Hand in your kids!!
-
In the end, it all comes down to money -- the state gets paid based on the number of students in the system. Actually, the money comes out of your taxes. If everyone homeschooled, the state would still be taking in the money. So, the state gains no money at all by stopping homeschooling. I did think the acticle was a bit slanted. First, they try to point out the fact that a lot of public school teachers are unqualified: The researchers examined whether classes in four core subjects — English, math, science and social studies — were assigned to a teacher who lacked a college major or minor in that field or a related field. Nationally, 24.2 percent of classes were taught by such unqualified teachers.... Our public schools are filled with substandard math teachers who never took math in college, French teachers lecturing about biology, art teachers masquerading as history teachers and other instructors who have absolutely no expert knowledge or intellectual curiosity about the subjects they've been assigned to teach. But, it seems to me that if their definition of "qualified teachers" is along this basis, then why the hell are they defending parent's rights to homeschool their children?!? Afterall, if a parent is schooled in one of the four core subjects, then they are *by their own logic* unqualified to teach the other three! This means 75% of their child's education is taught by "someone unqualified to teach it"! (I'm not saying I agree with that idea, but I think it's extremely double-faced to use completely different standards when comparing public education to homeschooling.) ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
I think the author was trying to make the point that if the schools say that parents aren't qualified to teach, then why are they having unqualified teachers in their ranks teaching the kids! After all, they're supposed to be the professionals -- it's their fulltime job! If the "unqualified" parents are doing a better job than the professionals, then maybe the professionals need to go back to school! Not to ruffle too many other feather today, but how many really smart, qualified college grads go into teaching? Not nearly as many that go into engineering, pre-med, etc...
-
Andy Cowenhoven wrote: I think the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have steered us right so far Remember that the much vaunted US constitution is ultimately a piece of paper. Nothing more. What gives it it's "power" is that most people in the United States believe in it. But if most don't then it will revert to what it is: an old piece of paper. Also note that some countries do not need a written constitution (the Uk) yet have survived and been politically stable for centuries. A piece of paper does not guarante anything; only the firm conviction of a state's institutions can. Andy Cowenhoven wrote: I predict that the homeschoolers will prevail on constitutional grounds On what grounds? Freedom of speech? I could counter that the in the Preamble it is stated: provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty and that homeschoolers are undermining these aims. Freedoms are not absolute. The right to free speech is rightly (pun intended) curtailed in times of war. So should other reasonable compromises be made. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance: Thomas Jefferson. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Remember that the much vaunted US constitution is ultimately a piece of paper A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As demonstrated above. This same logic can be appled to the value of say gold. It has no value other than that which society places on it. Freedom for gov tyranny is something that every citizen values. The Constirution just codifies it. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Also note that some countries do not need a written constitution (the Uk) Seems to me that the founders of the US were escaping from Britian because of problems with that form of Gov. and the Constitution was a guarantee that we ( the US ) would never have that type of rule. Brian Azzopardi wrote: provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty That little catch 22 phrase has been the loophole that people who prefer big gov. has always used. That has forced the camels nose under the tent They tend to ignore that part that says "All rights not expressly given to the federal gov. by the constitution shall reside with the states". The quote may not be the exact language but its close. America is not a Democracy. Repeat that over and over. Its not a Democracy. Its a Republic. Of a specific type. Look it up. Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
If you're a parent (especially in CA) be worried! :mad: CA wants to keep 'em stupid! :mad: :mad: :mad: Fortunately, my wife and I left CA just after our baby girl was born a few years ago... It enrages me that a group of bureaucrats think the government is the only entity that can and SHOULD educate children, and then make it a crime if parents try to take matters into their own hands. Especially when homeschooled kids regularly trounce their public school counterparts in math, science, languages, etc. "Don't bother me with the evidence, just let me hold on to my biased, pre-suppositions!" In the end, it all comes down to money -- the state gets paid based on the number of students in the system. If more parents are homeschooling, there's less kids in the system, and therefore, less money going to the state. When you begin doing the math, as the number of homeschoolers increases, there are less kids in the system, and the cost per pupil decreases, meaning that less money is needed in the system. This is unacceptable for educrats! Less money??!? NEVER!! What these people are saying is that they don't care about kids or how well they are educated -- all they care about is money and power. :mad: :mad: Chris ps: If it matters any, educrats have Clinton to thank, b/c it was only after he took office that home-schooling really took off... his (and the NEA's) educational policies created a need where there was none before...
-
You make some excellent points. But i don't think you go far enough; relying on our often over-worked, under-paid professional educators to properly indoctrinate tomorrow's society using purely academic techniques is too much of a gamble. Children are notoriously obstinate creatures; no matter how many times you tell them one thing, a few will always persist in believing something else. No, we need something a bit more powerful... We need drugs in schools. Powerful ones. Lots of them. And none of this wussy Ritalin crap; we can start out with last-ditch depression treatments and work up to horse tranquilizers. Maybe throw a little LSD into the mix & see if we can't burn out that troublesome youthful curiosity early on before it causes problems. Oh, and electroshock therapy. Can you believe, we've had this great tool at our disposal for better than half a century, and still haven't put it into regular use on children? We need to stop slacking off here and get going on this! Now, i suppose some people might worry that a few children will be left babbling, worthless wrecks after 14 years of constant druggings and electrocution. This is just irrational thinking. Obviously, those children were disturbed and unfit for life in society anyway; we would merely be identifying them ahead of time, before they could cause serious damage. And as a side bonus, we'll be ensuring a healthy market for the mental institutions, which i predict will see massive expansion after we start throwing in parents who try to homeschool their children (clearly these parents were not comfortably in-tune with the societal norms). So come on, let's get this plan in motion. Remember, freedom of thought is just a tool of the Axis of Evil.
Shog9
Let me hear you / Make decisions / Without your television Join Team CodeProject
Yeah, let's make 'em all into miniture Ozzy's!! ;P
-
You make some excellent points. But i don't think you go far enough; relying on our often over-worked, under-paid professional educators to properly indoctrinate tomorrow's society using purely academic techniques is too much of a gamble. Children are notoriously obstinate creatures; no matter how many times you tell them one thing, a few will always persist in believing something else. No, we need something a bit more powerful... We need drugs in schools. Powerful ones. Lots of them. And none of this wussy Ritalin crap; we can start out with last-ditch depression treatments and work up to horse tranquilizers. Maybe throw a little LSD into the mix & see if we can't burn out that troublesome youthful curiosity early on before it causes problems. Oh, and electroshock therapy. Can you believe, we've had this great tool at our disposal for better than half a century, and still haven't put it into regular use on children? We need to stop slacking off here and get going on this! Now, i suppose some people might worry that a few children will be left babbling, worthless wrecks after 14 years of constant druggings and electrocution. This is just irrational thinking. Obviously, those children were disturbed and unfit for life in society anyway; we would merely be identifying them ahead of time, before they could cause serious damage. And as a side bonus, we'll be ensuring a healthy market for the mental institutions, which i predict will see massive expansion after we start throwing in parents who try to homeschool their children (clearly these parents were not comfortably in-tune with the societal norms). So come on, let's get this plan in motion. Remember, freedom of thought is just a tool of the Axis of Evil.
Shog9
Let me hear you / Make decisions / Without your television Join Team CodeProject
Don't be an idiot :) If the best you can come up with to counter my post is a straw man you created to knock down again which does not bear any resemblance to what I wrote is pathetic. Are you this bankrupt of ideas? Now go back and think. Hard. You do know how to think don't you? You do? Good! Know come back with an intelligent argument. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
In the end, it all comes down to money -- the state gets paid based on the number of students in the system. Actually, the money comes out of your taxes. If everyone homeschooled, the state would still be taking in the money. So, the state gains no money at all by stopping homeschooling. I did think the acticle was a bit slanted. First, they try to point out the fact that a lot of public school teachers are unqualified: The researchers examined whether classes in four core subjects — English, math, science and social studies — were assigned to a teacher who lacked a college major or minor in that field or a related field. Nationally, 24.2 percent of classes were taught by such unqualified teachers.... Our public schools are filled with substandard math teachers who never took math in college, French teachers lecturing about biology, art teachers masquerading as history teachers and other instructors who have absolutely no expert knowledge or intellectual curiosity about the subjects they've been assigned to teach. But, it seems to me that if their definition of "qualified teachers" is along this basis, then why the hell are they defending parent's rights to homeschool their children?!? Afterall, if a parent is schooled in one of the four core subjects, then they are *by their own logic* unqualified to teach the other three! This means 75% of their child's education is taught by "someone unqualified to teach it"! (I'm not saying I agree with that idea, but I think it's extremely double-faced to use completely different standards when comparing public education to homeschooling.) ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: But, it seems to me that if their definition of "qualified teachers" is along this basis, then why the hell are they defending parent's rights to homeschool their children?!? Afterall, if a parent is schooled in one of the four core subjects, then they are *by their own logic* unqualified to teach the other three! This means 75% of their child's education is taught by "someone unqualified to teach it"! (I'm not saying I agree with that idea, but I think it's extremely double-faced to use completely different standards when comparing public education to homeschooling.) Possibly, but I don't think normally. Most home schooled kids are not taught solely by their parents. Homeschool parents form "co-ops" where a qualified parent teaches one course, and another parent qualified in another subject teaches it, etc. There are many, many variations on how this is implemented. In any event, the article wasn't trying to use the lack of credentials on the teacher's part as a reason why kids should be home schooled, but rather as evidence that the argument that parent's aren't trained/qualified is hypocritical. In many cases they are at least as trained as the teacher, i.e. not at all. William E. Kempf
-
Andy Cowenhoven wrote: I think the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have steered us right so far Remember that the much vaunted US constitution is ultimately a piece of paper. Nothing more. What gives it it's "power" is that most people in the United States believe in it. But if most don't then it will revert to what it is: an old piece of paper. Also note that some countries do not need a written constitution (the Uk) yet have survived and been politically stable for centuries. A piece of paper does not guarante anything; only the firm conviction of a state's institutions can. Andy Cowenhoven wrote: I predict that the homeschoolers will prevail on constitutional grounds On what grounds? Freedom of speech? I could counter that the in the Preamble it is stated: provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty and that homeschoolers are undermining these aims. Freedoms are not absolute. The right to free speech is rightly (pun intended) curtailed in times of war. So should other reasonable compromises be made. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance: Thomas Jefferson. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
I agree with your general sentiment that there are certain things we must require our citizens to know. (the English language for one) I think this is indisputable. But modern curricula that includes things like sex education, self esteem, and other fuzzy subjects, mixed together with criminal activities like drugging kids with Ritalin -- this stuff is way over the line and does not promote the general welfare. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:423 Andy Cowenhoven
-
Don't be an idiot :) If the best you can come up with to counter my post is a straw man you created to knock down again which does not bear any resemblance to what I wrote is pathetic. Are you this bankrupt of ideas? Now go back and think. Hard. You do know how to think don't you? You do? Good! Know come back with an intelligent argument. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Don't be an idiot It's so much *fun* though. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Are you this bankrupt of ideas? It's just after 5:00PM on a Monday. I have lots of ideas involving food and a complex configuration management system i want to get home and work on. Why bother being serious about our hopeless educational system? Brian Azzopardi wrote: Know come back with an intelligent argument. Nope. You started out arrogant and condecending. You're not improving. If you actually believe what you wrote originally, then there is most likely no hope for you. If you were being subtly sarcastic, then it obviously went right over my head. Either way, there's no point to arguing about it.
Shog9
Let me hear you / Make decisions / Without your television Join Team CodeProject
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Remember that the much vaunted US constitution is ultimately a piece of paper A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As demonstrated above. This same logic can be appled to the value of say gold. It has no value other than that which society places on it. Freedom for gov tyranny is something that every citizen values. The Constirution just codifies it. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Also note that some countries do not need a written constitution (the Uk) Seems to me that the founders of the US were escaping from Britian because of problems with that form of Gov. and the Constitution was a guarantee that we ( the US ) would never have that type of rule. Brian Azzopardi wrote: provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty That little catch 22 phrase has been the loophole that people who prefer big gov. has always used. That has forced the camels nose under the tent They tend to ignore that part that says "All rights not expressly given to the federal gov. by the constitution shall reside with the states". The quote may not be the exact language but its close. America is not a Democracy. Repeat that over and over. Its not a Democracy. Its a Republic. Of a specific type. Look it up. Richard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
Richard Stringer wrote: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As demonstrated above. What's your point exactly? That I don't have enough knowledge on the subject? :) Richard Stringer wrote: This same logic can be appled to the value of say gold. It has no value other than that which society places on it. Exactly. If you're moored on a desert island, what would be more valuable to you: water or a diamond? I'm guessing it's water. It's a question of simple economics: demand and supply. The value of a diamond fluctuates. So does the cost in privacy which people are prepared to pay in freedom. Richard Stringer wrote: Seems to me that the founders of the US were escaping from Britian because of problems with that form of Gov. and the Constitution was a guarantee that we ( the US ) would never have that type of rule. Ah! It seems you don't know you're history very well do you? At the time there was massive religious persecution. People from across europe fled to the US. Frankly, most people can only dream of having the consitutional setup and history of the UK. It has garaunteed that country a long and stable life and has served it very well. Richard Stringer wrote: America is not a Democracy You're damn right its not. It's run by a bunch of special interests ranging from Enron, the NRA to the Unions. Seriously: you don't know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. If you had bothered to read Plato's Republic you would notice that it is ruled by a benevolent dictotor. Democracy and being a Republic are not mututally exclusive. Sort out your political definitions please. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as someone once said. Richard Stringer wrote: people who prefer big gov. has always used. As anyone who knows me can attest I'm as right wing as they come. I don't like big gov as much as you do. But that does not justify govt not intervening when it should do so. Richard Stringer wrote: Then must we rate the cost of the execution As rightly pointed out by Shakespeare (in ur sig) we must rate the cost of govt intervention against non-intervention and make the appropriate decision. Ideology does not get us anywhere: look where it got communist russia. Most people in the US hide behind the Constitution to provide a fig-leaf as a means of supporting their position. This is sad.
-
Don't be an idiot :) If the best you can come up with to counter my post is a straw man you created to knock down again which does not bear any resemblance to what I wrote is pathetic. Are you this bankrupt of ideas? Now go back and think. Hard. You do know how to think don't you? You do? Good! Know come back with an intelligent argument. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: If the best you can come up with to counter my post is a straw man you created to knock down again which does not bear any resemblance to what I wrote is pathetic. is this a sentence? you're in the wrong place if you insist on intelligent arguments. i mean, we're always up for a good argument, but we're under no obligation to demonstrate intelligence. -c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
-
You make some excellent points. But i don't think you go far enough; relying on our often over-worked, under-paid professional educators to properly indoctrinate tomorrow's society using purely academic techniques is too much of a gamble. Children are notoriously obstinate creatures; no matter how many times you tell them one thing, a few will always persist in believing something else. No, we need something a bit more powerful... We need drugs in schools. Powerful ones. Lots of them. And none of this wussy Ritalin crap; we can start out with last-ditch depression treatments and work up to horse tranquilizers. Maybe throw a little LSD into the mix & see if we can't burn out that troublesome youthful curiosity early on before it causes problems. Oh, and electroshock therapy. Can you believe, we've had this great tool at our disposal for better than half a century, and still haven't put it into regular use on children? We need to stop slacking off here and get going on this! Now, i suppose some people might worry that a few children will be left babbling, worthless wrecks after 14 years of constant druggings and electrocution. This is just irrational thinking. Obviously, those children were disturbed and unfit for life in society anyway; we would merely be identifying them ahead of time, before they could cause serious damage. And as a side bonus, we'll be ensuring a healthy market for the mental institutions, which i predict will see massive expansion after we start throwing in parents who try to homeschool their children (clearly these parents were not comfortably in-tune with the societal norms). So come on, let's get this plan in motion. Remember, freedom of thought is just a tool of the Axis of Evil.
Shog9
Let me hear you / Make decisions / Without your television Join Team CodeProject
i agree. but first, we need a pilot program. i vote that we start with the skaters on my street. -c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: If the best you can come up with to counter my post is a straw man you created to knock down again which does not bear any resemblance to what I wrote is pathetic. is this a sentence? you're in the wrong place if you insist on intelligent arguments. i mean, we're always up for a good argument, but we're under no obligation to demonstrate intelligence. -c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
Chris Losinger wrote: Brian Azzopardi wrote: If the best you can come up with to counter my post is a straw man you created to knock down again which does not bear any resemblance to what I wrote is pathetic. is this a sentence? It is grammatically correct as far as I can ascertain :) Chris Losinger wrote: you're in the wrong place if you insist on intelligent arguments. i mean, we're always up for a good argument, but we're under no obligation to demonstrate intelligence. Silly me! I should have known :) "You can never underestimate the audience" as someone once said :) bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
i agree. but first, we need a pilot program. i vote that we start with the skaters on my street. -c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
Skaters? We'll be half done starting out!
Shog9
Let me hear you / Make decisions / Without your television Join Team CodeProject
-
Paul Watson wrote: Part of what school taught me was about other people. Boys, girls, team sports etc. Include nasty language, social exclusion/segregation (clique formation), darwinism over intelligent design (evn though one is no more proven than the other), and don't forget SEX! I think I would have been much better off being home schooled. I do agree with teaching state approved ciriculums and standards since some parents are lazy. However, if you are going to test parents' teaching methods, you must do the same for teachers.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"Jason Henderson wrote: darwinism over intelligent design Did I read this correctly? Are u saying that darwinism is wrong and that creationism is right? If you are: :wtf::omg:OH MY GOD!:omg::wtf: To quote Dante: "bandon Hope all ye who enter here" :) Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Andy Cowenhoven wrote: I think the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have steered us right so far Remember that the much vaunted US constitution is ultimately a piece of paper. Nothing more. What gives it it's "power" is that most people in the United States believe in it. But if most don't then it will revert to what it is: an old piece of paper. Also note that some countries do not need a written constitution (the Uk) yet have survived and been politically stable for centuries. A piece of paper does not guarante anything; only the firm conviction of a state's institutions can. Andy Cowenhoven wrote: I predict that the homeschoolers will prevail on constitutional grounds On what grounds? Freedom of speech? I could counter that the in the Preamble it is stated: provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty and that homeschoolers are undermining these aims. Freedoms are not absolute. The right to free speech is rightly (pun intended) curtailed in times of war. So should other reasonable compromises be made. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance: Thomas Jefferson. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
as long as we're quoting dead (or not) people: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. --Frederick Wilhelm Nietsche Man is free, but not if he does not believe it. --Giacamo Girlamo Cassanova de Seingalt Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's just the opposite. --John Kenneth Galbraith No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. --Abraham Lincoln Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. --Voltaire The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind. --Thomas Paine When government takes [sic] responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves. --George Pataki -c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Brian Azzopardi wrote: If the best you can come up with to counter my post is a straw man you created to knock down again which does not bear any resemblance to what I wrote is pathetic. is this a sentence? It is grammatically correct as far as I can ascertain :) Chris Losinger wrote: you're in the wrong place if you insist on intelligent arguments. i mean, we're always up for a good argument, but we're under no obligation to demonstrate intelligence. Silly me! I should have known :) "You can never underestimate the audience" as someone once said :) bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: It is grammatically correct as far as I can ascertain maybe you should check again
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
-
as long as we're quoting dead (or not) people: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. --Frederick Wilhelm Nietsche Man is free, but not if he does not believe it. --Giacamo Girlamo Cassanova de Seingalt Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's just the opposite. --John Kenneth Galbraith No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. --Abraham Lincoln Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. --Voltaire The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind. --Thomas Paine When government takes [sic] responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves. --George Pataki -c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
Chris Losinger wrote: as long as we're quoting dead (or not) people I think that quoting is actually a waste of time in an argument. Anyone can take what someone once said 200 yrs ago and twist it to mean something else. People use quotes to support their arguments which is ok if you're a priest in a sermon (I mean, if you don't quote Jesus then wtf :)) but in more worldly arguments quoting someone is usually a means to cover a weak argument, pretty similiar to people banding the constitution about. As an example, u quoted Galbraith. I don't see the relevance to the thread but anyway: he's a socialist economist and he'd be one of the first to support bigger government. Chris Losinger wrote: Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. --Frederick Wilhelm Nietsche Anoher much quoted aphorism. It's in Nietzsche's book: "Beyond Good and Evil" and the quote is hopelessly out of context. The book discusses and contrasts what Nietzsche calls slave morality (i.e. Christian morality according to him) and what Nietzsche calls the master race. Freedom of speech and the rights of homeschoolers feature little in the book. (BTW, I read the book) Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Chris Losinger wrote: as long as we're quoting dead (or not) people I think that quoting is actually a waste of time in an argument. Anyone can take what someone once said 200 yrs ago and twist it to mean something else. People use quotes to support their arguments which is ok if you're a priest in a sermon (I mean, if you don't quote Jesus then wtf :)) but in more worldly arguments quoting someone is usually a means to cover a weak argument, pretty similiar to people banding the constitution about. As an example, u quoted Galbraith. I don't see the relevance to the thread but anyway: he's a socialist economist and he'd be one of the first to support bigger government. Chris Losinger wrote: Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. --Frederick Wilhelm Nietsche Anoher much quoted aphorism. It's in Nietzsche's book: "Beyond Good and Evil" and the quote is hopelessly out of context. The book discusses and contrasts what Nietzsche calls slave morality (i.e. Christian morality according to him) and what Nietzsche calls the master race. Freedom of speech and the rights of homeschoolers feature little in the book. (BTW, I read the book) Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: I think that quoting is actually a waste of time in an argument. i don't. Brian Azzopardi wrote: but in more worldly arguments quoting someone is usually a means to cover a weak argument bah. a good quote can nicely sum up what would take a lesser writer (or speaker) many paragraphs of boring text to express. it is a crystallized thought: ideal, for expressing ideals. -c
Aiei i ea eio aoa i e eio e aigoa
-
I think the author was trying to make the point that if the schools say that parents aren't qualified to teach, then why are they having unqualified teachers in their ranks teaching the kids! After all, they're supposed to be the professionals -- it's their fulltime job! If the "unqualified" parents are doing a better job than the professionals, then maybe the professionals need to go back to school! Not to ruffle too many other feather today, but how many really smart, qualified college grads go into teaching? Not nearly as many that go into engineering, pre-med, etc...
I think the author was trying to make the point that if the schools say that parents aren't qualified to teach, then why are they having unqualified teachers in their ranks teaching the kids! True, but if you're going to come after the public schools for having unqualified teachers, you should probably make sure the parents are at least as qualified. According to that measure, homeschoolers are saying, "Your teachers are unqualified, so we're going to send our children to someone who is even LESS qualified." As things stand, the public schools can say, "Our teachers aren't perfectly qualified, but they're far more qualified than those parents" -- and by the education standards, they'd be absolutely correct! If the "unqualified" parents are doing a better job than the professionals, then maybe the professionals need to go back to school! This is a FAR better arguement for homeschooling than the "how qualified are the teachers" argument. It should be noted, however, that it's still not an entirely fair argument. Afterall, I'd guess that people who homeschool their children are smarter and more committed to their children's education than non-homeschooling parents. If that is the case, then the children would probably do very well in public schools, too. Afterall, most children don't have parents who are smart and committed to their education. Additionally, there is probably an averaging effect in public schools - you get some good teachers, some bad ones. In homeschooling, you get one good teacher or one bad one. This would push homeschooled children to either be very good or very bad students. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Brit wrote: But, it seems to me that if their definition of "qualified teachers" is along this basis, then why the hell are they defending parent's rights to homeschool their children?!? Afterall, if a parent is schooled in one of the four core subjects, then they are *by their own logic* unqualified to teach the other three! This means 75% of their child's education is taught by "someone unqualified to teach it"! (I'm not saying I agree with that idea, but I think it's extremely double-faced to use completely different standards when comparing public education to homeschooling.) Possibly, but I don't think normally. Most home schooled kids are not taught solely by their parents. Homeschool parents form "co-ops" where a qualified parent teaches one course, and another parent qualified in another subject teaches it, etc. There are many, many variations on how this is implemented. In any event, the article wasn't trying to use the lack of credentials on the teacher's part as a reason why kids should be home schooled, but rather as evidence that the argument that parent's aren't trained/qualified is hypocritical. In many cases they are at least as trained as the teacher, i.e. not at all. William E. Kempf
In any event, the article wasn't trying to use the lack of credentials on the teacher's part as a reason why kids should be home schooled, but rather as evidence that the argument that parent's aren't trained/qualified is hypocritical. But if you're going to come after the public schools for having unqualified teachers, you should probably make sure the parents are at least as qualified. According the qualified-standard, homeschoolers are saying, "Your teachers are unqualified, so we're going to send our children to someone who is even LESS qualified." As things stand, the public schools can say, "Our teachers aren't perfectly qualified, but they're far more qualified than those parents" -- and by the education standards, they'd be absolutely correct! So, the schools CAN use the argument that the public school is MORE qualified than the parent, even if they can't argue that the parent is unqualified. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips