|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 27, 2009 20:20:00 GMT -5
Most people can teach their own children? Anyone can teach? Hell, the majority of parents are lucky if they get the kids potty trained. Of course anyone can teach. If you show someone how to make a paper airplane, you just taught them something. Read something to them from a text book (that you hopefully looked through previously) and you are directly involved in teaching them. I will say this -- there are people who should NOT home school. Whether it's just not right for their kids, or they just are inept at it, they really should just leave it up to the public school system. Of course, the public school system is, dare I say it, quite inept in a lot of areas. Allowing so many students to just fall through the cracks is, from an economic perspective, a waste of resources. Japan and Germany are ahead of us as far as our public school system is concerned. Really, it's hit or miss whether you home school, public school, or private school your kids.
|
|
|
Post by cailinban on May 28, 2009 1:38:57 GMT -5
I'm a secular home-schooler (although we prefer the term home-educator, as it's not about schooling as such but about education, and we do make a distinction).
I agree that some parents should not home-school. But some parents should not raise children at all, and we don't use that as a reason to ban all home-rearing.
If you'd like to know about the provinence of government schooling, check out The Underground History Of American Schooling by John Taylor Gatto - it makes a compelling case that state schooling was deliberately designed to be about creating a conformist, well-trained, biddable workforce. The book is available for free online afik.
I don't have the source to hand, but I have certainly read - by on Gatto's book, maybe elsewhere, that the literacy levels in the US where higher before compulsory schooling than after.
So many children come through state-mandated schools not even able to read, that most integral of skills. And many are bullied, suffering huge damage because of it. Home-schooling isn't perfect, but please don't pretend that state-schooling is anywhere near perfect either, because it's not.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2009 1:45:19 GMT -5
Nobody's pretending it's perfect. There are a lot of problems with the public school systems, mostly the over-funding of sports programs (and cheerleading, ugh), and under-funding of arts programs and general education. The kids may not be able to add 2 and 2, but GAWD FORBID they not be able to play SPORTS!
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on May 28, 2009 2:06:33 GMT -5
Nobody's pretending it's perfect. There are a lot of problems with the public school systems, mostly the over-funding of sports programs (and cheerleading, ugh), and under-funding of arts programs and general education. The kids may not be able to add 2 and 2, but GAWD FORBID they not be able to play SPORTS! As the American lifespan hovers near the 37-year mark due to multiple early heart attacks from rampant obesity, the logic is apparent. I don't have the source to hand, but I have certainly read - by on Gatto's book, maybe elsewhere, that the literacy levels in the US where higher before compulsory schooling than after. I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems counter-intuitive to me. Could it be due to a redefining of literacy? As education became compulsory it makes sense that a standardized curriculum and the concentration of students allowed for the greater collection of data and thus more viable or stringent definitions of diverse standards. I'm really curious about this now, though. What Gatto book is this that you mention?
|
|
|
Post by alwimo on May 28, 2009 3:27:40 GMT -5
I'm really curious about this now, though. What Gatto book is this that you mention? She referred to The Underground History Of American Schooling by John Taylor Gatto. The website is currently returning error messages for me. www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/
|
|
|
Post by The_L on May 28, 2009 16:25:14 GMT -5
I'm really curious about this now, though. What Gatto book is this that you mention? She referred to The Underground History Of American Schooling by John Taylor Gatto. The website is currently returning error messages for me. www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/As an education major who went to a private Christian elementary school, and then noticed that public school teachers are doing the same things I hate about private schools, I'm inclined to agree with Gatto.
|
|
|
Post by lumberjackninja on May 29, 2009 1:04:36 GMT -5
And what about gifted kids? How often are they left behind in a public school because of the "teach to the lowest common denominator" mentality?
Look, I'm a programmer by trade, and hopefully someday I'll be a real physicist. I also grew up in Montana; the whole fucking state is rural. I am fortunate that I had family members who could spur my interest towards learning to code and do science, because I sure as hell wasn't gonna get it from my high school. Sure would have gotten a lot done, though, if I would have been homeschooled. Now, both my parents work full time, so that was never a realistic option, but if I met a mirror-universe version of myself where my mom or my dad didn't work, or could take a couple hours a day to walk me through some course materials early on in my high school career (I caught on fast; it certainly helped once I discovered the Wikipedia), I would encourage him to home school.
Homeschooling may result in social awkwardness; but I'm willing to bet that public school results in more debilitating stupidity and ineptitude than homeschooling results in debilitating lack of social skills.
Should some people not home school? Fer sure, and I'll be the first to admit that. But we've clarified our terms already- we're talking about parents who have a nominally realistic view of the world, who just happen to want to give their kids a more personalized education. Railing against the perverted perceptions engendered by fundamentalist home-schoolers would be correctly categorized as pulling a strawman.
Should parents held to the same educational requirements as bona fide teachers? No, firstly because the teaching profession is a joke (there, I said it, downmod me). Secondly, the same effect could be achieved by standardized testing, because that is the standard to which "real" educators teach anyways, so what's the effective difference? Hell, if you wanted to be real anal about it, you could make the tests tailored to the individual child. Is your child mathematically gifted? Then she should know single-variable calculus by the time she's in the 10th grade. Conversely, if she suffers from some legitimate, diagnosed learning disability, the test-makers can cut her some slack. Hell, the GRE itself automatically adjusts the difficulty of its questions, giving you an accurate impression of the aptitude of the testee while maintaining a fairly short, fair test. Computers are wonderful things, and programmers are a pretty clever bunch. I'm sure they could come up with a way to generate tests with an almost infinite granulation with regard to difficulty in a particular subject.
It's funny reading back over the replies to this topic, especially WMDKitty's. You'd think I'd be against homeschooling, after all I was one of those knuckle-dragging football players who stole all the money from everybody else. Fun fact: the speech and debate program at my school actually spent more money, because they had the luxury of staying in hotels wherever they went to do their thing.
This may be a mindfuck for some, but try to understand: some people actually aspire to something, and very often this requires learning, reading, and doing a lot. Here's the newsflash: the public schools aren't going to help you with that. That would be difficult, and require teachers to do work. So unless you sit down, shut up, and plod through the pointless assignments they give you to suck up nine hours a day, they will make a point of turning your schooling experience into a living hell.
Non-fundie parents, OTOH, have no reason to do this. You homeschool your children only if you love your children; otherwise, you could send them to that big, state-sponsored daycare known as public school.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 29, 2009 1:23:49 GMT -5
I understand fully (Your #3 on my + karma list, so I probably wont until tomorrow sometime)
My major concern with my yet to be conceived child is that my husband and my brother were both rather hyper children. I don't believe they had ADHD because they were able to focus on something they were interested in for hours. But to sit in school and learn something that was boring.... My brother was physically tied to his desk with a skipping rope, and my husband's parents spent a lot of time in the principals office discussing what to do with him. I believe if either one was in school today, they would have Ritalin shoved down their throats. My one nephew is the same way and they diagnosed him with ADHD, well it turned out the kid had an IQ of 170 (psychiatrist rated) and he's bored stiff in school.
So if I had a child like this, yeah I'd home school him. I tried to teach my nephew to read under his breath to slow him down because he was skipping important words in questions. Teachers told him to stop it. Also, as in the example above if the child was excellent at math, but had poor English skills, I would be able to focus more time on English. Especially in elementary where those basic skills are formed. Also, around here anyway, they've basically done away with things like science experiments and field trips. Well what's going to interest a child more, reading about the universe or going to the planetarium and looking through the huge telescope (the one they have in Calgary was great). What about hatching some eggs? What about making a potato battery? Or a hand crank lightbulb? These are the things we need to do to increase a childs interest in science. I would probably send them back into the system for high school, but I would also try to go for a charter school where they have a more traditional view on education.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 29, 2009 2:12:14 GMT -5
They don't do field trips any more because of potential liability should a child do something, well, childish, and get hurt! Of course, never mind that it's the child's own damn fault, let's sue the school...
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 29, 2009 2:15:37 GMT -5
That's what permission slips were for. They don't do field trips anymore because they don't do anything fun anymore. Instead of peaking a childs interest in learning, they're more concerned about whether red pens will hurt a kids self esteem.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 29, 2009 18:52:58 GMT -5
And what about gifted kids? How often are they left behind in a public school because of the "teach to the lowest common denominator" mentality? Look, I'm a programmer by trade, and hopefully someday I'll be a real physicist. I also grew up in Montana; the whole fucking state is rural. I am fortunate that I had family members who could spur my interest towards learning to code and do science, because I sure as hell wasn't gonna get it from my high school. Sure would have gotten a lot done, though, if I would have been homeschooled. Now, both my parents work full time, so that was never a realistic option, but if I met a mirror-universe version of myself where my mom or my dad didn't work, or could take a couple hours a day to walk me through some course materials early on in my high school career (I caught on fast; it certainly helped once I discovered the Wikipedia), I would encourage him to home school. Homeschooling may result in social awkwardness; but I'm willing to bet that public school results in more debilitating stupidity and ineptitude than homeschooling results in debilitating lack of social skills. Should some people not home school? Fer sure, and I'll be the first to admit that. But we've clarified our terms already- we're talking about parents who have a nominally realistic view of the world, who just happen to want to give their kids a more personalized education. Railing against the perverted perceptions engendered by fundamentalist home-schoolers would be correctly categorized as pulling a strawman. Should parents held to the same educational requirements as bona fide teachers? No, firstly because the teaching profession is a joke (there, I said it, downmod me). Secondly, the same effect could be achieved by standardized testing, because that is the standard to which "real" educators teach anyways, so what's the effective difference? Hell, if you wanted to be real anal about it, you could make the tests tailored to the individual child. Is your child mathematically gifted? Then she should know single-variable calculus by the time she's in the 10th grade. Conversely, if she suffers from some legitimate, diagnosed learning disability, the test-makers can cut her some slack. Hell, the GRE itself automatically adjusts the difficulty of its questions, giving you an accurate impression of the aptitude of the testee while maintaining a fairly short, fair test. Computers are wonderful things, and programmers are a pretty clever bunch. I'm sure they could come up with a way to generate tests with an almost infinite granulation with regard to difficulty in a particular subject. It's funny reading back over the replies to this topic, especially WMDKitty's. You'd think I'd be against homeschooling, after all I was one of those knuckle-dragging football players who stole all the money from everybody else. Fun fact: the speech and debate program at my school actually spent more money, because they had the luxury of staying in hotels wherever they went to do their thing. This may be a mindfuck for some, but try to understand: some people actually aspire to something, and very often this requires learning, reading, and doing a lot. Here's the newsflash: the public schools aren't going to help you with that. That would be difficult, and require teachers to do work. So unless you sit down, shut up, and plod through the pointless assignments they give you to suck up nine hours a day, they will make a point of turning your schooling experience into a living hell. Non-fundie parents, OTOH, have no reason to do this. You homeschool your children only if you love your children; otherwise, you could send them to that big, state-sponsored daycare known as public school. You're getting my next three exalts.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 30, 2009 2:35:38 GMT -5
That's what permission slips were for. They don't do field trips anymore because they don't do anything fun anymore. Instead of peaking a childs interest in learning, they're more concerned about whether red pens will hurt a kids self esteem. O NOEZ!!! Little Johnny got a B in math!!! My pweshus snowfwake might get his FEELINGS hurt!!!!! I grew up seeing my fair share of red ink, and more than my fair share of being told to sit still, pay attention, stay on task, and it didn't hurt my self esteem one goddamn bit!
|
|
|
Post by lumberjackninja on May 30, 2009 3:23:08 GMT -5
That's what permission slips were for. They don't do field trips anymore because they don't do anything fun anymore. Instead of peaking a childs interest in learning, they're more concerned about whether red pens will hurt a kids self esteem. O NOEZ!!! Little Johnny got a B in math!!! My pweshus snowfwake might get his FEELINGS hurt!!!!! I grew up seeing my fair share of red ink, and more than my fair share of being told to sit still, pay attention, stay on task, and it didn't hurt my self esteem one goddamn bit! How old are you? I only ask because a friend of mine recently pointed out that really, we were the last generation to do kid things as kids. You know- ride our bikes everywhere in little packs with no supervision; play in the mud, eat dirt, wrestle, all that sort of shit. Hell, I even had a BB gun when I was kid (still do, actually); it was the kind where you chamber a BB and then pump it up. You could get some serious air pressure behind that thing. I remember eating holes in things with battery acid. I remember stockpiling firecrackers so I could blow shit up with my buddies whenever we had the chance (okay, to be fair, I'm pretty sure my mother would have a heart attack if she found out about that). My parents pulled no punches when I disappointed them. Their disapproval was often enough of a deterrent to keep me from messing up too much; "Your grades are slipping, start acting as smart as you are", "Your behavior just now in front of everybody was really disappointing. Grow the fuck up.", that sort of stuff. Now? Now, we have... feel-goodism. The belief that everybody has a right to being happy, even if they fail. This is closely related to the mentality that everybody has a right to their beliefs about anything, even if they're wrong. And thus, we find the tit that religion sucks on. Hmmm. Reading back on this, it really screams "Get off my lawn!". That's not what I meant. I'm sure it's been a long downhill process of pussifying our children. Back when kids were expected to die, I'm sure they grew up more prepared to deal with personal adversity than kids when I was growing up, and especially kids today. Then again, those same people brought you World War II, institutionalized sexism and painfully pervasive racism. Time has yet to reveal if our kinder, gentler, and at least superficially weaker offspring will build a better world. Or at least a different one.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 30, 2009 11:29:58 GMT -5
I only ask because a friend of mine recently pointed out that really, we were the last generation to do kid things as kids. You know- ride our bikes everywhere in little packs with no supervision; play in the mud, eat dirt, wrestle, all that sort of shit. Hell, I even had a BB gun when I was kid (still do, actually); it was the kind where you chamber a BB and then pump it up. You could get some serious air pressure behind that thing. I remember eating holes in things with battery acid. I remember stockpiling firecrackers so I could blow shit up with my buddies whenever we had the chance (okay, to be fair, I'm pretty sure my mother would have a heart attack if she found out about that). My parents pulled no punches when I disappointed them. Their disapproval was often enough of a deterrent to keep me from messing up too much; "Your grades are slipping, start acting as smart as you are", "Your behavior just now in front of everybody was really disappointing. Grow the fuck up.", that sort of stuff. Now? Now, we have... feel-goodism. The belief that everybody has a right to being happy, even if they fail. This is closely related to the mentality that everybody has a right to their beliefs about anything, even if they're wrong. And thus, we find the tit that religion sucks on. Hmmm. Reading back othis, it really screams "Get off my lawn!". That's not what I meant. I'm sure it's been a long downhill process of pussifying our children. Back when kids were expected to die, I'm sure they grew up more prepared to deal with personal adversity than kids when I was growing up, and especially kids today.n Then again, those same people brought you World War II, institutionalized sexism and painfully pervasive racism. Time has yet to reveal if our kinder, gentler, and at least superficially weaker offspring will build a better world. Or at least a different one. Another +1 from me. I believe children were actually safer when they roamed in packs. If some stranger approached, there were just too many of them to deal with. I don't think it screams "get off my lawn". Hell I want to see kids out there doing things. A child should break a bone at least once in it's life (preferably not the pelvic bone ). Stitches are a right of passage. I joke that my parents believed in the Darwin approach to child rearing, let us loose and if we survived, well then we got to adulthood. Of course it did help that my Uncle was a first aid man at a lumber mill (nothing we did would surprise him). I really miss my uncle, he was a way better father than my father ever was.
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on May 30, 2009 11:43:21 GMT -5
Nobody's pretending it's perfect. There are a lot of problems with the public school systems, mostly the over-funding of sports programs (and cheerleading, ugh), and under-funding of arts programs and general education. The kids may not be able to add 2 and 2, but GAWD FORBID they not be able to play SPORTS! This is so true. My school just received a ton of money from the state and rather than use it to buy cameras that work for the Mulimedia class or computers that aren't as old as me for the Computer Science class they chose to renovate the football field, the football field that they already renovated once last year. Now the school board has been told that they need to make cuts and do you know where they want to start? Practical and performing arts.
|
|