an excellent job of making sure I knew how to work with groups of people. If a homeschooling parent looks for it there are many many ways to help your child learn to be part of groups. besides that there are tons of public schooled people I know who would rather curl up and die that talk in group and and extremely shy and unable to articulate themselves.
3. I found that many times my parents appraisal of my work was much more harsh then most teachers. My parents my not have written my grade in a big red marker on my homework, but in many way I got worse than that. With a teacher you make a bad grade, they write it down, the end. But with my parents they remembered and said "you didn't do very well last time...work harder this time". They would push me to work harder.

I agree that with becca that both have good and not so good things about them. But I think that Homschooling is easier to "fix" than public schooling. If I ever have Children I think I would want to homeschool simply because when their at public school I have no effect on what their being taught. At home I can choose to involved them in programs etc. that would "round out" anything missed by not being at public school.


(I'm not sure I've done a very good job of writing down what I wanted to, so if anyone has a question please ask!)

[Dave Scotese]

I was not homeschooled, but I attended a Catholic grade school and a Catholic highschool. I promote homeschooling because I am a dissident. I think the government has been ruining America for over a century and there are not enough people demanding that it stop. Public school provides subtle biases that diminish people's awareness of the problem and their tendency to do anything about it in the content of the curriculum, in the authority structure of a school, and in the fact that attendance is not a choice. Even homeschooled kids have to take standardized tests and be schooled for 4-6 hours every day.

When I first faced the prospect that an income tax and having any respect for the authority of a government that doesn't earn it are foolish, I thought public schooling might be something good that government provides. It certainly puts people who are good at teaching in touch with people who could use some teaching, and that is good. But I hadn't studied enough...

I recently read The Underground History of American Education (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm) by John Taylor Gatto and it cleared things up for me. The whole thing is available for free online.

[librarius_qui]

There's NO homeschooling practice in Brasil. To me, it sounds like US culture. (Or like XIXth century British/French/German living in Africa.)

I don't have, therefore, an opinion on whether it's good or bad.

(I lived too little a time in Portugal to tell about it there, but I never heard, within the almost three years I lived there, about it.)

When I think (because I do) about teaching kids at home (considering I'll ever have children at home .. I'm not even married~) I think about it as complementary. My kids will need school, and, in Brasil, I know they'll need good basis in English. English they'll learn at home with dad ... And they will learn Latin as well with dad! :)

Which will be good for them.

I think I'd never be able to teach them maths ... I doubt I actually learned it :crash:

But maybe I get a smart wife :rolleyes: A musician, I hope!---

[qimissung]

It has been fascinating to read the opinions posted in this thread! It seems to me that neither homeschooling nor public schools are inherently good or bad in and of themselves. Each person and family will have to do the hard work of assessing and deciding for themselves what is or is not working for them. I have met great kids who were homeschooled, and great kids who go to public schools, too.

I am a teacher and a parent. I like teaching, and when my kids were younger I did wonder if I could homeschool successfully. In the end, I couldn't afford not to work, but I doubted then that I could have done it very well. I need structure myself. My kid's education turned out to be somewhat spotty, anyway. Their elementary and middle school educations were fine, but the older two lost interest in education around their junior year. My oldest son got his GED, and the next one got his diploma.

My oldest and youngest sons have ADD. I really don't want to hear from someone who doesn't believe in THAT, but the public high school my youngest son went to really let him down, in my opinion. He just never did well in the large classes at his school. He is now going to a small alternative school, which was probably designed for at-risk kids to recapture credits, but his grades went from failing to A's and B's. He now feels successful.

As for me, I teach at an inner-city school where many of the kids do not even read at grade level. I am glad and proud to be there, to perhaps have an impact on someone who might have gotten lost in the shuffle. It is always a challenge to get them to read and write, to feel like readers and writers, to feel powerful as learners. But that is really what it's all about, isn't it?

[snowangel]

I was homeschooled from 1st grade all the way through high school. My experience was not always positive, but then whose high school years were?
For the most part, I think home schooling is a good option. But only as long as the parent(s) are willing to go the distance. My biggest problem with being home schooled was that by the time I reached my freshman year, my parents had basically lost interest in my education. They left me to fend for myself, but because I was committed to going to college I worked really hard and made it to a state school. I'll graduate this December.
The area I live in has a large group of home schooled students. I've seen a lot parents really step up and make sure that they (or a tutor) are meeting the educational needs of their children. But, more often than not, I've seen parents become neglectful. They let their children's education suffer because they are too busy, tired, or ill equipped to teach them. I think that a child should only be home schooled if the parent(s) are fully prepared to take on that responsibility.

[Dave Scotese]

I am a teacher and a parent. I like teaching, and when my kids were younger I did wonder if I could homeschool successfully.

Have you read anything by John Taylor Gatto or Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt? They have both written about ways in which school (as opposed to education) damages children.

I am working on a kind of guidebook for teachers to help them protect their students from this damage. I've found that great teachers are like double-agents, sticking to the rules just enough to retain their jobs, but neglecting them enough to help the students educate themselves and learn the useful things they are interested in learning. Any insights would be helpful.

[Stargazer86]

Personally, I've never seen a negative example of homeschooling. As long as the child(ren) being homeschooled have the opportunity to engage in social activities with kids thier own age, and if the parents know what they're doing it seems to work out really well. The people I've met who've been homeschooled were all bright, well educated and well rounded. I think thier economic standing (not necissarily wealthy, but comfortable enough to be able live off of one income) certainly helped. A struggling family probably wouldn't be able to do it.
Overall, it seems like a very positive thing if the circumstances are right.

[JBI]

Personally, I've never seen a negative example of homeschooling. As long as the child(ren) being homeschooled have the opportunity to engage in social activities with kids thier own age, and if the parents know what they're doing it seems to work out really well. The people I've met who've been homeschooled were all bright, well educated and well rounded. I think thier economic standing (not necissarily wealthy, but comfortable enough to be able live off of one income) certainly helped. A struggling family probably wouldn't be able to do it.
Overall, it seems like a very positive thing if the circumstances are right.

Still, the vast number of homeschooled children in the United States seem to be from families affiliated with Evangelical Christian faiths, and have strong political doctrines attached to them. In a sense, it never allows for anyone to get away from their parents - so if the parent is a great example of a learned mind, according to whomever is judging, then the system works, however if the person hammers home too many regressive ideas, as most parents happen to be (despite our own love for our parents, it feels natural to realize that some of their ideas are old fashion, or regressive. My grandparents, wouldn't have allowed my parents to date non-Jews, and some of that resentment seems to have held, with a dislike even emanating from them). If I were only exposed to those viewpoints, I think I would be a lesser person.

Socrates, as we all know, spoke directly about this issue. One needs to really challenge the authority of ones parents if they are to understand anything on their own. Perhaps homeschooling does that, though I think, for most people, it's all part of a scheme to really centralize and regress, in the sense that The Jonas Brothers, or Father-Daughter Virginity Balls, or Jesus Camps, or Jewish summer Camps (which used to be socialist, and now are rather right wing) are.

[Dave Scotese]

One needs to really challenge the authority of ones parents if they are to understand anything on their own.
Absolutely. That is where the idea of "unschooling" comes in. Public school actually goes the other way by instituting an authority that is neither biological nor natural, and holding it over not only the students, but the students' parents as well.

In fact, I don't think many people can avoid challenging the authority of their own parents eventually. It seems to be a natural part of growing up.

[Stargazer86]

Still, the vast number of homeschooled children in the United States seem to be from families affiliated with Evangelical Christian faiths, and have strong political doctrines attached to them. In a sense, it never allows for anyone to get away from their parents - so if the parent is a great example of a learned mind, according to whomever is judging, then the system works, however if the person hammers home too many regressive ideas, as most parents happen to be (despite our own love for our parents, it feels natural to realize that some of their ideas are old fashion, or regressive. My grandparents, wouldn't have allowed my parents to date non-Jews, and some of that resentment seems to have held, with a dislike even emanating from them). If I were only exposed to those viewpoints, I think I would be a lesser person.

Socrates, as we all know, spoke directly about this issue. One needs to really challenge the authority of ones parents if they are to understand anything on their own. Perhaps homeschooling does that, though I think, for most people, it's all part of a scheme to really centralize and regress, in the sense that The Jonas Brothers, or Father-Daughter Virginity Balls, or Jesus Camps, or Jewish summer Camps (which used to be socialist, and now are rather right wing) are.


I'm just saying from my personal experience, the ones I've met have seemed to be very well rounded. They were in a lot of extra curricular activites (sports, day camps, art classes etc) that gave them the social interaction and instruction by an authority figure other than thier parents. I'm sure there are negative examples out there, and that there are arguments against homeschooling. I wouldn't homeschool my kids even if I had the means to do so, because as much as I love them, my time is during school. Parents need a break sometimes. But for some people it really does work

I've never heard of father daughter virginity balls...that sounds almost creepy

[JBI]

I'm just saying from my personal experience, the ones I've met have seemed to be very well rounded. They were in a lot of extra curricular activites (sports, day camps, art classes etc) that gave them the social interaction and instruction by an authority figure other than thier parents. I'm sure there are negative examples out there, and that there are arguments against homeschooling. I wouldn't homeschool my kids even if I had the means to do so, because as much as I love them, my time is during school. Parents need a break sometimes. But for some people it really does work

I've never heard of father daughter virginity balls...that sounds almost creepy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_ball

Though, if you google around, you would notice that such nonsense isn't even bound to radical faiths - reform and moderate Jews, for instance, generally have strong ties to Zionist Youth Movements, with strong political overtones. Of course, the focus being on community and politics, rather than on a parents' control of their children's sexual discovery seems to make it perhaps a little softer. The goal though, with all these sorts of programs, is to a) establish connections between people whose parents hold the exact same ideas, and b) enforce a strong politics in order to establish an identity toward a certain parental concept of right and wrong.


I know of a family whose mother is Torontonian, father Texan, and children all homeschooled in Texas. They are very gifted people - the son, for instance, has a very great understanding of everything, and is a very talented violinist. But that family benefited from having two really liberal parents with strong educations (they are both major researchers in the field of Chiropractics, and both very liberal) and a desire to open their children's minds up.

Of course, I know a family who was homeschooled, and the kids know virtually nothing. Generally though, homeschooling seems to be a more American system than Canadian one, which only has about 10,000 people registered, as apposed to around 2 and a half million homeschooled kids in the States.

Generally, that probably has to do with the system in Canada, based on geographic considerations, and I think less of a dislike for the systems in place. There are educational problems here, but I think there isn't that sense of resentment that many feel in the States. In addition to that, American religions, which make up the bulk of homeschooled kids in the US aren't as prevalent here, and therefore religious considerations are rather minimal. Homeschooling then, seems restricted to those parents who think they can teach better than the system, which often means either really bright parents, or parents with children with special needs.

In the States, from all the statistics I can find from googling, it seems the homeschooling phenomenon is directly attached to people who try to enforce a strong "Christian moral" agenda to their lessons, with a very large chunk being Born-Again Christians of one faith or another. For all this moral authority junk being preached here, it seems more like a full time indoctrination session to me. For all this we don't need the State polluting the minds of the young, I think ultimately, the system is just in place to clone the beliefs of a group, and mold the young into a fixed form of what the parents would describe as "Moral".

[The Atheist]

Still, the vast number of homeschooled children in the United States seem to be from families affiliated with Evangelical Christian faiths, and have strong political doctrines attached to them.

It's also de rigeur for white nationalists (read supremacists) to homeschool their children.

[Dave Scotese]

Still, the vast number of homeschooled children in the United States seem to be from families affiliated with Evangelical Christian faiths, and have strong political doctrines attached to them.It's also de rigeur for white nationalists (read supremacists) to homeschool their children.

Wait, so are you guys suggesting that white supremacist beliefs and strong political doctrines tend to make people more successful and provide them with well-rounded educations? I don't think that's true at all. I think the difference has more to do with the amount of attention the parents of homeschoolers pay to their kids. White supremacists and those with strong political beliefs tend to pay a lot of attention, and this causes them to homeschool.

I guess I'm replying because what comes through with these facts is a nasty and ugly and totally wrong insinuation that homeschooling might produce strong political doctrine believers and white supremacists.

Homeschooling tends to produce well-rounded successful people - moreso than public school, and I think it's important to remember that. Thankfully, despite the negative stereotypes that continue holding it back, homeschooling has been growing. I still look forward to a society with more dissidents, individuality, reasoned political pressure, success, and overall human progress as that trend continues.

[The Atheist]

Wait, so are you guys suggesting that white supremacist beliefs and strong political doctrines tend to make people more successful and provide them with well-rounded educations?

No, you're mis-associating facts.

I'm telling you that almost all people who style themselves as "white nationalists" homeschool their children.


I guess I'm replying because what comes through with these facts is a nasty and ugly and totally wrong insinuation that homeschooling might produce strong political doctrine believers and white supremacists.

That would by necessity involve several incorrect assumptions, so we don't need to worry about it. No insinuation is involved if you've read the post correctly.

[JBI]

No, you're mis-associating facts.

I'm telling you that almost all people who style themselves as "white nationalists" homeschool their children.



That would by necessity involve several incorrect assumptions, so we don't need to worry about it. No insinuation is involved if you've read the post correctly.

Amen, quite honestly, arguing with Zealots who only really care about one post on the forum is kind of silly. The truth is, if you google the facts, the bulk of homeschooled people in the United States are not from families seeking to create well rounded individuals. Regionally, things become even clearer that large pockets of them are adherents to rather particular beliefs, and homeschool as a way of repressing certain ideas, rather than others. Geez, you can like the system all you want, but you defending its every breath is kind of silly. Quite simply, homeschooling depends on the parent, and if the parents are no good, chances are the children turn out no good too, almost certainly if the child is homeschooled, as correction has a lesser chance of seeping in.

All the data on homeschooling is ultimately skewed - the vast majority of people homeschooled, for instance, are from two-parent families, who are, clearly, well off enough that one parent can take the time to go out and teach the kid. What that essentially means, is that the demographic of homeschooled kids teaches one nothing about the success, as it factors into other grounds. A fair study, of which I cannot find at the moment, would compare the income brackets of the families to ones of similar income, and check the success rate amongst those people relative to the ones attending school - I am sure, ultimately, the most successful will still be the prep-schooled rich white old blood that has had generations at Harvard anyway. Demographics are everything, homeschool advocates are just as good at fabricating facts as everyone else.

The truth is, all those stats are essentially meaningless. On the whole, the greatest preforms in the most objective subjects, notably mathematics, have come from countries where homeschooling does not exist, or is illegal. Hong Kong, for instance, has homeschooling illegal, and homeschooling in Japan is illegal. They by far score better on average than Americans in Mathematics - the only possible indicator - so there must be something to real education.

Lets be honest, mediocre parents make for mediocre students - at least in a school there is some standard control, and the kids are exposed to new teachers - at home, mediocrity gets full reign, and closed mindedness (over 30% of homeschooling parents in the States cited religion reasons for homeschooling, and over 12% cited that they don't want their children learning what is being taught in school) flourishes. Besides which, lets be honest, homeschooling is the most class-obsessed form of education. It essentially says, that in order to get what you deem a "better" education, a parent must be educated, and must have the time to teach their children on their own, and not have to work to support them. That's simple rubbish, and as an institution, the fact that that can get any support is a little disturbing.

Of course, I am not a big fan of the American education system as a whole (especially the university system, which actually dumped quite a few students, most from New England, in my university to get "lower" fees, which happen to be about twice as much as I pay, without the subsidies that I get either) but to fix that problem by introducing, or giving credit to a class-obsessed, rather idiotic alternative is beyond me. So far I have been nice, and tried to give both sides a fair case, but ultimately, your reluctance to a)discuss anything outside of this topic, and b) admit flaws in the system seem to me that for one preaching the open mindedness of a system, one seems to be absorbed quite into it.


But then again, homeschooling seems a very typical sort of American approach - rather than demand better from a government that fails, and an education system that has problems, as should be, alternatives and blame games are played - quite simply, homeschooling is the Ron Paul answer to the problem - rather than demand what is deserved, simply stop the system all together, and let everyone fend for themselves. There is a reason why people turn to homeschooling, and it isn't that parents are better, but that the system is flawed, and it is easier to fix the system for oneself assuming you are able to afford it by homeschooling than to go for any real significant change, and hey, on the way, you may even be able to cut a few % points off the education fund for some other unlucky, albeit poorer sucker's child.

I mean no direct personal attacks Dave, but quite simply, your die hard faith makes arguing at all tedious, as you are quick to defend, yet seem unable to humor anyone else's perspectives for very long. In order to understand, one must ultimately entertain the perspective of the other side, as a means of finding meaning, and with such a one directional exchange, I perhaps may have come off a bit too aggressive, at which, I meant nothing against you personally.

[The Atheist]

Amen, ...

Not often you and I agree entirely, but I'm with you every word of that.:D

Most important point - comparing like with like. I like it!

:D

[Dave Scotese]

...over 30% of homeschooling parents in the States cited religion reasons for homeschooling

Thanks, I didn't realize it was that low. Where did you get this info? I would love to look over those stats.


It essentially says, that in order to get what you deem a "better" education, a parent must be educated, and must have the time to teach their children on their own, and not have to work to support them.

You might want to look up "unschooling". If you're interested. My own experience is that we learn without teachers. I am happy to find that authors who interest me often write about this fact. I think what kids need is love, shelter, food, and opportunity. But someone to tell them which subjects they need to "learn," and then "make them learn it"? Definitely not.

But you are right that public school serves a babysitting purpose for many families. At least in America, it is horrible how business and competing corporate interests have exploited it as a tool of indoctrination into consumer culture.



So far I have been nice, and tried to give both sides a fair case, but ultimately, your reluctance to a)discuss anything outside of this topic, and b) admit flaws in the system seem to me that for one preaching the open mindedness of a system, one seems to be absorbed quite into it.

Yes, I am pretty absorbed by it. What other topic do you want me to discuss?

What flaws are you talking about? That white supremacists use it? That advocates of strong political doctrine and people of faith use it (really only 30%)? That students must seek out knowledgeable individuals when they need guidance if they aren't in school where such people are supposedly already available? I would happily admit any flaw that is real, but these are propaganda and so I am compelled to challenge them.


But then again, homeschooling seems a very typical sort of American approach - rather than demand better from a government that fails, and an education system that has problems, as should be, alternatives and blame games are played - quite simply, homeschooling is the Ron Paul answer to the problem - rather than demand what is deserved, simply stop the system all together, and let everyone fend for themselves.


Very good! You do frown on letting people fend for themselves, eh? But rather than helping them, which you'd be free to do with any money you'd save by having lower taxes, you would instead "demand better from a government," which, I believe, is what the people controlling those taxes are really after. I think we should at least be free to fend for ourselves - and those around us, if we care to, which we would much more if the government weren't always trying to (and being encouraged to!) get in the way.


... you may even be able to cut a few % points off the education fund for some other unlucky, albeit poorer sucker's child.

That would be a great argument if I really wanted socialism. I think it's important to recognize that when someone is forced to do something good, the natural tendency to do it is crippled. Hence, the idea of "fending for ourselves" - which I agree is "typically American" - seems scary or bad because people taken care of by their government are no longer naturally prone to taking care of each other. That is a basic flaw in socialism that remains even after you solve the problem of individual self-interest in politicians.


I mean no direct personal attacks Dave, but quite simply, your die hard faith makes arguing at all tedious, as you are quick to defend, yet seem unable to humor anyone else's perspectives for very long. In order to understand, one must ultimately entertain the perspective of the other side, as a means of finding meaning, and with such a one directional exchange, I perhaps may have come off a bit too aggressive, at which, I meant nothing against you personally.

I have become more aggressive recently, quicker to defend, and more authoritative than I used to be. However, I am very good at seeing things from the other side, which is why I understand socialism as well as I do. It is attractive until you see the details of how it must work, and the damage it must do to the human spirit in order to function at all. I am watching my own country, which always seemed to me the one that could hold onto individual freedom the best, become more socialist with every new law from Washington, and my anger burns my soul. You can probably smell it.

If anyone out there who thinks I'm on to something valuable has advice on toning down my aggression, defense, or authority, please let me know!

My single-topic disposition, I think, is defensible. Do you think Thomas Paine engaged in much other than Independence during the years between writing Common Sense and the day England finally gave up? All the time I am willing to use a computer to engage others, I spend promoting the things I think can protect children from the damage that school does - the damage that creates people who are attracted to socialism and who are unable or unwilling to see enough of its ugliness to reject it.

I figured people that read a lot would tend to see the light. When I agree, I don't reply, and I think a lot of people are like that. You're giving me the opportunity to provide them with something to agree with, so I will continue to engage if you are willing to continue.

[andave_ya]

Excuse me. For the first time, I understand what people mean when they talk about "experience." I offer twelve years experience of being homeschooled, having graduated valedictorian from a class of nine less than six weeks ago. When we began homeschooling in the 90's, the homeschool movement had only just begun in California.

Since then it has grown in leaps and bounds, and as "veteran" homeschoolers, my parents are known in three or four different circles of homeschooling, all of which are from varying walks of life. The first one (from first till sixth grade, I think it was) was comprised of one-income families, where funds were very tight. We clip coupons, when my dad works twelve hours and we still don't have everything, we get our clothes from thrift shops, we barter, we don't get anything superfluous, we don't have cable, we borrow from each other, we cook every meal and rarely ever go out. We still do it! Our field trips were rarely ever to places very exciting, unless they had free days like the zoo once a month. But we had community classes taught for free by people who loved topics like writing, or PE. People who knew the Bible, and were not afraid of being ridiculed for teaching it. People who did their best to LEARN, only differentiating between people who knew the subject and people who didn't. We grew together, and that really helped to build on the foundations my parents were teaching me.

The next circle I was introduced to was in high school, from a family at church. They encouraged me to take speech and debate classes. This was a higher-class group of people, people who made enough money to be able to take their students all over the States to debate and formally present speeches in the NCFCA (http://www.ncfca.org/), a Christian speech and debate league. I took several classes in speech and one in debate and the lessons I learned there are still with me. I formally presented speeches only once or twice before we decided to back out because many of the tournaments were just too far away.

The third circle is one I'm still only just getting into now, having made some friends there. We are much alike, loving books, like the Bible and classics, and music and old things. People who are really searching out what God wants for them.

And the fourth group is one I haven't been formally introduced to quite yet: the college (http://www.phc.edu/) I will attend, Lord willing, in the fall for a degree in literature. Every single one of the faculty and students are Christians, and are taught not only from Christian curriculum but secular as well, and thoroughly. Over 70% of the students were homeschooled. The college has won countless awards in speech and debate and moot court (against even Oxford!) and has alumni working around the world!

If you would like a further reference for my character in person, ask Virgil. We've met in person. That said, here is where I posit that you are wrong.


Amen, quite honestly, arguing with Zealots who only really care about one post on the forum is kind of silly. The truth is, if you google the facts, the bulk of homeschooled people in the United States are not from families seeking to create well rounded individuals.

And the public system does? If I go there, will I be taught both evolution AND creationism? Will I be taught both the pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints? Will I be taught Keynesian economics or Adam Smith's economics? Will I be taught the negative side of socialism and the positive side?


A fair study, of which I cannot find at the moment, would compare the income brackets of the families to ones of similar income, and check the success rate amongst those people relative to the ones attending school

I agree with you! But the results may surprise you.


On the whole, the greatest preforms in the most objective subjects, notably mathematics, have come from countries where homeschooling does not exist, or is illegal. Hong Kong, for instance, has homeschooling illegal, and homeschooling in Japan is illegal. They by far score better on average than Americans in Mathematics - the only possible indicator - so there must be something to real education.

Why objective subjects? Are not subjective subjects just as important?
I don't like math. However it may interest you to know that I brought my math SAT score up 130 points over an 18 month period, with the help of books and relatives with a talent for math!


at home, mediocrity gets full reign, and closed mindedness (over 30% of homeschooling parents in the States cited religion reasons for homeschooling, and over 12% cited that they don't want their children learning what is being taught in school) flourishes. Besides which, lets be honest, homeschooling is the most class-obsessed form of education. It essentially says, that in order to get what you deem a "better" education, a parent must be educated, and must have the time to teach their children on their own, and not have to work to support them. That's simple rubbish, and as an institution, the fact that that can get any support is a little disturbing.

mediocrity gets full reign? and close-mindedness? We know what we believe, if that's what you mean, but I'd caution against calling all of us closed-minded. There is mediocrity and laziness - in increasingly few homeschooling families. When a student is in speech and debate they juggle writing and researching and memorizing and planning and thinking and discussing ON TOP OF all their other homework, extracurricular activities (which are many and varied, such as sports, choir, ballet, etc.) jobs, chores, church. JBI, do you know what you're talking about?


But then again, homeschooling seems a very typical sort of American approach - rather than demand better from a government that fails, and an education system that has problems, as should be, alternatives and blame games are played

What on earth can our government give us??? It's grown too ruddy big for its britches. It will refuse to teach us both sides, JBI, it will give us bread and circuses and your fabled mediocrity because it's gone socialist. We'll learn some trumped up idea of "equality" and "civil rights!" Government - what brought government into education in the first place? My college, PHC, refuses government funding so that it doesn't have to follow the Department of Education's insipid rules. No, JBI, education shouldn't be the government's business.

I'd really suggest a bit more research into homeschooling before posting so absolutely about it.

[Zee.]

From what i know, people i've spoken to and documentaries i've watched, the majority (NOT ALL) of children home schooled are well, home schooled by their parents as a way of preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts. If a child is home schooled, a parent can decide and dictate what ideas that child encounters and that is a pretty dangerous thing.

[Lynne50]

This discussion has been very interesting, but one thing that hasn't been addressed is, How do children get a quality education from parents that may be educationally challenged themselves?. When and how to they get remediation and how are delays dealt with? Do homeschoolers have access to child study teams that evaluate potential problems and give clear cut solutions? Many families do not even know what is available to them. It's a shame that their children have to suffer because of their ignorance. That is not a condemnation of the parents, just a simple fact.
Not all homeschooling is created equal. Not all public schools are created equal. But if I had a child who had learning disablities, I would have to defer to an expert in the field. I don't think I would have the resources to do it alone.

[Dave Scotese]

From what i know, people i've spoken to and documentaries i've watched, the majority (NOT ALL) of children home schooled are well, home schooled by their parents as a way of preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts. If a child is home schooled, a parent can decide and dictate what ideas that child encounters and that is a pretty dangerous thing.

Dangerous to who or what? The state?

"Preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts" is bad?? Impressionable young people are ripe for exploitation by anyone with an agenda of oppression. It seems unlikely to me that their parents are more likely to have an agenda of oppression than the state (which runs the public education system).

There are ideas and thoughts in school that most would agree have negative effects. For example, the idea that it's dangerous to allow children to be raised by their parents instead of the public education surrogate is certainly a negative effect - at least to those who have children. Consider Andave_ya's college and the good it has done. The idea that homeschooling is dangerous would diminish that good. For another example, take a look at Lynne's reply:


How do children get a quality education from parents that may be educationally challenged themselves?. When and how to they get remediation and how are delays dealt with? Do homeschoolers have access to child study teams that evaluate potential problems and give clear cut solutions?

One effect of public school is the idea that education is received from someone else. Education doesn't "come" from anyone. It is created by the learner herself. School burns into us the idea that it "comes from" a teacher, and that externalization of the motor of learning we're all born with is certainly a negative effect.

The idea of "remediation" is another negative effect. Remediation is the repetition of training in order to produce a specific target behavior. It is not constructive to the human spirit. It may be constructive to human intelligence, but at what cost? (The cost of Hitler, if you ask me.) Everyone with a job that requires specific knowledge has manuals at the ready, and for the first few days, weeks, or months, they remediate themselves every time they use those manuals - until they are memorized, automatically, thanks to the human brain.

Lynne, I do not mean to avoid your questions: If public education were not wasting most of the public's educational resources trying to train humans to conform to the soulless prototype "human resource" represented in education law, there would be several more solutions to the problems you mention, many of which would be better than those that homeschoolers use today - simply because the market for them would be free and vastly larger. Meanwhile, having decided to "homeschool", and without the crutch of public school there to atrophy their resourcefulness, the homeschooled children of poorly educated parents will grow that much more resourceful at finding ways to learn what they want to learn. If they need or want teachers, they will find them. It's only natural.

[Zee.]

Dangerous to who or what? The state?

"Preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts" is bad?? Impressionable young people are ripe for exploitation by anyone with an agenda of oppression. It seems unlikely to me that their parents are more likely to have an agenda of oppression than the state (which runs the public education system).



Dangerous. Period.
Any form of brainwashing/attempts to control the mind is dangerous to both the person and other people.
Take a look at the nazis.

[The Atheist]

And the public system does? If I go there, will I be taught both evolution AND creationism?

This is not really a benefit, and while I admire your defence of homeschooling, the mere fact that you're unable to tell the difference between science and fantasy isn't a great advertisement.

You won't be taught creationism at school, just as you won't be taught the physiology of cryptids, the life cycle of the Loch Ness monster, or the genetics of the colours of the Cottingley Fairies' eyes.

It seems to me that your parents are a classic example of wanting to teach to a specific agenda - christian creationism - and avoiding schools for that reason rather than any quality concerns. I do find that a bad thing.

[Zee.]

This is not really a benefit, and while I admire your defence of homeschooling, the mere fact that you're unable to tell the difference between science and fantasy isn't a great advertisement.

You won't be taught creationism at school, just as you won't be taught the physiology of cryptids, the life cycle of the Loch Ness monster, or the genetics of the colours of the Cottingley Fairies' eyes.

It seems to me that your parents are a classic example of wanting to teach to a specific agenda - christian creationism - and avoiding schools for that reason rather than any quality concerns. I do find that a bad thing.

I tend to agree with you a lot

[andave_ya]

This discussion has been very interesting, but one thing that hasn't been addressed is, How do children get a quality education from parents that may be educationally challenged themselves?. When and how to they get remediation and how are delays dealt with? Do homeschoolers have access to child study teams that evaluate potential problems and give clear cut solutions?

Lynne, many homeschooling families join support groups comprised of people from all walks of life. We did - those are some of the different groups I talked about - and we went on field trips galore and had used book sales and discussion groups and classes hosted by people within the group who specialized in something or another and parents nights and dozens of other functions all designed to make homeschooling better and more efficient.



This is not really a benefit, and while I admire your defence of homeschooling, the mere fact that you're unable to tell the difference between science and fantasy isn't a great advertisement.

Atheist, I've run up against you enough times regarding evolution for you to know my viewpoint on the whole thing. From the basic research I've done (which, I've done apart from my parents' influence), evolution asks too many questions and creationism answers too many questions for me to just swallow up evolution like a dose of medicine. I am tired of being told I should. I refuse.


It seems to me that your parents are a classic example of wanting to teach to a specific agenda - christian creationism - and avoiding schools for that reason rather than any quality concerns. I do find that a bad thing.

It may comfort you to know that my mom made me take an astronomy class from a community college. I was taught the evolutionary point of view - but I still saw God's handiwork. I think the Big Bang theory just takes the Creationist theory and packages it up sans God!

And also, I took an evolutionary psychology course and all I got were more questions!! Atheist, it is not for lack of trying that I don't see how evolution works! It has nothing to do with my parents!

What is a quality concern? The quality of the food? How clean the school is? Do the kids get too much homework? Do the teachers hit them?

[Lynne50]

Dave You haven't answered my questions because I do not think you have any real, practical answers. You spoke of remediation as simply as reading a manual. What if you can't read, can't follow directions,can't interpret what you read? You will not be able to figure out what is causing your reading difficulties until you 'discover' a teacher or remediate.
I'm curious, though, did you go to public school? Was it that bad an experience?

[Dave Scotese]

Dave You haven't answered my questions because I do not think you have any real, practical answers. You spoke of remediation as simply as reading a manual. What if you can't read, can't follow directions,can't interpret what you read? You will not be able to figure out what is causing your reading difficulties until you 'discover' a teacher or remediate.
I'm curious, though, did you go to public school? Was it that bad an experience?

After second grade I attended private schools.

I think the remediation problem you pose is this: How do we make children learn the things we decide they ought to learn when they're as old as we've decided they need to be to learn them?

Since I think it is a mistake to make children learn (rather than facilitating their learning), the problem I see is that we're control freaks. Rather than controlling the pace of the child, we should marvel at the pace she sets for herself and provide opportunities where appropriate. But your question still applies in a different incarnation: When and how do children get appropriate opportunities if their parents can't supply them? On that front, I think Andave_ya has given us some info.

I think another unfortunate effect of schooling is the idea that we need to establish a system for everything. There is no system in place to prevent young children from eating poisonous plants or wandering into the street, or to teach them to walk or talk. We pretty much rely on parents to handle those responsibilities. When they need specific help, such as if their child is allergic to wheat or peanuts, they seek it out. The same solution ought to apply to education.

When a good system is invented to solve a problem, as long as the government doesn't get in the way, private enterprise will put that solution to work. As a proponent of freedom and individualism, I'm very interested in seeing that happen, and it bothers me a lot when the government does get in the way. In the area education, according to Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the US Department of Education, the government isn't just in the way, but actually pushing us backwards (http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/).


Any form of brainwashing/attempts to control the mind is dangerous to both the person and other people.
Take a look at the nazis.
Right. I agree. But I don't think the Nazis were brainwashed by their parents:
"Following the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Hitler established a Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels. The Ministry's aim was to ensure that the Nazi message was successfully communicated through art, music, theater, films, books, radio, educational materials, and the press."
No mention of parents. I added the emphasis. This is from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005202 And I believe that homeschooling was generally illegal (and still is) in Germany.

One of the beautiful things about letting parents raise their own children is that the people that do get brainwashed tend to cancel each other out. When you take that freedom away so that most brainwashing is applied through a monolithic institution like public education, no opposing force is large enough to cancel out its errors.

[The Atheist]

Atheist, I've run up against you enough times regarding evolution for you to know my viewpoint on the whole thing. From the basic research I've done (which, I've done apart from my parents' influence), evolution asks too many questions and creationism answers too many questions for me to just swallow up evolution like a dose of medicine. I am tired of being told I should. I refuse.

This is where I feel you lose credibility for your claims.

I don't mind that people don't understand evolution, there's a lot to understand, but the problem is all about creationism. Inside creationism, there isn't a single claim which can be logically tajen to be correct. Behe admitted in open court that creationism "is not science" - it is pure myth and is not supported by any science whatsoever.

You have turned the problem into a "one must be right" of these two, and that in itself is flawed thinking.

Can I suggest you stop thinking about evolution entirely and concentrate on your view of creationism. Just apply those same critical thinking skills to creationism, because I know it won't stack up.

Don't worry about what to believe if creationism is wrong, deal with one thing at a time; there are other potential answers than what is broadly described as "Darwinism".


It may comfort you to know that my mom made me take an astronomy class from a community college. I was taught the evolutionary point of view - but I still saw God's handiwork. I think the Big Bang theory just takes the Creationist theory and packages it up sans God!

This highlights what appears to be another problem. Where does evolution come into astronomy?


And also, I took an evolutionary psychology course and all I got were more questions!! Atheist, it is not for lack of trying that I don't see how evolution works! It has nothing to do with my parents!

Evolutionary psychology? I had to use Google to even find out what that is!

If you want to ask questions about evolution, ask a biologist or geologist, not a psychologist. How on earth did you end up studying that kind of stuff? It's an attempt to put the cart before the horse, which I don't like, but again, it's irrelevant, because you don't even need to think about evolution.


What is a quality concern? The quality of the food? How clean the school is? Do the kids get too much homework? Do the teachers hit them?

Quality of education.

I find it interesting that your thoughts tended towards logistics rather than learning.

While I like my kids' schools to be clean and violence-free, my major concern is that they learn the basics of some subjects academically while developing social skills.

[TheFifthElement]

Well, we're seriously considering homeschooling for my son before the efforts of primary education (age 5-11 in UK) completely turn him off learning. All will depend on whether he gets a new teacher next term or if he stays with his current one. I don't think he can endure another year of this teacher who is incapable of listening or speaking to the children like they are people; criticises first and determines the facts later; teaches things which are incorrect and which my son, through observation and some critical thinking, works out correctly for himself. It's an awkward situation but I find I have to question the value of the education he's receiving compared to what he could receive at home. At present, he could probably learn what he learns in school in half the time, which means there's 3.5 hours each day he could spend on extended learning beyond that which he would gain at school. Neither, we find, does the school encourage independent, critical thinking but would rather have a class of 20-30 compliant little robots that don't challenge the teachers to do any independent thinking themselves.

The only thing which has put us off homeschooling so far has been the concern over socialisation, but he is now reaching an age where he has more independence and he is beginning to make friends locally, outside of school hours. So I think he can socialise independent of the school system. Educationally, as things stand, he would be better off being schooled at home. Certainly until he reaches the end of primary education anyway. After that he would be exposed to a variety of subjects and a variety of teachers and I think, at that point, the school system could do better for him that my husband and I could.

[andave_ya]

Can I suggest you stop thinking about evolution entirely and concentrate on your view of creationism. Just apply those same critical thinking skills to creationism, because I know it won't stack up.

How can one separate the two?


This highlights what appears to be another problem. Where does evolution come into astronomy?

More on this later, if that's ok. I'm going to open up a thread eventually on my thoughts on the Big Bang theory



Evolutionary psychology? I had to use Google to even find out what that is!

If you want to ask questions about evolution, ask a biologist or geologist, not a psychologist. How on earth did you end up studying that kind of stuff?

LOL, quite frankly, I didn't intend to. I thought I was signing up for a regular psychology class - personalities and characteristics and mental diseases and Freud and all that. But, it was an interesting class regardless, for as long as it lasted.

Scenarios like this would take place there: he'd be dithering on about evolution and I'd get a question about evolution in my head. If it was the right time, I'd ask it - but generally his response was that there just wasn't enough time in the class to answer it. To be fair, he did offer to me and to all other students with questions to make an appointment with him. I did, but the day I was scheduled to visit with him I was told that his back had given out and he had to drop all classes for the entire semester.

OR, as was more often the case, I'd have a question about evolution - and see how creationism takes care of the same dilemma.


Quality of education.

I find it interesting that your thoughts tended towards logistics rather than learning.

For a moment I too was thrown for a loop, until I realized why. My parents used the classical method of education, especially during my early years of schooling, and the trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric taught me to learn about an issue, resolve the details about it, and form an opinion on it. So now, I consider learning as far more dependent upon the student rather than the teacher. The teacher (or the student, depending on his intellectual level) passes on the information or the systems, but it is up to the student to resolve it and fit it into his knowledge, belief system, principles, etc.

[The Atheist]

How can one separate the two?

Because it's not an either/or question. If creationism as it must, fails, then there is some other answer. Many people think it's evolution, but many don't as well.


More on this later, if that's ok. I'm going to open up a thread eventually on my thoughts on the Big Bang theory

Boring subject, I feel. Without a PhD in astrophysics, it's all a bit difficult, and I have to say that not being sure of what happened ~15 billion years ago and an unknown number of light years away doesn't really bother me.

This is why your schooling concerns me - you keep asking the wrong questions. Only about three people in the world understand Hawking's BB theory, why on earth do you think you need to be the fourth? You're applying so much faith to religious beliefs, yet demand precise answers on unanswerable subjects. Seems all back to front to me.


OR, as was more often the case, I'd have a question about evolution - and see how creationism takes care of the same dilemma.

Again, I can only come back to science. When geology or paleontology utterly refutes a creationist position, it's gone. If none of them are supported by science, it requires suspension of logic to accept it. See, you're treating evolution that way, but not doing the same for other beliefs.


The teacher (or the student, depending on his intellectual level) passes on the information or the systems, but it is up to the student to resolve it and fit it into his knowledge, belief system, principles, etc.

That seems dangerous to me, and the results you've achieved tend to confirm the problem with it - it's like making up your rules as you go along, which just doesn't work. Science is referred to as a physical discipline because a scientist must provide physical proof of his theories, so rules are imperative.

Without rules, wheels wouldn't be round and this computer wouldn't work. Belief systems have no place in science - other than the obvious belief that existence exists.

[Dave Scotese]

For a moment I too was thrown for a loop, until I realized why. My parents used the classical method of education, especially during my early years of schooling, and the trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric taught me to learn about an issue, resolve the details about it, and form an opinion on it. So now, I consider learning as far more dependent upon the student rather than the teacher. The teacher (or the student, depending on his intellectual level) passes on the information or the systems, but it is up to the student to resolve it and fit it into his knowledge, belief system, principles, etc.

The idea of resolving new information into one's own pre-existing knowledge. belief system, principles, etc., is something I explored in an independent study during my studies to get a degree in Cognitive Science. I created an analogy in which knowledge is a structure built on top of instinct and desire. Each new piece of knowledge is connected to those very basic forms of human cognition, like a block glued or stuck (or even just connected by gravity) to the desire/instinct foundation. What I found was that many people had a lot of information that wasn't connected, and it would float off to where they no longer had it. That was about 20 years ago.

What you just described seems to identify one of the reasons people ended up with "knowledge" that wasn't really connected to them - their desire or instinct - enough to be retained: non-classical forms of education - memorization, proof of ability to pass a test - basically performance in contrived activities thought to produce learning. So my attraction maybe is more to classical education methods (Socratic, for example) than to homeschooling itself. But then, school teaches us that school is supposed to teach us, and weakens all our motivation to use other methods. So I'm back to encouraging homeschooling. Or "Unschooling".

[andave_ya]

Because it's not an either/or question. If creationism as it must, fails, then there is some other answer. Many people think it's evolution, but many don't as well.

Okay, tell me about them. The only "other" one I am aware of is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Boring subject, I feel. Without a PhD in astrophysics, it's all a bit difficult, and I have to say that not being sure of what happened ~15 billion years ago and an unknown number of light years away doesn't really bother me.

It's all a bit difficult? Yes, yes, I suppose it is. In terms of this generation, though, is 5 billion years any closer to us than 15 billion? Whether you like astronomy is up to you, but frankly I prefer it much more to, say, geology or botany. To have something that much bigger and visually spectacular and more powerful than humanity is something I find very deeply inspiring and pointing to the - to MY Creator :p.


This is why your schooling concerns me - you keep asking the wrong questions. Only about three people in the world understand Hawking's BB theory, why on earth do you think you need to be the fourth? You're applying so much faith to religious beliefs, yet demand precise answers on unanswerable subjects. Seems all back to front to me.

It isn't Hawking's theory I'm attempting to understand, although the, um, ingeniousness of mankind in finding out ways to live without God is deserving of study, I suppose. To begin with, I accept the Bible as literal, factual truth divinely inspired. Yes there's faith in it - but one of my favorite verses in the Bible, in Hebrews, says "faith is the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen." I know it doesn't satisfy you, but I am confident because my faith, and strength, is in something certain - in God rather than chance.

You ask precise answers from me, when there are many things I cannot control in what I believe. I cannot come up with all the answers in many areas of my faith - but I am finite and God is infinite.

As you have led me to believe that evolution has all the answers, then, I am asking these questions. Beyond this point, there is no need to defend myself any longer. If I were to continue arguing I would just be nitpicking and repeating myself. There is nowhere else this conversation can go so I am respectfully removing myself. Not to mention, I've hijacked my own thread something fierce. Should've known better than to mention evolution vs. creationism.

[JacobF]

If the main intention of homeschooling is only to learn more than what is taught in a standard public school (I say standard because some public schools offer more or less opportunities than others), then why not delve into extra learning on your own time while going to public school? To strike a balance? It seems that the only concrete difference between homeschooling and public education, other than the fact that your parents teach you, is that parents have the opportunity to indoctrinate their kid(s) with a particular system of beliefs without outside influences "harming" their children's thoughts.

If the quality of public school education is so poor -- I'll agree that, as someone who attends public school, there are many deplorable parts to it -- then why not delve into Bible study and the Great Books on your own time while going to public school? Again, striking a balance: you get the experience of being exposed to different people and different ideas (I'm assuming that isn't a deterrent for homeschoolers in this thread; I truly hope not at least) and then, at the end of a mundane school day of textbook work and food fights, you can go home and have Socratic pow-wows and discussions about creationism with your parents (my parents both dropped out of high school to pursue careers in the sales world, so I never had those discussions, but I'm sure you could and do).

But public school, as deplorable as it is, seems like a more "well rounded" opportunity to me, rather than warping the role of a parent as a caregiver into the exclusive mouthpiece for ideas and beliefs in a child's life. For kids who attend public school, the beliefs of their parents tend to melt onto them naturally, depending on how strong they are, but they also get the experience of being exposed to other peoples' religions and backgrounds.

And you get practical experience, too. I've had plenty of horrible teachers; teachers who would come late after smoking pot in their cars, teachers who would give you a bad mark and when inquired would shrug their shoulders and say they forgot why, and the classic, teachers who sit back and surf the internet and get away with it by hiring student-teachers from universities. There are people like this in the 'real world,' outside of the comfortable confines of homeschooling, and I think that the quicker you learn to adapt to good and bad situations -- believe it or not, there are in fact many good and empowering situations that can come about in public school that I don't believe would be possible in homeschooling -- the more well rounded you will be.

(Sorry if I've derailed the thread by shamelessly injecting my input, as I know my anecdotes are much different in nature than Hawking and evolution.)

[JBI]

Memorization is the greatest skill one can learn for practical education. There is a reason why Chinese and Japanese students are generally thought to be so studious - it is because at a young age, the nature of the written form of their languages requires a strong development of visual and oral memory - later on then, when it comes to learning other subjects, the enhanced cognition due to development since childhood, allows for faster absorption, and better results in fields such as math, and even other fields like languages, or literary studies.

I always here people rip on students learning to memorize, but I am yet to find a more useful skill that one learns from education - after all, the way we speak is determined by our memory of words - English is a relatively class-based (I mean social class) language, and therefore, our memory of words pertaining to a certain social class determine very much our understanding of language.

I may not have liked memorizing Blake's Tyger at a young age, but right now, I chant it to myself every now and then, amongst the other poems I forced myself to acquire. My memory isn't that great visually, so I have trouble with certain things, as I was never very strong with visual memory, but rather have always had a fantastic audio recollection, so naturally even English I understand in phonetic terms, rather than visual terms. Because of this, I perhaps am better at learning languages like Italian, but studying Chinese writing now is murdering me - I generally can remember to read the characters, but when it comes to writing, my memory is unable to recall the picture, only the sound. I didn't develop this part of my brain, and as a result, I need to work five times as hard to develop it now.


Hate to brake it to you Andave Ya, but I don't think creationism as a legitimate area of study can be justified in a pluralistic society, or one that has laws to approach pluralism, such as the United States.

I have a friend, for instance, who believes when you die, an old woman comes with a bowl of soup to you, you eat it, and then wake up in an alternative world, before going through life there, dying, eating another soup, and heading back. There is no proof, or sense to this argument (though, she told me she isn't observant in her beliefs in the magical soup, after I asked her what kind of soup it was) but a tradition behind it, much like creationism is built upon a tradition, though the actual concept is a new one, a reactionary one, as people weren't creationists before, they simply didn't have an answer. In that sense then, teaching of creationism in school is offensive - I see you are observant, and your parents had no problem instilling a fear/love of God into you from a young age, so why then is that really necessary school teaching? Couldn't your parents just have taught it to you beforehand?

But with evolution, the fact of truth has no significance. One can debate Newton, or Einstein (who, by the way, has theories resting on the fact that the very light you see in the sky is millions of years old, and the stars you see often no longer in existence) but the point remains these areas are essential to the study of their respective fields - Darwin to Biology, the same way Bohr and Rutherford are essential in beginning to understand chemistry - whether one's personal beliefs, however out of whack are true or not is irrelevant - what matters is that the discourse requires, for anyone to understand it, an understanding of the basic fundamentals and arguments, of which Evolution has been justified numerous times as appropriate (and even been accepted into the dogma of the Catholic Church mind you).

Lets be honest, there isn't an argument here - in truth, no offense, but I'm happy you were homeschooled - if I had someone in my class trying to refute what was being taught to me, based on religious beliefs I do not have, then quite simply, I would be offended. Creationism is, essentially, in the form you describe, an American Christian doctrine, closely affiliated with evangelical faiths and as such has no place beside science in a school where people who don't share those beliefs study.

if homeschooling is the answer so be it, but I don't think that really gives room to justify homeschooling as being more open minded - if anything, it merely backs up my proof that homeschooling is essentially, in practice, a way for parents to clone themselves on their kids, and to control essentially everything their children learn. If the parent is open minded, perhaps it works, but clearly your inability to even approach a theory like evolution, asserting the dominance of Creationism as a bigger proof (and i guess everything that came before creation was put there, and therefore never happened - 20,000 years of indigenous North American civilization never happened, etc.) that answers every question is a little hard to deal with. I've read scholarship working closely with the text, and the Rabbinic scholars, who, I would argue, work most closely with the text, as they are all or were all schooled in both oral and written traditions, and in the language of the Torah, all are at odds with each other to explain what exactly happened in the book, and what things mean. The translation by your pillow in a hotel room is convenient, but ignores the fact that no one for certain understands what the hell is going on most of the time with any clarity. One merely needs to ask how there could be light without consolations, and the whole thing unwinds, or how the serpent could be wicked if all Gods creations were good, or what exactly is a leviathan (RASHI has it as a crocodile I believe, whereas in modern Hebrew, it merely means whale). You see where I am going? There is no definite answer even within such a definite answer - my copy of the text has about 3 text-book sized pages of tiny fonted criticism per 2 sentences, with disagreement over everything, and that only takes in one aspect of criticism, Canonical Rabbinic literature - there is still much, much more - yet, you still, with certainty can assert that creationism answers things, what I ask is, doesn't it ask many, many more questions than that?

Hell, Clarence Darrow won, lets face it.

[Dave Scotese]

If the main intention of homeschooling is only to learn more than what is taught in a standard public school...

If the quality of public school education is so poor -- I'll agree that, as someone who attends public school, there are many deplorable parts to it...

What if the problem is that public school tends to become what you ascribe to parents ("the exclusive mouthpiece for ideas and beliefs in a child's life")?

What if the problem is that school teaches us the opposite of what is true (some of these I came up with on my own, but some come from Gatto, Llewellyn, or Iserbyt):

You can't learn without a teacher.
We need some kind of system in place to solve every problem that we might have.
Authorities don't need to earn respect - you must respect them simply because they are placed over you.
Don't disagree with the majority.
Following instructions is more important than satisfying your curiosity.
Gold stars, rather than the things you really want, are appropriate rewards for your efforts.
You will be judged through testing, rather than doing useful things.
Everyone should be learning the same thing at the same age.
Your parents are inadequate.


Would it still be wise to subject your children to these effects? JBI reports that only 30% of homeschooling families cite religion as the reason for leaving public school. I asked for a link to that info, but I haven't seen it.


But public school, as deplorable as it is, seems like a more "well rounded" opportunity to me, rather than warping the role of a parent as a caregiver into the exclusive mouthpiece for ideas and beliefs in a child's life...

Yes, I suppose I forgot that one in my list: What if public school makes our children think their parents ideas and beliefs are not well-rounded? I suppose that's like "Your parents are inadequate," but you highlighted a very important specific aspect of it.

I think colleges and universities are much better, specifically because the "well-rounded" aspect is maintained in order to keep up the demand for their services. If college were mandatory, I'm sure its quality would quickly fall too. Many homeschoolers take courses from community colleges for this reason.

[JBI]

You fail to answer the question - what if these values the parents are teaching are wrong? There is a case in the Manitoba courts right now of parents fighting for the rights to custody of their children, after their radical white supremacist ideas were made public - consequently of them drawing Swastikas and other such symbols on the bodies of their children before sending them to school.

Do we want those people homeschooling? what about a less extreme example, that of a parent who, isn't a white supremacist, but a misogynist, whose influence on a female child would be to instill inferiority and prescribed gender conventions that ultimately, later in life studies would suggest, will have severe repercussions.

If parents are the best teachers, than quite simply, as most parents are want to do anyway, they will just teach their kids additional stuff at home - if they had the time to homeschool, ultimately they have the time to homeschool in addition to real school work - I learned Hebrew that way, from an immigrant family upbringing, not from school - there was no problem. Most of the successful people I went to school with did additional work at home - of course, some of them had intense psychological problems from parents pushing them to hard to learn things, that's another problem, but one that is even easier to acquire in a purely homeschooled setting.

You have this idea in your head, it would seem, that teachers being in places of authority is a bad thing - mind you, I've seen that silly show in the US Who Is Smarter than a Fourth Grader, and it would seem there are plenty of stupid people out there, but ultimately, the system for choosing teachers is what establishes the norm - I have had some excellent teachers - mind you the bulk of what I know about the subjects of interest to me are self-taught, but my math teachers in grade school, for instance, were quite excellent, and my physics teacher from high school, though not the most interesting of people, was quite the specialist at teaching basic physics to high schoolers.

In this world, there are teachers - anyone who is trying to become a professional, unless they come from big money, must at one point be a subordinate - whether to a boss, or to a teacher. Even the homeschooled child will need to deal with professors, if they ever make it to post-secondary education. It is good then, perhaps, that a student, from a young age, learn the fundamentals of such relationships, as to better understand the interaction between people of different degrees of learning and authority within the world.


As for your point about Gold Stars and Marks, well, those are more for the parents - most children don't really want anything but to eat, sleep, poop, and run around making noise, until they hit about 8-9 years old, when their minds change primarily to wanting to fornicate. There is, judging by our society, more to life than these excellent pass times - how can someone, who does not have something, actually know what they want? Gold stars just encourage people to try harder, and achieve all they want to achieve perhaps the most fundamental, and important lesson of all - though, there is some varriance by culture - Americans, for instance, seem to opt for the "When I grow up, I'm going to be a president" approach, whereas Canadians, from my experience, seem to think in terms of "When I grow up, I'll have a good job, and a healthy life style." - a fundamental difference in temperament, yet one supported by the institutions.

The main concern of American education, ultimately, should rest in the relation between primary, secondary, an d post-secondary education, and the way the system effects different peoples from different economic brackets - the homeschooled kid coming from a very, very poor family, ultimately would have no chance against the rich private schooled kid, whose parents went to Harvard, and who have the cash to get him there. By that token, the star system, and the marks serve to balance the scale a little bit, and allow those who can achieve to achieve - albeit, the system is incredibly flawed, but that aught to be the goal, though I would by no means suggest that the current American, or even Canadian (though the State control of Universities seems to help things greatly here, by making education somewhat affordable for the top education centres) reflects this, and people from lower income brackets are currently disadvantaged, but to take away the system that tries to correct this, would be beyond cruel - by homeschooling, those with money benefit, while those without get burned - and when the rich start complaining about the public school, and it loses support, the gap between classes widens even more.

[The Atheist]

Okay, tell me about them. The only "other" one I am aware of is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

No, the FSM is a childish ploy and nothing whatsoever to do with alternate ways of looking at evolution. I can show you lots of alternative views to Darwinism, some of which are actually pretty compelling - and they are all supported by genuine scientists using real science.

I won't go into them now, because there's no use at all - the first task is for you to use your critical assessment tools to see whether creationism is a contender. Unless you're able to accept the completely flawed nature of creationism, there's no point at all looking at other options, because your information processing is wrong.


It's all a bit difficult? Yes, yes, I suppose it is. In terms of this generation, though, is 5 billion years any closer to us than 15 billion? Whether you like astronomy is up to you, but frankly I prefer it much more to, say, geology or botany. To have something that much bigger and visually spectacular and more powerful than humanity is something I find very deeply inspiring and pointing to the - to MY Creator :p.

I love astronomy! I have a large telescope and have been recently enjoying spectacular shows by Venus in the mornings and Saturn in the evenings.

I can understand you linking it to a creator, but I'd always be wondering why an entity would bother creating something so enormous for just one planet to be inhabited. Bit of a waste, really.


As you have led me to believe that evolution has all the answers, then, I am asking these questions. Beyond this point, there is no need to defend myself any longer. If I were to continue arguing I would just be nitpicking and repeating myself. There is nowhere else this conversation can go so I am respectfully removing myself. Not to mention, I've hijacked my own thread something fierce. Should've known better than to mention evolution vs. creationism.

No problem, but it is all relevant to what you started about - the quality of homeschool education, and if you end up with a belief which not only has no facts to support it, but which also demands that all science is wrong, then the quality test has failed.

I think you're smart enough to ask the right questions in the end, and I hope you do. Note also that disproving creationism does NOT disprove any gods, and most christians around the world have already reached that level. Many respected scientists are christian.

[Dave Scotese]

You fail to answer the question - what if these values the parents are teaching are wrong? There is a case in the Manitoba courts right now of parents fighting for the rights to custody of their children, after their radical white supremacist ideas were made public - consequently of them drawing Swastikas and other such symbols on the bodies of their children before sending them to school.

Do we want those people homeschooling? what about a less extreme example, that of a parent who, isn't a white supremacist, but a misogynist, whose influence on a female child would be to instill inferiority and prescribed gender conventions that ultimately, later in life studies would suggest, will have severe repercussions.

Are you arguing that as long as public school doesn't encourage racism or misogyny, it is better than homeschool because of the few families that do encourage them? If we can find families that encourage their young to grow up into mercenary assassins, then would misogynistic and/or racist public schools be better than homeschooling? Ridiculous, I think you agree. Fearing homeschooling because of the Swastika's on Manitoban children (who were, apparently, schooled in public school) seems just as ridiculous to me.

How do we deal with children raised to be mercenary assassins, misogynists, or racists? How about we institutionalize everyone at a young age? Ok, sorry. I think the right answer is that I have my way of dealing with misogynists and racists and you have yours. I trust you to deal with them effectively, and I bet you trust me too, but you have some idea that there ought to be a system to minimize their numbers. I think I agree with you, and if we had the choice, we could both contribute to whatever institution implements that system. You think public school does. Perhaps you're right, but the harm seems to outweigh the benefits - a side-effect of forced financial support. Misogyny and racism produced by parents seems far less destructive and rampant than misogyny and racism produced in other ways. And there are a lot of other problems that would be more effectively addressed if that list of false teachings I provided were not forced on our young.



You have this idea in your head, it would seem, that teachers being in places of authority is a bad thing - mind you, I've seen that silly show in the US Who Is Smarter than a Fourth Grader, and it would seem there are plenty of stupid people out there, but ultimately, the system for choosing teachers is what establishes the norm - I have had some excellent teachers - mind you the bulk of what I know about the subjects of interest to me are self-taught, but my math teachers in grade school, for instance, were quite excellent, and my physics teacher from high school, though not the most interesting of people, was quite the specialist at teaching basic physics to high schoolers.

Absolutely. There are those with authority who would have it even if it weren't given to them by the government. Those are the true and good teachers. At least in the USA, they tend to get fired. The problem with people who earn the respect that grants them authority among those they help is that their presence highlights the sham of government-appointed authority. Teachers have authority because the state hired them, not because they have demonstrated to parents that they are an asset to their child's education. This is certainly a bad thing, even when the teacher is great. It teaches us that authority is not to be earned by being helpful and knowledgeable, but through the favor of the rulers. It's subtle, but it's effective and horrible.



... but to take away the system that tries to correct this, would be beyond cruel - by homeschooling, those with money benefit, while those without get burned - and when the rich start complaining about the public school, and it loses support, the gap between classes widens even more.
?? The alternative is for everyone to be burned ?? Oh I see: you feel that with the extra money from the rich, school won't burn children. Hmm. I think it would burn them more.

I think a lot of people feel the good qualities of socialism without realizing how destructive it is. The system was sold to Americans - or rather forced down their throats (read the history of resistance to compulsory schooling) - with the claim that it would help "correct this."

If it's doing a decent job of correcting it, and those paying for it are appreciated for their help, then removing it would be cruel. However, if it's trying and failing, and actually being used to "Dumb them down," as Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt writes in her book, then it is cruel to keep it. I think it's important to find out whether Ms. Iserbyt is correct or not, and the more I look, the more it seems that she is correct. So what is cruel is to keep making people feel bad and fear those activities (homeschooling) that can help protect their children from being "dumbed down."

However, I haven't been advocating the removal of public education. I've been advocating the choice not to use it. I respect individual choice. I encourage everyone to educate themselves, and if they don't want to bother, at least let their kids read Llewellyn's book and make their own decision. If they disagree with all the signs I see pointing to public school's harmful effects, maybe they can show me where I screwed up.

[JBI]

The system in America is flawed because of people (I am tempted to point the finger at you, though that would be against the forum rules, and counter productive, as well as a gross assumption on my part) believing that it isn't worth saving, or that, somehow, it's better to let it die than to try and fix it, as one's kids can receive alternative education, whereas the rest of the children do not matter. If it were up to me, quite frankly, I'd get rid of private schools altogether, and outlaw homeschooling - let people then try and build the system up, so that other people benefit, rather than merely building their own children, at the expense of the rest.

Quite simply, I'm a self-identifying democratic-socialist. The US, in the brackets that make decisions, seems to be run by the exact opposite - people who try and turn everything into a product, or try to make as much money, or save as much money wherever they can. Education is like medicare - one can merely bet on themselves, and save their money, or one can invest in a system to help everybody. By supporting homeschooling, one is essentially deciding to let the rest burn as long as certain people stay afloat. OF course, of all modern countries, from what I know, The US has the worst health care system, so it is no surprise that such a strange hybrid of education and indoctrination is want to appear to. The American mentality isn't one for social change, it is one for personal, quick fixes, and as such, it is understandable that such a patchwork solution to a problem created out of the very same mentality that is trying to fix it.

You use all American examples here, but the systems in other countries don't seem to show the same problems in the same way - homeschooling is, for the most part, an American phenomenon. The Soviet education system, for instance, though closed minded, did help to boost the actual intelligence and professionalism of the USSR by staggering amounts - though flawed, it can be argued that such a system seems to have functioned properly, simply because massive social action was taken to reform the way education worked - not by abandoning ship, but by letting more people on.

Quite simply, the reason you dislike said teachers, or whomever, is because the system in place isn't as selective as you would like it to be - that's an issue, fix the issue, instead of abandoning ship - you say the material taught is of low quality - fight then for better exposure to core materials - you say the mark system is flawed, - well then, supplement your child's education, rather than removing him from all performance indicators.

[Renrut]

JBI- I think you are quite right in saying that the first course of action when we are unhappy with something is to fix the problem, not "Abandon Ship". Even Thomas Jefferson had this ideology in the Declaration of Independence. Alter first, and abolish only as a last resort.
Having said that I do not think that public education is a bad thing. But at the same time there are many problems. Many of the homeschoolers I know (myself included) are not against public education as such, but have a problem with the curriculum and parts the system. And even though I do believe we should endeavor to fix the problem, I don't think we should be required to send our children to be educated at the very place we are trying to change.

And as to your last comment, public education is not the home of "all performance indicators".

[Dave Scotese]

The system in America is flawed because of people (I am tempted to point the finger at you, though that would be against the forum rules, and counter productive, as well as a gross assumption on my part) believing that it isn't worth saving, or that, somehow, it's better to let it die than to try and fix it, as one's kids can receive alternative education, whereas the rest of the children do not matter. If it were up to me, quite frankly, I'd get rid of private schools altogether, and outlaw homeschooling - let people then try and build the system up, so that other people benefit, rather than merely building their own children, at the expense of the rest.

I'm totally with you right up to "...whereas the rest of the children do not matter." They do matter, and probably to me more than to most. Consider that you are very helpful and when others ask you for help, you almost always provide it. But sometimes you see good reasons not to help them, and so you decline, and encourage them to try it alone. If a law is passed that requires you to always provide help when asked, and you're smart, you'll see that the law is preventing you from exercising that good judgment of deciding when it's appropriate to refuse to help. If you care enough, you'll argue that the law is bad, and then you'll be accused of not caring for others enough to provide help. In fact, it's because you were helpful, and smart enough to see the benefits of refusing to help when appropriate, that you argue against the law. This is the general problem with laws: They take choice away - even from those who use it wisely. Does it make sense?


Quite simply, I'm a self-identifying democratic-socialist. The US, in the brackets that make decisions, seems to be run by the exact opposite - people who try and turn everything into a product, or try to make as much money, or save as much money wherever they can.

It is my hope to show all socialists the difference between encouraging socialist choices on an individual level, which has real benefits, and forcing them, which produces the outcome you just described. I have discovered that I am very socialist when it is my choice to share or contribute, but when it is imposed on me, because I value individual choice so much, I resist. Your description of US decision-makers being the exact opposite to democratic-socialist principles is something I see as a result of the imposition of them, rather than encouragement. The benefits of sharing cannot be created through force. The surest way to prevent learning is to force it on people, and the surest way to make someone selfish is by taking stuff from them and "sharing" it with others. Public school does both. The coercion creates the problem.


Quite simply, the reason you dislike said teachers, or whomever, is because the system in place isn't as selective as you would like it to be - that's an issue, fix the issue, instead of abandoning ship - you say the material taught is of low quality - fight then for better exposure to core materials - you say the mark system is flawed, - well then, supplement your child's education, rather than removing him from all performance indicators.
I don't dislike teachers. I dislike the unnatural authority given to them through compulsory schooling. It makes them less likable and less effective, but they are still likable. I have fixed the issue by letting my children look to whatever adults they feel make good teachers as their teachers, and protecting them from the unnatural authority of schoolteachers. I encourage others to recognize the problem and find their own way of fixing it, but I would never argue to impose these solutions on others.

Schooling doesn't have to be bad. If it was based on encouraging self-education, and it was optional, and it was funded only by those who choose to use it, it would be great. My feeling is that most of the biggest problems with any government institution stem from the fact that the funding doesn't come from people who feel they have a choice about funding it. I put a lot of effort into fixing systems that don't have that problem, and I put a lot effort into explaining how those that do have the problem get worse and worse over time and are therefore not worth fixing.

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
I'm homeschooled. What do you all think of the issue of homeschooling. Yes, no, socialization, all that stuff.

I'm doing a speech on homeschooling and I'd love to get your input. And, I'm really glad I'm homeschooled, too.

[OrphanPip]

In general I think parents are quite capable of giving their child an adequate education through homeschooling, to an extent. This tends to fall apart for the senior levels of high school. How many parents are truly qualified to give something like an AP level physics class (for the Americans out there), or how many parents educated in the early 80s are aware of current developments in biology. It's that point of preparing children for more specialized post-secondary education that homeschooling is probably not ideal.

I tend to support individual determination, so I'm not interested in limiting the rights of parents to homeschool children. However, I'm all for promoting public schools over private institutions. In Quebec, the system has clearly become tiered because of semi-private institutions. Jewish, Greek, and Catholic schools are capable of charging high tuition and receiving public funding, and this is something I have a problem with.

I have had experience with both systems. I attended public schools until grade 11, then I went to a semi-private Catholic college before university (we had fish every Friday and the dean was a nun, fun place). I know private schools are very good schools (hell that's why I begged my parents to put up the thousands of dollars in tuition), when I got to college (years 12-13 in a British sense not like the rest of North America) I saw quite clearly that the students coming from private high schools got a better education than I did, and I had to play catchup. I was behind the students coming from private schools in chemistry and math. They got trips to Europe to visit historical sites, we got school trips to Stratford Ontario. It's obvious that if you throw money at a school, they can do more for kids. The problem is that every dime a parent gives to those private schools, the public loses out. The choice to give your child a private education comes with the side effect of lowering the quality, just the slightest, for many of the most disadvantaged in our society.

Edit: I ended up borrowing the money for college from my brother, my parents wouldn't pay ;).

[L.M. The Third]

I've been homeschooled and I think it has its pros and cons, which can become problems or blessings according to the decisions and lifestyle of the individual family. I'd certainly not advocate any prevention of it on the part of the state, unless it could be indubitably proved that the children's education was being neglected. However, I think that placing the right tools in the hands of the parents is highly important.

I'm probably not the best judge of the socialization aspect, because I'm often a taciturn bookworm. (Who can wax garrulous in the right company.) I'm not a person who feels the need of a lot of friends and socialization; but I think I can talk to and enjoy people of many age groups. (Fellow teens usually, but not always, excepted.)

[Dave Scotese]

Originally posted by OrphanPip
The problem is that every dime a parent gives to those private schools, the public loses out. The choice to give your child a private education comes with the side effect of lowering the quality, just the slightest, for many of the most disadvantaged in our society.

In the U.S., what the public loses in education, it will gain in other government services, because government services are proportional to the amount of money it has to spend. If your children don't cause dollars to go to the school they'd attend, then those dollars are available to pay for other government services. Perhaps in Canada, the parents get whatever money the government would spend on their children's education if the children are privately schooled? The US doesn't allow that. In that sense, Canada would be less socialist than the US.

In fact, what you said about lowering the quality for disadvantaged hits the nail on the head. One of the key issues for me is that governments tend to take choices away from the general public in order to buy votes from the disadvantaged. When you coerce everyone else to help the disadvantaged, you create a kind of compassion vacuum. Whatever motivation people have for helping the disadvantaged by choice is replaced with resentment, at least in those who cherish freedom and understand how that coercion curtails it. I mentioned this in an earlier post.

I tend to trust people to do the right thing, and I know they will often fail, but that failure is an important step to optimizing cooperation and community cohesion. When they are coerced into doing what I think is the right thing, it might turn out Ok, but it has a horrible and lasting effect on our future. I learned that from my children. So rather than worrying about limiting the government through my choices, I generally try to maximize the limits I can put on the government through my choices.

[Virgil]

In general I think parents are quite capable of giving their child an adequate education through homeschooling, to an extent. This tends to fall apart for the senior levels of high school. How many parents are truly qualified to give something like an AP level physics class (for the Americans out there), or how many parents educated in the early 80s are aware of current developments in biology. It's that point of preparing children for more specialized post-secondary education that homeschooling is probably not ideal.

I tend to support individual determination, so I'm not interested in limiting the rights of parents to homeschool children. However, I'm all for promoting public schools over private institutions. In Quebec, the system has clearly become tiered because of semi-private institutions. Jewish, Greek, and Catholic schools are capable of charging high tuition and receiving public funding, and this is something I have a problem with.


In the US non public schools do not recieve any funding. Parents who send their children to private schools in essence pay double. They still pay taxes that support public schools and they pay to send their children to private schools.

[OrphanPip]

In the US non public schools do not recieve any funding. Parents who send their children to private schools in essence pay double. They still pay taxes that support public schools and they pay to send their children to private schools.

There are three tiers in Quebec.

We have fully public, semi-private (usually religious schools), and private.

Most of the Catholic schools are semi-private, they receive government funding and have the right to charge extra for extra services.

The only fully private schools that I know of in Montreal cost upwards of 10-15k a year. The school I attended for years 12-13, was a semi-private Catholic school that cost 4000 a year.

In Quebec everyone pays a school tax, to either English language or French language school boards, depending on your choice. Then schools receive funding based on some sort of complicated system of needs/enrollment. So, if a public school has less students, they get less funding. If a semi-private gets more students then they get more funding.

Even taking this away from issues of funding. When the children of the best off parents are taken out of the public school system, it also keeps the best off parents from becoming involved with public education. The quality of education at a school relies heavily on the involvement of parents.

Edit: Choice for parents is all fine and dandy, but children don't chose to be born into poor homes. Public schools have helped bridge a gap in class difference more than any other institution in history. I worry that letting public schools fail is nothing more than limiting the potential of the lowest rungs of society. It is not about buying the votes of the disadvantaged, it's about doing right by children who deserve quality education no matter who their parents are.

[Dave Scotese]

Public schools have helped bridge a gap in class difference more than any other institution in history. I worry that letting public schools fail is nothing more than limiting the potential of the lowest rungs of society.
That is a valid concern. At least here in the US, the public education system has been abused toward indoctrinating children into a misplaced faith in government so much that the "gap in class difference" is thus bridged by making sure we poke everyone's left eye out, instead of only the poor kids' left eyes; public school does kids more harm than good. Of course, I'm comparing it to colonial America, where there was no compulsory schooling and the literacy rate was higher than it is now.

However, I can pretend to believe the same illusion that most Americans do, that public school is actually providing a benefit. If a child's parents work very hard so that they have extra money, haven't they earned the right or should we disallow them from providing their kids with advantages simply because that makes it unfair? But I see that I ought also to pretend to believe in another illusion: people who can afford private school are generally "evil capitalists" whose effect on society is negative, rather than positive. Hmm... If I go that far, then I will have to agree that we should hold them back somehow, perhaps by forcing them to put their kids in public school. But that's based on a firm belief in those two illusions.


It is not about buying the votes of the disadvantaged, it's about doing right by children who deserve quality education no matter who their parents are.
Ideally. Sadly, politicians with ideals are very rare, and politics demands that they remain very rare, so the ideal is not met, and in fact democracy does indeed buy the votes of the disadvantaged with money taken from everyone else. The sense of community and solidarity that makes us cherish the idea of wealthy people providing for poor people involves a subtlety that is lost on most people: Should the wealthy be forced, or allowed and encouraged to provide for the poor? Which produces a healthier society? Political scientist Jim Payne wrote some books that address this question, just search for "Princess Navina" or check out http://www.lyttonpublishing.com/. But really, I think everyone can find the answer on his or her own by doing some soul searching.

[OrphanPip]

That is a valid concern. At least here in the US, the public education system has been abused toward indoctrinating children into a misplaced faith in government so much that the "gap in class difference" is thus bridged by making sure we poke everyone's left eye out, instead of only the poor kids' left eyes; public school does kids more harm than good. Of course, I'm comparing it to colonial America, where there was no compulsory schooling and the literacy rate was higher than it is now.

This is just patent misinformation. Literacy rates in the USA today exceed 99%, in colonial USA the only access to literacy statistics is evidence of people being able to sign their own name (on wills), which gives a range of 80-90%. Moreover, this number is likely inflated by sample bias. Do you honestly think public schools haven't increased literacy amongst African Americans?



However, I can pretend to believe the same illusion that most Americans do, that public school is actually providing a benefit. If a child's parents work very hard so that they have extra money, haven't they earned the right or should we disallow them from providing their kids with advantages simply because that makes it unfair? But I see that I ought also to pretend to believe in another illusion: people who can afford private school are generally "evil capitalists" whose effect on society is negative, rather than positive. Hmm... If I go that far, then I will have to agree that we should hold them back somehow, perhaps by forcing them to put their kids in public school. But that's based on a firm belief in those two illusions.

A strawman, and displaying simplistic black/white thinking. The major problem here is that children are not responsible for their social position, no reasonable person can propose that today a child derived of quality education could have a hope at decent income later in life. Parents can provide their children with educational benefits without sabotaging the public school system. They could donate extra money to the school, pay for supplementary education for their child, or maybe they could contribute to improving the public school system as a whole.



Ideally. Sadly, politicians with ideals are very rare, and politics demands that they remain very rare, so the ideal is not met, and in fact democracy does indeed buy the votes of the disadvantaged with money taken from everyone else. The sense of community and solidarity that makes us cherish the idea of wealthy people providing for poor people involves a subtlety that is lost on most people: Should the wealthy be forced, or allowed and encouraged to provide for the poor? Which produces a healthier society? Political scientist Jim Payne wrote some books that address this question, just search for "Princess Navina" or check out http://www.lyttonpublishing.com/. But really, I think everyone can find the answer on his or her own by doing some soul searching.

It's not about your perceived nonsensical notion of community. It's about practical solutions for providing a necessary service to a large group of people, which means public institutions. All children have a right to education, the only way to ensure they all get it is through publicly funded schools.

[Dave Scotese]

This is just patent misinformation. Literacy rates in the USA today exceed 99%, in colonial USA the only access to literacy statistics is evidence of people being able to sign their own name (on wills), which gives a range of 80-90%. Moreover, this number is likely inflated by sample bias. Do you honestly think public schools haven't increased literacy amongst African Americans?
Well, I found some links for you. Perhaps you'll return the favor? I know I said colonial America, and I should have just said "early America", so I'm sorry for misinforming you. Does it really effect the point I was making?
David W. Kirkpatrick's "Then and Now" (http://www.ednews.org/articles/literacy---then-and-now%C3%82%C2%A0.html)
John Taylor Gatto's "Intellectual Espionage" (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm)

If you're interested in my research on the rest of what you wrote, you can ask. I won't bother you with it otherwise since you apparently see me as nonsensical and simplistic.

[The Comedian]

I see! So, instead of public schools being the "evil capitalists", it's that public schools are evil communists. Nice. Totally makes sense. It's always good to know who's evil and whose not, I say.

I think I'll start storing canned goods, duct tape, and medical supplies in my basement, just in case. . . .

[OrphanPip]

Both of those articles have serious issues with hearsay and don't take methodological differences into account.

Let's take a look at some hard data, the 1840 US. census.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xMj-8u5DsgsC&pg=PR5&dq=census+%22United+States%22+1800&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=census%20%22United%20States%22%201800&f=false

In this census, I calculated the national illiteracy rate (found in the education section) to be about 18%. One shocking stat from this census is the low illiteracy rates in New England compared to other sections of the US. I find this curious because the stats for 18th century USA cited by the above articles refer to Massachusetts and Connecticut, making a strong argument for sample bias in the figures cited in your articles. What we find looking at this census data is that in some areas, like the Southern USA, (slaves not counted in the census for education, and were legally not allowed to be educated at the time) there are upwards of 40% illiteracy at the time. I was also able to find that the earliest public schools in the USA started in the New England area. So, public schools may even have played a part in the high literacy rates in New England. Other factors may be a cultural emphasis on literacy and a self-replicating culture of literacy, i.e. more initial immigrants to the area were literate, and subsequently taught their children.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED176241&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED176241

This paper from 1979 says that illiteracy in 1870 was 20% and had shrunk to 3% by 1940.

The articles you posted are also much too simplistic in their treatment of the large immigrant population the USA has from non-English countries. With upwards of 20% of the US population not having English as their first language, I'm not surprised this would have an impact on current literacy statistics.

[Virgil]

There are three tiers in Quebec.

We have fully public, semi-private (usually religious schools), and private.

Most of the Catholic schools are semi-private, they receive government funding and have the right to charge extra for extra services.

The only fully private schools that I know of in Montreal cost upwards of 10-15k a year. The school I attended for years 12-13, was a semi-private Catholic school that cost 4000 a year.

In Quebec everyone pays a school tax, to either English language or French language school boards, depending on your choice. Then schools receive funding based on some sort of complicated system of needs/enrollment. So, if a public school has less students, they get less funding. If a semi-private gets more students then they get more funding.

Thanks. That's actually quite interesting. The supposed interpretation of separation of church and state in the US prevents us from that.



Even taking this away from issues of funding. When the children of the best off parents are taken out of the public school system, it also keeps the best off parents from becoming involved with public education. The quality of education at a school relies heavily on the involvement of parents.

Edit: Choice for parents is all fine and dandy, but children don't chose to be born into poor homes. Public schools have helped bridge a gap in class difference more than any other institution in history. I worry that letting public schools fail is nothing more than limiting the potential of the lowest rungs of society. It is not about buying the votes of the disadvantaged, it's about doing right by children who deserve quality education no matter who their parents are.
School choice as advocated by conservatives in the US would entail that each student would get a voucher (whatever it costs to currently send a child to school) to pay for the school of their choice. This way everyone, including the poorest, would be on the same standing and you would get rid of the monopoly effect that the current public education system has. It would bring free market forces to a stagnant, union centered (as opposed to child centered) system. In the current system, the customer has no say.

[billl]

School choice as advocated by conservatives in the US would entail that each student would get a voucher (whatever it costs to currently send a child to school) to pay for the school of their choice. This way everyone, including the poorest, would be on the same standing and you would get rid of the monopoly effect that the current public education system has. It would bring free market forces to a stagnant, union centered (as opposed to child centered) system. In the current system, the customer has no say.

The balance is important, though. If it is simply a voucher, and there are no considerations based upon income, then what it fails to do is to keep the poor and rich on an even footing (as you suggest it would). The rich still have more "extra" funds which can be applied to schools that the poor cannot supplement their children towards attending. It ends up squashing the egalitarian spirit within the education system, and reinforcing one in which the children of the wealthy are able to enjoy the leverage to education that their parents can provide.

The parents might clamor for this, but the children, as a group, given a (hypothetical, and subsequent) adult and mature chance to vote on it, would probably reject it. And I think that is why public eduction has had the support that it has, and has had the (historic) successes that is has had.

Still, the system in the U.S. is out of whack, probably due to unions overperforming on behalf of employed teachers, rather than on behalf of students. Some solution that might benefit all is definitely needed, and vouchers are definitely a great idea--but they should not be so meager so as to condemn the poorest students to being segregated amongst the poorest schools and teachers. Perhaps, more important than vouchers, would be an increased accountability among teachers in public schools--something, in the right balance, that might work hand in hand with the conservative (that is, not full-on) introduction of vouchers.

There is an important point, however, to be made about accountability among the teachers of students that have had the benefit of better access to prior education, and those the teachers of those who have arrived in a teacher's class following sub-par experiences in the educational system.

[kiki1982]

Thanks. That's actually quite interesting. The supposed interpretation of separation of church and state in the US prevents us from that.

You could put it down to the sepatation of church and state (at least in Canada that is the case as the Queen of the UK is their head of state and head of the Church of England), but not everywhere this is so.

In Belgium there is the same structure:

Entirely public schools, run by the state. Everything is free. Typically the worst kind of people go there or the die-hard anti-religious people. Educational standards are so low that highly educated Muslims who can afford it send their children to Catholic schools (there are Jewish schools, but no Muslim ones). And everyone knows that a lot needs to happen before anyone does that. No offence to the Muslims though. Just an example. State schools also provide Catholice religious education, Protestant (or that may be together in some), Jewish, Islam and morale (non-religious, ethical education). As there are no Muslim schools (ooh, the Muslim phantom obviously), the Arab community typically goes to this type of school, however, that is also where the rif-raf sits together, so the rare well educated ones now send their children to Catholic schools which only teach Catholic religion and are not willing to start on enything else, whether it be Jewish, oecuminical or anything. That is probably part of the reason why the Arab sommunity is not well-educated as a whole.

Semi-private schools. Mainly Catholic schools. They are subsidised, but like in Canada, can charge for extra services or in order to provide better quality. They cost (in my time, ten years ago) 500 euros a year. Which included excursions and textbook rental and buying if applicable (work books). Though, it needs to be said, we never went away for a long time. The longest was three days Paris in the last year. There were ski-trips and a Rome-trip, but that was payable if you went. There are also Jewish schools like this, Steiner, Montessori, Freinet schools like this. I believe the British School in Brussels is also part of this system. Not sure, though they charge a wopping 25000 euros every year! These schools either teach nothing religious but they have their own system (i.e. Freinet, Steiner and Montessori amongst others) or they only teach their religion beside the national curriculum.

Entirely private schools. Very few, almost none. The ones that are only private subject their pupils not only to their own, maybe nique way and subjects of teaching, but also to the fact that they do not automatically pass if they have passed their exams in the school. They need to do a state examination to prove that they have mastered the national curriculum. Therefore people rather go to semi-private schools. Once you have passed your exam, you have passed period.

It is not that Church and State are not separated in Belgium. They are, definitely. A priest who is elected has to leave his job (not his priesthood, but his office so to say, practicing his job as a parish priest) if he wants to take up his seat in parliament. The king may believe and even practice his religion, like the president of the USA, but is not crowned in a church, instead he takes his oath in the parliament (Senate).

I find a semi-state run system (subsidised) not a bad idea. At least you make sure as a state that satisfactoy results are achieved and that Catholic children come out at least knowing Darwin, that Jewish children not only know how to trade diamants and hw to sing from the Thora (to say it bluntly).

[Virgil]

The balance is important, though. If it is simply a voucher, and there are no considerations based upon income, then what it fails to do is to keep the poor and rich on an even footing (as you suggest it would). The rich still have more "extra" funds which can be applied to schools that the poor cannot supplement their children towards attending. It ends up squashing the egalitarian spirit within the education system, and reinforcing one in which the children of the wealthy are able to enjoy the leverage to education that their parents can provide.

The parents might clamor for this, but the children, as a group, given a (hypothetical, and subsequent) adult and mature chance to vote on it, would probably reject it. And I think that is why public eduction has had the support that it has, and has had the (historic) successes that is has had.


Is that any different than now? The rich already send their kids to private schools and pay whatever taxes exist for public schools, despite not using them. I fail to see any difference from the current situation. And frankly so what? People have a right to spend their money how they want. In a free society you can't deny a person to spend his money.

Listen to you: "The parents might clamor for this". As if the customer doesn't have a right to the product he is buying. You must be a communist.

[billl]

It mostly seems the same to me, if one happens to live where vouchers are being handed out--like you say, people are still contributing to the taxes that go to the public schools. I know that accountability amongst teachers (for student performance) isn't everywhere, but I know of places where they are pushing for it.

[billl]

Listen to you: "The parents might clamor for this". As if the customer doesn't have a right to the product he is buying. You must be a communist.

Wow :-)
Not a communist, but just pointing out that in the U.S. we have for some time sought an egalitarian society, and have a concern for the education of all children in the society. You must be a feudalist ;-) (j/k)

[Virgil]

Wow :-)
Not a communist, but just pointing out that in the U.S. we have for some time sought an egalitarian society, and have a concern for the education of all children in the society. You must be a feudalist ;-) (j/k)

The public eduaction system in the US is currently egalitarian. I know of no one who is denied a public education. In fact it's the law that you must send your kids to school until they are sixteen.

Vouchers for everyone including the poor would not make it non-egalitarian.

And I dispute whether we have sought an egalitarian society. Thank God we have not. That's not feudalism. That's free market capitalism that occured during the enlightment and which has led to the most prosperity in the history of mankind. It's socialist who are really the feudalists.

[OrphanPip]

"Capitalism" and "socialism" make wonderful buzz words in arguments, but I'd rather focus on issues at hand rather than determining what ideological umbrella an opinion falls under.

There are numerous reasons why investing in quality public education is good. Reform Liberals will argue that children have a right to equal opportunity and equal education, socialist will argue that it is necessary to create an egalitarian society. However, just from a practical viewpoint, no nation benefits from allowing talented individuals, i.e. children with real potential, to slip through the cracks and not achieve their utmost. Moreover, an educated population is a necessity in today's international economy. Funding public schools seems equivalent to funding the military on some level, it is necessary to make your nation a serious contender on the international stage.

I don't doubt this is the reason behind China's heavy investment in public education, more so than its supposed communist ideals.

[billl]

The public eduaction system in the US is currently egalitarian. I know of no one who is denied a public education. In fact it's the law that you must send your kids to school until they are sixteen.

Vouchers for everyone including the poor would not make it non-egalitarian.



I agree with this, as long as the voucher is sufficient to ensure a good education for all (I think you mistook my earlier post about this). I've just read on Wikipedia that in Milwaukee, the voucher system is more expensive that the non-voucher approach. And it seems that, in the U.S., vouchers are mostly seen as a way to inject accountability and improve the performance of schools in underperforming school systems. Sounds good to me.



And I dispute whether we have sought an egalitarian society. Thank God we have not. That's not feudalism. That's free market capitalism that occured during the enlightment and which has led to the most prosperity in the history of mankind. It's socialist who are really the feudalists.

I am pretty sure I know what you are saying here--and, again, I'm not saying we can't have people with different levels of success, etc. But I think Americans also believe in equality of opportunity--perhaps not in the strictest sense at all times, but in the workplace (ideally), between races, and for most of us, between children. Perhaps not completely equal all the time, of course, but I think public schooling was a good idea, and that it had broad support where it sprang up in U.S. history.

The feudalism joke was about the radical position that things would be best if, in a society of both rich and poor, people just pay for their own child's education. Anyhow, not a communist! Has the U.S. been communist these past decades?

[Virgil]

:lol: Ok, we probably agree most of the way Bill. :) I am for equal opportunity. I believe in a solid school system for everyone, especially for the lower economic people. Frankly one can argue now that the poorer people who are stuck in rotten school districts have no means of changing their situation. That's because all free choice has been taken away from them. That's not freedom. And a student who is placed in a classroom with a bad teacher has practically no way of changing that situation. The customer has no rights in the current system.

[billl]

Yeah, I think it can be a thorny problem, though, here and there, trying to asses responsibility for outcomes, esp. without context. Seems like a tough job, that's for sure.

[Dave Scotese]

However, just from a practical viewpoint, no nation benefits from allowing talented individuals, i.e. children with real potential, to slip through the cracks and not achieve their utmost.

I do not understand this - the bolded part. I mean, it sort of makes sense, but like this: "allowing the cat to muddy itself and fall in the water." or "allowing the strongest people to be crushed by the loads they decide to carry."

These things don't happen.

Of course, you can push a cat into a muddy puddle, or pile rocks into the box that a strong person carries to crush him, and I think that might be why it seems to make some sense. I am with Virgil in the quest for freedom, and I feel school takes freedom away. Perhaps my faith in the human organism is misplaced, but I have attempted to protect my children from the impositions of school, and they are all developing quite nicely and continue to enjoy learning things on their own or with some help when they ask.

Perhaps the data I used to make the claim about literacy in early America is bad, and perhaps my claim is wrong, but perhaps it isn't. In either case, I see compulsory school as mostly a drag on the intellect and creative powers of youth, and the potential of non-compulsory schools to be wings.

There's another thing Billl mentioned:

Seems like a tough job, that's for sure.
The insinuation is that there is a job to be done (and I agree). The problem is that the responsibility to do that job is perceived to lie with the system and not the individual. Of course it lies with the individual and not the system. If (and because) the system takes that responsibility (away), the system becomes a crutch for the individual, and every effort "to asses responsibility for outcomes" or provide a quality education, or whatever, seems like the right thing to do, when in fact, the more technologically advanced and effective the crutch, the faster the leg goes lame. There's an age - 2nd or 3rd grade - when kids tend to stop being curious and bugging the crap out of everyone with questions. To me, that is the onset of atrophy, and the leg just gets weaker after that.

Of course very well educated kids are great at what they are taught, but what was their passion, and has it been squashed? What greatness and love for life do they lose when we control the direction of their learning toward academics?

[stlukesguild]

"...allowing talented individuals, i.e. children with real potential, to slip through the cracks and not achieve their utmost."

I do not understand this - the bolded part. I mean, it sort of makes sense, but like this: "allowing the cat to muddy itself and fall in the water." or "allowing the strongest people to be crushed by the loads they decide to carry."

These things don't happen.

Of course, you can push a cat into a muddy puddle, or pile rocks into the box that a strong person carries to crush him, and I think that might be why it seems to make some sense. I am with Virgil in the quest for freedom, and I feel school takes freedom away. Perhaps my faith in the human organism is misplaced, but I have attempted to protect my children from the impositions of school, and they are all developing quite nicely and continue to enjoy learning things on their own or with some help when they ask.

Perhaps the data I used to make the claim about literacy in early America is bad, and perhaps my claim is wrong, but perhaps it isn't. In either case, I see compulsory school as mostly a drag on the intellect and creative powers of youth, and the potential of non-compulsory schools to be wings.

There's another thing Billl mentioned:
Quote:
Seems like a tough job, that's for sure.
The insinuation is that there is a job to be done (and I agree). The problem is that the responsibility to do that job is perceived to lie with the system and not the individual. Of course it lies with the individual and not the system. If (and because) the system takes that responsibility (away), the system becomes a crutch for the individual, and every effort "to asses responsibility for outcomes" or provide a quality education, or whatever, seems like the right thing to do, when in fact, the more technologically advanced and effective the crutch, the faster the leg goes lame. There's an age - 2nd or 3rd grade - when kids tend to stop being curious and bugging the crap out of everyone with questions. To me, that is the onset of atrophy, and the leg just gets weaker after that.

Of course very well educated kids are great at what they are taught, but what was their passion, and has it been squashed? What greatness and love for life do they lose when we control the direction of their learning toward academics?

Somebody's been reading far too much Rousseau... or one of his followers... and has very little idea of reality. Individuals do not fall through the cracks? Oh... yeah... right. Nietzsche, right? "That which does not kill me only serves to make me stronger." Thus if the child was truly strong (and worth saving) he or she would rise to the top... whatever his of her circumstances. This is the continual argument of far-Right reactionaries. If Obama could do it... then any can. The reality is that not everyone has the exceptional drive and/or intelligence (and often the family support system) that allows them to rise above their circumstances.

Every year I watch as the 8th graders move on to high-school and I look at any number of the brightest among these and I wonder which ones will make it... which ones will be strong enough to survive in this tough urban school district... and I realize that any number of these students will drop out... and the great majority of them will never go on to college... never achieve their full potential... never achieve what they might have achieved... what would be nearly taken for granted... if they were the students of wealthier parents living in the prosperous suburbs with access to well funded schools.

Challenging a fair, free, and equitable education for all on the concept of freedom is a dated fantasy at best... (Oh yeah... no school. It's just a crutch... Instead the child will learn by osmosis... why that worked wonders a 100 years ago and more when almost no one... except the children of the wealthy... attended school. The reality is that this is selfish and hypocritical and worst. Who decides that a child need not attend school? The parent? Are we to give them that right to so stunt a child's growth and so limit his or her possibilities? Certainly, I have nothing against home-schooling... as long as the parent is qualified and meets minimal requirements so that the child may succeed. Or the child? Are we now assuming that children have the capability to decide not only what is best for themselves and their future, but also that of the nation as a whole? School squashes children's passion for learning? That's just latent hippie nonsense. Yes, some children are more successful within the school environment than others and it is for this reason that educators continue to push toward teaching to a variety of learning styles as opposed to the old "one size fits all" methods passed on from industry to education. Home schooling a child, however, simply replaces the outside professional teacher with the parent as teacher... the child is still being schooled... and if the parent is to succeed he or she will certainly impose limitations and expectations.

As Orphan Pip suggested, the value of education to the nation has nothing to do with Egalitarianism or promoting some social ideal, but rather it has everything to do with the fact that an educated population is a necessity in today's world if a nation is to compete on the international scale now that we are no longer living in an Agrarian or Industrial era. Undoubtedly there are certain social ideals connected with this, such as the belief, that one would hope is shared by all, that every child is deserving of minimal standard of education fitting of the demands of the time and the wealth of the nation as a whole. What the individual does with his or her education... as a child... and as an adult... is not something that can be mandated... and here is where free choice enters in.

I have repeatedly sparred with Virgil on the issue of public education. I agree with his suggestion that charter schools may offer an alternative to those students trapped in the worst schools. Many public schools are beginning to establish their own charter schools. The problem remains that these charter schools... just like the private schools or parochial schools... succeed for the very reason that they are able to "cherry pick" students. Students who are more difficult to teach, whether this be as a result of behavioral issues, lack of parental support, emotional, cognitive, or physical "handicaps", etc... may be refused. These schools are also able to mandate parental involvement. Parents sign off that they understand their responsibilities with regard to their child's behavior and may be expected to sit with their child in class or in detention if necessary. Failure to meet expectations on the part of the parent or child may result in expulsion. These are not options open to the public schools who must make a concerted effort to teach every child... no matter how disruptive... no matter how emotionally disturbed... no matter how violent... no matter how far behind he or she is academically... no matter how un-supportive his of her parents are.

The reality is that the public schools which are doing the "worst" according to test scores have simply been set up for failure. They are forced to teach a majority of the most disruptive students as well as most of the students with special needs and most of the students who have fallen far behind academically. In most cases, they are expected to do this with one arm tied behind their back, as it were: with inadequate funding, inadequate staffing, inadequate materials, supplies, books, and access to technology. The problem with charter schools and vouchers is that they have only made this divide worse and no one has addressed the issue. What we have seen here, in the heartland of the charter school experiment, is that shady business operators jump into the charter school business making inflated promises to the parents in poor and poverty-ridden neighborhoods... and then they take the money and run. Their scores are worse than the public schools, and they have a habit of expelling students after January when the state has finished with its accounting and they have got their money. And where do these children go? Back to the public schools, which must educate them without any added money to their budget.

[Virgil]

I have repeatedly sparred with Virgil on the issue of public education. I agree with his suggestion that charter schools may offer an alternative to those students trapped in the worst schools. Many public schools are beginning to establish their own charter schools. The problem remains that these charter schools... just like the private schools or parochial schools... succeed for the very reason that they are able to "cherry pick" students. Students who are more difficult to teach, whether this be as a result of behavioral issues, lack of parental support, emotional, cognitive, or physical "handicaps", etc... may be refused. These schools are also able to mandate parental involvement. Parents sign off that they understand their responsibilities with regard to their child's behavior and may be expected to sit with their child in class or in detention if necessary. Failure to meet expectations on the part of the parent or child may result in expulsion. These are not options open to the public schools who must make a concerted effort to teach every child... no matter how disruptive... no matter how emotionally disturbed... no matter how violent... no matter how far behind he or she is academically... no matter how un-supportive his of her parents are.


It seems like a never ending discussion. :lol: Yes, and for the record let me counter that they have not established specialized schools for those types of needs. Those kids with emotional or home problems need a very different type of learning structure and it's not being provided.

[The Comedian]

As an educator, I hate the idea that students and parents are "customers" more than any other idea out there. I've been a customer. I've been a student. And I've been a teacher. And man, students are not "customers". That's an idea that MBA graduates recently hired to manage something that they know next to nothing about like to use.

So what's the difference between a customer and a student?

A customer gets what he or she wants. A student gets what he or she needs.

My wife is a doctor and the MBAs running her clinic pull this "customer" crap too.

Patients are not customers either. A patient walks into my wife's office. He says he's in pain. He says what he really needs is a prescription for morphine. He says he's got the cash and that he knows that morphine will ll cure his pain lickety-split. If this fellow were a "customer", he'd get what he wanted. "There you go sir!" my wife would say.

This happens all the time to another Doc: He says, "you need to lose weight and exercise -- that will help you feel better and prevent further health problems". Patient says, "okay". Later, patient comes back with a new, related problem. "Have you lost weight or started to exercise?" the Doc asks. "No" says the patient. "It's too hard. I want you to make me feel better". Later, the patient posts a complaint to the MBA in charge that the Doctor isn't helpful and won't help him. Nice. Same goes for education: homework, effort, exertion are all a part of the school experience that that professor/teacher cannot do for the student.

Move this to the "customer" example -- let's say I buy a new car. Only I don't change the oil, filters, and such. And sometimes I put diesel in the tank because it's cheaper than gas. Then the damn car stops working! I take the car back to the dealer and say that he's a crappy salesman and the engineers at the manufacturer don't know what they're doing. They're just rippin' off the customer!

A student comes into my class: "Professor Comedian", he says, "I want an A in this class. I never have to write nor to I plan to ever write. This class is worthless. I just need an A to keep my GPA up so that I can get my financial aid checks commin' in".

If this fellow is a customer, then I say, "No problem Junior. One A, sans learnin' for you!"

I once did a poll in an introductory writing class. I asked them this:

"Which would you rather -- (1) get an "A" in this course under the stipulation that you learn NOTHING at all, or (2) get a "C-" and learn a lot (whatever that means to you). These are your only two choices."

You know which choice was VASTLY more popular? Yep. Choice 1. But that response says a lot of things -- only some of which are pertinent to this rant of mine here.

The truth of the matter is that teachers have to teach the unwilling along with the willing. And that sometimes, students (and I include myself in this number) don't know what they don't know and certainly don't know what they will need later. No one can predict the future. My daughters don't want their boost shots. They tell me that they "won't get sick" and that they'll "wash [their] hands all the time" so that they'll never get sick. They tell the MA/nurse this too. "I don't want a shot!" they yell to them. "I don't like you!" But they get one anyway.

They also don't like spinach and broccoli. They'd rather eat lollipops. But they eat spinach and broccoli because I make them. They're not customers.

Yesterday I was a customer. I bought a new fridge. I said I wanted a black, textured fridge, with no ice/water capabilities. And it needs to fit in a 35" wide space. And that's exactly what I got.

EDIT: And one more thing. I'm not denying that there's a business aspect to both medicine and public education. There is. But it's a hellova leap to say that education IS a business. It's like saying cars have tires. True. So tires ARE cars! And, as a consequence, we should treat cars exactly like tires.

[stlukesguild]

...in the US, the public education system has been abused toward indoctrinating children into a misplaced faith in government so much that the "gap in class difference" is thus bridged by making sure we poke everyone's left eye out, instead of only the poor kids' left eyes; public school does kids more harm than good. Of course, I'm comparing it to colonial America, where there was no compulsory schooling and the literacy rate was higher than it is now.

This is just patent misinformation...


Misinformation, indeed. The sources sited in support of this are clearly biased against public education and employ statistics in a misleading manner that is essentially blatant falsehood. Literacy has never been a fixed stable concept. In the distant past, literacy meant the capacity to speak and sing, to use spoken language eloquently for public purposes. As recently as 100 years ago in the United States, the ability to sign one's own name on a land deed or bank check was the socially accepted mark of literacy. Merely being able to mark an "X" on a deed at times made one literate. By this standard a vast majority of the population was considered "literate"... although as one of the sources sited states: "One estimate is that during 1640-1700 the literacy rate for men in Massachusetts and Connecticut was between 89-95%" It is highly unlikely that this percentage was "functionally literate" by today's standards (The person can read at a minimum of a 6th or even 8th grade level). The stated fact also conveniently ignores the literacy of women... who were afforded even less access to the least education (But then they didn't need it, right?), to say nothing about Native American, African-Americans, etc... The very idea that a population without access to any form of formal education would be more literate than the same population afforded such an education makes no sense whatsoever and flies in the face of all we know of literacy in the general populace in the past.

However, I can pretend to believe the same illusion that most Americans do, that public school is actually providing a benefit. If a child's parents work very hard so that they have extra money, haven't they earned the right or should we disallow them from providing their kids with advantages simply because that makes it unfair? But I see that I ought also to pretend to believe in another illusion: people who can afford private school are generally "evil capitalists" whose effect on society is negative, rather than positive. Hmm... If I go that far, then I will have to agree that we should hold them back somehow, perhaps by forcing them to put their kids in public school. But that's based on a firm belief in those two illusions.

A strawman, and displaying simplistic black/white thinking.

I wouldn't even afford such ideas the benefit of being seen as "simplistic thinking". It is pure and simple political skewing of the issue. There is no law that disallows parents with the wherewithal from sending their students to the best private or parochial schools that they can afford. On the other hand, the current method of funding public schools on the basis of local property tax places those children born into poorer neighborhoods at a distinct disadvantage. Yes, inequalities exist in life and as adults we must take the responsibility for our own actions... but we are not speaking of adults here, but of children, and the notion that some children should be disallowed access to a a safe, orderly, well-staffed, and well-supplied school that meets certain minimal standards of education in a nation as wealthy as the United States is not only criminal... but short sited, as well. The Agrarian and Industrial ages are long past. If we as a nation are to continue to compete on an international level we cannot afford to throw away large portions of our population.

[stlukesguild]

It seems like a never ending discussion. Yes, and for the record let me counter that they have not established specialized schools for those types of needs. Those kids with emotional or home problems need a very different type of learning structure and it's not being provided.

The problem is that "those kids"... the ones who are not seen as profitable to charter schools and private schools... are far greater in number than you might believe. We are not only speaking of the large number of children with behavioral, cognitive, and physical issues, but also of children living in neighborhoods that would be deemed "unprofitable" whether this is due to excessive costs of security or transportation for children living in rural communities that are miles from the nearest town. The private sector is based upon profit and loss. Any child or community that is not deemed profitable will simply be left behind to the public schools which are not based upon that concept, but upon the idea that every child deserves a quality education... but these same public schools struggle to offer this education on ever decreasing budgets.

[stlukesguild]

As an educator, I hate the idea that students and parents are "customers" more than any other idea out there. I've been a customer. I've been a student. And I've been a teacher. And man, students are not "customers". That's an idea that MBA graduates recently hired to manage something that they know next to nothing about like to use.

Indeed. We no longer even have a superintendent, but a CEOs. A good majority of these school administrators have little or no practical experience in education, and approach the schools as a business. Loopholes are found to beat the standardized tests (because the test is everything) rather than offering a full educational experience. Continually disruptive students face minimal consequences because the schools don't wish to possibly lose another "customer". The "best and brightest" students are moved into special schools that can be touted in the press as an example of success, while the most difficult students are left behind and then the same administration berates the teachers and staff of such "failing" schools in spite of the fact that these schools were set up for failure.

The reality is that if I am running a business I have the option to refuse any substandard material from a supplier or to take on any job in which I will be unlikely to make a profit. Public schools are not businesses. They do not have the option to refuse students who are extremely difficult to teach or students whose cognitive abilities will likely damage their test scores. The push toward a profit-based schooling on a national level ignores this reality: that a large number of students will be left behind as "unprofitable" and this is unacceptable.

The same problem has afflicted our colleges and universities in which

So what's the difference between a customer and a student?

A customer gets what he or she wants. A student gets what he or she needs.

My wife is a doctor and the MBAs running her clinic pull this "customer" crap too.

Patients are not customers either. A patient walks into my wife's office. He says he's in pain. He says what he really needs is a prescription for morphine. He says he's got the cash and that he knows that morphine will ll cure his pain lickety-split. If this fellow were a "customer", he'd get what he wanted. "There you go sir!" my wife would say.

This happens all the time to another Doc: He says, "you need to lose weight and exercise -- that will help you feel better and prevent further health problems". Patient says, "okay". Later, patient comes back with a new, related problem. "Have you lost weight or started to exercise?" the Doc asks. "No" says the patient. "It's too hard. I want you to make me feel better". Later, the patient posts a complaint to the MBA in charge that the Doctor isn't helpful and won't help him. Nice. Same goes for education: homework, effort, exertion are all a part of the school experience that that professor/teacher cannot do for the student.

Move this to the "customer" example -- let's say I buy a new car. Only I don't change the oil, filters, and such. And sometimes I put diesel in the tank because it's cheaper than gas. Then the damn car stops working! I take the car back to the dealer and say that he's a crappy salesman and the engineers at the manufacturer don't know what they're doing. They're just rippin' off the customer!

A student comes into my class: "Professor Comedian", he says, "I want an A in this class. I never have to write nor to I plan to ever write. This class is worthless. I just need an A to keep my GPA up so that I can get my financial aid checks commin' in".

If this fellow is a customer, then I say, "No problem Junior. One A, sans learnin' for you!"

I once did a poll in an introductory writing class. I asked them this:

"Which would you rather -- (1) get an "A" in this course under the stipulation that you learn NOTHING at all, or (2) get a "C-" and learn a lot (whatever that means to you). These are your only two choices."

You know which choice was VASTLY more popular? Yep. Choice 1. But that response says a lot of things -- only some of which are pertinent to this rant of mine here.

The truth of the matter is that teachers have to teach the unwilling along with the willing. And that sometimes, students (and I include myself in this number) don't know what they don't know and certainly don't know what they will need later. No one can predict the future. My daughters don't want their boost shots. They tell me that they "won't get sick" and that they'll "wash [their] hands all the time" so that they'll never get sick. They tell the MA/nurse this too. "I don't want a shot!" they yell to them. "I don't like you!" But they get one anyway.

They also don't like spinach and broccoli. They'd rather eat lollipops. But they eat spinach and broccoli because I make them. They're not customers.

Yesterday I was a customer. I bought a new fridge. I said I wanted a black, textured fridge, with no ice/water capabilities. And it needs to fit in a 35" wide space. And that's exactly what I got.

EDIT: And one more thing. I'm not denying that there's a business aspect to both medicine and public education. There is. But it's a hellova leap to say that education IS a business. It's like saying cars have tires. True. So tires ARE cars! And, as a consequence, we should treat cars exactly like tires.

[Virgil]

As an educator, I hate the idea that students and parents are "customers" more than any other idea out there. I've been a customer. I've been a student. And I've been a teacher. And man, students are not "customers". That's an idea that MBA graduates recently hired to manage something that they know next to nothing about like to use.

So what's the difference between a customer and a student?

A customer gets what he or she wants. A student gets what he or she needs.

My wife is a doctor and the MBAs running her clinic pull this "customer" crap too.

Patients are not customers either. A patient walks into my wife's office. He says he's in pain. He says what he really needs is a prescription for morphine. He says he's got the cash and that he knows that morphine will ll cure his pain lickety-split. If this fellow were a "customer", he'd get what he wanted. "There you go sir!" my wife would say.

This happens all the time to another Doc: He says, "you need to lose weight and exercise -- that will help you feel better and prevent further health problems". Patient says, "okay". Later, patient comes back with a new, related problem. "Have you lost weight or started to exercise?" the Doc asks. "No" says the patient. "It's too hard. I want you to make me feel better". Later, the patient posts a complaint to the MBA in charge that the Doctor isn't helpful and won't help him. Nice. Same goes for education: homework, effort, exertion are all a part of the school experience that that professor/teacher cannot do for the student.

Move this to the "customer" example -- let's say I buy a new car. Only I don't change the oil, filters, and such. And sometimes I put diesel in the tank because it's cheaper than gas. Then the damn car stops working! I take the car back to the dealer and say that he's a crappy salesman and the engineers at the manufacturer don't know what they're doing. They're just rippin' off the customer!

A student comes into my class: "Professor Comedian", he says, "I want an A in this class. I never have to write nor to I plan to ever write. This class is worthless. I just need an A to keep my GPA up so that I can get my financial aid checks commin' in".

If this fellow is a customer, then I say, "No problem Junior. One A, sans learnin' for you!"

I once did a poll in an introductory writing class. I asked them this:

"Which would you rather -- (1) get an "A" in this course under the stipulation that you learn NOTHING at all, or (2) get a "C-" and learn a lot (whatever that means to you). These are your only two choices."

You know which choice was VASTLY more popular? Yep. Choice 1. But that response says a lot of things -- only some of which are pertinent to this rant of mine here.

The truth of the matter is that teachers have to teach the unwilling along with the willing. And that sometimes, students (and I include myself in this number) don't know what they don't know and certainly don't know what they will need later. No one can predict the future. My daughters don't want their boost shots. They tell me that they "won't get sick" and that they'll "wash [their] hands all the time" so that they'll never get sick. They tell the MA/nurse this too. "I don't want a shot!" they yell to them. "I don't like you!" But they get one anyway.

They also don't like spinach and broccoli. They'd rather eat lollipops. But they eat spinach and broccoli because I make them. They're not customers.

Yesterday I was a customer. I bought a new fridge. I said I wanted a black, textured fridge, with no ice/water capabilities. And it needs to fit in a 35" wide space. And that's exactly what I got.

EDIT: And one more thing. I'm not denying that there's a business aspect to both medicine and public education. There is. But it's a hellova leap to say that education IS a business. It's like saying cars have tires. True. So tires ARE cars! And, as a consequence, we should treat cars exactly like tires.

Oh please. You're analogy is ridiculous, No one is saying that a professional should violate professional ettiquette and standards. But within those standards the customer is king.

If I as an engineer am hired to build a bus station, I don't tell the customer what he really needs is a train station. And if he wants the walls painted blue, I'll have them painted blue.

A parent has no say in where a child can go to a public school or pull his child from a very poor teacher. If a doctor treats you badly, one goes to a different doctor. If a school treats you badly a parent has no options, sucks it up, and suffers.

In New York City it costs over $18,000 a year to send a kid to school for a year, and the results suck. And essentially the only right a parent has is to pull his kid out of school and pay for a private education or homeschool. Who the hell created a fascist enterprise in a free country? Where is the liberty of that parent to get value for his money?

And every damn political year it's always the same damn nonsense about the poor kids need more and more money for a better education. I've yet to see any positive results. And the majority of middle class and lower class parents have no abilty to change the course of their childen's future. That's a failure to support the customer.

It's amazing. Every single teacher - just look at the American teachers here on lit net - they all defend the status quo. All the teachers defend the status quo because they don't want to answer to customer wishes. The status quo sucks. And poor kids are the ones that suffer.

Create voucher programs so that parents can send their kids to the school of their choice. Then the schools will listen to the legitimate customer wishes and be at their beck and call. Not for the parents to be at the beck and call of the education department. That's socialism and socialism fails. And no surprise our education system fails.

Is it a surprise that American universities where there is real choice for the customer are among the best, if not the best, in the world, while our state run lower education systems fail? No that is not a surprise at all!!!!!

[Virgil]

It seems like a never ending discussion. Yes, and for the record let me counter that they have not established specialized schools for those types of needs. Those kids with emotional or home problems need a very different type of learning structure and it's not being provided.

The problem is that "those kids"... the ones who are not seen as profitable to charter schools and private schools... are far greater in number than you might believe. We are not only speaking of the large number of children with behavioral, cognitive, and physical issues, but also of children living in neighborhoods that would be deemed "unprofitable" whether this is due to excessive costs of security or transportation for children living in rural communities that are miles from the nearest town. The private sector is based upon profit and loss. Any child or community that is not deemed profitable will simply be left behind to the public schools which are not based upon that concept, but upon the idea that every child deserves a quality education... but these same public schools struggle to offer this education on ever decreasing budgets.

The charter schools that exist were created against the wishes of the teacher's unions. It was only after great political struggle did the teachers go along wit this, and they went along kicking and screaming.

You don't understand. Disband the entire public school system and create private schools and give the parents a voucher to which school they want to send their kid.

[The Comedian]

Oh please. You're analogy is ridiculous, No one is saying that a professional should violate professional ettiquette and standards. But within those standards the customer is king.

If I as an engineer am hired to build a bus station, I don't tell the customer what he really needs is a train station. And if he wants the walls painted blue, I'll have them painted blue.

A parent has no say in where a child can go to a public school or pull his child from a very poor teacher. If a doctor treats you badly, one goes to a different doctor. If a school treats you badly a parent has no options, sucks it up, and suffers.

In New York City it costs over $18,000 a year to send a kid to school for a year, and the results suck. And essentially the only right a parent has is to pull his kid out of school and pay for a private education or homeschool. Who the hell created a fascist enterprise in a free country? Where is the liberty of that parent to get value for his money?

And every damn political year it's always the same damn nonsense about the poor kids need more and more money for a better education. I've yet to see any positive results. And the majority of middle class and lower class parents have no abilty to change the course of their childen's future. That's a failure to support the customer.

It's amazing. Every single teacher - just look at the American teachers here on lit net - they all defend the status quo. All the teachers defend the status quo because they don't want to answer to customer wishes. The status quo sucks. And poor kids are the ones that suffer.

Create voucher programs so that parents can send their kids to the school of their choice. Then the schools will listen to the legitimate customer wishes and be at their beck and call. Not for the parents to be at the beck and call of the education department. That's socialism and socialism fails. And no surprise our education system fails.

Is it a surprise that American universities where there is real choice for the customer are among the best, if not the best, in the world, while our state run lower education systems fail? No that is not a surprise at all!!!!!

Wow!

I'll back away. . .s-l-o-w-l-y. . . . .

[Dave Scotese]

I'm sure that I am guilty of bias. My analogies are intended to produce discussion and overstate my points.

Stlukesguild, I would like to know if you recognize the general crutch problem - that overuse of a crutch can damage a person. I'd guess you understand it, but you're sure that it doesn't happen to any degree with school, and we just disagree about that. I tend to see it happen everywhere. This makes me a little less helpful toward others than is optimal, but my fear of hurting by helping is so great that I would much prefer to err on the side of helping too little than of helping too much. The symptoms of helping too much grow slowly and insidiously infect motivation and adaptability. The symptoms of helping too little are easier to see and usually come early enough to rectify by helping more. You can always add salt, but removing it proves difficult. Watching the state take my money (by force) and use it to inadvertently hurt by helping is frustrating, so I visit these forums and try to help people like Virgil spread the ideas of freedom and individual responsibility and people like Andave promote the idea of homeschooling.

[Scheherazade]

I am not in the mood to post anymore warning and reminders today.

If you are unable to take part in a discussion without losing your temper and resorting to personal/inflammatory comments, please do not post.