How do you feel about homeschooling?
It is unethical in almost all cases
19.8% (23)
19.8% (23)
It is unethical in many cases
20.7% (24)
20.7% (24)
It is not usually unethical
44.8% (52)
44.8% (52)
Sending kids to public schools is unethical
12.1% (14)
12.1% (14)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is homeschooling unethical?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

i honestly dunno if its "unethical".

i wouldn't do it purely because of the social aspect of school nor would i wish on my child an environment where they had "no secrets" or "life of their own" to put it another way and i suspect a lot of the desire for home schooling is a result of the desire for "a short leash".

my problem with the "bad schools" argument is that imo they should all be good and "free". deal with the cause not the symptom. but that's a whole other thread.

as it stands the "rights of the child" and mostly subject to the whims of the parent in law this can cause no end of problems in cases abuse and i've a real problem with that my whole life but this topic only lightly dusts of that one.

the fact anyone can knock one out and be declared a near sage on that basis in current society is something i have a real issue with.

"the rights of the child Vs the rights of the parent" is an issue which in my own opinion we still have a lot of work to do on.

we also have to stop socially implying merely managing to procreate turns you into some kind of near untouchable unquestionably wise svengali. that kind of idiotic thinking is seriously damaging society. everything from the idiotic pronouncements of "school boards" to "single (teenage) mothers" its all connected to socially instilling "parenthood" with far more of a bestowed crown than its due.

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states

Article 26

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

but then most countries ignore the fact they are signatories to the UDHR.

afaik in Britain they still have to sit the same exams and study much the same material (as those at state school) although they can go more advanced if they wish as long as its accepted material and exams etc. tbh i actually don't think its as much an issue here and many of the types of people who might consider such a thing would probably just send their kids to faith, private or boarding school instead.

Kendarik:
While I would never do it myself, those homeschooling do not have free reign. The need to work within a specified curriculum, and the kids have to pass standardized tests at certain points.

So what? Parents are will never be able to provide the same comprehensive education school can. Teachers have a very good understanding of the subject they're teaching and can provide a much more thought out explanation of certain concepts and ideas.

Ultratwinkie:

You assume they don't leave their house. Home School kids DO have other things to do, like jobs, etc. I managed to get out into the real world more than High school. High school was just teen bullshit, where in the real world you learn none of that really matters.

I never said homeschooled teenagers never leave the house. All I'm saying is that the social component of high school is extremely important. High School exposes you to different ideas and points of view, something which I do not believe is possible to the same extent if children are homeschooled. It's not just "teen bullshit"

PercyBoleyn:

So what? Parents are will never be able to provide the same comprehensive education school can. Teachers have a very good understanding of the subject they're teaching and can provide a much more thought out explanation of certain concepts and ideas.

here's the thing though, The American public schools system barely provides a proper education as it is (less than half the kids moving onto college are not meeting the expected reading/math comprehension.)

This is partly due to many teacher just not giving a crap, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859505,00.html

In most states, a tenured teacher can't be dismisssed until charges are filed and months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile, school districts must shell out thousands of dollars for paid leave and subsitute instructors. The system is deliberately slow and cumbersome, in order to dissuade school boards and parents from ousting a teacher for personal or political motives.

while it's in place to protect good teachers, it really is only helping the bad ones. By making it expensive and nearly impossible to fire a teacher with tenure we've clogged the public school system with terrible teachers.

Not that I'm saying the home-schooling system is any better, there are certainly less checks and balances to keep things like 'creationism' out. However it really really depends on the parent. If the parent is a retired teacher then there is a good chance they could provide an at least comparable education to their child.

PercyBoleyn:

I never said homeschooled teenagers never leave the house. All I'm saying is that the social component of high school is extremely important. High School exposes you to different ideas and points of view, something which I do not believe is possible to the same extent if children are homeschooled. It's not just "teen bullshit"

This is my biggest 'pro' to going to public school, whether you want to or not you'll be dealing with many different people in life and it's extremely important you understand social interactions. Sure you could get these interactions in other ways, however school forces you to deal with people you don't want to deal with which is actually a big part of your average adult life.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
While I would never do it myself, those homeschooling do not have free reign. The need to work within a specified curriculum, and the kids have to pass standardized tests at certain points.

So what? Parents are will never be able to provide the same comprehensive education school can. Teachers have a very good understanding of the subject they're teaching and can provide a much more thought out explanation of certain concepts and ideas.

*chuckles*

You must have had different teacher than I did.

Seriously though, I agree that the average teacher will do better than the average parent. However, not in all cases. It's not even like all teachers/schools are at the same level on all subjects. Do you say its unethical to send a kid to public schools when many private schools do WAY better jobs of educating kids than public schools?

Limecake:
here's the thing though, The American public schools system barely provides a proper education as it is (less than half the kids moving onto college are not meeting the expected reading/math comprehension.)

Then maybe the US school system is in need of a revamp.

Kendarik:
However, not in all cases. It's not even like all teachers/schools are at the same level on all subjects.

Of course not but they're at a higher level than a parent ever will be.

Kendarik:
Do you say its unethical to send a kid to public schools when many private schools do WAY better jobs of educating kids than public schools?

Not everyone has money for private school. Also, no one talked about ethical here. You're strawmaning my argument.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
However, not in all cases. It's not even like all teachers/schools are at the same level on all subjects.

Of course not but they're at a higher level than a parent ever will be.

I see no evidence of that. Please feel free however to link to your source that supports that with hard data. I'll be particularly interested to see your source for grades JK-8 where the teachers are expected to teach all subjects even though all they had to do was take 4 courses in 1 subject and 3 courses in another subject. Actually I'll also be interested in hearing about HS where a teacher can teach a science class without ever taking a university level course in science.

Also I'd be curious if your opinion changed if the parent was a certified teacher.

Kendarik:
Do you say its unethical to send a kid to public schools when many private schools do WAY better jobs of educating kids than public schools?

Not everyone has money for private school. Also, no one talked about ethical here. You're strawmaning my argument.

Actually the thread title and poll is about ethics, so quite a few people have talked about it.

And you are missing the point. If it can be shown that the private education gives you more, why should anyone be allowed to send a kid to public school? It's the exact same argument you are making about public vs home.

Kendarik:
I see no evidence of that. Please feel free however to link to your source that supports that with hard data.

What do you mean hard data? I don't know how your country's educational system works but here, we have a teacher for every subject. There isn't one person that must know everything and then teach except for grades 1 through 4 but the curriculum is pretty basic.

Kendarik:
I'll be particularly interested to see your source for grades JK-8 where the teachers are expected to teach all subjects even though all they had to do was take 4 courses in 1 subject and 3 courses in another subject.

No idea what that is.

Kendarik:
If it can be shown that the private education gives you more, why should anyone be allowed to send a kid to public school?

Because private school is expensive and not everyone has the money.

Kendarik:
It's the exact same argument you are making about public vs home.

No it's not.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
I see no evidence of that. Please feel free however to link to your source that supports that with hard data.

What do you mean hard data? I don't know how your country's educational system works but here, we have a teacher for every subject. There isn't one person that must know everything and then teach except for grades 1 through 4 but the curriculum is pretty basic.

Ah, here that can go up to grade 8 with a single teacher and is very common until grade 6.

In any even, restructure the question for your experience then. I grades 1-4 what evidence do you have that your one teacher is better than a parent would be?

Kendarik:
I'll be particularly interested to see your source for grades JK-8 where the teachers are expected to teach all subjects even though all they had to do was take 4 courses in 1 subject and 3 courses in another subject.

No idea what that is.

That's the Canada and US teaching certification rules.

Kendarik:
If it can be shown that the private education gives you more, why should anyone be allowed to send a kid to public school?

Because private school is expensive and not everyone has the money.

Kendarik:
It's the exact same argument you are making about public vs home.

No it's not.

[/quote]

Yes, it is.

I dont see anything wrong with the actual homeschooling itself

but keeping the kids at home makes it very hard for them to have a normal social life.

Kendarik:
In any even, restructure the question for your experience then. I grades 1-4 what evidence do you have that your one teacher is better than a parent would be?

You have to go to college for four years and specialize in pedagogy grades 1-4.

Kendarik:
Yes, it is.

Prove it.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
In any even, restructure the question for your experience then. I grades 1-4 what evidence do you have that your one teacher is better than a parent would be?

You have to go to college for four years and specialize in pedagogy grades 1-4.

Still doesn't prove they are a better teacher or know more about a variety of subjects.

BTW, you ignored my earlier question, what if the home schooling parent IS a certified teacher?

Kendarik:
Yes, it is.

Prove it.

You have provided no evidence that the homeschooling shouldn't be allowed other than "oh yeah, public is better", and that's the argument for private. So it is the same.

Kendarik:
Still doesn't prove they are a better teacher or know more about a variety of subjects.

Yes, and specializing in engineering doesn't prove you're better at teaching engineering than someone who didn't.

Kendarik:
BTW, you ignored my earlier question, what if the home schooling parent IS a certified teacher?.

The social aspect of high school is extremely important. That's why I said homeschooling should only be used when the child doesn't integrate well with their peers.

Kendarik:
You have provided no evidence that the homeschooling shouldn't be allowed other than "oh yeah, public is better", and that's the argument for private. So it is the same.

No, I stated quite clearly that the public option for schooling is the better alternative because of better standards when it comes to teaching and he social aspect. Private school is extremely expensive and most people don't have the money for that. Yes, it is better than public school in the sense that it has better facilities but forcing parents to put their children into private school would leave out those who cannot afford the costs. Besides, do we really want to privatize the school system?

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
Still doesn't prove they are a better teacher or know more about a variety of subjects.

Yes, and specializing in engineering doesn't prove you're better at teaching engineering than someone who didn't.

Engineering is a science, teaching is an art.

Going to school to make you an art teacher doesn't necessarily make you a better art teacher than someone who never went to school for art.

Kendarik:

Engineering is a science, teaching is an art.

Going to school to make you an art teacher doesn't necessarily make you a better art teacher than someone who never went to school for art.

Except in order to teach you need to have a comprehensive knowledge of certain subjects, be it mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on and so forth which you can only attain through higher education.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:

Engineering is a science, teaching is an art.

Going to school to make you an art teacher doesn't necessarily make you a better art teacher than someone who never went to school for art.

Except in order to teach you need to have a comprehensive knowledge of certain subjects, be it mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on and so forth which you can only attain through higher education.

Is that why PE coaches get put in front of a room to teach math, only because there is a shortage of math teachers?
I think you're severely over estimating the quality controls on High school Level teachers

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
You do not educate decent reading and writing skills " out of them"

If you replace books with theater and maquettes like you were speaking of, you will.

Lil devils x:
you incorporate them into their choice field of study. However, some students will never be strong in those areas, for example, the many children with dyslexia greatly benefit from alternative teaching methods as they have to work twice as hard as other children to do the same work in the manner that is expected of them.

So you're proposing that not training them in reading is going to make things better, somehow? They'll still run into the same problems eventually, except it won't result in poor grades, but incomplete tax forms, being rejected for jobs and not being able to communicate properly.

Lil devils x:
It is not their "attitude" that is the problem here. It is the manner in which they are being taught.

Writing and codified knowledge isn't a matter of teaching, it's what separates us from stone age tribes.

The bookcase behind me contains more knowledge than entire provinces where writing is still uncommon, and it's all mine as long as I can read and know how to search for information. We do this, because it works. Stopping this system like you're proposing is doomed to failure because of the inherent advantages of codified knowledge over exclusively oral knowledge.

As shown in the 'standing on the shoulders of giants' metaphor

Books have been replaced in many schools already. Instead they use laptops with interactive programs. Oddly enough though, some of the best programmers are terrible at communicating properly, but can code like no one else. According to our economic and education development committees, Programmers, engineers and physicians are in high demand and short supply currently and for the forseeable future. The problem is the way the school curriculum is currently designed, very few programmers, engineers and physicians are being produced from those schools.

If we do not veer from the course of conformity, and focus more on fostering divergent thinking, the future will be very bland and bleak for the emerging generations.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
While I would never do it myself, those homeschooling do not have free reign. The need to work within a specified curriculum, and the kids have to pass standardized tests at certain points.

So what? Parents are will never be able to provide the same comprehensive education school can. Teachers have a very good understanding of the subject they're teaching and can provide a much more thought out explanation of certain concepts and ideas.

Ultratwinkie:

You assume they don't leave their house. Home School kids DO have other things to do, like jobs, etc. I managed to get out into the real world more than High school. High school was just teen bullshit, where in the real world you learn none of that really matters.

I never said homeschooled teenagers never leave the house. All I'm saying is that the social component of high school is extremely important. High School exposes you to different ideas and points of view, something which I do not believe is possible to the same extent if children are homeschooled. It's not just "teen bullshit"

Parents can and more often than not(according to the studies) do provide a more comprehensive education than traditional schools currently offer. That is why they are scoring higher on tests, are showing better social skills and have a more positive outlook on life.
(Links to those studies were already posted in this thread)

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:

Engineering is a science, teaching is an art.

Going to school to make you an art teacher doesn't necessarily make you a better art teacher than someone who never went to school for art.

Except in order to teach you need to have a comprehensive knowledge of certain subjects, be it mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on and so forth which you can only attain through higher education.

With the introduction of the internet and AI, teachers for many subjects will not be needed at all, as everything that is required of them can be replaced with programs and computers that can now answer their questions more thoroughly with better explainations than the majority of teachers. Many courses that were once only obtainable through attending the University are now available online. Some classes now are even being taught in virtual worlds rather than classrooms.

With technology, physically being in a classroom will become obsolete due to the cost and ineffectiveness of such methods vs their alternatives.

Lil devils x:
(Links to those studies were already posted in this thread)

No they were not. We saw some vague youtube link and an activist who didn't deliver a solid argument, a wikipedia quote of data not relevant to this discussion and a reference to a link in a Canadian pediatricts journal which found some exceptions among homeschooled get good grades compared to kids attending underfunded poor quality public schools (so these do not compare to good schools), but, and I quote the abstract: "Exploratory analyses also suggest that the unstructured homeschoolers are achieving the lowest standardized scores across the 3 groups."

End of the day, a decent school always wins over parents moonlighting a little.

Lil devils x:
Books have already been replaced in many schools already. Instead they use laptops with interactive programs.

Uhm... That's also the codified knowledge I was speaking of, exactly it's stored digitally rather than on paper.

You smashed learning from books and claimed stuff like acting out historical situations is much better, leading me to make the point of:
Codified knowledge > purely oral knowledge

Compare it to asking two builders to build you a house, and handing one a high-res small scale map with a red square on it with the text "Build here"
And the other builder gets nothing, and you only tell him "Yes, build over there near the road at the edge of town, halfway between the big tree and the small pit".

I know which of the two is far more likely to get it right. The one using codified knowledge in the form of a map. Imagine that we threw a skill like map reading out of the window for everyone, arguing that "Some people are bad at reading maps, and you can also just tell them where to go".

That last bit is exactly your argument from earlier.

Lil devils x:
If we do not veer from the course of conformity, and focus more on fostering divergent thinking, the future will be very bland and bleak for the emerging generations.

It already has for centuries, and we're still here and more highly educated than ever, so I guess that prediction of doom can safely be put in the same category as 'today's youth is...'.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
(Links to those studies were already posted in this thread)

No they were not. We saw some vague youtube link and an activist who didn't deliver a solid argument, a wikipedia quote of data not relevant to this discussion and a reference to a link in a Canadian pediatricts journal which found some exceptions among homeschooled get good grades compared to kids attending underfunded poor quality public schools (so these do not compare to good schools), but, and I quote the abstract: "Exploratory analyses also suggest that the unstructured homeschoolers are achieving the lowest standardized scores across the 3 groups."

End of the day, a decent school always wins over parents moonlighting a little.

Lil devils x:
Books have already been replaced in many schools already. Instead they use laptops with interactive programs.

Uhm... That's also the codified knowledge I was speaking of, exactly it's stored digitally rather than on paper.

You smashed learning from books and claimed stuff like acting out historical situations is much better, leading me to make the point of:
Codified knowledge > purely oral knowledge

Compare it to asking two builders to build you a house, and handing one a high-res small scale map with a red square on it with the text "Build here"
And the other builder gets nothing, and you only tell him "Yes, build over there near the road at the edge of town, halfway between the big tree and the small pit".

I know which of the two is far more likely to get it right. The one using codified knowledge in the form of a map. Imagine that we threw a skill like map reading out of the window for everyone, arguing that "Some people are bad at reading maps, and you can also just tell them where to go".

That last bit is exactly your argument from earlier.

Lil devils x:
If we do not veer from the course of conformity, and focus more on fostering divergent thinking, the future will be very bland and bleak for the emerging generations.

It already has for centuries, and we're still here and more highly educated than ever, so I guess that prediction of doom can safely be put in the same category as 'today's youth is...'.

Yes they were. The wiki link provides links to those studies, all in one place.
Sir Ken Robinson an activist? He is paid by schools to make them better, do you even know who/ what he does? He is a professor who educates the educators silly. End of the day, the public schools here kick out the kids who bring down their scores and leave them out of the equation all together. The home schoolers are out performing the public schools, in fact the "unschoolers" are out performing both, as they are taking college courses by the time they are 12 and 13 years of age.

I never " smashed" learning from books, as that is a part but not the whole of education. You do not just teach from a book, especially to children that fall asleep when they read, otherwise they will never absorb the information they are meant to learn.

Those doing the innovation and creating are the ones that still score high on divergent thinking tests regardless of that being educated out of most children. When students score 98% at genius level on divergent thinking tests at the ages of 5 and then are unable to do that just 5 years later there is a problem with the way they are being taught. Children should be improving and fine tuning skills not losing that ability all together. Those who built the future were not those who allowed that to be educated out of them, it was the few that retained that ability regardless of the system. They are the exception to the system, not the rule. What children need to survive now is not the same that was required of them at the time the educational system was implemented at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The educational systems must change with what is required of them. Churning out factory workers is no longer necessary or beneficial to todays generations.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
While I would never do it myself, those homeschooling do not have free reign. The need to work within a specified curriculum, and the kids have to pass standardized tests at certain points.

So what? Parents are will never be able to provide the same comprehensive education school can. Teachers have a very good understanding of the subject they're teaching and can provide a much more thought out explanation of certain concepts and ideas.

Ultratwinkie:

You assume they don't leave their house. Home School kids DO have other things to do, like jobs, etc. I managed to get out into the real world more than High school. High school was just teen bullshit, where in the real world you learn none of that really matters.

I never said homeschooled teenagers never leave the house. All I'm saying is that the social component of high school is extremely important. High School exposes you to different ideas and points of view, something which I do not believe is possible to the same extent if children are homeschooled. It's not just "teen bullshit"

So the teen drama where kids are "going out" only to "cheat" (there isn't even any sex, and They say it like cheating is a good thing) on them is normal interaction? Where teens start "choosing" fathers for when they leave high school so they can have children instead of careers?

Out in the real world, all this shit is viewed exactly as what it is, some kids trying emulate adults but don't know the meaning behind it. Where in the real world there are real people, not kids playing pretend. When you have a job, clubs, etc in home school it shows the actual world and not the "training ground" of highschool which is actually just bullshit.

Nothing can substitute being in the real world. High school just offers you a bubble made by your peers, which more often than not is just bullshit. It all comes down to what I said above.

Limecake:

PercyBoleyn:

So what? Parents are will never be able to provide the same comprehensive education school can. Teachers have a very good understanding of the subject they're teaching and can provide a much more thought out explanation of certain concepts and ideas.

here's the thing though, The American public schools system barely provides a proper education as it is (less than half the kids moving onto college are not meeting the expected reading/math comprehension.)

This is partly due to many teacher just not giving a crap, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859505,00.html

In most states, a tenured teacher can't be dismisssed until charges are filed and months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile, school districts must shell out thousands of dollars for paid leave and subsitute instructors. The system is deliberately slow and cumbersome, in order to dissuade school boards and parents from ousting a teacher for personal or political motives.

while it's in place to protect good teachers, it really is only helping the bad ones. By making it expensive and nearly impossible to fire a teacher with tenure we've clogged the public school system with terrible teachers.

Not that I'm saying the home-schooling system is any better, there are certainly less checks and balances to keep things like 'creationism' out. However it really really depends on the parent. If the parent is a retired teacher then there is a good chance they could provide an at least comparable education to their child.

PercyBoleyn:

I never said homeschooled teenagers never leave the house. All I'm saying is that the social component of high school is extremely important. High School exposes you to different ideas and points of view, something which I do not believe is possible to the same extent if children are homeschooled. It's not just "teen bullshit"

This is my biggest 'pro' to going to public school, whether you want to or not you'll be dealing with many different people in life and it's extremely important you understand social interactions. Sure you could get these interactions in other ways, however school forces you to deal with people you don't want to deal with which is actually a big part of your average adult life.

Look up, I have to deal with assholes in the real world too. Highschool is just a pantomime view of the world, and you only see its bullshit when you leave.

Lil devils x:
Sir Ken Robinson an activist? He is paid by schools to make them better, do you even know who/ what he does? He is a professor who educates the educators silly.

Uhm, no. If you google him, you'd see he has a bachelor degree in "English and drama" and a Ph.D in drama, meaning he has no relevant knowledge on the subject of pedagogy.

Hey, didn't I sarcastically remark earlier that the people who argue that 'education kills creativity' are artistic types who can't manage a normal education.

Well, QED on that one, eh?

Lil devils x:
End of the day, the public schools here kick out the kids who bring down their scores and leave them out of the equation all together.

Citation needed for this extremely unlikely claim.

Note: one or two anecdotes from the US do not equal evidence.

The home schoolers are out performing the public schools[/quote]Your own study claims otherwise. It claims that a few exceptions aside, homeschooled kids perform the worst of all.

And that was compared to public schools who are conciously being underfunded. This means that a decent school will always beat homeschooling.

I never " smashed" learning from books, as that is a part but not the whole of education.[/quote]Well quelle surprise... Normal schools also do more than hand out books to their pupils, so you can't attack organised schooling on that basis.

You do not just teach from a book, especially to children that fall asleep when they read, otherwise they will never absorb the information they ar meant to learn.

Those doing the innovation and creating are the ones that still score high on divergent thinking tests regardless of that being educated out of most children. When students score 98% at genius level on divergent thinking tests at the ages of 5 and then are unable to do that just 5 years later there is a problem with the way they are being taught.[/quote]Only if that's not a bold faced lie, a manipulated test and an actual problem.

In reality however, the unrefined way of thinking is not much use in daily life.

If I hand a homeschooled child a design for a road and it's a cloverleaf intersection and I tell them "Build in a straight line", they're pretty useless builders if they disregard the design and only build me a straight road because they've forgone logical reasoning in favour of 'divergent thinking', meaning the way analphabetics think.

A well known illustration of that was a test question which went:
"All the rocks on the moon are blue. A man goes to the moon and picks up a rock, which colour is it"

About all analphabetics answered white, because they lacked logical thinking and relied solely on their observation that the moon looks white if you look up at it.
Obviously all people with an education answered blue because they understood structured thinking.

Lil devils x:
Children should be improving and fine tuning skills not losing that ability all together. Those who built the future were not those who allowed that to be educated out of them, it was the few that retained that ability regardless of the system. They are the exception to the system, not the rule. What children need to survive now is not the same that was required of them at the time the educational system was implemented at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The educational systems must change with what is required of them.

You just claimed education hasn't changed at all since about 1750....

Really?

Not also is it just dumb copypasta from the religious homeschooling lobby, but also something you should've seen as just a propaganda slogan before you wrote it down (which is why critical thinking is taught in schools), but also you contradicted it yourself by pointing out computers have been given a role in education recently.

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
While I would never do it myself, those homeschooling do not have free reign. The need to work within a specified curriculum, and the kids have to pass standardized tests at certain points.

So what? Parents are will never be able to provide the same comprehensive education school can. Teachers have a very good understanding of the subject they're teaching and can provide a much more thought out explanation of certain concepts and ideas.

Ultratwinkie:

You assume they don't leave their house. Home School kids DO have other things to do, like jobs, etc. I managed to get out into the real world more than High school. High school was just teen bullshit, where in the real world you learn none of that really matters.

I never said homeschooled teenagers never leave the house. All I'm saying is that the social component of high school is extremely important. High School exposes you to different ideas and points of view, something which I do not believe is possible to the same extent if children are homeschooled. It's not just "teen bullshit"

The state has homeschool programs. It has teachers, campuses, etc for you to turn in your work, get more work, or just need help.

With the homeschool programs (which have been around for years) practically makes every point you have moot.

Kendarik:

PercyBoleyn:

Kendarik:
Still doesn't prove they are a better teacher or know more about a variety of subjects.

Yes, and specializing in engineering doesn't prove you're better at teaching engineering than someone who didn't.

Engineering is a science, teaching is an art.

Going to school to make you an art teacher doesn't necessarily make you a better art teacher than someone who never went to school for art.

I'm going to agree with the letter of your post but not the spirit. Going to school to be a teacher doesn't necessarily make people better teachers, but that is more a statement on teaching programs than it is anything else. Case in point, it is entirely possible that someone in my program could earn a MA specifically geared toward teaching with no more than IIRC 6 hours spent in front of a classroom, with that 6 hours being observed by only one other education professional, and in all of their studies only taking two courses that directly relate to actual teaching, which may or may not actually teach effective teacher behavior (as opposed to research into various theoretical methodologies). I have interviewed applicants for teaching positions who earned their qualifications in programs that don't even require any direct experience with teaching. Apparently the standard practice in one program was that any time the English-teachers-to-be needed to demonstrate actual teaching skills, the other teachers-students in the class just pretended to be non-native learners of English.

But on the other hand, when you say "teaching is an art" that puts to people's minds an image of teaching being like painting or sculpting- where it doesn't really matter what the teacher does as long as the final result is pleasing. And that's utter nonsense. There has been tons of research into teaching and how learners acquire knowledge. How viewers respond to a Jackson Pollock painting can't be predicted by science. It's entirely subjective. How students respond to a lesson can be predicted. And while teaching is not a science in that there is no single one-size-fits-all application of teaching theory that can be allied to every student in every classroom for every subject, that variety does not make it an art and it does not make it so that any random yahoo has just as much potential to be an effective teacher as someone who has actually taken the time to study educational theory and gain expertise through practice.

While no, a diploma isn't really worth any more than the paper it's printed on until the teacher can actually be observed in action (preferably several times), there is some predictive validity to the degree.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
Sir Ken Robinson an activist? He is paid by schools to make them better, do you even know who/ what he does? He is a professor who educates the educators silly.

Uhm, no. If you google him, you'd see he has a bachelor degree in "English and drama" and a Ph.D in drama, meaning he has no relevant knowledge on the subject of pedagogy.

Hey, didn't I sarcastically remark earlier that the people who argue that 'education kills creativity' are artistic types who can't manage a normal education.

Well, QED on that one, eh?

Lil devils x:
End of the day, the public schools here kick out the kids who bring down their scores and leave them out of the equation all together.

Citation needed for this extremely unlikely claim.

Note: one or two anecdotes from the US do not equal evidence.

The home schoolers are out performing the public schools

Your own study claims otherwise. It claims that a few exceptions aside, homeschooled kids perform the worst of all.

And that was compared to public schools who are conciously being underfunded. This means that a decent school will always beat homeschooling.

I never " smashed" learning from books, as that is a part but not the whole of education.[/quote]Well quelle surprise... Normal schools also do more than hand out books to their pupils, so you can't attack organised schooling on that basis.

You do not just teach from a book, especially to children that fall asleep when they read, otherwise they will never absorb the information they ar meant to learn.

Those doing the innovation and creating are the ones that still score high on divergent thinking tests regardless of that being educated out of most children. When students score 98% at genius level on divergent thinking tests at the ages of 5 and then are unable to do that just 5 years later there is a problem with the way they are being taught.[/quote]Only if that's not a bold faced lie, a manipulated test and an actual problem.

In reality however, the unrefined way of thinking is not much use in daily life.

If I hand a homeschooled child a design for a road and it's a cloverleaf intersection and I tell them "Build in a straight line", they're pretty useless builders if they disregard the design and only build me a straight road because they've forgone logical reasoning in favour of 'divergent thinking', meaning the way analphabetics think.

A well known illustration of that was a test question which went:
"All the rocks on the moon are blue. A man goes to the moon and picks up a rock, which colour is it"

About all analphabetics answered white, because they lacked logical thinking and relied solely on their observation that the moon looks white if you look up at it.
Obviously all people with an education answered blue because they understood structured thinking.

Lil devils x:
Children should be improving and fine tuning skills not losing that ability all together. Those who built the future were not those who allowed that to be educated out of them, it was the few that retained that ability regardless of the system. They are the exception to the system, not the rule. What children need to survive now is not the same that was required of them at the time the educational system was implemented at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The educational systems must change with what is required of them.

You just claimed education hasn't changed at all since about 1750....

Really?

Not also is it just dumb copypasta from the religious homeschooling lobby, but also something you should've seen as just a propaganda slogan before you wrote it down (which is why critical thinking is taught in schools), but also you contradicted it yourself by pointing out computers have been given a role in education recently.[/quote]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you google him you would also see the work he has done since obtaining that degree. Just because someone goes to school for one thing, does not mean that is what they do for the rest of their lives. In fact, if you had watched the interview with him at Penn State that was provided above, you would hear him discussing his change in careers as well. Considering he received his PDH, I believe he handled it quite well. Artistic types challenge the "inside the box" thinking is because they also score on genius level at divergent thinking, not because they cannot handle the system themselves, they have already been through that.

This report is about high-and rising-high school
dropout rates, some exemplary efforts to retain students,
the limited-and diminishing-opportunities
for dropouts to regain a footing in education and
training, and the increasingly dire prospects for dropouts
in today's economy. About a third of students are
leaving high school without a diploma: One-Third of a
Nation.
The High School Completion Rate Has Not Been
Accurately Reported.
Official estimates of state completion rates are too
high, and the U.S. Department of Education is examining
ways to obtain better measurements. One
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
series going back to the 1880s is on the mark, but
never seems to be reported in the press.
A number of independent researchers have made
recent estimates that put the national rate variously
at 66.1, 66.6, 68.7, 69.6, and 71.0 percent.
The High School Completion Rate Has Been
Falling.
Nationally, after peaking at 77.1 percent in 1969,
the rate dropped to 69.9 percent in 2000.
From 1990 to 2000, the completion rate declined
in all but seven states. In 10 states, it declined by 8
percentage points or more.
The Completion Rates Vary Widely Among the
States, in Close Relationship to Factors Identified
by Research as Predictive of Students Dropping
Out.
Recent completion rates range from a high of 88
percent in Vermont to a low of 48 percent in the
District of Columbia and 55 percent in Arizona.

http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICONETHIRD.pdf

In reality, divergent thinking is what has allowed humans to survive and adapt to the new environements and challenges they are presented with. Without that ability, they have no way to find alternative answers to the very real problems they will be facing. Divergent thinking is what allows them to come up with many solutions to a problem.

Of course students scoring 98% at genius level at age 5 on divergent thinking tests is not a lie. Please educate yourself on the subject you discussing. The tests are not manipulated, I even took these tests as a child myself. It would do you some good to listen to what Sir Ken Robinson discusses, as he addresses these very issues. By reducing a childs ability to find many solutions to a problem, you are limiting mankinds ability to adapt and survive.

Did you even bother to watch this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
The schools still operate in this manner, and that is what must change. Schools should not be separate from real life, they should be a part of it.

You do realize that you have been the only one bringing religion into the argument? This is not about religion, in fact if you want to address the religious fanatics, you should be addressing religious private schools, not homeschoolers. You have more religious indoctrination in Americas public and private schools than you do in home and unschoolers. In an American private school I was tied to a chair with a board placed across my arms made to read the bible aloud as they turned the pages. In americas public schools I had jesus pamphlets being crammed in my locker everyday, how is that better than parents teaching their children?

I am not sure what you mean by "contradicting yourself" in regards to teachers being replaced with computers and classrooms being unnecessary and costly in comparison to a higher quality educational experience that can be obtained from a home computer, and field trips.

I consider it a stupid practice for the reason you mentioned, that it's largely ineffective since the parents aren't trained educators and the kids don't always get a chance to socialize. I mean i'd understand if parents are dubious about the public schools quality of education, but they should assume immediately they can do better. More often than not, in fact i daresay they're ALWAYS WRONG on the matter.

Pyramid Head:
I consider it a stupid practice for the reason you mentioned, that it's largely ineffective since the parents aren't trained educators and the kids don't always get a chance to socialize. I mean i'd understand if parents are dubious about the public schools quality of education, but they should assume immediately they can do better. More often than not, in fact i daresay they're ALWAYS WRONG on the matter.

again, home schooling is now regulated under the state. granted they have wide array of regulations, but its regulated. They get grades, talk to real teachers, and have a site they can go to for help.

EClaris:
Is that why PE coaches get put in front of a room to teach math, only because there is a shortage of math teachers?
I think you're severely over estimating the quality controls on High school Level teachers

Your country's school system must be pretty fucked up then because that never happens here. That's probably why so many kids fail or why "No Child Left Behind" was implemented.

Ultratwinkie:
Where teens start "choosing" fathers for when they leave high school so they can have children instead of careers?

No idea what you're talking about.

Ultratwinkie:
Out in the real world, all this shit is viewed exactly as what it is, some kids trying emulate adults but don't know the meaning behind it. Where in the real world there are real people, not kids playing pretend. When you have a job, clubs, etc in home school it shows the actual world and not the "training ground" of highschool which is actually just bullshit.

So homeschooling shows you to real world by not exposing you to it? How does that work?

Ultratwinkie:
The state has homeschool programs. It has teachers, campuses, etc for you to turn in your work, get more work, or just need help.

So what's the point of being homeschooled then?

PercyBoleyn:

EClaris:
Is that why PE coaches get put in front of a room to teach math, only because there is a shortage of math teachers?
I think you're severely over estimating the quality controls on High school Level teachers

Your country's school system must be pretty fucked up then because that never happens here. That's probably why so many kids fail or why "No Child Left Behind" was implemented.

Ultratwinkie:
Where teens start "choosing" fathers for when they leave high school so they can have children instead of careers?

No idea what you're talking about.

Ultratwinkie:
Out in the real world, all this shit is viewed exactly as what it is, some kids trying emulate adults but don't know the meaning behind it. Where in the real world there are real people, not kids playing pretend. When you have a job, clubs, etc in home school it shows the actual world and not the "training ground" of highschool which is actually just bullshit.

So homeschooling shows you to real world by not exposing you to it? How does that work?

Ultratwinkie:
The state has homeschool programs. It has teachers, campuses, etc for you to turn in your work, get more work, or just need help.

So what's the point of being homeschooled then?

You assume homeschool makes you stay in your home. The reasons why people choose homeschool programs is because their lives just cannot be constrained to school.

One of the students in my program is a teen actor, he cant work and be at school every day so he chose the homeschool program. Others choose it because its easier and much better than public school.

Like it or not, homeschool kids have lives outside the campus. The campus itself is just a resource for your schooling. Outside that campus you can live your life without being stuck in a room for an entire day. The entire process of homeschool programs are:

1. Go to campus, get your work.
2. Do work until your appointment date.
3. Turn it in, get next week's work.
4. repeat.

As for "what I am talking about" sometimes highschools don't show the real world, only immature bullshit. Remember my example? How is being exposed to that any worse than being free to roam? In the real world, no one tries to emulate what adults do on TV because they are adults already. Being exposed to teens who are just trying to emulate what they see is not socializing. That is stupid. That is the kind of crap "jackass" tells you not to do.

How can you not understand this? Homeschool doesn't mean you never leave the house, it just means you are not tied to a classroom for an entire day. It allows you so much more freedom with better results than public school.

Ultratwinkie:
One of the students in my program is a teen actor, he cant work and be at school every day so he chose the homeschool program.

If the student cannot handle public school for whatever reason then there should be alternatives, like homeschooling. However, it should not be the first choice.

Ultratwinkie:
Like it or not, homeschool kids have lives outside the campus.

The social aspect of school is unmatched.

Ultratwinkie:
The entire process of homeschool programs are:

Then what's the point of homeschooling then? The entire process is basically the same as in high school except you don't have to attend class.

Ultratwinkie:
As for "what I am talking about" sometimes highschools don't show the real world, only immature bullshit.

Uhm, that is the real world.

Ultratwinkie:
How is being exposed to that any worse than being free to roam?

Because it forces you to socialize.

Ultratwinkie:
In the real world, no one tries to emulate what adults do on TV because they are adults already.

The scene might change but the play remains the same.

Ultratwinkie:
Being exposed to teens who are just trying to emulate what they see is not socializing. That is stupid.

You're trying to discredit teenage social interactions using an argument based entirely on the stereotypical perception of teenagehood created by the media. That's a bit ironic considering...

Ultratwinkie:
How can you not understand this? Homeschool doesn't mean you never leave the house

If your only interest is to strawman my arguments then maybe we should stop right here. I have never claimed homeschooled kids never leave the house.

PercyBoleyn:

Ultratwinkie:
One of the students in my program is a teen actor, he cant work and be at school every day so he chose the homeschool program.

If the student cannot handle public school for whatever reason then there should be alternatives, like homeschooling. However, it should not be the first choice.

Ultratwinkie:
Like it or not, homeschool kids have lives outside the campus.

The social aspect of school is unmatched.

Ultratwinkie:
The entire process of homeschool programs are:

Then what's the point of homeschooling then? The entire process is basically the same as in high school except you don't have to attend class.

Ultratwinkie:
As for "what I am talking about" sometimes highschools don't show the real world, only immature bullshit.

Uhm, that is the real world.

Ultratwinkie:
How is being exposed to that any worse than being free to roam?

Because it forces you to socialize.

Ultratwinkie:
In the real world, no one tries to emulate what adults do on TV because they are adults already.

The scene might change but the play remains the same.

Ultratwinkie:
Being exposed to teens who are just trying to emulate what they see is not socializing. That is stupid.

You're trying to discredit teenage social interactions using an argument based entirely on the stereotypical perception of teenagehood created by the media. That's a bit ironic considering...

Ultratwinkie:
How can you not understand this? Homeschool doesn't mean you never leave the house

If your only interest is to strawman my arguments then maybe we should stop right here. I have never claimed homeschooled kids never leave the house.

1. the program is short. The minimum time you actually need to be on campus is one hour per week. After that, you cant whatever you want. Just because it doesn't conform to your view doesn't mean its not homeschooling.

2.How is school "unmatched?" All I heard in high school was how well they did in COD. Hell, if you didn't own an xbox or an ipod no one will even associate with you. Why the hell would anyone drop a couple hundred dollars so some asswipe they wont even see again will like them, and never use it? The girls were even worse in that regard.

3. In the real world, no one gives a shit about whether you own an xbox. No one cares if you don't like certain artists. No one cares.

4. If the immature bullshit of highschool is the same as real life, why bother going to school to sit in a class? If its the same on both sides why even bother? The socialization aspect is bullshit. Even in school I never socialized with other kids because we had nothing to talk about so I sat in a room waiting for it to end so I can get my work done. Not everyone will socialize with others, especially if they have nothing in common, and trying to force it won't do anything. All that would do is waste time on something that can be done so much faster.

Ultratwinkie:
1. the program is short. The minimum time you actually need to be on campus is one hour per week. After that, you cant whatever you want. Just because it doesn't conform to your view doesn't mean its not homeschooling.

But it's not. It's exactly like school except you don't have to attend class. There is no difference.

Ultratwinkie:

How is school "unmatched?" All I heard in high school was how well they did in COD. Hell, if you didn't own an xbox or an ipod no one will even associate with you. Why the hell would anyone drop a couple hundred dollars so some asswipe they wont even see again will like them, and never use it? The girls were even worse in that regard.

I don't remember anyone caring about whatever gadget someone owned. Then again, I was a metalhead and the metalhead crowd didn't particularly care about anything except for pot and other unrelated stuff.

Ultratwinkie:

In the real world, no one gives a shit about whether you own an xbox. No one cares if you don't like certain artists. No one cares.

The play still remains the same. If it's not music it's politics. If it's not gadgets its starting a family.

Ultratwinkie:

If the immature bullshit of highschool is the same as real life, why bother going to school to sit in a class?

Because high school exposes you to society whereas homeschooling does not.

Ultratwinkie:

The socialization aspect is bullshit. Even in school I never socialized with other kids because we had nothing to talk about so I sat in a room waiting for it to end so I can get my work done. Not everyone will socialize with others, especially if they have nothing in common, and trying to force it won't do anything. All that would do is waste time on something that can be done so much faster.

As I've said before, if a particular person doesn't integrate well with the community then alternative forms of education should be used.

PercyBoleyn:

Ultratwinkie:
1. the program is short. The minimum time you actually need to be on campus is one hour per week. After that, you cant whatever you want. Just because it doesn't conform to your view doesn't mean its not homeschooling.

But it's not. It's exactly like school except you don't have to attend class. There is no difference.

Ultratwinkie:

How is school "unmatched?" All I heard in high school was how well they did in COD. Hell, if you didn't own an xbox or an ipod no one will even associate with you. Why the hell would anyone drop a couple hundred dollars so some asswipe they wont even see again will like them, and never use it? The girls were even worse in that regard.

I don't remember anyone caring about whatever gadget someone owned. Then again, I was a metalhead and the metalhead crowd didn't particularly care about anything except for pot and other unrelated stuff.

Ultratwinkie:

In the real world, no one gives a shit about whether you own an xbox. No one cares if you don't like certain artists. No one cares.

The play still remains the same. If it's not music it's politics. If it's not gadgets its starting a family.

Ultratwinkie:

If the immature bullshit of highschool is the same as real life, why bother going to school to sit in a class?

Because high school exposes you to society whereas homeschooling does not.

Ultratwinkie:

The socialization aspect is bullshit. Even in school I never socialized with other kids because we had nothing to talk about so I sat in a room waiting for it to end so I can get my work done. Not everyone will socialize with others, especially if they have nothing in common, and trying to force it won't do anything. All that would do is waste time on something that can be done so much faster.

As I've said before, if a particular person doesn't integrate well with the community then alternative forms of education should be used.

So a building full of stupid kids represents society better... than society itself?!

Do you even fucking hear yourself?

You move goal posts, you refuse to acknowledge anything that isn't your own view, and you refuse to see past your own idealized version of school. I have repeatedly said homeschoolers are not tied into their homes, yet you keep saying they don't see society because they are in their homes.

Its the same fucking excuses I have repeatedly disproven. Hell, you refuse to even see the fucking process.

You don't turn in your work in a class, you turn in your work at an office and wait while they finish grading and filing it. After about 30 minutes to an hour depending on the workload, they tell you to leave and come back next week with another packet of work to submit to the state. If you have issues with the work like unclear instructions, you call the office and they will fix it. No matter how many times you say its not homeschooling, it is homeschooling in the eyes of the state.

The definition of homeschool is:
To teach one's children at home.

You learn and do all the work at home. The only reason the state has offices is so the students can submit their work to the office so they can reliably send their work to the state and get grades. No matter how many times you say "its not homeschool" both the definition and the government disagree with you.

As for society, society is a macrocosm. School is a microcosm, a sample size so small it barely registers as anything. The ONLY thing that can be considered society is society itself, not a building of children who barely understand anything beyond what is "important" to the student body. If society is the same inside and outside of a school, it makes no sense to sit in a room doing nothing instead of educating yourself more efficiently.

School is not society, school is school. Society is the world outside your own little bubble.

Finally: Just because your high school was one way, doesn't mean everyone else's was the same.

Ultratwinkie:
So a building full of stupid kids

Statements like these show just how clueless you are about social interactions.

Ultratwinkie:
represents society better... than society itself?!

I have never made that claim. Please stop using fallacies to support your claims.

Ultratwinkie:
You move goal posts, you refuse to acknowledge anything that isn't your own view, and you refuse to see past your own idealized version of school. I have repeatedly said homeschoolers are not tied into their homes, yet you keep saying they don't see society because they are in their homes.

Again, I have never made that claim.

Ultratwinkie:
Its the same fucking excuses I have repeatedly disproven. Hell, you refuse to even see the fucking process.

You haven't disproven anything. The only thing you did was strawman my arguments and claim victory.

Ultratwinkie:
You don't turn in your work in a class, you turn in your work at an office and wait while they finish grading and filing it. After about 30 minutes to an hour depending on the workload, they tell you to leave and come back next week with another packet of work to submit to the state. If you have issues with the work like unclear instructions, you call the office and they will fix it. No matter how many times you say its not homeschooling, it is homeschooling in the eyes of the state.

...

Yet again you prove just how incapable you are of doing something as simple as reading. The only thing I did was point out that the only difference between public school and state sponsored homeschooling is that you don't have to attend class.

Ultratwinkie:
You learn and do all the work at home. The only reason the state has offices is so the students can submit their work to the office so they can reliably send their work to the state and get grades. No matter how many times you say "its not homeschool" both the definition and the government disagree with you.

Are you seriously that desperate to prove your point of view that you'd resort to using fallacies over and over again?

Ultratwinkie:
If society is the same inside and outside of a school, it makes no sense to sit in a room doing nothing instead of educating yourself more efficiently.

Why would it make no sense? In fact, how would you go about educating yourself "more efficiently" without having the knowledge to do so? There's a reason we use teachers and not housewives to teach children.

Ultratwinkie:
School is not society, school is school. Society is the world outside your own little bubble.

The social interactions in school are in essence no different than the ones you experience as an adult. As I've said before, the venue might change but the play remains the same.

Ultratwinkie:
Just because your high school was one way, doesn't mean everyone else's was the same.

I have acknowledged that and even suggested that if a particular individual does not integrate well they should pursue alternative forms of education, like homeschooling.

Unethical? No. Idiotic? Certainly.

For all the possible incompetence of teachers, which is an issue that is not to be underestimated, they're still more qualified than your parents.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked