Home Schooling

[Spastic Plastic]

I was home schooled.

Clearly, it's a bad idea, especially for socializing.

It is. Especially judging from your behavior on this board. Just because your overprotective parents didn't let you socialize enough, doesn't mean you have to vent your compulsive lying on this board. You lying liar, liar, liar.

[Minaku]

I was in public school. That didn't help my social skills.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

That being the case do you have a problem with teaching a child to read and do arithmetic before they start school? Is school purely indoctrination? Why do you have a problem with teaching a child at home or at a private school?

[Ocean of Notions]

I also see a trend in this thing called "unschooling" or something. Maybe this can be done well if you have a very motivated child, but the only real life case I know of, the children are at least 7 or 8 and can't even read. They're at (and sort of passed) the prime learning ages for language, esp. for important foundational stuff. If you miss that window, then it's gone forever and it becomes much more difficult.

Edited for sloppy grammar and proofreading.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If your kid can't read by age 5 there is something wrong with them or you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OoN,

"Unschooling" is frightening, in my opinion.

[Liadin]

People who want their kids to avoid public school for religious reasons aren't just thinking about evolution. That's a high-profile aspect of it, but from what I recall it took up all of one day in high school. The fundies weren't convinced, and people who were really upset by it could have just skipped that day, skipped the test questions about it and still passed the class. I think they're worried about more general stuff: having their kids taught that the scientific method is a valid way of figuring things out, and being exposed to people with different viewpoints from their own, and teachers not being allowed to lead the class in prayer or read from the Bible. And there's probably lots of little things they'd disagree with, like being taught about history from more than 6000 years ago and so on.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

People who want their kids to avoid public school for religious reasons aren't just thinking about evolution. That's a high-profile aspect of it, but from what I recall it took up all of one day in high school. The fundies weren't convinced, and people who were really upset by it could have just skipped that day, skipped the test questions about it and still passed the class. I think they're worried about more general stuff: having their kids taught that the scientific method is a valid way of figuring things out, and being exposed to people with different viewpoints from their own, and teachers not being allowed to lead the class in prayer or read from the Bible. And there's probably lots of little things they'd disagree with, like being taught about history from more than 6000 years ago and so on.

A shit-ton more of it is about things like drugs, sex, sex education, foul language, the corrupting influence of junior highers. A bunch of baby boomers remember getting high and fucking. Like dogs! In high school so after they get religion they want to keep their kids far far away!

The "socialization" aspect of school has always bugged me. I don't see the value, and see a lot of detriment to children socializing almost exclusively with people their own age for nearly 20 years, and knowing almost no adults who aren't in a position of authority.

[Galactus]

Galactus,

That being the case do you have a problem with teaching a child to read and do arithmetic before they start school? Is school purely indoctrination? Why do you have a problem with teaching a child at home or at a private school?

Because it encourages parents (those that can afford it, in money or time) to invest in stuff that will benefit their children alone, and let public education rot. I think it's a good idea to have the middle and upper-classes invested in keeping the public-school-system up to standards.

[Liadin]

A shit-ton more of it is about things like drugs, sex, sex education, foul language, the corrupting influence of junior highers. A bunch of baby boomers remember getting high and fucking. Like dogs! In high school so after they get religion they want to keep their kids far far away!

The ironic thing is that it's really college they need to worry about, in that case. Depending on where they live, I suppose.

I'd forgotten the people who complain about sex ed, but I think it was optional at my school anyway.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

You answered why but didn't say what limits you would place upon home instruction.

[Galactus]

You answered why but didn't say what limits you would place upon home instruction.

That's because that would be completely irrelevant.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

No, the limits you, and others who oppose home school, would impose are quite relevant, in my opinion. Do you have a problem with the natural advantage children who are taught to read at home, will have over their peers even if the are required to attend government sponsored schools?

[Kat]

True, but the conflict of what a student's parents/peers tell them is fact, versus what the education teaches them is fact, is present in public school as well. There's plenty of religious students who pass off all the evolution, etc. as bullshit, regardless of being presented with it.

Once agaim, I'm going off the California system here, but for high school there is specific requirements for coursework to graduate, which is identical for both home schoolers and public schoolers. The two science requirements being earth science and life science, if I remember correctly. Home schooling wouldn't allow a parent to avoid teaching their kids about those subjects. Either they do the coursework, tests, and pass the science courses, or they can't get a high school diploma.

Whether or not the child believes what's in the textbooks is a different story, but I see plenty of absolutely religiously-brainwashed children who went through public school as well.

Yeah, I've met public school students who will pass a test on earth science and still argue for young-earth creationism. Actually, that sort of partitioning of school knowledge, and other knowledge, isn't uncommon even when you get beyond creationism and other controversial stuff. A lot of times people just have preconceptions from somewhere else, stuff they picked up as a kid or a book or whatever, and despite being taught the correct thing, the misconceptions will persist. (For instance, that seasons are caused by the earth being closer or further away from the sun.)

In any case, all the most controversial stuff is taught in Biology in California. There's no abiogenesis in any of the high school science curriculum standards although certain things (the Miller-Urey experiments) are in most textbooks and may or may not be taught. Evolution is naturally in biology, as is radiometric dating, which is one of the most creationist-unfriendly parts of the whole science curriculum, but, well, no one says you actually have to teach it unless you want your kid to pass that part of the test.

I have really mixed feelings on homeschooling. I know that without traditional schooling, my education would have been highly, highly unbalanced and I would probably be a historian instead of a scientist today. I'm generally skeptical of things like online charter schools, but I think they are a better alternative for parents who really want to homeschool for non-religious reasons, and there are probably some legitimate ones out there, such as living in a really, really rural area, or if you have a kid who is rapidly on their way to becoming an elite gymnast, musician, or whatever, and at least in an online network you can get an objective paper trail by a teacher who isn't your parent, relative, or close family friend.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Galactus,

No, the limits you, and others who oppose home school, would impose are quite relevant, in my opinion. Do you have a problem with the natural advantage children who are taught to read at home, will have over their peers even if the are required to attend government sponsored schools?

I just presume it´s attending public/private schools as mandatory and whatever the family does on it´s free time is irrelevant to that discussion.

If you´ve already learned French at home try Spanish/German/Russian/Chinese at school. In that sense learning at home is just the same as taking some evening courses elsewhere.

[Galactus]

Galactus,

No, the limits you, and others who oppose home school, would impose are quite relevant, in my opinion. Do you have a problem with the natural advantage children who are taught to read at home, will have over their peers even if the are required to attend government sponsored schools?

No, it's completly irrelevant and an utter strawman. I'm not opposed to instruction in the home, I'm opposed to *Schooling*, as in, an educational system that is not a part of the public system. As far as I'm concerned public schools should be te only ones certified to provide educational diplomas etc. for further education or other kinds of merits. (and these should, at least in the lower levels, include some degree of compulsory attendance)

If parents want o spend the rest of the day to teach their kids juggling or chemistry or whatever it's up to them: But since they are going to spend a lot of time at school and it is where their merits are gained there is an incentive for parents, all parents, to ensure that the public school keeps a decent standard.

CAn we lave the idiotic strawmen out of the discussion now, please?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

You said you have a problem with private and home schools because "it encourages parents (those who can afford it, in money or time) to invest in things that benefit their children alone, and let public education rot." Don't deligent parents already invest in things that benefit their children alone? Haven't they been doing that for years? Don't public schools encourage parents to "invest in things that benefit their children alone"?

[Kalbear]

Scot, please. Just...shut up. Or stop talking about this specific thing. You know Galactus isn't taling about that, you're being willfully perverse and you're not aiding in the conversation in any useful way.

If you like, think of it as the following: every parent has an obligation to support the public school system at a minimum - and this includes the child being enrolled in said school. In addition, they can privately help their child in whatever way they see fit.

[El-ahrairah]

Here we are once more I see; I haven't the heart to argue the whole thing out again. I obviously don't know how I would be if taught along with the smallfolk, but I think my mind and imagination and general quirkiness would be greatly impoverished. Likely I'dn't've* ever even read ASOIAF. But it's too late to worry now - my life is forever ruined by those silly parents who robbed me of a normal childhood.

* My new favorite word - a truly glorious triple contraction!

Children ain't the property of their parents.

Very true, but a thousand times more they ain't the property of the State. Subsidiarity, my dear fellow. Subsidiarity.

EDIT: Don't we have a homeschooled board member who proudly called himself a homophobe? He's kind of living proof of this theory.

I dunno. From what I hear, that board member was never lectured on the subject by his parents, and it was never even discussed in his hearing until he was already decently informed on the matter and had his opinions well set. Anyone can catch the virus; don't feel sorry for me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

I do believe we need a well run public school system. I've never said otherwise.

That said I don't believe putting your child in private or homeschool, in and of itself, harms the public school system so long as the public schools still receive support from those parents via their tax dollars. Galactus asserts that private and home schools, by their very existence, harm public schools. I'm exploring how far he wants to take that line of logic.