Thread split - homeschooling

i can almost guarangoddamntee you that "evolution" and "big bang" won't ever be taught to the kid either, further hendering how the kid develops her own opinions.

i bet you'd love for her to not know much science, that way she couldn't argue with you about god for hours at a time {half joking}

who ever said that last part. all i can say is learning is the point of school.

but hey, you raise your kid how you choose, not my place to tell you how to do it, i'm not a parent. those are just my views.
 
Tekkengod, that was me. I didn't say that learning is a waste of time in school, I said that making mideival weapons is a waste of time in school.
 
ok, that makes more sense. wait, why the hell would you make mideval weapons in school? i can't even carry a push knife!?!? if i go to school and see kids making broadswords and bucklers in art class i'm gonna be pissed!

do you agree with the rest of what i said?
 
Gee, considering you need at least three courses to graduate and at least four courses to get into a credable college, I think you should be spending equal time in science. Science is important. Period. All major industries are leaning towards science and engineering degrees. You want her to be competive, shove as much science down her gullet as you possibly can.

You can't: set up distilations, I can. You can't set up titrations. I can. The kits are great, I use em too. About 1% of the time. Geology isn't just looking at pretty rocks, its crystalization and chemical properties. You get into college, you go through a lot of geological chemistry courses. Botany, you right, I don't devote a lot of time to botony. I'm a biochem, microbiology sort of girl myself. So, learn how to do gram stains, learn sterilization techniques and have a go at colony identification. Yep, I actually teach my kids that. How about evolution. Do you teach them the Darwin-Wallace theory. Can you list the differences between Darwin and Wallace. Can you explain why DNA goes from 5' to 3' and not the other way around? How about molarity. Are you prepared to teach ideal gas laws. Can you explain how to go from a word equation to a balanced chemical equation and then be able to identify the limiting reagents and then ideal product? Can you then do the reaction and measure the actual product and do standard deviations? How much do you know about radioactivity? Can you actually explain carbon-14 dating? What else do you need to know to graduate (yep, this is part of the minimum requirements to graduate from Texas, the state that spends the LEAST on education and teacher pay)? How well do you know your ecology? How well do you know the Kreb's cycle? Can you trace the reactions of photosynthesis? How up are you on physics? Are you willing to buy a cat for your child to disect (mail order), not to mention all of the equipment that goes with it? How well up are you on all of your bones? Do you know the difference between point of origins and insertions for tendons? How do you sex a skeleton? Have you ever even had the chance to study a real skeleton? I have. I can trace all the major landmarks. How is iodine used? What organ? Why is the parasympathetic nervous system important.

Do all students walk away remembering all this? No. Do I give them a better chance then the average Joe who graduated from college with say, a degree in, oh... history? Most certainly.

Checks are better then no check. Period. Like I said, I can't teach students things that are patently false. No matter how stupid the superintendent might be, if I were to teach, say, my prior example, I would be fired. Suofftopicrily released from contract and probably never to teach again. Something you seem to be conviently overlooking, repeatedly.

Your problem, as I see it (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you feel you made the best choice for your child and you think I am personally attacking you. I am not. I question your wisdom in your choice and I question your ability to teach what has become, with little quibbling, the most important subject that a student can be taught (followed in my opinion by history, but only because I love it and worked as an archeaologist for a while). 2% of the population homeschools, the other 98% provides the majority of public leaders, leading scientists and great academic leaders. I have still to find a statistic from a reliable source that gives me the success rate of homeschoolers who go on to college and graduate.
 
And you want other kids to go through what you and other "normal" kids go through at school?

Yeah, making swords is bloody fun, and a lot of hard work and skill goes into making them right. Of course, "normal" kids would have no idea about this, would they?
 
Wow, just imagine how much better our nation would be if those 98% who become leaders, scientists, etc. had been raised with a decent education.
 
Yes, you should go through what other "normal" kids go through.

You make it sound as though all students who walk out of a public school education are druged up morons fit only for a job in the broom pushing business and drooling insessently on themselves.

People keep stating reading levels as an arguement. Whoopdy-do. Reading comes from the parents. If you have parents who encourage reading, then you have kids who read. Period. I tested in third grade and went off the scale, literally. The scale ended at 12th grade, thus putting me into college level. I was in public school. But I had a father who would take me to the bookstore as the big weekly outing and give me books on natural history and biology. That's what makes a difference, parent envolvment. But you can't read your way through science. Not really. You can get the theory, which is good. But you'll never grasp the mechanics without the labs.
 
Wow, that was so NOT evidence of any sort of homeschool superiority. You couldn't or wouldn't answer any other question or point on the whole post and this is all you can come up with? You wouldn't have made it in my public highschool debate class. Find me a better arguement.
 
Didn't mean to come down so hard on you. Sounds like Texas is pretty bad. Here in the midwest, wisconsin and Indiana for example, the graduates are tested before allowed to "graduate" with a state diploma. It is very highly regulated with strict guidelines about who may do what. Its actually much more regulated than public school teachers. I was asked to substitute biology teaching at a high school locally, I have no degree in biology but have 20 hours of college credit. Thats all you need to sub up here. That is the state of our public schools here. Also we have an unusually large percentage of national merit scholars among our homeschooled students with an almost 94% acceptance rate for students who apply to college. Something that our public schools with their 54% graduation rate seriously envies.
 
Perhaps you can't, but that doesn't apply at all as a general rule. I know for a fact that if your text-book's material offers a complete enough explaination of a thing, enough so to put what you read into practice. Without comprehension and ability to apply knowledge to action what point would books have? There are people who could read a basic schematic of a radio, and using just that, make one. Of course there are also people who could read an entire library of books, and still be unable to change a tire, brakes or oil on a car.

I'm not calling all or even most public schoolers idiots, but there are more than enough to ping on, and many of those even make it through with honors somehow. Guess it just doesn't mean that much, eh?

Btw, who's to define what "normal" is, and why should there be an absolutely set, enforced standard to that "normal"? You would rather that our children all be brainwashed "normal" members of society than freethinking, eh? Fortunately, the fight for homeschooling is making headway, hopefully that 17% increase to the homeschooling population will truly start to make a visual impact. I can not help but think that the violence at school is helping parents in making the right choice for their child.
 
How is being a sub comparable to being a teacher? I have done both. Subing is basically having a warm body in the class room to make sure that you have all your furniture when you get back. I don't know a single teacher that expects a sub to actually teach. No disrespect.

All I am saying is that there should be some sort of regulation on homeschooling. Texas has no laws what so ever on homeschooling. They don't even check up on the students to make sure that neglect isn't occuring. I would welcome a test before graduation (how about the same test that public highschool students are required by law to graduate?) and would shut my complaints about the whole system if Texas implimented one, even if I would question ability to teach. If I am accountable as a teacher, then I see no reason why any teacher, certified or not, would not be accountable as well.

Is that 94% who apply are accepted or 94% of all homeschoolers go to college? Big difference between the two, so I would very much like to understand which one. I don't mean to seem disrespectful, but statistics are funny that way.
 
Most of these people have experience physically working with electronics. And IMO, building a radio requires less skill than working in a chem lab. Titrations require a little fine motor control, a good eye, and at least decent reaction time. You need to learn not to put chemicals back where you got them from (dump excess down the appropriate sink), to be careful around dangerous chemicals, and to wash things properly so that it chemicals left in your viles don't react with the chemicals that you want to react.



Another good point.

Seriously, I couldn't have gotten nearly the kind of education at home that I did in highschool. I got 54 hours of college credit while I was in highschool by taking AP tests (after taking the courses). I, and seven others were national merrit scholar finalists. There were loads of other semi finalists.
 
That's why normal was in quotation marks. As I explain to my students, normal doesn't truely exist, all that exists is mathmatical average.

I spend much of my time teaching students to think for themselves. That's part of science too, though I have had several truely exceptional teachers in other subjects that taught me the same thing when I was going through school. Learning to think for yourself is a process. Its part of growing up. Some people take longer to trust themselves then others. Homeschooling, to my mind, neither hinders nor helps this process, for the most part.

Violence in schools is a chimera created by the media. We perceive schools to be more violent because we see it on the news. The news puts it on because they are a business. Businesses make money. Money is made through giving the audience features that are "sexy". Bloodshed is "sexy". The Dali Llama working with Nepalese to open an animal conservation park, not sexy. The highschool debate team making it to state for Mock Trial, not sexy. Our media is the worst in the world.

Ok, I have become that rabid posting pest. Ya'll keep replying before I am finished typing my statement so then I end up replying again. I think I will give it a rest for the night so that I don't end up with several posts by me all in a row.
 
Heh heh heh! So, the body that makes regulations does not require teaching. And you complain that that same body, the one that makes regulations that don't require teaching, has not made regulations for homeschoolers, so that in effect, by default, they don't require teaching of homeschoolers.

Heh heh heh!

Actually, you make me almost cry. That argument is unsound, and you're teaching the next generation of national leaders.

You know what? The regulatory body should get its own house in order before screwing around with someone else's house. I shouldn't be complaining about the weeds in my neighbor's yard if there's weeds in my yard, you know?



Ahh, you've stumbled upon a very, very, VERY important question: what lessons are necessary and what lessons are not necessary? Said another way, "What is the purpose of education?"

One possibility is that the purpose of education is to make "worker bees," so to speak. Another possibility is that the purpose of education is to train a person to think deeply, and think logically. Another possibility is ____, and another possibility is ____, and another possibility is ____. Etc. We could spend half an hour thinking about different possible purposes of education. And then, after that, it will be time to plan a curriculum to fit our favorite purpose.

It should be obvious already that the curriculum for making worker bees will not be the same curriculum where the educated child is supposed to be a free thinker. That's just one example, of course.

This exercise has direct application when it comes to all those lessons that you have forgotten already. Consider this: maybe you didn't need them. Dude, seriously, maybe you could have recieved whatever benefit you got from those forgotten lessons, through studying something else.

Whoa! I hope that I just blew your mind, because what I just said has massive consequences.
 
A substitute teacher (why do I have to explain this if your entire family seems to have been in education?) is someone who sits in the class one day when you are sick or at a conference (you know those things where professionals go so they are better at their jobs, I have yet to see someone who teaches at home at one). They are not, I repeat, not teachers. Many of them go on to be teachers, many of them are in college taking the classes to become teachers. Many of them are parents. You'll forgive me if I am not overly concerned about your "point".

Come on guys, you're picking the silliest things to try to make your points. You're stretching. Come back to the main points, please!
 
Eh? Except as a nationwide average, teachers are not good at their jobs.

Why do people wish to push a system that already does not work, on to a currenty working system. That's all that's suggested by talks of regulating homeschools and what parents to teach. Do you really wish to hold them back to the level of the public schools? Schools which already have major problems and... oddly enough, fail to actually teach? Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water, and isn't backed by reason. Fact: homeschoolers are much better educated than public schoolers. Fact: Research has shown that homeschoolers are socially better adjusted, and less prone to be influenced by a 'bad crowd'.

I guess the fact that the above can be proven nationwide as an average is pretty silly, isn't it?
 
The actual requirements for science in my higschool weren't that much. Two years minimum, which gives you biology and chemistry. Just about everybody takes three, taking physics the third year, because colleges like to see this.

Beyond that, there's a whole lot of room for flexibility in your schedule. I was in choir for four years, which took up one hour of my schedule, took four years of French, which I didn't have to do, chose to take AP Physics instead of something else, took an automaintenance course to satisfy one of my requirements, etc.

Maybe I don't remember a huge amount of biology, but the important thing, I think, is that it was a fundimental science, and if nothing else, you start to take away from that good laboratory procedures, logical thinking, and a feel for what real science is about.

And yes, there are actually things I do remember from it that influenced me in the future. For example, and I didn't want to bring this up for fear that it might start a separate argument (or an argument about how you don't want your children being taught this), but we spent a small amount of time on evolution in biology class. It interested me enough that I took Anthropology 102 last year to fill one of my humanities requirements. I even remembered that what's now classified as Paranthropus Bosei was listed as Austrolopithicus Bosei in my biology textbook (an older classification).

Plus, if there's something fun, like making weapons, that kids want to do, they can do that in their spare time. I tought myself computer programming, and never took a course in school on it. I took piano lessons, so it would be pointless to take a piano course in school, etc. Part of the benefit of public school, perhaps, is just learning that you can't spend all your time learning only the things you want to - you have to go do other stuff that actually feels like work.
 
AZeitung -- your post could just as well have been about homeschooling. See.

EDIT:
AZ, I might be wrong here, but I sense from your words that you’re starting to realize that a uniform education is not the best plan for a society that is not uniform. For illustration purposes I’ll give one concrete example. Today I met an auto mechanic. He’s been working on cars since he was 8 years old, and he’s older than I am now. He went to college for only two years and got an associate degree in auto repair. He’s a certified “master” technician now.

Question: do you think dissecting a frog, or a pig, or a worm, in high school biology class was very important to his life? I assert that he got some measure of benefit out of it, but my question is, in the grand scheme of his life and his career, could he have gotten more benefit out of doing something else? Let me throw out an idea. Maybe it’s not the best idea we could ever think of, but it will put us on the right track for thinking about education. On the weekends when he’s at home tinkering on cars with his children, and the birds are sitting on his rooftop chirping, and there’s some flowers blooming over there, would his life not be richer if he could say to his boy, “Boy, those there are [insert] birds. They feed on [insert]. And those flowers are [insert]. I learned this in school.”

Sure, he might pick that up that information on his own through library books, but, here’s my point: What if he took a class on it in school? Would his life not be richer had he studied botany and birds instead of dissecting a frog? I answer “yes” for this guy. Give me another person and I might answer “no.”

We do not live in a uniform world, nor should we. For excellent reasons we live in a world of varied jobs. We want it that way. It’s good that not everyone is a car mechanic and not everyone is a research physicist and not everyone is a Starbucks cashier. Let’s be smart then, and nurture a varied world by supporting multiple educational systems.
 
Alrighty, this is what I have managed to come up with. 2.2% of the population homeschools according to the NHES. The exact number is unknown (many people do not report that they are even homeschooling their children). The average home school family income is 52000 dollars, as compared to the average US family income of 36000 dollars. 98% of the parents are married. Student success seems to be dependent upon how much money they parents spend on education, parental education, family income and television. Wow, just like public school.

And I thought I would throw this quote out, as found at a web site for homeschooling.
"These comparisons between home school students and students nationwide must be
interpreted with a great deal of caution. This was not a controlled experiment. Students were not randomly assigned public, private or home schools. As a result, the reported achievement differences between groups do not control for background differences in the home school and general United States population and, more importantly, cannot be attributed to the type of school a child attends. This study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools. It should not be cited as evidence that our public schools are failing. It does not indicate that children will perform better academically if they are home schooled. The design of this study and the data do not warrant such claims. All the comparisons of home school students with the general population and with the private school population in this report fail to consider a myriad of differences between home school and public school students. We have no information as to what the achievement levels of home school students would be had they been enrolled in public or private schools."
Lawrence Rudner
as found on www.homeschoolfoundation.org

Oh, and mathematics is weaker amoung those who are homeschooled then those who go to either public or private schools. If math is weaker, it is not a significant leap to figure that science is weaker too.

You aren't actually trying to denegrate the importance of science can you? Esecially as that is the main area that we, as a country, are finding so difficult to compeat with Japan and other countries in. Face it, the world is turning to science and other technical fields. I fully am aware of the fact that not all students are college bound. Of course, I don't just write them off my expectations either. I expect them to do the best they can and I expect them to learn to the extent that they are able.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Doctor Who Space Babies review: Bet you didn’t expect that
Replies
0
Views
54
Geek
G
A
United Methodist Church delegates vote to end anti-LGBTQ policies after decades
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
G
Doctor Who: Boom review: All hail the conquering hero
Replies
0
Views
53
Geek
G
G
Indie developers are trying to make horse games that don’t suck. It’s not easy
Replies
0
Views
58
Geek
G
A
Fantasy Baseball Trade Analyzer: Buy low/high and sell low/high candidates as we flip to May
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
Back
Top