Hand in your kids!!
-
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
-
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...
If studies show that homeschooled children "regularly trounce" their public schooled counterparts you might want to provide a link. Upon searching, the only ones I found were funded by homeschool associations and therefore HIGHLY questionable. I know it's purely anecdotal and not equal to your as of yet unreferenced "studies" but I personally know three seperate families that have homeschooled. All ended in various levels of disaster. None lasted more than three years. Of the six children involved, two needed to be placed one year behind their peers due to serious deficiencies in core topics. Three of the remaining four required extra private tutoring to catch up to their peers. Only one child is currently performing well in public schools. In each of these three cases, the parents seriously underestimated the amount of time and preparation involved. Often the "extra field trips" were to the local mall or at best not followed up with any serious study of the topic at hand.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
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: 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! Isn't part of our education to prepare us for life after school? What world do you live in that doesn't require knowledge and exposure of all of these things?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
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.
Brian Azzopardi wrote: 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. The US is the oldest democratic form of govt. in existence. That means that the UK wasn't a democracy when the US was founded. They had a KING a monarchy for chripes' sake! Brian Azzopardi wrote: 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. The US is a democratic republic. We elect representatives. This is a lot different than the mob rule of a pure democracy. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Every time someone is in favour or against something they start waving the constitution. Please grow up and provide a well reasoned rationale for your position. The Constitution IS a well reasoned rationale.
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]
I didn't but so what if I did. Can't I believe what I want and teach my kids the same? Has the theory of evolution been proven? No. Neither has creationism, but we teach one over the other even though a majority of people believe in a god.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
Jason Henderson wrote: 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! Isn't part of our education to prepare us for life after school? What world do you live in that doesn't require knowledge and exposure of all of these things?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Are you saying these things are good (except for sex of course)??? I'm not saying exposure to these things are bad, just the fact that our schools seem to promote these behaviors/beliefs even if inadvertently.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
I understand your rage. And looking at it from your point of view, you're right. But that's from your point of view. Chris Hambleton wrote: It enrages me that a group of bureaucrats think the government is the only entity that can and SHOULD educate children In the national interest (and I am saying this seriously, I'll explain below), I believe that the state should set the syllabus that all primary and secondary school pupils under that state's soverignty should follow. Please note that I did say that the State has a monopoly on education, only on setting out what should be taught. Parents are then free to send their kids to state or fee-paying schools. I do not agree with faith-based schoold irrespective what any PC bleeding heart moron thinks. And for a bloody good reason. The reason that the State should regulate what all it's citizens learn in their formative years is so that it can form or socialize them into the accepted norms and beliefs of that State. Thus letting Muslim schools (as an example only please) teach that Allah is the supreme ruler in both spiritual and temporal matters should not be tolerated for a simple reason: it undermines the concept of separation between State and Religion. That is unless you actually like to live in Iran. For a society to survive and prosper it needs political stability and that is only achieved if the absolute majority of the population have common norms and modes of behaviour. If not that society will weaken and will not survive. One of the primary objectives of the State is to ensure political stability and one of the means of achieving that is through inculcating into young minds (some would say brainwash) the accepted norms and behaviours. The above to you may sound like alot of bullsh*t. It's not. Democracy can only prosper if the State and it's intitutions all believe in it. I do not want the state to be the only means of education, that's why private schools should be encouraged so that they may come up with innovative teaching methods, as long as the principle remains the same: bringing up law-abiding citizens. Excuse the long post. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: The reason that the State should regulate what all it's citizens learn in their formative years is so that it can form or socialize them into the accepted norms and beliefs of that State. Thus letting Muslim schools (as an example only please) teach that Allah is the supreme ruler in both spiritual and temporal matters should not be tolerated for a simple reason: it undermines the concept of separation between State and Religion. That is unless you actually like to live in Iran. Yoiks!!! So how are you going to prevent these children being 'indoctrinated' outside of school, by parents, temple, and the muslim community leaders? Do you say that the schools must then counter the arguments of these childrens parents by saying that Allah/YHWH/God isn't the supreme ruler of the universe? Doesn't that then violate the separation of church and state? It's my understanding that a huge number of the early settlers of the US were pilgrims fleeing religious persecution in Europe. It strikes me odd that you are suggesting that a nation that was founded by people seeking religious freedom should turn about and restrict those freedoms. It's also my understanding that the reason the US Constitution seeks the separation of Church and State, isnt so much because the state shouldnt be involved in religion, but that the state shouldn't attempt to control religion. Brian Azzopardi wrote: For a society to survive and prosper it needs political stability and that is only achieved if the absolute majority of the population have common norms and modes of behaviour. If not that society will weaken and will not survive. One of the primary objectives of the State is to ensure political stability and one of the means of achieving that is through inculcating into young minds (some would say brainwash) the accepted norms and behaviours But a society that controls it's citizens behaviour as tightly as you suggest, won't survive. For recent history, look at the USSR. I also disagree with this statement on philosophical grounds. Having a homogenous group of people who all think alike, who all act alike, who have no differences in behaviour, and who have no differences in beliefs, is a sure recipe for disaster. You really do end up with an Orwellian society when the government starts acting like this. Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-i
-
I didn't but so what if I did. Can't I believe what I want and teach my kids the same? Has the theory of evolution been proven? No. Neither has creationism, but we teach one over the other even though a majority of people believe in a god.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"What I'm going to say will be totally ignored by you, but I'll say it anyway: YES Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact. If you chose to ignore the evidence does not make the evidence disapear in a puff of smoke. Please remember that the foundations and theories underpinning evolution (genetics, mutation, etc) are used in other areas such as biotech companies. When people argue that evolution has not been proven are implying that the foundations on which it is built (today, in Darwin's time people didn't know about genetics ofcourse) are false too. So if they're false how does one explain the billions of dollars of research spent on genetics to come up with new cures? Are all these scientists dumb? Oh, and to really spoil the fun, the Roman Catholic Church weighed in recently (I think it was 1994) with a statement accepting the "theory" of evolution as fact. Brian Azzopardi You don't by any chance believe that the world is flat do you? bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
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
Shog9 wrote: We need drugs in schools. Powerful ones. Lots of them. Your plan has merit. I seem to recall that a good hit of methedrine did wonders for my self esteem for 8 to 10 hours. :cool: Shog9 wrote: 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? I have never understood why ECT machines have not yet been sold at places like Circuit City. They are, after all, perfectly safe. :) Andy Cowenhoven
-
What I'm going to say will be totally ignored by you, but I'll say it anyway: YES Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact. If you chose to ignore the evidence does not make the evidence disapear in a puff of smoke. Please remember that the foundations and theories underpinning evolution (genetics, mutation, etc) are used in other areas such as biotech companies. When people argue that evolution has not been proven are implying that the foundations on which it is built (today, in Darwin's time people didn't know about genetics ofcourse) are false too. So if they're false how does one explain the billions of dollars of research spent on genetics to come up with new cures? Are all these scientists dumb? Oh, and to really spoil the fun, the Roman Catholic Church weighed in recently (I think it was 1994) with a statement accepting the "theory" of evolution as fact. Brian Azzopardi You don't by any chance believe that the world is flat do you? bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
I believe there is some mutation/evolution but I don't believe I evolved from a tiny amoeba. That's what I believe and if you don't want to respect that I could care less. Brian Azzopardi wrote: You don't by any chance believe that the world is flat do you? You take me for a fool because I believe in something I cannot see or prove, yet you do it all the time with darwinism. Who is the fool now? If you cannot respect by beliefs and quit labeling me an idiot, I will totally ignore you.
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"