Home Schooling

[Spastic Plastic]

I'm comparing it to a normal Swedish public school, which I went to before and after.

Also, I think that kids who get press-ganged into the Kings on their way home, will tend to form gangs again if penned up together in a boarding school. In my experience, boarding school only intensifies the problems that kids already may have; nowhere else than boarding school have I seen 18-year old men "hazing" and beating up 14-year old boys on a daily basis out of boredom. Most public school kids grow out of that mentality.

In the boarding school I went to, a lot of people were dumped there because their lazy parents couldn't be fucked to give them an upbringing. And that's not a solution to the schooling problem we're talking about.

[Alexia]

Considering U.S. history with voluntary boarding schools serving children coming from demographics and lifestyles perceived as inferior, thanks but I'll take a pass on it.

[Guest Raidne]

Ahahahaha. Seriously, I just posted that in the multiculturalism thread earlier today. Did you rip it off?

I think we both know those weren't voluntary.

[Minaku]

Sure it is. All my children take violin lessons.

Is all music instruction “parrotting back”? Of course not. Music, just as any other subject, has skills at all levels of the Bloom taxonomy. At its lower levels lie purely reproductive skills. These are hard to learn and deserve attention, commitment, practice, and our respect. The level of contempt for low-level skills sometimes expressed in pedagogical discourse always baffles me. Playing a Bach minuet on the violin, reciting a Shakespeare sonnet, having a large vocabulary in your third of fourth language (and declining 200 common verbs correctly), knowing if the Rennaissance was before the Baroque: these things are good to know, and anybody who has invested the time to teach or learn these things deserves our respect.

Playing the minuet well (and with the correct performance practice), analysing the sonnet, translating into your fourth language, placing a painting in the right era: these things are also good to know and deserve our respect as well. And so on, further and further up, such as explaining why the counterpoint in the minuet is uniquely Baroque and how that corresponds to the socio-politial mindset of that era is great as well. I can do that. (But I can do that without playing the minuet. I have useless, lazy skills than mainly signal my high IQ. I don’t know if that deserves any respect, or is a learnable skill.)

Hardly anything in my lessons is done by rote. I always explain and apply and give examples for my student to try. If there is repetition, it is meaningful. So no, I still disagree. A good teacher can teach without rote. And even though it is more difficult, I think in the long run it produces better results.

You're right, testing is fine when the test actually drills you comprehensively.

However, the American testing model right now only gives room for math and verbal, and maybe some analytical knowledge. My mother, even though she's a teacher in a very wealthy school district, has confirmed this.

We're raising an entire generation of kids with no classtime learning civics, music, or in the library or shop, or anything that might make you a more informed, well-rounded person. Some might claim this type of class is superfluous, but I do not.

The problem isn't testing, but the fact that we're testing while neglecting to teach our kids anything meaningful.

Coco has hit the nail on the head and said it better than I ever could.

No offense, TFJ, but what are you comparing your boarding school experience to? Am I out of line in guessing that it's not living in squalor with your crack-addicted mother, hoping to not get caught in the crossfire of a gang rivalry on your way to school? Or press-ganged into the Kings on your way home?

Man Raids, why you gotta hate on the crack hos? :P

[Alexia]

Ahahahaha. Seriously, I just posted that in the multiculturalism thread earlier today. Did you rip it off?

I think we both know those weren't voluntary.

I did notice your post but I'm actually pretty familiar with the schools. I went to an event a few years ago about the Carlisle school with descendants of some of the Puerto Rican students in attendance. I kid you not, blond hair and blue eyes - all of them.

The Puerto Rican families (business and political elites) were convinced first that the schools were good for their children and then that their children were lying when they complained of abuse. As for the Indian children...

Although federal legislation made education compulsory for Native Americans, removing students from reservations required parent authorization, although coercion and even violence were often used to secure the preset quota of students from any given reservation.

I'm not even a libertarian, but no way in hell do I trust the government to take another go at something they've already abused horrifically.

[Shryke]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by enforcing compliance, and "cleaning up the mess," specifically how money will be required?"

Enforcement means making sure the kids are learning what they are supposed to learn, making sure they are getting an education at all, making sure they take the tests, etc, etc. That means both observation and action when the child's rights are not being met. Which can also mean taking that kid who isn't being properly educated, putting him back in the public education system and then getting him back up to speed (cause just dumping the kid in the grade he should be in is not gonna do any good if his parents haven't been teaching him much of anything).

Specific costs for all this are hard to estimate because it depends on so many factors and because the costs will vary by area, but that cost WILL NOT BE ZERO.

Hardly a strain on the education system's funding, especially since if it's a scenario where the parents are funding their kid's education, in addition to paying taxes, they're saving the state money. The state doesn't have to provide the educational services, textbooks, all the printed material, etc. that it would if those kids were enrolled in a public school.

See above. You are ignoring all the other costs inherent in homeschooling. And children in public schooling take advantage of economies of scale to lower costs.

Of course not, but I for one value quality of education rather than aiming for mindless numbers. I'd rather a program exist with three teachers that benefit a lower number of kids who will benefit greatly from the program, rather than just adding three more teachers to a high school.

Yes, but only because one of those kids is YOUR kid. The simple fact is, you are arguing for a marginal gain in education quality because that marginal gain all goes to YOU.

We should be clearer. It isn't taking money away from public education, because this program is public education, since it's entirely funded by the district's education system, with the same coursework, subjects, and requirements. I mean that it isn't at the expense of other children, because I can't really imagine how the salary of three teachers is going to contribute much to a public high school, that would justify it's elimination. Can you give specific examples of how you think that money should be used instead?

I'm not sure we should really bother arguing this point, since there's not exactly a measurement for "benefit" but I'll try to explain my point of view. If three teachers in this program were to teach at the public high school instead, what benefit is there except for smaller class sizes? Honestly, I think that allowing the two hundred children in the program to graduate early; have more time to pursue their life goals and exercise their intellects; is more important than having smaller class sizes in high school, especially since in this district there is no lack of teachers or funding, and the average class size is already around 20 students. I am incredibly sceptical that allowing that number to drop even smaller thanks to three more teachers is going to do anything at all.

If this was in an incredibly impoverished district it'd be an entirely different story altogether, but that's only applicable to programs like this. Parents homeschooling their kids without the use of programs is going to give the education system more money, not less.

Firstly, smaller class sizes are a HUGE benefit. They are one of the largest predictors of educational quality that schools can actually effect.

Secondly, all that money and staff and resources that is going to help a handful of kids could instead be shifted to the public education system where it can help a hell of alot more kids.

[Shryke]

You haven't shown it, you've merely said it. Check out what Watcher said earlier:

This would seem to indicate that (1) is, in fact, not true for at least 24 states.

No, this would indicate that 24 states are not even making sure that homeschooled children are receiving any education at all. Which is the issue I'm talking about that you like to ignore. You can't just assume homeschooled kids are getting a decent education. You have to make sure. And making sure COSTS MONEY.

As I said earlier. My state assessment involved a few hours with a teacher at a public school facility. Assuming someone had failed the state assessment, they would simply have had to start attending school. I don't see where the costs over and above paying for a child to attend public school (Oregon, for example, spends 7600.00/student/year) would come from, and you continuing to stamp your feet and insist they exist isn't making it any more true.

That's because you continue to ignore the other costs involved because, for some stupid reason, you have no interest in making sure homeschooled kids get a good education. You just want to assume it happens.

I am against public schooling in principal. However, the home school model is not ideal for every student.

Of course you are. :lol:

[Guest Raidne]

'Government' is a little more complex than that. Comparing a purposeful assimilation project led by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to a hypothetical local effort made by individual school Districts is not useful and doesn't really tell us much.

Not that there certainly aren't drawbacks and concerns with boarding schools. I just don't see how this is a useful way to point it out - nobody is trying to "reeducate" the original inhabitants of this country by forcing them to forget their heritage. It's not an assimilation project.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Specific costs for all this are hard to estimate because it depends on so many factors and because the costs will vary by area, but that cost WILL NOT BE ZERO.

You still need to show that it is above the cost of having the child in school (5000.00 - 13000.00 per year, varying by state), otherwise your entire argument falls apart. I, for one, have a difficult time imagining how administering an annual or even semi-annual test, and enforcing existing truancy laws against those who fail or do not take it could possibly exceed the cost of educating the student directly.

Once again you have supplied ZERO evidence, and harping on "economies of scale" will not make the states own published figures about how much it costs to educate a child go away.

[Shryke]

You still need to show that it is above the cost of having the child in school (5000.00 - 13000.00 per year, varying by state), otherwise your entire argument falls apart. I, for one, have a difficult time imagining how administering an annual or even semi-annual test, and enforcing existing truancy laws against those who fail or do not take it could possibly exceed the cost of educating the student directly.

Once again you have supplied ZERO evidence, and harping on "economies of scale" will not make the states own published figures about how much it costs to educate a child go away.

It's pretty simple Tormund: Homeschooling is a privileged

The public education system is necessary, homeschooling is not. Since we've already established that the costs of homeschooling are non-zero, you have to show that the benefits are worth the extra costs to the system.

And you can't, because there's no data on it. None. And it'd cost money just to gather that data (which would need to be done continuously since assessment is always ongoing).

Also, it's not about money/student. The question is, does a dollar spent on public education go further then the same dollar spent on homeschooling. And considering how many children that dollar in public education can help, I don't see how it can be argued it's not better spent there. Looking at high school, every textbook, every piece of equipment, every instrument, every teacher in the public education system helps scores and scores of kids every day. And continues to do so for years and years and years.

And this is only looking at the cost issue. There's also, as Galactus has pointed out, the issue that homeschooling undermines the public's interest in public education. And then there's matters of complete parental control over information and socialization issues and such.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's pretty simple Tormund: Homeschooling is a privileged

I maintain that it is a right.

The public education system is necessary, homeschooling is not. Since we've already established that the costs of homeschooling are non-zero, you have to show that the benefits are worth the extra costs to the system.

We have not shown it. In fact, we have been able to say conclusively that in at least 24 states the cost is precisely zero because there is no tracking or enforcement.

And you continue to ignore the cost of putting the children in school. Any amount that home schooling costs below that number (however non-zero it might be) is a net benefit to the public school system (A point which you have ignored to the point of absurdity).

Also, it's not about money/student. The question is, does a dollar spent on public education go further then the same dollar spent on homeschooling. And considering how many children that dollar in public education can help, I don't see how it can be argued it's not better spent there. Looking at high school, every textbook, every piece of equipment, every instrument, every teacher in the public education system helps scores and scores of kids every day. And continues to do so for years and years and years.

You continue to ignore the fact that if kids are being home schooled the dollars are going to the school anyway. More money + less kids = more money per kid, which almost universally brought out as a good thing. Having the kid in school does not bring extra funds to the school. Having the kid not there does.

And this is only looking at the cost issue. There's also, as Galactus has pointed out, the issue that homeschooling undermines the public's interest in public education. And then there's matters of complete parental control over information and socialization issues and such.

Yes, because if there is anyone we can trust to provide accurate information and solid social foundations, it is the state.

[Zoë Sumra]

Let's just be clear we're on the same page, because I'm losing track here. You're stating that there will be a cost for the administration of standardized tests to homeschool students, corrrect? This depends entirely upon how the tests are administered, but in a situation like Tormund described, where the district's homeschooled kids are rounded up, and take the test at a public school when the kids at that school are doing it, can you explain exactly what costs are involved?

Off the top of my head: registration of each student by the school district or other appropriate body, exam registration (though you could make the parents pay for that), printing, marking. The latter cost is quite low for a multiple choice test and much higher for a discursive one: I don't know what kind of tests you're talking about. :dunno:

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

There may also be costs with additional proctors, if 1) there is a students-per-proctor ratio that has to be met and 2) these are not volunteer positions. There is also the cost of marking the test - as with paper costs, this is significantly lower for a Scantron-style test than a written one, but it still exists.

[The Progressive]

In fact, we have been able to say conclusively that in at least 24 states the cost is precisely zero because there is no tracking or enforcement.

What the hell of an inane and dishonest argument is that? It's like declaring that states which doesn't spent a dime on enforcement of civil/environmental/labor laws are model of efficiency for spending nothing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aoife,

Would that cost outweigh the savings of having taxpaying citizens not have their children in public schools freeing materials and facilities for other students?

[The Progressive]

Aoife,

Would that cost outweigh the savings of having taxpaying citizens not have their children in public schools freeing materials and facilities for other students?

Scot,

Why do you disregard the cost of vouchers and/or the fact that school funding is allocated on the number of students a school has?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

That's not true in all jurisdictions. My wife and I receive no tax credit or deduction or vouchers and we home school our children.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I never even made that argument, Scot, so I don't know why you're throwing it up at me. Someone asked what additional costs there are to bringing in extra students to take a test. Eloisa provided some, and I then provided another couple.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

That's not true in all jurisdictions. My wife and I receive no tax credit or deduction or vouchers and we home school our children.

Your local school district is still loosing funding due to fewer enrollment.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aoife,

Sorry, I misread what you were saying.

Lev,

But the local district is still getting my property taxes without the cost of educating my children. How is that not a net gain?