What is it with these parents who think that just because they have a law degree they are somehow qualified to teach their elementary school aged children? Finally the sate of California has woken up and is not going to allow these parents to deny their children their government-given requirement right to be taught by a state-certified teacher. Naturally, the teachers unions support this decision. Not because they are greedy, but because they care more about children than the children's own parents. How dare anybody ever question the intelligence and work-ethic of these public servants.
Recent events started when a judge discovered that two children who were being home schooled were being poorly educated. As a society, we cannot stand silent while parents are poorly educating their children. How else will they learn about social justice and other essential principles of democracy? These stupid, selfish parents will finally be forced to let the experts raise educate their children.
Certified teachers in the US are our best and brightest; moreover, they are the most self-sacrificing among us. Education colleges are renown for their high standards of scholarship and service. In fact, right here at UIUC you can often observe a group of education students all wearing matching t-shirts stumbling back and forth across Green street on one of their many bar-crawls. These parents are clearly unfit to educate their children if they think they are better suited to teach their own children than certified professionals.
Worst. Post. Ever.
Here's more information on that case. Sounds like there were some serious problems in the home, as well as substandard education. One of the teenage kids apparently didn't know how to add or subtract.
http://mmsdamps.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ca-homeschool.pdf
Well, one of my research subjects couldn't add two 3 digit numbers, and she was a senior at UIUC. Should we shut down all Universities? Other atrocities happen to children in schools all the time, so should we not allow all schools to teach kids?
Are you kidding? Teachers who care more about my kids than I do? I pulled my ultra gifted daughter out of kindergarten because her teacher refused to give her extra work and insulted her in front of other children when I asked for that work. I began to home school her. I then put her back into public school and she continues to be at the top of her class because of the foundation she got at home. Yes there are some teachers who care more than some parents, but most parents who home school do so because they are extreemly concerned about the quality of their child's education.
I know home schooled children who have graduated from high school having already completed 2 years of college. I think you would bennefit from some research into the quality of home school education. I would guess that your opinion is based upon assumption. Home schooled children often score extreemly high on the many state required tests.
It would be impossible for a teacher to care more about my children than I do.
Fierce Mom
Fierce Mom,
Your Sarcasm Detector isn't working. Most of what Adam wrote was tonque-in-cheek.
Sorry mom,
I can understand how you would think what I wrote was serious. It is becoming increasingly difficult to write overly-exaggerated liberal logic because all too often the real thing is more extreme than anyone can even imagine.
IP, No her sarcasm detector isn't working, it is shut off. Parents don't home school because they don't like the schools, they home school to give their kids better educations so they succeed, they think it is their right and they will fight for it like any other right. Kind of like a mother bear protecting their cubs.
This post is a new nadir in the downward trajectory of this site. The use of hatred, sarcasm and amateurish analysis of complex political and social issues is all-too-common over here these days. Yes, of course Education students are a bunch of drunks who think they are so much more self-sacrificing than the rest of us. Obviously education professionals have no respect for parents or homeschooling. Blah blah blah. It is all so cheap and simple.
IP - you would do your site a service by putting a lid on this kind of crap, instead of endorsing it as "tongue-in-cheek". It is not humorous and it is not sarcasm. It is just anger projected through a rudimentary understanding of the English language.
btw - "nadir" means low point, as my 11th grade public school English teacher taught us so many years ago.
"This post is a new nadir in the downward trajectory of this site. The use of hatred, sarcasm and amateurish analysis of complex political and social issues is all-too-common over here these days."
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'd love to subscribe to your blog, which I'm sure is far superior to this one, but I'm afraid I don't know the address.
"IP - you would do your site a service by putting a lid on this kind of crap, instead of endorsing it as "tongue-in-cheek". It is not humorous and it is not sarcasm."
I'm not endorsing it, but I'm not going to put a lid on it, either.
Adam thinks his sarcasm is funny and an effective way to persuade. I don't necessarily agree, and you absolutely disagree, but rather than ignore him or refute him, you want me to silence him.
No, thanks. To do that would really be the nadir of this site.
Adam,
Don't let Arvid's pathetic response and IP's faint praise discourage you; it was a good post. I have to say that, contrary to your take, I think this trend in California may be a good thing. If it can be made illegal for a parent to teach a child at home, it can certainly be illegal for a teacher to fail to teach a student at school. I am thinking misdemeanor for first time teacher offenders, up to a felony for non-reading high school students. And we needn't stop there. As a conservative, I am a big fan of personal responsibility. We can make it illegal to have attended public school and to have failed to learn how to read, because it clearly isn't the school's fault. We can still bring the teacher in as a co-conspirator.
While we are at it, we can start arresting anonymous liberals who think defining the word "nadir" is effective criticism. I don't need to be reminded who the newest presidential candidate is.
John
can anyone say "slippery slope"? Parents must buckle up the kids in the car, parents are not allowed to smoke in a car with a child present, local school districts are not allowed to sell junk food or soda in cafeterias, parents are not allowed to educate their own children... Wasn't someone advocating for mandatory pre-school at age 3?
Look, I am a big fan of child welfare, and it makes my blood boil when I watch some obviously poor parenting in action. But sometimes the solution is worse than the problem. Where does this stuff stop?
IP - you can't subscribe to my blog because I don't have one. It would probably be easier for me to just register my name on this site (maybe I'll call myself "Eve") and then start writing up blog posts that attempt to insult and denigrate large groups of people from the comfort of my anonymous keyboard.
Maybe I'll start with soldiers. Call them all mindless, drunk idiots who think they are more self-sacrificing than the rest of us. See how long it takes you to censor that.
I'd say fifteen minutes, tops.
"Eve", I think you doth protest too much. The biggest point of the post is not that all certified teachers are drunken idiots (although I think you can definately infer that Adam thinks some are), but that the great state of California has greatly overreached by taking the home-schooling option away parents.
I brought up the recreational activities and questionable academic achievement of many of the pre-service teachers at UIUC only because the state of California seems to be arguing that because some parents who are not certified to teach are doing a bad job of teaching (and even worse things) all parents should not be allowed to home-school their own children.
I'm not calling all education students drunks. But I would say from my experience they tend to go on more bar crawls than students from other departments. And the data shows they have lower ACT/SAT scores than the average college student. I'm sorry if that seems mean, but I think it's even more mean for the government to force parents to hand their kids over to them.
It's not mean, it's silly. Your post is not some rational analysis of the issue told through gentle sarcasm. It is rather hateful and the target is not the judge who made the ruling, it is (surprise!) teachers and pre-service teachers. I want to defend myself militarily. I don't want my tax money being spent paying for soldiers to fight in Iraq. I'd rather have my tax dollars back so I can buy a wide variety of assault weapons and defend my own home from the Evildoers. After all, a lot of GED kids end up in the military. Some don't even have high school diplomas. I've lived by a military base - those soldiers get wasted every chance they get and often frequent prostitutes. Why should I trust the defense of my home to these guys? See? Your argument is silly. Which is too bad, because the Judge's decision also seems to be silly. I am not sure why you can't argue against the decision without insulting the teaching profession, but you seem more than welcome to do so here at IP.com.
"Maybe I'll start with soldiers. Call them all mindless, drunk idiots who think they are more self-sacrificing than the rest of us. See how long it takes you to censor that.
I'd say fifteen minutes, tops."
Try me.
"I am not sure why you can't argue against the decision without insulting the teaching profession, but you seem more than welcome to do so here at IP.com."
People are free to write posts here, without my approval or endorsement. You're free to refute them, ignore them, etc.
To me, this particular post is so over-the-top as to be completely unpersuasive, but often that's Adam's style. You seem awfully worried that someone might actually read it and be persuaded that Adam does, in fact, have conclusive evidence that all public school teachers are drunks. You seem to have concluded that nobody will be able to evaluate or refute Adam's post without my censoring it. Why is that? Why not just destroy his arguments and insults? Is it really that hard?
I'm not calling all education students drunks. But I would say from my experience they tend to go on more bar crawls than students from other departments.
Also based on your experience from previous threads, RA's are mostly homosexuals pushing forth an agenda of uninhibited sex.
On March 7th, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Fierce Mom (not verified) said:
Are you kidding? Teachers who care more about my kids than I do? I pulled my ultra gifted daughter out of kindergarten because her teacher refused to give her extra work and insulted her in front of other children
Other than that how are things in Lake Woebegon??? Where the Men are strong, the Women good looking and ALL the children are above average!
Arvid said:
Also based on your experience from previous threads, RA's are mostly homosexuals pushing forth an agenda of uninhibited sex.
That's not what he said. He said that the "people who run campus housing are a lot more LGBT/Q than the general population." Since you're so keen on the use of specific language at all times (e.g., the "Chief Referendum" thread), I'm sure you'll spot the difference without any help.
"Also based on your experience from previous threads, RA's are mostly homosexuals pushing forth an agenda of uninhibited sex."
Actually, that's not what I said, but that's fine. IP seems to think I'm claiming that all public school teachers are drunks.
Just for the record, even if every certified teacher was as an incredible teacher, I would be opposed to the ban on homeschooling by parents who are not certified to teach (which is about all of them). The fact that some certified teachers are drunks, etc. makes the law that much more unjust, especially since the argument in favor of the law is that some uncertified parents make bad teachers.
Since it seems to be your know-all, end-all measurement of a person, I think it's only fair to ask what was your ACT score Adam? Incidentally, while your arguments are ridiculous either way, there are plenty of certified teachers who were not education majors.
Not that they should have to, but the parents of homeschoolers can pass the CBEST exam (nearly 80% first time pass rate), then apply for an emergency teaching credential (what subs use). It'll cost a couple hundred, but it sure beats 1 1/2 years of certification plus thousands of dollars in tuition. Until the union gets that loophole closed, that is.
So if Adam is allowed to use this case, which none of the teachers on the site have commented on as an excuse to attack any and all certified teachers, can I use it as an example of how right-wingers condone child abuse?
It's ridiculous, but certainly no more ridiculous that Adam and Bramfeld's characterizations...
Teachers might be good or bad, but having taking the time out of a busy working schedule to get certified shouldn't be seen in itself as a character flaw.
After all, despite much anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I don't actually believe that getting a law degree makes you a terrible person or even a terrible teacher...
Not that they should have to, but the parents of homeschoolers can pass the CBEST exam (nearly 80% first time pass rate), then apply for an emergency teaching credential (what subs use).
Based on the document I linked to earlier, I'm not sure if the mother in this case could have passed the CBEST. Her own education ended at 11th grade.
How about we go back to square one with this analysis? I read the article, I read the case and was pleased to see that the LA Times got the story wrong from the get-go. I had a big explanation prepared but in my searches for other material to support my argument, I found this breakdown on another blog. I agree with this commentator.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257230.php
It's not that home-schooling is banned in California, you just have to follow the proscribed procedures. The California Appeals Court mandated NO changes in the procedure, they only said that what this lady was doing was not in compliance with the state's requirements.
I have a little different take on this. I would have those who were home schooled be tested every once in a while. If the home school tests out lower than 25% of peers, then I would have the parents "show cause" why they should continue with their plan.
"Actually, that's not what I said, but that's fine. IP seems to think I'm claiming that all public school teachers are drunks."
That's not what I said, either.
My point is that you often can make your arguments against policies without blanket attacks, yet you sometimes (but not always) include them anyway, and the discussion that follows is focused on the attacks rather than on the policies.
In this case, your anecdotal story about Education majors here going on bar crawls adds absolutely nothing to the policy discussion, yet it has become almost the sole focus of the thread. If that's what you're aiming for, so be it. But it doesn't have to be that way.
I don't know were the all "teachers are drunks" thing came from and I don't get why from one case of child abuse all parents in California lose the right to home school? Kids are attacked in schools every day I don't think we should close the schools, we should keep the kids safe.
When it comes down to it, a society that embraces liberty is a chaotic one. There will always be people who do things we do not agree with or even utterly detest. Such actions may be considered harmful to societal advancement or just make life less pleasant for others near them. A march of neo-nazis through town may disgust and offend us. There way of raising their children may help propagate some of the worst values known to man and even be a general drain on societal gains made over the years. But the liberty of them to do so is the same liberty that allows others to protest against a government that may come to embrace some nationalistic and/or fascist values. It's the same liberty that would allow parents to raise their children outside of government spiraling towards such an end.
The hope with liberty over statism is that free people within a society with a free exchange of ideas will generally improve over time even if it allows some to continue propagating the failed ideas of the past. The hope of very limited government over one with few limits is that the government's grasp on power will never become great enough to destroy the benefits of liberty in a society.
Unregulated homeschooling may cause more harm than good at the moment when looking at the individual cases. I think many people can recognize that. What I'd hope is that people can recognize that it is also a fundamental liberty that has a place in a society that embraces liberty. It stands a barrier against government oppression generally in the future and any such progression towards it today. In the macroscopic sense it can be thus seen as doing greater societal good than harm as a check on government power.
Full blog post on the subject: Homeschooling
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
That is a really interesting treatise on the power of liberty over government. Unless I actually take a minute to think about these lines:
What I'd hope is that people can recognize that it is also a fundamental liberty that has a place in a society that embraces liberty. It stands a barrier against government oppression generally in the future and any such progression towards it today. In the macroscopic sense it can be thus seen as doing greater societal good than harm as a check on government power.
Powerful stuff. From the sound of it, homeschooling is almost as essential as the freedom to vote, or go to the church of your choice. The freedom to not have to place soldiers in your home and our rights against unreasonable search and seizure are just as important as the right of woman who didn't graduate from high school to teach her kids at the house.
Any sort of evidence to back up these rather amazing claims about homeschooling? Anything besides the argument that it is a "barrier against government oppression"?
Think about that, people. It is not homeschooling, and this is not a case about making sure homeschooled kids are taught properly. This is a case about the fundamental freedom of the individual American against government oppression. Most easily found, apparently, it the public schools!
Where can I get some of what this guy is smoking?
Whoa Hoss, There has been no indication that Home School children or their Families are a problem but far from it. They seem to be at the top of College entrance exams and win all the Spelling bees. As I said we seem to have a single case here were a Judge has chosen to go after a whole community. I assure you if the law means anything and now a days that’s questionable because public opinion sometimes is more important, then the families which have done nothing wrong will get their rights back.
"Any sort of evidence to back up these rather amazing claims about homeschooling? Anything besides the argument that it is a "barrier against government oppression"?"
From my full post on the subject you'll find the examples of how oppressive government can use regulation of what can or cannot be taught in the home to protect itself from dissent:
The idea is that no matter how bad a path the government may begin to veer, people of any opposing political or belief system may retain the ability to avoid having the government indoctrinate their children.
"Where can I get some of what this guy is smoking?"
I'd start here:
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think Parents have a right to raise their children as long as they don't harm them.
I am not making a case against public schools, I will make a case that parents have rights, governments don't. Finally if Teachers certification fixed everything we would have the smartest kids on the planet coming out of our public schools.
"Where can I get some of what this guy is smoking?" don't answer this question anon obvously already knows.
"Whoa Hoss, There has been no indication that Home School children or their Families are a problem but far from it."
Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but if so I'd like to point out that I was saying that homeshooling may cause more harm than good when looking at individual cases. As far as doing well on spelling bees and getting good grades and such, that's definitely an overall statistical perk, but that is only one aspect of the societal issues involving homeschooling or education in general. The others being things like cultural advancement, checks on the government power to indoctrinate future generations, etc. I might be repulsed by the idea that homeschooling parents may teach their children to believe that desert-dwelling prophets had a better understanding of the universe than modern science, but I'd be more worried that the government would have the power to require such teaching in both government schools and at home if such people ever got strong popular support to do so. Similarly with repugnant political ideology or social philosophies that may also be destructive and/or generally backwards thinking.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock-"one aspect of the societal issues involving homeschooling or education in general." I don't know that in this case we need to worry about anything else but if we are going to compare Home school kids to the children graduating from Public school or not graduating in many cases. I think you will find the Home School kids doing much better in many societal areas. In any case I think you should provide data that says there is some new wave of Home School Parents abusing their kids. In this case the State of California found that the parent was not certified to teach, I guess you can look at that two ways you can buy anything on the internet and there are plenty of certified teachers in the public school system.
I said it may be bad in some cases... not that it is generally better or worse. And I'm not sure why I should provide data on home schooling child abusers. I don't know of any new wave of homeschooling child abusers. Not sure what you are talking about here.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
They just took the rights of parents away in one of the largest states in the country and your comments may lead people to believe there is something to the statements homeschoolers are not careful with their kids in some way. The common myth is the kids are Home Schooled so they are kept from society and groups and don't know how to interact with others well. Teachers Unions like to keep this Myth going because they can say these kids need to be in the classroom with other kids. Well Home school parents are really very well organized and have groups and work together on many things so they do interact and travel and do different things.
I just thought that it would be good to see some numbers that prove that there is an increase in Homeschool kids not doing well. The Unions have not been able to prove that these kids have been harmed or are doing poorly for if they had been able too there would be no Homeschoolers.
Are homeschooled kids really getting the top scores on the ACT and SATs? That seems like an astonishing claim. Does anyone have a citation?
And "Glock" - are you really equating the American government with North Korea because we want to ensure that every citizen is afforded the opportunity to have a decent education? I'll go ahead and assume that you were educated in a public school system since you don't seem to understand the idea of evidence. All you've put forth here is more of your philosophical mumbo-jumbo: liberals want the schools to instill values into our children, public schooling is equivalent to living in North Korea. Blah blah blah. Cheap and simple.
Are you sure your other login isn't "Adam"?
"are you really equating the American government with North Korea..."
No. If I was, I would have equated them. I was using an extreme alternative example and specifically pointed out that the US is unlikely to ever come close to being that bad. But hey, why argue with what I said when arguing against what I didn't say is so much easier. ;-)
"All you've put forth here is more of your philosophical mumbo-jumbo: liberals want the schools to instill values into our children, public schooling is equivalent to living in North Korea."
Wasn't really arguing that either. But you're right on the philosophical mumbo-jumbo part. I'm putting forth a logical argument based on a political philosophy and historical/political reasoning. If I've said something inaccurate or something that doesn't follow, please feel free to point it out. Rewording what I said to accuse me of saying something absurd just doesn't really do much.
"Are you sure your other login isn't "Adam"?"
Pretty sure, yup. Somehow I don't get the feeling he has much disdain for parents who homeschool based on absurd religious beliefs. I do. I wouldn't prohibit such a thing though because I feel they have a right to do so that is necessary for far more important reasons.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So when you wrote the following:
The best (or worst, depending on how you look at it) example of the slippery slope on this one is the North Korean education system that has sole authority over what is taught in both the government schools and the home, and abuses that power to ensure that all future generations adhere to the authoritarian regime. While it is unlikely the US system will ever hit that worst case scenario there have been plenty of historical examples of nationalism being a requirement of government school systems, from the pledge of allegiance to ethnocentric curriculum.
While many Democrats and liberals may trust the government to instill values in our children, would they trust it to do so if popular opinion and later the government itself became overwhelmed with a militaristic and nationalist fervor? If the schools became required to teach allegiance to a cult of personality would they demand homeschooling? Would they fight against homeschooling requirements that demanded such values to be taught or credentials that could include joining the nationalist party/organization?
It's certainly a slippery slope, probably an unlikely one. But history has taught us that as government power grows that such scenarios move from the impossible arena to the possible but unlikely arena... and from there can move from improbable to probable depending on the political environment.
You actually were not trying to imply that America's public school system (a by-product of that growing government power we should all fear), and this particular decision are leading us onto the slippery slope toward becoming a socialist, backward regime on the Korean Peninsula?
And that part about liberals trusting the government to instill values in our children. That must be the part were you sure weren't trying to say that liberals want the government to instill values in our children.
Just a quick question. Do you actually read what you write?
Have a fine afternoon. I have a three year old who is making more sense than this thread has made since the beginning.
Would you guys please back the f*ck up for a minute and can your rhetoric? THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT THE RIGHT TO HOMESCHOOL. This was a case about following the guidelines that the state of California established in order to homeschool competently and measurably. As I said above, this case has NO IMPACT on those thousands of California families who are homeschooling and following the established guidelines. This was a case that shut down one family that wasn't doing it properly.
I always enjoy these threads because I get to see just how illogical people are in their random disdain for those of us who give our lives to teach.
I love homeschooling. The smaller the class size, the better things go at the beginning. Later, kids learn a lot from each other, but still 10-15 is ideal. Current class size pushed by our government and political machines is 30+. In our district, it was reached by overpowering the ineffective union. So the union is on the right side of this one.
I don't see how you can blame that on homeschooling or teachers.
Also, I don't see how people can get, "If certification worked, we would be the smartest country in the world". The top school systems in the world use certification. I don't know of any that don't use certification.
"You actually were not trying to imply that America's public school system (a by-product of that growing government power we should all fear), and this particular decision are leading us onto the slippery slope toward becoming a socialist, backward regime on the Korean Peninsula?"
That's right. I wasn't implying that nor trying to imply that. What I said was that would be unlikely to happen here. But if our government ever did start down an oppressive path, homeschooling is one way for people to oppose the indoctrination of their children by it. The difference is that you're trying to imply I'm saying that we are currently on that path... what I'm actually saying is that it would help in a situation if that ever became the case, even though it's unlikely.
"And that part about liberals trusting the government to instill values in our children. That must be the part were you sure weren't trying to say that liberals want the government to instill values in our children."
I said some of them... not all of them... not even most of them. I consider myself a liberal even if many other self-described liberals don't because of my war views and federalist views. I'm unlikely to insult myself as you're suggesting.
"Just a quick question. Do you actually read what you write?"
Yes, but my trick is to read what it actually says... with all the words included, and not reworded into something that sounds absurd. I'm not sure if you're able to see all the words in it at this point.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
prairie biker:
Glad I'm not the only one who is a bit puzzled about the outrage here. Parents who will do a decent job homeschooling have got to be smart enough to find out what is expected of them. I was pretty sure I was going to home school my daughter back when I was under the illusion that I would have a chance to be a stay-at-home mom. Later, while doing a traveling sales job, I met a woman who was raising her kids out in the country... all 7 of them. Both mom and dad were scientists, and the kids were on their way to MIT and Harvard. I'm pretty sure she knew what guidelines she needed to follow.
Glock:
If you'd stop making so much trenchant good sense, you'd have an easier time finding people who were actually willing to argue with what you say instead of what they thought they read when they realized they didn't want to agree with you.
Anonymous:
"Think about that, people. It is not homeschooling, and this is not a case about making sure homeschooled kids are taught properly. This is a case about the fundamental freedom of the individual American against government oppression. Most easily found, apparently, it the public schools!"
Neglecting a child's development when it comes to education is something that a bad parent will do whether or not they are homeschooling. A smart kid will figure it out and start teaching himself, whether or not he is being homeschooled. No teacher can make up for bad parents. Only the kids can do that, and they are remarkably smart little buggers sometimes. And sometimes not. Sometimes the not so smart ones procreate... what can you do?
Either way, it's a fundamental liberty for parents to teach their children well, and a fundamental tragedy of a liberal society that values this freedom that some parents overestimate their abilities when it comes to raising their kids. The states regulate homeschooling to try to cut back on the most obvious offenders on the stupid scale, but the right to propogate stupidity is the price we pay for our freedom.
And yeah, it is that fundamental.
Kem
No teacher can make up for bad parents. Only the kids can do that, and they are remarkably smart little buggers sometimes.
I agree with you in general, but I completely disagree with this. Of course, education has to be self-motivated and determined. However, value of education and self-ownership have to come from somewhere, and more often than not, they come from a teacher.
There has been much discussion of fundamentals. I believe that a fundamental rights is to be given one's own chances to grow and not be penalized for the mistakes of one's parents. In order to provide that opportunity, teachers and schools must be ready to support parentless children.
"However, value of education and self-ownership have to come from somewhere, and more often than not, they come from a teacher."
I'll quibble with this. I think, most often, as a whole, those values come from parents, but that all-too-often it's left to teachers.
IP:
Yup.
xian:
That value doesn't come from the teachers. It comes from that little spark inside of the child (or, in the case of a teenager who is very near and dear to me, and suffered greatly at the hands of parents and teachers who thought she was too stupid to learn when she was young) that says this is bull****, and decides to take control. An inspirational teacher or family member can be a great catalyst, but if that spark is buried in a flood of "you can't, and that's okay" from parents, even the best teacher is doomed to failure.
I admire and understand your idealism. One teacher who cares enough about his students to help them to care about themselves and their future can make an enormous impact on the world. But it's not always enough, as I'm sure you've had time to contemplate far too often. (Which is why I take issue with the whole "If the teacher fails a student, penalize the teacher.")
You do what you can, and you realize that *every* parent is a homeschooler. We just rely on the professionals to provide the foundation, and do our best to help our kids stand confidently on it to build something meaningful with their lives.
Kem
Well, then congratulations, as you've just written off a huge chunk of our population who have no parents or no supportive parent at home.
Of course, many of them DO succeed and no it's not some mystical spark.
I have some questions to all concerning home schooling.
First, I do not strongly doubt that a mother with an education can adequately school her children on the "abc's" and "2+2's" so they can use those skills to perform usual job tasks. That part of home schooling does not concern me.
I again rely on my schooling experience and know that the interaction with my classmates throughout the years of school did have an impact on my life and the person who I am now. It seems that interaction with different views of life from all those classmates or the satisfaction of helping those classmates with problems or getting help from them was also a very important part of my education.
It seems to me that home schooling cannot possibly provide those interaction benefits of a public education and could cause home students problems with interactions with society and the trials and tribulations thereof. Is this a genuine concern or am I missing something?
Second, Another significant benefit of my public education was participation in the extra curricular activities such as band, basketball, football, softball, drama, choir, etc. The again provided a social release while still benefiting my character. Again, how does home schooling offer these activities and the benefits thereof?
We have all come in contact with students who lack the interaction skills to perform with others and that is a problem that ultimately not only affects those who lack the skills, but those who make every attempt to help them, thereby diverting time from their improvements.
Presently, I know individuals who do home school their children and some of the neighbor children, and I find not fault in the integrity or effort of my friends, but I wonder if even the most determined efforts can unknowingly fall short?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Looks like Tolstoy with a Headdress is back.
The "social" argument is a strange one. If that's the root of the problem, just get the home-school kids together at the park for an hour a day. They could play Bull in the Ring or search for rocks.
I would suggest you do a Google Search for the words Home School before you start disparaging Home School kids as some group locked up in a cage somewere.
If the comments from 02:46 PM, Anonymous and Run are directed at or an answer to my questions,
Didn't Tolstoy write War and Peace? What does that have to do with home schooling? I thought he was a Russian.
Locked up in a cage? Where did that come from? Run, is that what your perception of home schooling is, if so, why? What experiences have you had that causes you to think that? Certainly the friends that I have that do home school their children do not lock them up in a cage, why would you say that?
I don't understand, my post was not an argument, but a couple of questions I had concerning the completeness of Home Schooling because I am not aware of the entirety of home schooling and I was just wondering what provisions for home schooling approached my concerns. I meant nothing disparaging about home schooling, wanted to know some answers.
They are not my beliefs or my opinion on Home schooling, they are questions I have and they are based on the concerns which I have stated.
If home schooling does not concern itself about social interaction, then just say it.
I was looking for answers, and hoping for some information. Please tell me I am mistaken and your posts were not directed at my questions or were your posts answers to my questions?
I wonder if Fierce Mom has any answers or information concerning my questions..............please?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Rex,
Socialization is an essential part of an effective homeschooling curriculum. Fortunately, there are many options. Aqua Chiefs, Boy Scouts, church groups, etc. Most homeschooling parents (in my experience) make it a priority to provide numerous extracurricular activities for their kids.
Don't forget the flip side of the socialization coin when it comes to public schools. Bullying, foul language, prejudice, violence, etc. Many parents will eagerly choose to give up the positive aspects of socialization in school in order to avoid the negative aspects.
xian,
I haven't "written off" anyboday.
(And, as an aside, I'm quite possibly the last person on this blog to talk who's going to talk about mystical sparks. Please don't confuse a rhetorical device to represent the complexity of consciousness and the brain's capacity to both identify things that are necessary for survival and override the problems that emotions sometimes present in order to act accordingly with some sort of divine animation to the biological soup.)
That comes from inside, and it *can* be dulled through various types of verbal and emotional abuse--and that's not even getting into the physical stuff that some kids cope with. If kids don't have parents, than the negative influence of bad parents becomes something of a non-issue, doesn't it? They have a different set of challenges to overcome.
Bottom line: a kid who has learned not to care as a defense mechanism to protect himself from being hurt is much, much, much more difficult to teach. I'm a little surprised that we're not in agreement on this.
Kem
I think all are in agreement, Kem , Rex, Xian.. correct me if I am wrong!
We ALL want what is best for the children!!!
And VIOLENCE in the schools scares us all ( and I don't have kids) but that s**t is scary..
BUT for those kids that live with the parent(s), THE PARENTS NEED TO BE INVOLVED!!! The school system has ENOUGH to do W/O raising your children for you!!! For those that don't??? sorry Xian et al, I DON'T have the answer!
If you send your kids to school (Public or Private) BE INVOLVED with YOUR kids!!!
I THINK that's what many (NOT ALL) of us grew up with..!
EXPECT and FOLLOW up on PROGRESS from the kids!! That goes a long way!!!
School should INCLUDE but not PRECLUDE Parents... BUT THAT SHOULD BE A DUHHHH!!
I am NOT slamming on Teachers, BUT PARENTS....??? quit expecting Teachers to raise your kids for you!!!
AND THEN, QUIT SUING THE SCHOOLS WHEN YOUR KID CANT READ... THATS YOUR ( the parents)FAULT TOO!!!
And YES, I can realize that I am preaching to the chior... Sorry for the rant!
First, in regards to the military demographics, this presistent idea that those who join the military are dumb GED (at best) boobs from poor and minority families needs to get shot in the head. I encourage everyone to take a look at the DoD's report, Population Representation in the Armed Services. This is from 2004, they produce them frequently but this is what I found quickly. You'll find that, for instance, 92% of all enlisted people accepted have college degrees, most are in the top half of their class. If you compare the Armed Services to the general population averages, you find the military is more educated as a population. In fact, the number of GED's accepted into the Armed Service is only about 7%, far below the percentage of people in society that have GEDs. The biggest component of military servicemen come from the South, NOT inner city blacks. If you look at the economic background, you see that most come from middle class backgrounds. The data that's freely available shows these claims to be patent lies.
Second, as far as education and homeschooling, there are two and only two ways to look at this. You can either trust private citizens to make the right choices and deal with the exceptions (i.e. with child abuse and neglect where **innocence** is presumed), or you can trust the government with no ability to handle exceptions. Throughout history, people have trusted the government to provide their human needs and history is replete with disasterous outcomes of that trust. In America, we trust the people (innocence until proven guilty) to be honest and acting in good faith. Because you can point to one family that hasn't home-schooled in a good way does not mean all families cannot be trusted. We do not define the rules by the exceptions, we define the rules by normalcy and deal with the exceptions as such (i.e. innocent until proven guilty).
So, it comes down to this... do you trust citizens or do you trust unaccountable, unelected and unmovable bureaucrats?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Gee, Adam can't even spell the word "state" on line two of his "hateful of home educators" blog. Even my home educated children could spell that word in 1st grade. Maybe he would've turned out a little more kind and civilized had he been home educated, as many of our brilliant forefathers had been educated. He obviously isn't aware that most of the top notch universities are hot in pursuit of the home educated pupils today. Do a little more research on the hundreds of thousands who home educate b/f you start throwing stones!
Boggle.
If 92% of all enlisted people have college degrees and 7% have GEDs, that means only 1% of all enlisted personnel have just a high school education or some college? Somehow I don't believe that since so many people say they enlisted for the college money. Where is the link to that statistic please.
I followed the link in Mr. Bambenek's post. It says 92% have a HIGH SCHOOL education.!
That's because the data doesn't say what John said - he miswrote "high school diplomas" as "college degrees". I'll presume incompetence instead of malice on his part, however.
Only 12% of the enlisted force have any "college experience", which does not necessarily equate to a degree.
And yeah, I was trying to avoid posting in this thread, because everything Prairie Biker said is true and this discussion is totally off-base.
Sorry, I meant high school degrees, not college education, was thinking of something else when I typed that. 92% have traditional HS diplomas, 7% GED. And a mistake isn't incompetence. And that, of course, is limiting the discussion to the enlisted force... officers (required to have college degrees in all but rare circumstances) skew these numbers greatly.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
PB wrote:
True. But realize this wasn't the only family not following the guidelines. From the article:
By "deny", I am going to assume Mr. Smith means require parents to get teaching credentials, something (again, I assume from the comment) that no other state requires . This IS a big deal.
RSW,
That is absolutely not the case. California lists several exemptions to credentialing in their educational code and the state's requirements for being credentialed (as well as creating your own "private school") are minimalist at best. Go read the link I first posted. You may have to follow some of the links within it, but really, this IS NOT a big deal. And if you really want to "get it", read the actual decision: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF where the appelate court remands the case back to the trial court for them to determine if the parents were actually in compliance with any of the permited exceptions.
Here, I pasted the introduction from the decision to help you out.
In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300), we consider the question
whether parents can legally “home school” their children. The attorney for two of the
three minor children in the case has petitioned this court for extraordinary writ relief,
asking us to direct the juvenile court to order that the children be enrolled in a public or
private school, and actually attend such a school.
The trial court’s reason for declining to order public or private schooling for the
children was its belief that parents have a constitutional right to school their children in
their own home. However, California courts have held that under provisions in the
Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their
children. Thus, while the petition for extraordinary writ asserts that the trial court’s
refusal to order attendance in a public or private school was an abuse of discretion, we
find the refusal was actually an error of law. It is clear to us that enrollment and
attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor
children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually
attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state
teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory
exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies
to the child. Because the parents in this case have not demonstrated that any of these
exemptions apply to their children, we will grant the petition for extraordinary writ.
"However, California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children."
That's probably the part that has people the most perturbed. It absolutely is and should be considered a fundamental right in the US for reasons I argued earlier. Even by what the State considers the dumbest of the dumb or the less qualified than a cave man. The children of such parents may suffer with such freedom. But that's the risk of a free society. This case doesn't seem to ban home schooling as the initial post seems to say. But it points out a serious problem with America today. They do not trust liberty to generally be the best course of action for society. Yes it comes with the pain in the butt that people we absolutely can't stand are free to do what we cannot accept. But, when the time comes that people need to use those liberties to protect the liberty of all... it's the most beneficial part of our society. So this thread is a bit exaggerated, and perhaps a bit absurd, but it certainly hits upon a fundamental issue of liberty, and it's worth ranting about. Just my 2 cents.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So, PB, you are saying that an advocacy group is using this ruling to fire up people in opposition of something that really isn't happening? That never happens in America, does it? :-) I will keep my eye out for further developments.
The state vs. parent issue gets people worked up. No matter how good the teacher is, he or she doesn't care more about my child than I do.
RSW,
Yes, I am saying just that. The advocacy group has it wrong as well.
Check your facts Hoemschoolers across the board score higher tht those of public schoolers. The governmetn has no right to be teaching children. JUst ask anyone riased in a communist country. Public school is terrible. www.whatifcard.com
Of course homeschoolers across the board score higher than public school students. Class size alone should explain that.
On March 21st, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Ryan (not verified) said:
Check your facts Hoemschoolers across the board score higher tht those of public schoolers. The governmetn has no right to be teaching children. JUst ask anyone riased in a communist country. Public school is terrible.
Rich irony in this post, made me laugh out loud. Good stuff Ryan.