Opponents of home-schooling—and some of them are vehement—argue that it is socially divisive. Also, since it is regulated lightly or not at all, it is hard to tell whether children being taught at home are receiving an adequate education. “Unregulated home-schooling opens up the possibility that children will never learn about ... alternative ways of life,” writes Rob Reich of Stanford University. [Emphasis added.]
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Why Oppose Homeschooling?
Why would anyone be opposed to parents teaching their own children at home? Possibly because it means that the children won't be taught liberal morality (H/T: Deo Gratias):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Oh, darn. Let me see if I'll lose any sleep over that tonight.
Oh the horror. Paul's children may never learn about alternative lifestyles. They may never learn about different sexual choices, unless you meet a priest (celibacy is a choice too). They may never learn about homosexuality, unless they read their father's blog, one of a host of other news sources, or possibly Genesis or Leviticus.
The risk does exist with home schooling of parents not educating their kids. If our public schools were perfect, I'd worry about how to solve that. For now, there are bigger education problems to solve.
Ori,
Okay, maybe. I grant you that.
But they also probably won't learn the necessary reasoning skills to know what's wrong with this statement of monumental ignorance:
"How does something this complex happen? And don't try to tell me evolution. I work with databases; when data is corrupted, data is lost. Corruption never results in additional data. Don't expect me to believe that random mutation results in new survival traits."
Without getting into the argument about evolution (I believe in evolution, BTW - but I don't think the other camp is monumentally ignorant), what makes you think education will stop at eighteen? Or that they'll always receive it exclusively from their parents?
Paul, do your kids read books? Would they have the choice to go to college, or browse the Internet, at some point in their lives? I bet the answer is "yes" to both.
Quite right, Ori.
Ori,
This isn't about evolution. It's about who's qualified to teach our children.
In theory, I'm all for home schooling. But...
"Don't expect me to believe that random mutation results in new survival traits."
There's no controversy here: random mutation DOES result new survival traits. That's an established scientific fact, not a matter of opinion.
It's simple fact of biology. Antibiotic resistance is undeniably a result of random genetic mutation. How am I to have any trust in someone who tells me otherwise, contrary to overwhelming evidence, and who aspires to public office and deems himself more qualified to teach his children than than those who are not certifiably ignorant or delusional?
So John, in your worldview, people who disagree with what you consider to be "facts" are unqualified to teach even their own children?
In the course of just my own lifetime, quite a few scientific "facts" have gone by the wayside.
But this isn't about science, it's about politics, and it's about your intolerance and contempt for views you disagree with.
"So John, in your worldview, people who disagree with what you consider to be "facts" are unqualified to teach even their own children?"
No, but I'd be willing to debate "facts" with you anytime. I think you have every right to educate our own children. That doesn't preclude my thinking that they just might end up stupid or ignorant.
"In the course of just my own lifetime, quite a few scientific "facts" have gone by the wayside."
Nice. Why don't you address the issue at hand: is my assertion about random genetic mutation and natural selection in regard to antibiotic resistance in error or not? "Science is sometimes wrong" is the dumbest argument I can think of.
Who's the relativist now, Paul? Tell me, science can't inform your worldview? Tell me, using empirical knowledge, that I'm wrong about antibiotic resistance.
"But this isn't about science, it's about politics, and it's about your intolerance and contempt for views you disagree with"
BS. You sound like the straw man liberals you so love to engage. There's no intolerance or contempt here. I just think you're wrong. What a concept.
Things like this is why when someone says, "Oh, you homeschool to shelter your girls," I say, "You bet your bippy I do!"
Darn right, I shelter them. They don't need someone filling their heads with "alternative lifestyles" (which in liberal speak means "gay 'marriage'"), they need a strong upbringing how my husband and I see fit.
As far as qualifications, education degrees do not guarantee that people are qualified to teach anything.
And I say that as someone who holds a dual-major education degree. For me, it actually hindered my homeschooling until I could overcome some of the notions I had about how to teach my children.
John's point, that homeschooling could result in some kids being ignorant or stupid, is correct. We may debate specific cases, but I'm sure everybody can think of people who probably wouldn't make good teachers.
However, that's comparing an ideal situation (all kids getting a good education as school) with one constrained by reality (not all parents are good teachers). The real comparison should be between the imperfect schools we have and the imperfect parents we have.
John, under the terms of that comparison, do you believe that, on the average, homeschooling does more good or more harm to kids?
I just gotta jump in on this. Home schooling is a choice. If the parents what and do a good job of home schooling their children will turn out just fine. School is NOT the only social function for children in the WORLD! Some actually go to church. Some even join 4H, Scouts, sports for home schoolers and the list goes on. My daughter has two degrees in education and after being in one local suburban school home schools her 4 children. My daughter refuses to send her children to a public school. In part to protect the like Christine, the soccer mom, however mostly to see they get as good as education as they can.
How many 7 year olds do you know can "sign" and speak Spanish. And, no we are not Hispanic or of Spanish decent.
Just my two cents worth.
Pops
John,
Maybe you're under the (incorrect) assumption that parents who choose to homeschool think that schools should be outlawed and only homeschooling should be allowed? While I guess there may be some with that viewpoint, most homeschooling families I know do so because they feel that it is a better option for their family for a variety of reasons. And the parents who aren't good teachers quickly find that out and either put their kids back in school or find better resources to make them better teachers eg purchasing curricula, homeschooling networks and co-ops.
Sending a kid to school doesn't automatically make the kid smart, btw. How many schools pass kids along until they end up graduating from high school barely able to read? Too many, I'm afraid.
If the parent cares and is involved, he/she will seek out every opportunity for their kids to grow and learn, no matter how the child is schooled.
We homeschool and will continue to do so as long as it's legal in this country.
My husband and I feel that there is a Biblical mandate for Christian parents to educate their own children in their homes. To pass that responsibility on to strangers in a government institution is plan irresponsible.
Our children are our biggest blessing (besides our salvation) and we intend to treat them as such... and that means not tossing them to the wolves of public school.
Mrs. Lindblom: We homeschool and will continue to do so as long as it's legal in this country.
Ori: Hopefully, your last child (I don't know if you practice NFP, but even if you don't you'll eventually reach menopause) will be grown and leave the house and homeschooling will still be legal.
BTW, how do you reconcile considering it a Biblical mandate with a Church that has been running out of the house schools for a large part of its history? If you see these schools as a resource selected by parents, that's the same way I view public schools.
I think a large part of the liberal resistance to home schools has to do with the allocation of government money. I'm sure there are true believers for the other arguments, but survival of the public school has to be factoring in.
To be fair, if you read the article by Rob Reich, "alternative lifestyles" was not used in the context of homosexuality. He means exposure to the cultural pluralism of the US. Not to say that makes much of a difference for this argument. Eventhough my positive experiences with conservative faiths mostly comes from the people I met in public school, I still think it is a silly argument for limiting parental rights.
I would have to agree that no option (public, private, home) is perfect. You can get a good or terrible educational experience in each. The decision should be left to the parents.
http://boardinginbedlam.blogspot.com/2009/08/breaking-mirror_14.html
So in short Homeschooling is only as good as the parents who does the teaching, just like publicly funded schooling is only as good as the teachers they hire.
The problem though isn't one over the other. It's both of them. The two should be working together.
Publically funded schools (whether religious or not) have one flaw. The teacher is NOT chosen by the users of the system. And as parents we don't have a say in whether or not a teacher is qualified.
Further, even parents who send their kids to public school (this includes publically funded Religious schools) continue to teach their children at home. We are still teachers in the evening when our children need help with research. We are still teachers, when our kids need extra explanations.
And occasionally we have to correct some basic fundamental FACTS that teachers get wrong.
Case in point. Our Elder daughter was told on more than one occasion that Canada has no monarch - in fact she was told by the teacher that the only reason the queen is on our money is for tradition.
Okay so my husband and I had to teach her two things. First that Canada is a Consititutional Monarchy and the Queen's Representative (Governer General)is appointed by the Queen on the Advice of the Prime Minister and The Queen's loyal Cabinet.
Second lesson we had to teach her was that if she wanted to get good greades in scholl regurgitate what the teacher says, but know the facts.
In any case, the teacher now disseminated incorrect information to 25 students, all in one shot. Where as if I taught my kids at home and gave them incorrect information it would affect two kids.
2:25 - do the math?
In any family there is always homeschooling going on.
"Alternative ways of life" ???
Since *when* are public-school kids taught anything about alternative ways to live? They are only ever taught ONE way to live and that is the Secular/Liberal/Feminist way (pretty much one and the same) without any variation or exposure to any other "way to live."
What a pack of hypocrites!!
(P.S. Guess what?? We're expecting twins!!!!!!)
"Antibiotic resistance is undeniably a result of random genetic mutation."
Yeah but... the mutated bacteria doesn't eventually turn into a whale... so you're kinda speaking apples and oranges here.
There is evolution of living things ~ but they still remain the same thing that they were in the beginning, only perhaps more resistent to this or that.
The reason so many of us reject *Darwin's* ideas of evolution is because he claimed that one thing evolved into a totally different thing. That's... uh... Ok, I can't come up with an intelligent rebuttal so I'll just say it: That's just downright silly.
I've heard the debate that if we homeschool our kids they won't be taught *gasp!!* the philosophy of Darwinian Evolution!!!!! (NO, not THAT!) (Oh and Darwin's theory of evolution is not science. It's a philsophy. Just think of how we state it: "Dost thou *believe* in evolution?")
"They may never learn about different sexual choices, unless you meet a priest (celibacy is a choice too). "
Ori stated this above in the comment section. I would argue that priests teach more than celibacy...or have you not been following the Catholic Church scandals here in Massachusetts? I think many an altar boy and other parishioners have learned more than they have bargained for.
Jake, you're right. Some priests betray the trust placed in them. I don't see how it is relevant to the current discussion, any more than the fact that some teachers abuse their students is relevant. Would you care to enlighten me?
In the specific case of Paul's children, I'm pretty sure they know what a grownup who is not reacting to medical need is and is not allowed to do with them.
John's point, that homeschooling could result in some kids being ignorant or stupid, is correct.
Um, I know quite a few kids educated in public schools who are also rather ignorant or stupid. Watch a few segments of Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" to see how deplorable the state of knowledge is in our culture.
Prime example, Leno asks a woman who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She has no idea. He then asks her who "lives in a pineapple under the sea" and she knows it's Spongebob Squarepants.
I think a large part of the liberal resistance to home schools has to do with the allocation of government money. I'm sure there are true believers for the other arguments, but survival of the public school has to be factoring in.
Parents who home school still, far as I'm aware, pay taxes to support local school districts.
I believe parents have a right to choose whatever school or educational method they feel is best for their children. PERIOD.
Parents who home school still, far as I'm aware, pay taxes to support local school districts.
Yes, but my point about money was about the overall health and future of public schools. If enough people pull their kids out of public schools, vouchers will become a reality. Then schools will receive less money.
A public good will have a hard time surviving if a large segment of the public opts out.
Stephanie, your math is wrong, and so are your assumptions about public schooling:
There are two kinds of people who pay school taxes. Those who have students in the school, and those who don't.
If some of those who have students in school take them out and get some or all of their taxes back as vouchers, then the schools will have fewer students, with more money per head to educate them. If all the parents were to take their kids out, the public schools would still get the money of those who don't have kids in school, and have no students to educate at all!
But it's offensive to me to suggest that parents have some obligation to the schools to send their children to them, if they don't believe that those schools will educate them satisfactorily. Children don't exist for the benefit of the schools, Stephanie, but schools for the students, and if parents don't find the school satisfactory, they have a right to find another way to educate their children.
Paul, I think you misunderstand my position. I am for parental choice.
Read above:
I would have to agree that no option (public, private, home) is perfect. You can get a good or terrible educational experience in each. The decision should be left to the parents.
And I stand by my statement that:
A public good will have a hard time surviving if a large segment of the public opts out.
Before we argue over math, the point I am trying to make has broader consequences. When you apply a simple equation, you are missing the rising or falling public support that would also be a consequence.
If a majority of parents opt out of the public school system, the public will be less inclined to vote for school allocated taxes, and will care less about politicians that shift money to other priorities.
Right now the percentage of people opting out of public school is so small that my statement is more theoretical than practical. However, I think it is hard to argue their would not be consequences with a huge such a shift support.
Using your formula, if we reduced public schools to 50 students, we would be spending billions on each student. My point is that there is a sliding scale of public support that is proportional to the use of the public school system.
In addition, whether the vouchers result in more or less financial support per student in public school depends on the size of the vouchers. A family may not get all their taxes back in vouchers, but their taxes are going to more than just school. They may be getting more back in vouchers than their tax money contributes to public schools. If so, then those vouchers are being subsidized by childless tax payers. And, the public school system might very well be getting less money. On the micro-level, whether vouchers reduce money for public school depends on voucher size.
All that being said, I think parents should have the right to choose and I think they should have vouchers.
I was just pointing out the consequences if the public schools loose a large percentage of parents. But it is the public school system's job to provide enough value to parents, not the other way around.
Why oppose homeschooling?
I don't think liberals/secularists/moral relativist/child-eaters oppose homeschooling per se.
We just find that the concept leaves a bad taste in our mouths... and I think it's because we associate home-schooling with religious fanaticism.
Certainly, if parents think their local state school is not appropriate then they should remove their kids and provide and alternative education.
I am so tired of people saying that the reason they oppose homeschooling is because they're afraid of kids not being educated properly and ending up stupid. Have you been in a public school lately?
After 5 years of being homeschooled, our oldest attended the local middle school for 6 months last year. He loved it because there was so little work. The only part he struggled with was the math. The only reason he struggled with the math was because the teacher jumped around the book hoping desperately to cover all the things that would be covered on the test. Everything else he breezed through with little effort and very little work. And we are in one of the best districts in the state!
People who make this argument against homeschooling seem to forget the dropout and illiteracy rate of our country's public schooled children.
I see my nieces and nephews and see the things they find most important (iPods, cell phones, $75 A&F jeans). I see my son and the things he finds most important (his karate belt he earned, his camping gear for scouts, his favorite book). I'll take my son's socialization and intelligence over his cousins' any day, thank you very much.
First of all, I can't believe someone actually believes that Jaywalking is real. Obviously those are skits.
I have no objection to homeschooling, but I do have a scary story about it: When I was a journalist in the 80s I wrote a story about homeschooling. A mom who homeschooled allowed me to sit in on one of her "classes." One of her kids asked her a question about animals and she said "it's because animals don't have brains." I don't see how you get to teach your kids at home without a basic knowledge of biology.
"I don't see how you get to teach your kids at home without a basic knowledge of biology."
Yup, unfortunately, it happens. And I took a 14 week course in Virginia in 2001 with a former Houston Public School math teacher. He nearly failed the review section of the course because he failed the calculus and statistics portions of the course.
For every homeschool incident you talk about, there's a story of a public school to match.
Bottom line, we have a right to educate our kids without government interference.
If you educate your kids without "government interference," and you do an incompetent job at it, and your children end up unemployable because they are uneducated, who is going to be responsible for them? Most likely they will end up in jail, a homeless shelter or some other institution AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. Unless there is no chance of this happening, then the government (the taxpayers) do have the right to regulate home-schooling.
I think people who want to live without any interference whatsoever from the "government" should form their own country on uninhabited land where they can live free from any government. We can then see how well this works.
Elizabeth, would you say, “If you PARENT your kids without "government interference," and you do an incompetent job at it, and your children end up unemployable because of your poor parenting skills, who is going to be responsible for them? Most likely they will end up in jail, a homeless shelter or some other institution AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. Unless there is no chance of this happening, then the government (the taxpayers) do have the right to regulate parenting. I think people who want to live without any interference whatsoever from the "government" should form their own country on uninhabited land where they can live free from any government. We can then see how well this works.”
How well does this fit your world view? How far into YOUR home can the government reach? How would you like a government supervisor to come into your home, observe your parenting skills, interview your children alone, away from you, and then demand proof that you are a good parent who is parenting responsibly? For a homeschooling family, this is exactly what is happening when the government tries to enter their front door.
Study after study after study (the latest is at http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp) demonstrates that homeschooled children perform better than their public school peers on standardized testing. The proof is there, but you want to regulate on the small chance that there are homeschooled children who do not learn as well as you would like them too. The real issue here is one of freedom. You would deny parents the freedom (in the land of the free) to direct the education of their children. And you support this denial of your fellow citizen’s freedoms based on concern for the few who might not thrive in a homeschool. Well, for every homeschooled child that you can show me who was incompetently taught and ended up unemployable , homeless, in jail, or in some other institution at the taxpayer’s expense, I will show you one hundred in the same situation that are the product of public schooling. If your concern is truly the potential economic disaster for taxpayers caused by uneducated citizens, simple economics dictates that we first address the larger problem. When you can prove that your fear of homeschooled citizens is a reality, then let's talk.
Elizabeth: Most likely they will end up in jail, a homeless shelter or some other institution AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. Unless there is no chance of this happening, then the government (the taxpayers) do have the right to regulate home-schooling.
Ori: How far are you willing to take this? Divoce is a strong risk factor for criminal behavior. That is not a theoretical connection like with homeschooling, it is a real factor verified by research.
Are you willing to deny divorce to parents for the sake of the child, or require strong justification (abuse, for example)? The taxpayers have a much stronger justification here than a theoretical connection between homeschooling and crime.
re " How would you like a government supervisor to come into your home, observe your parenting skills, interview your children alone, away from you, and then demand proof that you are a good parent who is parenting responsibly? "
I think that would be a great idea!
I think there should be some type of national effort to combat divorce, through teaching people relationship skills. I do marriage counseling and you wouldn't believe what I see.
Elizabeth, if you truly believe what you wrote, feel free to move to the dictatorial foreign country of your choosing. Please do not destroy the land of the free, where citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and enjoy “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” You may recognize that as being a part of the Bill of Rights, which continues to state that our rights “shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Elizabeth, do you trust the government to run a good social service and evaluate people's relationships and parenting?
Let me remind you that government isn't necessarily run by somebody of whom you approve. Unless you would trust the political appointees of Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Palin(1) to run the system honestly, you should worry that it might be used against you or your loved ones.
(1) Palin was a governor. This could very well be run by the states rather than the federal government.
Subsidiarity: the principle which states, roughly, that "nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization."
This is the clearest general basis for rejecting any incarnation of "Big Brother Fed" (micro-)managing schools and health insurance... to say nothing of the inner workings of the family! And several others have highlighted a key reason: the larger and more remote a government is, the less competent it is to make good decisions, even if it can be trusted to act with goodwill and good knowledge (*cough, cough*). Also, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I could go on... but you get the idea.
I don't know where to begin! My husband is a public school teacher. We home school.
We pay property taxes. Most of the families of his students do not. My oldest daughter just receieved a tuition scholarship to a major university. My younger children are learning Greek, and Latin, and one is learning Spanish. They take art lessons. Three know sign. They all read on a grade level FAR above their age, and they read REAL books... classics...not stories about Vampires and Sponge BOb.
Many of my husbands students are at least three grade levels behind on reading. Oh, and MOST of them are already dependent on the government to take care of them, Elizabeth. I think it's almost funny that you believe that home schoolers have a bigger chance of being in jail at the tax payers expense because of one stupid story? I could tell you over 100 stories of incompetent public school teachers for every one sad home school story.
The point original being made is that the government wants our children in school so they can control them, not educate them.
Hey regular guy, you sure get plenty of traffic for a lil' ole' blog. Congratulations. Anyway, the thing that really ticks off liberals about us homeschoolers is that in addition to taking control away from them, we are often taking away their prime targets: intelligent kids. I have a graduate degree and my husband has a degree in a math intensive field. Average homeschooled kids tend to be more like we are than the unfortunate kids in public schools. Homeschool average on standardized tests is the 85%ile. Since intelligence is heritable and normally distributed, we are in fact skimming some cream off the top. Being the dishonest bunch that they are, of course, they can't admit that. The funny thing is, the more accountability they require from homeschool families, the more documentation they acquire demonstrating its effectiveness. Hee hee.
In other words, if you have committed, intelligent parents who home school, you're quite likely to end up with intelligent, well educated kids.
This is not a particularly strong argument for homeschooling. Having intelligent parents who care about their kids' education is also a strong factor in kids' success in public education. At least, that's what my son's teacher told me.
I wonder how much of the success of homeschooling comes from this self-selection bias.
Probably most of the success of home schooling is self selection bias.
Also your kids don't have to wait for the rest of the class. My son and his two best friends in public school all get 95%ile and up on the achievement tests in Math. However, my 6th grade homeschool son is in Alg.2, but his friends, in 7th and 8th grade are in Alg. 1. That is as fast as they can go. So my son can graduate at 15 or 16 but they are locked in till 18. The public system is just less efficient. My son doesn't even spend that much time on school work, and he still is way ahead. Most of his day is spent playing with his brother.
Silly Girl: The public system is just less efficient.
Ori: It's less efficient in student time, but more efficient in teacher time.
I am not oppose that, totally for!
Myself is homeschooled and have two degrees in Turkey and USA. Whatever I get is from my high school years. Kids may be very very successful and handle multi-tasking homeworks. following the same style schedule everyday is very boring as well.
eda
http://edaquincy.typepad.com
I think another thing that contributes to this entire issue is that we look at education as the end all and be all of everything. That a "good education" is the magic ticket to the best life available and if we aren't highly educated we won't "succeed" in life or "get anywhere."
But that is not the truth. An education is a good thing to have but it is not the only way to be happy in life. If a person is not academically inclined this does not mean that they are going to be a total failure at life itself! It doesn't mean that they won't be able to find employment and survive ~ and it certainly doesn't mean that they'll never be happy.
I graduated high school and was awarded a diploma. Yet I only had a 4th grade level understanding of math. I couln't even add or subtract fractions or work with negative numbers. I didn't know any algebra. I couldn't spell, had no concept of grammar, didn't even know how to write a basic paper, had no understanding of world history ~ such as, I did not even know about the colonizing of Africa and Asia, had no idea about very important events like the French Revolution, World War I, etc., thought that M*A*S*H* was about the Vietnam War because we'd never been taught about the Korean War. Had no knowledge of basic geography... What in the WORLD was I learning for those 12 years???
Allllll about "alternative lifestyles", sex, "social justice" and every other useless topic so well-loved by the Liberals. I graduated knowing I was a victim of the Patriarchy and that I had to hate the wealthy classes and protest everything under the sun while worshipping the Environment.
I had to take so many remedial classes at college that it wasn't even funny. Even chemistry!!!
I'm living proof that homeschooling is far better for kids even if there's a risk that somehow a homeschool child will get a worse education then a public school kid... (You'd have to really try hard to achieve that!)
Coffee Catholic, it might be rude of me to say it, but it looks like your parents failed you.
My kids go to public school. That means they have it as a resource. It does not mean my wife and I are not still responsible for their education. We are - including verifying that their school is doing its job.
"My kids go to public school. That means they have it as a resource. It does not mean my wife and I are not still responsible for their education. "
You are also responsible for their genes, which is the most significant factor for success.
Some public schools are fine and some aren't. You can't generalize. Some teachers are great and others lousy. If your children are in a good public school with good teachers with your supervision, they can do just fine and reach their potential.
However there are some truly dangerous schools and very incompetent teachers. When you combine that with uninvolved or even just too-trusting parents, children can be victims of the system.
When I was teaching, parents did not hesitate to demand that their children be moved out of a teacher's class when they did not approve of her. Such assertiveness is important because children need advocates in order to be safe and learn.
Teachers assert themselves as well. An interesting article from the Journal of Labor Economics shows that good teachers choose not to work with certain populations or in certain schools.
http://works.bepress.com/c_kirabo_jackson/11/
However a detailed analysis of student scores shows that talented students can do better even under less than perfect conditions.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/diversity.htm
Which brings us back to the genetic contribution to performance.
I never said that homeschoolers have a bigger chance of being in jail. This is yet another example of how right wing people twist what you say to make it sound like something else. What I was saying is that there is little to no oversight of homeschooling. The public schools are terrible often but the solution is not to do away with public school, because many parents are not capable of teaching their kids.
And it wasn't a "story" that I heard. The one time, the one time I went to observe a homeschooling, this is what I saw. If it only happens one percent of the time, what is the chance that I saw the one percent of the time it happened?
Elizabeth: The public schools are terrible often but the solution is not to do away with public school, because many parents are not capable of teaching their kids.
Ori: True, have you seen anybody here suggesting to do away with the public schools?
Elizabeth wrote (some time ago):
If you educate your kids without "government interference," and you do an incompetent job at it, and your children end up unemployable because they are uneducated, who is going to be responsible for them?
The same people, I suppose, who will be "responsible" for the much larger population of children who were railroaded through a broken and corrupt public educational system. Consider: if a homeschooling parent bungles his/her teaching beyond even your dire predictions, it impairs the opportunities of a handful of children. If a public school teacher bungles thusly (and as a public school teacher for 10 of my 15 years, I've seen more than a few such incompetents who, despite the "fine governmental oversight", still managed to keep their jobs, and even get tenure), then--figuring 15 students per class, and 5 classes per school day (a VERY light load)--the same teacher will bungle the opportunities of 75 students *PER YEAR*. It's a bit like comparing the damage done by a stray bullet to the damage done by a Gatling gun gone berzerk!
One main point: your assertions of "government oversight of public schools" are almost entirely restricted to paper--and are almost entirely nonexistent in most public schools in the USA. (You can thank the equally [if not more] corrupt teachers' unions for that, I'm afraid. Another fine idea, gone badly astray because of the lure of the culture of death...)
Most likely they will end up in jail, a homeless shelter or some other institution AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. Unless there is no chance of this happening, then the government (the taxpayers) do have the right to regulate home-schooling.
Sorry, but this is "slippery sloping" to an extreme. Many of my (public) high school mates graduated (full diploma, not GED) while barely being able to read at a 3rd grade level, and with math skills insufficient to balance a checkbook; and yet (as tragic as that is), these people didn't all move into the prisons and homeless shelters, en masse! You're using rather hysterical hyperbole, here.
Also: there's a vast difference between mandating proficiency tests for progress in core subjects and/or graduation (which are perfectly reasonable, in theory), and mandating "curricula" which are more concerned with social engineering (e.g. "normalizing" sexual/mental illnesses, promoting and "normalizing" abortion as a "right", and hosts of other vile initiatives) than they are with the "career-securing education" you crave for those children.
Tell me: apart from proficiency tests (in core subjects, and NOT in "how well the kids have been indoctrinated into a hedonistic, amoral, atheistic, sexually inflamed subculture"), what exactly would you WANT, in the homeschooling "oversight" you crave?
By "proficiency tests" I have the impression you are talking about testing the students, not the teachers. Shouldn't it be the homeschooling teachers who are subjected to proficiency testing, to avoid the possibility that the kids will have to re-do their education? The woman I saw could not possibly have been subjected to proficiency testing.
By "proficiency tests" I have the impression you are talking about testing the students, not the teachers.
That's true. Riddle me this: what is the ultimate PURPOSE of giving proficiency tests to teachers? Is it not in order to be certain that they will NOT pass on untrue/inaccurate information? And is that not because we want the students to master good/true information? In short: do we not test teachers in order (ultimately) to safeguard good education for students?
So: suppose you have homeschooling parents, neither of which is a specialist at math... but both of which are good at resourcing (i.e. finding good sources of accurate math information) and motivating; then suppose that their children get excellent scores on standardized tests. What, exactly, would be your problem with that?
Shouldn't it be the homeschooling teachers who are subjected to proficiency testing, to avoid the possibility that the kids will have to re-do their education?
You'll need to explain why that would necessarily be the outcome. (See above.)
The woman I saw could not possibly have been subjected to proficiency testing.
Perhaps that's true; perhaps you're mistaken. Did you ask? And if she were *not* tested, would that assure "disaster and failure" for the students, in your mind?
Whenever proficiency testing for public school teachers is proposed, teachers unions work to defeat the proposal.
Sauce for the goose...
Every state in the union requires public school teachers to pass a licensing examination. Some states require more than one test. These are proficiency examinations for teachers. Every licensed teacher has proven themselves to be “proficient,” yet, public education still has big problems. The issue is not the proficiency of the teachers. The issue at the root of poor education is parenting, and no amount of tax dollars or tax-payer funded programs or state mandated testing will change this fact because you cannot legislate good parenting. Elizabeth has one example of what she considers a poorly run homeschool. Fine. That still isn’t reason to regulate all homeschools. There are far more excellent homeschools in this country than poor homeschools, as was proven by the latest homeschool study http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp
Children are incredible learning machines. If none of them were coming out of school depressed, thick, unfocused, lost etc etc etc then I could see a point in arguing about whether to home ed or not. Forcing individuals to learn identical, and mostly useless stuff, compare them to each other and announce their failures publicly on a daily basis is such a devaluing thing to do to anyone. A wonderful headmaster once advised me about teaching my own children - he said "Just open the doors for them and watch them go through." I did that and the results were astounding. My children excel in everything they are interested in! How simple and beautiful!(Oh BTW - bugs becoming reslient is still not random mutaion - they are still the same bugs, not changing into another species, they are adapting to their environment as everything else does that needs to survive according to its kind)
Post a Comment