PDA

View Full Version : Homeschooling



Pages : 1 [2]

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2010, 08:52 AM
How about dealing with the actual arguments raised instead of wallowing in the wake of AC's trolling?
Jono,
Has Boris finally addressed actual arguments or you are still waiting?

Rincewind
09-12-2010, 09:01 AM
Jono,
Has Boris finally addressed actual arguments or you are still waiting?

By my reading I would expect Boris is waiting for Jono to provide evidence as per post #246. As it stands it seems to be yet another Jono ipse dixit.

Desmond
09-12-2010, 11:16 PM
By my reading I would expect Boris is waiting for Jono to provide evidence as per post #246. As it stands it seems to be yet another Jono ipse dixit.
Wow, is dipshit Goldenberg still attempting to troll me, in spite of the fact that I added him to my ignore list a month or so ago? Just a bit sad really.

Rincewind
09-12-2010, 11:21 PM
Just a bit sad really.

Maybe he thought there would be some dead cat bounce.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2010, 03:43 AM
Jono,
Has Boris finally addressed actual arguments or you are still waiting?
Igor,
Still waiting, as ever for all those who share AC's dogmatic atheopathy.

Desmond
10-12-2010, 09:01 AM
Igor,
Still waiting, as ever for all those who share AC's dogmatic atheopathy.Look Jono, you posted supposed findings of report/s. That's all your post was - 2 paragraphs referring to unnamed reports. Isn't it fairly reasonable to ask what the report is, and seek to verify / read more about it? When I read the link you provided I find no such report named or referenced. I had a brief look at the 3 (iirc) link at the bottom of that blogger's page and at a quick look didn't find the info there either. Failing that, I looked on the blogger's site for a bio. I mean if he's a PhD statistician or education theorist or something, perhaps we could give his comments some weight based on that. But there was no bio to be found, he just apears to a minister who shares much of your own idealogy. I'd say that that was pretty reasonable effort from me, considering all your input into the discussion was was a cut and paste. Oh, and irrelevant ad hominem attacks and accusing me of not engaging in the discussion.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2010, 09:27 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's so easy to make the troll explode:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rincewind
10-12-2010, 10:50 AM
Look Jono, you posted supposed findings of report/s. That's all your post was - 2 paragraphs referring to unnamed reports. Isn't it fairly reasonable to ask what the report is, and seek to verify / read more about it? When I read the link you provided I find no such report named or referenced. I had a brief look at the 3 (iirc) link at the bottom of that blogger's page and at a quick look didn't find the info there either. Failing that, I looked on the blogger's site for a bio. I mean if he's a PhD statistician or education theorist or something, perhaps we could give his comments some weight based on that. But there was no bio to be found, he just apears to a minister who shares much of your own idealogy. I'd say that that was pretty reasonable effort from me, considering all your input into the discussion was was a cut and paste. Oh, and irrelevant ad hominem attacks and accusing me of not engaging in the discussion.

All that is hardly surprising as the real issue with state education is that the likes of Jono cannot impose their religious beliefs as fact there. This is obvious by reading the blogs information on the author who says


This website is devoted to exploring the major cultural, social and political issues of the day. It offers reflection and commentary drawing upon the wealth of wisdom found in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

In other words he is another nitwit who thinks that absolute faith in scripture is some substitution for truth. Most of his readers seem to share his position as much of the language is describing the schools or their teachers as "Godless" and not Christ-centric, etc.

I have no problem with Jono et al expressing their position. But I find it a more than a little disingenuous when they try to paint it as a offering better outcomes for students and cheaper for society as a whole when actually their agenda is to ensure control of the religious content of the curricula particularly (in Jono's case) of the science curriculum where the religious pseudoscience that is ID might slip under the radar, ensuring his employer has a fresh generation of scientifically illiterate readers.

Ian Murray
10-12-2010, 04:24 PM
Look Jono, you posted supposed findings of report/s. That's all your post was - 2 paragraphs referring to unnamed reports. Isn't it fairly reasonable to ask what the report is, and seek to verify / read more about it? When I read the link you provided I find no such report named or referenced. I had a brief look at the 3 (iirc) link at the bottom of that blogger's page and at a quick look didn't find the info there either. Failing that, I looked on the blogger's site for a bio. I mean if he's a PhD statistician or education theorist or something, perhaps we could give his comments some weight based on that. But there was no bio to be found, he just apears to a minister who shares much of your own idealogy. I'd say that that was pretty reasonable effort from me, considering all your input into the discussion was was a cut and paste. Oh, and irrelevant ad hominem attacks and accusing me of not engaging in the discussion.
A straight answer from Jono would have been nice, but ir looks like you're stuck with obfuscation

antichrist
27-12-2010, 10:25 AM
headline "girl 14 better off in destructive cult"

...the girl was homschooled, Year 9 NAPLAN tests found her numeracy tests below the min standard and her writing score too low to chart...no girls in the community had attained a year 12 or tertiary qualification ,,,

AC
oh and by the way it was a christian school of course
and they were taught to submit to their husbands and only do cooking classes etc

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2010, 08:23 AM
headline "girl 14 better off in destructive cult"

...the girl was homschooled, Year 9 NAPLAN tests found her numeracy tests below the min standard and her writing score too low to chart...no girls in the community had attained a year 12 or tertiary qualification ,,,

AC
oh and by the way it was a christian school of course
and they were taught to submit to their husbands and only do cooking classes etc
Ah yes, typical Statist: compare the worst homeschoolers with the best State schoolers, rather than say with the state schoolers (evolutionists of course (http://creation.com/inside-the-mind-of-a-killer)) who shot their own classmates. Better to compare the average homeschooler with the average stateschooler: the former does better, partly because he can be educated at an optimal pace for HIM rather than at the mean, partly because no time is wasted on politically correct fads, crowd control and travel.

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2010, 08:35 AM
Most teachers do and even those that do not generally have education degrees and are qualified to teach. Surprising as it may seem, those who know the most about a topic (say a professor) is not the most capable to teach that subject at the primary or secondary level.
Yet for most of history, kids were taught without the so-called experts who have a piece of paper saying that they know the latest educrat fads. Bright students are repelled by the mickey-mouse courses.


Again you fall into the trap of equating highest grades in a subject with most capable of teaching primary and secondary level courses. It is important that the teachers know their subject but they don't need to be star students at advanced level topics in the subject. Knowing how to teach is a much more useful skill.
This presupposes that education colleges teach this. Instead, they vomit out rubbish like new maths and look-and-guess reading.


Those presently homeschooling are a self-selected group and so I would expect that they are better than the general population of parents. However, even from this group - very few parents are better qualified than the teachers and those that are would generally be teachers themselves. However while knowing how to teacher their technical knowledge of all subjects (sciences, maths, english, foreign languages, history, geography, economics, etc) would not exceed that of the teachers from those faculties in even the most modest of state funded schools.
Yet homeschoolers band together, so it's quite common for a parent to have expertise that can be shared.


The danger with homeschooling is that if the numbers were large that the instances of poorly or inappropriately educated students would increase leading to a greater number of students with more difficult access to higher education.
Yet this is precisely what is happening with the government schools now!


I also suspect that a lot of the religion based support for homeschooling (like the HSLDA) comes from the desire to brainwash children and they figure non technical parents easier* to convince that (say) intelligent design (or whatever it is being called now since the shelf-life of that term has lapsed) is a viable scientific position.
Oh of course, state education doesn't brainwash at all does it? Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman (1912–2006), despite being agnostic himself, said (http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/friedmans/writings/1979.jsp):


‘Indeed, we believe that the penalty that is now imposed on parents who do not send their children to public schools violates the spirit of the First Amendment, whatever lawyers and judges may decide about the letter. Public schools teach religion too, not a formal, theistic religion, but a set of values and beliefs that constitute a religion in all but name. The present arrangements abridge the religious freedom of parents who do not accept the religion taught by the public schools yet are forced to pay to have their children indoctrinated with it, and to pay still more to have their children escape indoctrination.’

It’s not only some creationists who advocate ‘separation of school and state’ but even some evolutionist libertarians (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s.html), who argue:


‘[T]he key source of the school wars we and others have experienced has always been compulsion: forcing people to either send their children to or pay for schooling that violates their convictions. When there is no compulsion, conflict is relatively insignificant. Consider other marketplaces, such as the one for religion. Do Protestants picket outside synagogues saying, “No, Jesus wasn’t just some guy, he was God!!!!” Nope. Despite the fact that people often feel very strongly about their religious views, it’s live and let live, because there is no compulsion in the religious marketplace.
‘Liberals, ironically, think that a liberal education system based on parental choice would be socially divisive. They have it exactly backwards: it is the compelled conformity of a single officially-established school system that is socially divisive. Individual freedom in other areas of American life, especially religion, is the reason we have had such a comparatively stable and peaceful society. If we got rid of the one significant remaining area of cultural and ideological compulsion, the official school monopoly, the current red vs. blue animosity would lessen substantially (though of course there are reasons why it wouldn’t go away entirely).’


* easier than say a judge - as in the case of Kitzmiller v Dover
What would a judge know? Especially a moron like Jones: even the puff piece in the leftard rag Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187265,00.html) said that his:


‘previous claims to fame were a failed attempt to privatize Pennsylvania’s state liquor stores as chairman of the Liquor Control Board—and banning Bad Frog Beer on the grounds that its label was obscene.’

antichrist
28-12-2010, 09:29 AM
AC
I only had to read the first sentence of Jonos to see his shining truth"

Jono
Yet for most of history, kids were taught without the so-called experts who have a piece of paper saying that they know the latest educrat fads. Bright students are repelled by the mickey-mouse courses.

AC
Now can you tell us exactly how Creationism on the solar system, planets and life etc is not Mickey Mouse?

Igor_Goldenberg
28-12-2010, 09:06 PM
Personally I am not a big fan of homeschooling, can't imagine doing it myself.
However, it must be up to the parents to decide. Any restrictions on home schooling must be based on an iron clad evidences. Given good results demonstrated by home schoolers, I doubt there are any.

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2010, 02:47 AM
“I firmly believe that being institutionalized in age-segregated groups is the antithesis of normal socialization. I believe that institutionalization and socialization limited to others of the same age inhibits mental, moral, and spiritual growth.”--A homeschooling mother responding to the nonsense that her kids won't be properly “socialized”.

antichrist
29-12-2010, 08:28 AM
“I firmly believe that being institutionalized in age-segregated groups is the antithesis of normal socialization. I believe that institutionalization and socialization limited to others of the same age inhibits mental, moral, and spiritual growth.”--A homeschooling mother responding to the nonsense that her kids won't be properly “socialized”.

Yeah, some Catholic priests' life is also the antithesis of normal socialization - so they take it out on the youngsters with devastating results.

Whereas in public schools it is law that anyone involved in any manner with the school must pass child-safety checks.

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2010, 02:58 PM
Yeah, some Catholic priests' life is also the antithesis of normal socialization - so they take it out on the youngsters with devastating results.

Whereas in public schools it is law that anyone involved in any manner with the school must pass child-safety checks.
Of course, because the rate of child abuse by schoolteachers dwarfed that by priests.

antichrist
29-12-2010, 03:02 PM
Of course, because the rate of child abuse by schoolteachers dwarfed that by priests/

Now do we have stats on that please? Stats that stand up. That St Stanislav college recent cases are absolutely disgraceful. Frankly I can hardly recall much done by teachers, whereas the Catholic Church has had thousands cases all around the world. They would transfer them to another parish to have fresh turf and to avoid prosecution. I have never heard of the state education system doing that.

How ironic Jono having to defend Catholic priests just for consistency when in fact most people of such prodo disposition despise them - ha ha, whores of Babylon they usually call them.

Adamski
29-12-2010, 11:25 PM
For AC's info I know no Christians at all who despise Catholics.

antichrist
30-12-2010, 01:58 PM
For AC's info I know no Christians at all who despise Catholics.
I kno many who are all fanatics against Catholics - from 30 ago to now they call the RCC the whore of Babylon - I only learnt that term from Prodos and fron Jehovah Witnesses, and Born Agains

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2011, 03:44 AM
Ten Reasons Not to Homeschool (http://www.waldsfe.org/humor/10reasons.htm)

by Jim Muncy

Why send your kids to public schools rather than homeschool? Here are ten good reasons:

10. Skill development: Government schools do a great job of teaching children to sit down and shut up while the teacher engages in crowd control and mindless administrative duties. The ability to put one's mind on hold, sit there and do nothing is a skill that will be in high demand in the competitive marketplace of the future.

9. Lack of ability: I couldn't teach my own child—I don't know how. After all, anything meaningful in life can only be taught by those properly trained and certified to do so.

8. Financial aspects: We can't financially afford to homeschool. Without the school based health clinics, how could we afford to keep our children supplied with condoms and birth control?

7. Goals 2000: I want my children to learn all the correct stuff. Given how fast history changes, I want to be sure they are up on the most recent version.

6. Scheduling benefits: Staying on the same schedule as everybody else has its benefits. That way, when we go to Orlando, we can make sure that we spend our time waiting in lines rather than wasting it on all those rides and attractions.

5. Close friendships: I like the fact that my children are spending so much of their time with people not in their family. I would much rather my children's closest friendships be outside the family rather than within.

4. Separation of church and state: As long as we keep church and state separate, then the more time I can keep my kids under the control of the state, the less time they can possible be under the harmful influence of the church.

3. Socialization: What possible better way could there be to give your children the social skills they will need as adults than to stick them with children their own age all day? Besides, the best influence on your child is the one randomly assigned to the seat behind him or her in home room.

2. Class size: Learning can't occur in groups of less than twenty students. There is nothing quite like being lock-stepped through material with thirty other students to really develop within a person that true love for learning.

1. Class pace: I want my child to know how to learn at the proper pace. If a child can't keep up with the class, then it serves that child right to be left behind in the dust. If the child is learning too fast, then he or she needs to learn to slow down. And besides, what gives any child the right to assume that he or she can learn things he or she wants to learn rather than what the Federal Government decides should be taught for any given grade level. Anything learned at the wrong time might just as well be left unlearned.

Rincewind
10-06-2011, 09:51 AM
4. Separation of church and state: As long as we keep church and state separate, then the more time I can keep my kids under the control of the state, the less time they can possible be under the harmful influence of the church.

Given that homeschooling isn't supposed to be about religious indoctrination it is telling how often something like #4 (which is all about religious indoctrination) makes the top 10 reasons to homeschool.

Sure if you think that your kids finding out about disciplines like science and history from those qualified to teach those subjects, not to mention learning to think for themselves rather than being told by you what to think by you is bad, then home school them. I just happen to think it disadvantages the children. I'm sure it does wonders for the egos of the parents.

Rincewind
10-06-2011, 09:53 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TUaiyiU_zNI/AAAAAAAAgEY/u6-AoMpwrAQ/s1600/home-schooling-for-dummies-creation-museum.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2011, 03:49 AM
Given that homeschooling isn't supposed to be about religious indoctrination it is telling how often something like #4 (which is all about religious indoctrination) makes the top 10 reasons to homeschool.
Religious indoctrination occurs regardless. The choice is whether it's in the faith of the parents who bore the kids, or the secular left faith of the government bureaucracies.


I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … .
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. [J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26 (emphases added)]


Sure if you think that your kids finding out about disciplines like science and history from those qualified to teach those subjects,
Another good reason to avoid government schools, since many of the teachers are NOT qualified in the subjects, or are graduates with the lowest grades. It's also interesting that homeschoolers consistently outperform the inmates of the government schools, and consistently win "spelling bees". The teachers unions grouse that it's not fair, since the homeschoolers have more time to study!


not to mention learning to think for themselves rather than being told by you what to think by you is bad,
No, you would rather they were told what to think by leftist unionized schoolteachers instead.


then home school them. I just happen to think it disadvantages the children.
Although they often perform better? And avoid the time wasted in travel and politically correct fads; as well as avoiding the "socialization" of peer pressure and bullying.


I'm sure it does wonders for the egos of the parents.
It's quite humbling actually, according to the ones I know, but rewarding as well.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2011, 06:33 AM
Seven Shocking Facts About Home-Based Education (http://www.michaelchhetri.co.cc/homeschool-news-7-shocking-facts-about-home-based-education.html)
Homeschool News, 3 November 3, 2010


Fact #1: Homeschoolers perform 34-39% above the national average in standardized tests. The national average, by definition, is 50%. Homeschoolers test at 84-89% in subject by subject standardized test scores, well above the national average.

Fact #2: Children in lower income families who homeschool outperform public education. Even families making a combined household income of less than $35,000 per year outperformed public education by 35% in standardized test scores.



Fact #4: Home-schooled children of parents who do not have a college education outperform public education. Even in homes in which neither parent has a degree, students tested at 83% nationally. That’s 33% above the national average.



Fact #6: Spending more per student via public education does not improve performance. Homeschool education generally costs $500 per student each year for curriculum and supplies, while public education costs an average of nearly $10,000. Regardless of total dollars per student, homeschool students came in at 86-89% performance, or 36-39% above the national public school average.



But leftards are impervious to the facts, insisting that the government educational bureaucracy and teachers unions know best.

Rincewind
28-06-2011, 11:42 AM
But leftards are impervious to the facts, insisting that the government educational bureaucracy and teachers unions know best.

Have you checked any of those "shocking facts"?

Michael Blog seems to have propensity to link in his articles but they are almost all to his own articles making it one of the most circular blogs I have ever encountered. However, links to the actual research papers where he gets his statistics from would be useful. (That is, useful linking and not self-aggrandising, useless linking).

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2012, 09:05 AM
A College Professor Advises Parents to "Get them out now before you ruin their life." - Is it time to think about home schooling your child? (http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A374659)

For the past 21 years I have taught economics to more than 14,000 college students here in Central Florida.



Drawing from a sample size this large multiplied by two decades multiplied by hundreds of thousands of test answers has put me in a good position to offer the following advice to any reader of this paper with children in Florida's K-12 public schools.

Get them out now before you ruin their life.

While this may seem to be a bit harsh, let's look at the facts.
First, my best students every year are in order — Chinese, Eastern European, Indian and home-schooled Americans, and it is not even close when comparing this group to American public-school kids.



All of us have seen or heard about the annual disaster that is called FCAT results. Thanks to government officials in Washington, D.C. and Tallahassee, kids in government-run schools are failing miserably in a wide range of subjects while teachers face bureaucratic nightmares that strip them of their status as professionals and relegate them to servants of standardized testing.
It is also a fact of public education that incidents of bullying, teacher-student sexual misconduct, abusive behavior by teachers and incessant protection of poor teachers by education unions have put students in public schools in the unenviable position of dealing with issues that no learning environment should impose on them.
Moreover, the public education system in Florida and other states is one of the worst forms of monopoly power.
Everywhere in our lives as citizens we have free consumer choice as to where we shop for food, clothes, cellphones and more. However, if you are economically disadvantaged you rarely have this choice in education.
Poorer families in Florida are instead given the school district that their children are forced to attend. Rather than give poor parents choices so that competitive pressure is imposed on public education, we have lower-income families — mostly minorities — who are condemned to 13 years of inferior education just because they live in the wrong zip code.
Everywhere in America where vouchers or other forms of school choice exists, we see competition forcing the unionized public schools to adapt, or lose students.



Meanwhile, the more than 2 million home-schooled kids around America (my two sons included) routinely appear in America's colleges with an education that prepares them for virtually anything.
The home-education movement has unleashed the forces of capitalism in such a way that anyone can find dozens of types of curricula for any grade level to help educate their kids in areas where one might not be an expert.
Home-school conventions like the one coming at the end of this month in Orlando offer thousands of options and professional speakers who can help guide willing parents through their child's formative years.
The home-schooled kids who show up in my classes usually arrive at the age of 16 or 17, score in the high 90's on their exams and then go off to places like Harvard, Penn and other world-class universities.

pappubahry
23-06-2012, 09:13 AM
A College Professor Advises Parents to "Get them out now before you ruin their life." - Is it time to think about home schooling your child? (http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A374659)

For the past 21 years I have taught economics to more than 14,000 college students here in Central Florida.



Drawing from a sample size this large multiplied by two decades multiplied by hundreds of thousands of test answers
Irrelevant to his main points, but you can't multiply your sample size like that.

Rincewind
23-06-2012, 09:41 AM
A College Professor Advises Parents to "Get them out now before you ruin their life." - Is it time to think about home schooling your child?

While this may seem to be a bit harsh, let's look at the facts.

For starters what follows are what we are told are facts but are not substantiated. I suspect the following statement is strictly speaking not true but indicative of the general trend.


First, my best students every year are in order — Chinese, Eastern European, Indian and home-schooled Americans, and it is not even close when comparing this group to American public-school kids.

I wonder if he has heard of selection bias. International students are likely to be selected group from the general population very few students in the world are expected to attend American colleges, whereas a large proportion of the American population is expected to go to college. By the same token home schooled students are self-selected to a certain extent which is why it is difficult to say from a naive analysis of the data that home-skoolin' produces better outcomes as in many cases they are simply starting with better students and there is a voluntary suppression of the poorer outcomes due to self-censorship from academic measures, like college attendance.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2012, 11:43 PM
I wonder if he has heard of selection bias. International students are likely to be selected group from the general population very few students in the world are expected to attend American colleges, whereas a large proportion of the American population is expected to go to college. By the same token home schooled students are self-selected to a certain extent which is why it is difficult to say from a naive analysis of the data that home-skoolin' produces better outcomes as in many cases they are simply starting with better students and there is a voluntary suppression of the poorer outcomes due to self-censorship from academic measures, like college attendance.
You're still making excuses. His explanation is far better: the lack of competition in anything makes for far worse products/services. The US government school system is a prime example, because they don't have to compete for students, and it's almost impossible to fire bad teachers.

Rincewind
24-06-2012, 12:33 AM
You're still making excuses.

Still? No just pointing out the flaws in his methodology. Although to call it a methodology vastly flatters the author.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2012, 02:44 PM
Checkmate: school tells champion boys to leave (http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/checkmate-school-tells-champion-boys-to-leave-20111202-1obhb.html#ixzz1fR9CxYck)
Andrew Stevenson
December 3, 2011


TWO of Australia's best young chess players have been told by Sydney Grammar to find another school next year after taking unauthorised leave to compete in the World Youth Chess Championships in Brazil.

Kevin Willathgamuwa, 8, and his brother Rowan, 9, have also been excluded from Grammar's chess team competing in the Australian Schools Teams Championships at Knox Grammar this weekend, despite missing only one day of the long competition. The boys were away from school for 10 days. In Brazil, Kevin placed 10th out of 90 boys in the under 8s, and Rowan won half his matches. The Australian grand master, Ian Rogers, who was at the competition, said Kevin was clearly the best player of his age in Australia.

''It's incredible someone should be punished for missing two weeks of year 2 for representing Australia,'' Mr Rogers said. ''It was very important for him to go to the world youth championships. It's not just the tournament but it's important for him to see what other kids have achieved at the same age.''
Yet another reason to prefer homeschooling, where the education exists for the kids' benefit, unlike the attitude above, shared by the government schools, where the kids apparently exist for the school's benefit.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2012, 03:01 PM
Yet another reason to prefer homeschooling, where the education exists for the kids' benefit, unlike the attitude above, shared by the government schools, where the kids apparently exist for the school's benefit.

I would have thought the flood of offers from other schools to accept the Willathgamuwas on more reasonable terms actually showed that Sydney Grammar's attitude was the exception rather than the rule. And it's rather difficult for homeschooled children to compete in interschool chess team comps at all, unless the organisers bend the rules, so that might be said to be a minor disadvantage of homeschooling for juniors.

I do think there are lots of good arguments for homeschooling in certain circumstances (incidentally the current Tasmanian junior champion is homeschooled) but the above doesn't seem to be one of them.

Desmond
24-06-2012, 09:44 PM
Andrew Stevenson
December 3, 2011
Pretty sure this was discussed previously. I'm not sure in what thread though.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2012, 11:52 PM
I would have thought the flood of offers from other schools to accept the Willathgamuwas on more reasonable terms actually showed that Sydney Grammar's attitude was the exception rather than the rule.
That's something. I know that in my own school days (Wellington College in NZ, a respected government school), chess was not well regarded in schools in general, certainly not compared with rugby and cricket.


And it's rather difficult for homeschooled children to compete in interschool chess team comps at all, unless the organisers bend the rules, so that might be said to be a minor disadvantage of homeschooling for juniors.
In America, there are lots of homeschool competitions. I've been a guest speaker at some major homeschool conventions over the last 15 months, and they had a "Championship Chess" booth and lots of kids playing.


I do think there are lots of good arguments for homeschooling in certain circumstances (incidentally the current Tasmanian junior champion is homeschooled) but the above doesn't seem to be one of them.
Nakamura (http://www.studlife.com/scene/2011/02/28/getting-to-know-grandmaster-hikaru-nakamura/)and the Polgár sisters were homeschooled as well.

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2012, 12:46 AM
In America, there are lots of homeschool competitions.

Individual or team? I suppose in a large enough player base you could have homeschool regional team comps.

pax
25-06-2012, 01:06 AM
Yet another reason to prefer homeschooling, where the education exists for the kids' benefit, unlike the attitude above, shared by the government schools, where the kids apparently exist for the school's benefit.

What a load of garbage. Most schools (of all types) would be absolutely delighted to support kids who are competing on an international stage, and many do of course.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2012, 11:39 AM
Individual or team? I suppose in a large enough player base you could have homeschool regional team comps.
Both I think. Certainly there are lots of individual tourneys (http://www.examiner.com/article/homeschool-chess-championships).

Adamski
29-06-2012, 07:45 AM
Both I think. Certainly there are lots of individual tourneys (http://www.examiner.com/article/homeschool-chess-championships).As you know I am an advocate of homeschooling so I am glad to hear this.

Mrs Jono
08-07-2012, 02:48 PM
Are you aware of any studies that follow-up on the workforce sucess of home schooled children. I have often wondered whether the socialisation process is better or worse for transition into the workplace, where there often more emphasis on group dynamics and team performance.

I don't know about actual studies, but home-educated children have distinct advantages over public schooled children in this regard.

Typically, PS children are taught to a mean, where the slower are often left behind and the advanced are often stunted. They are subject to daily bureaucracy, have to tolerate disruptive troublemakers being reprimanded, are trapped with children their own age for hours every school day, have few opportunities for workplace exposure or field trips, the teaching of social responsibility is almost nonexistent, and uniqueness is discouraged and deflated.

Typically, HS children are taught alongside their ability, where the lessons are accelerated, retarded, or adjusted according to educational needs (e.g., more opportunity for Kinesthetic learning). Parents usually handle the bureaucracy of reporting (in states where it is required) when it does not interfere with teaching. Disruptions are usually only related to that particular child, and are not amplified or egged-on by peer pressure. As a result, the children usually complete more classwork in less time, and have more hours available for further life and work education (if done properly, almost all aspects of life are considered opportunities for education), apprenticeships, field trips, and the like. They have better socialization then their PS peers, because they are exposed to adults and children of all ages, making them more prepared for the "real world".

This would mean that HS children are more prepared to fit into "group dynamics and team performance" situations where the group or team have varied participants, rather than people segregated by age (and often social-economic status, due to school zoning laws).

HS children, in my experience, grown up to be more mature adults who are better prepared for the workforce.

Adamski
08-07-2012, 11:50 PM
I don't know about actual studies, but home-educated children have distinct advantages over public schooled children in this regard.

Typically, PS children are taught to a mean, where the slower are often left behind and the advanced are often stunted. They are subject to daily bureaucracy, have to tolerate disruptive troublemakers being reprimanded, are trapped with children their own age for hours every school day, have few opportunities for workplace exposure or field trips, the teaching of social responsibility is almost nonexistent, and uniqueness is discouraged and deflated.

Typically, HS children are taught alongside their ability, where the lessons are accelerated, retarded, or adjusted according to educational needs (e.g., more opportunity for Kinesthetic learning). Parents usually handle the bureaucracy of reporting (in states where it is required) when it does not interfere with teaching. Disruptions are usually only related to that particular child, and are not amplified or egged-on by peer pressure. As a result, the children usually complete more classwork in less time, and have more hours available for further life and work education (if done properly, almost all aspects of life are considered opportunities for education), apprenticeships, field trips, and the like. They have better socialization then their PS peers, because they are exposed to adults and children of all ages, making them more prepared for the "real world".

This would mean that HS children are more prepared to fit into "group dynamics and team performance" situations where the group or team have varied participants, rather than people segregated by age (and often social-economic status, due to school zoning laws).

HS children, in my experience, grown up to be more mature adults who are better prepared for the workforce.Completely agree. We homeschooled our son from the age of 11 to 16. We followed a program based on the US "Alpha and Omega" Christianity-based syllabus.

Desmond
09-07-2012, 07:41 AM
Praise the lawd!

Mrs Jono
09-07-2012, 07:43 AM
Completely agree. We homeschooled our son from the age of 11 to 16. We followed a program based on the US "Alpha and Omega" Christianity-based syllabus.

Did your son like it? We tried so many :eek:, but I think that was one we used more than any other, for several of the subjects. I personally loved Singapore math, but my son, not so much.

I am thrilled that they say they will home educate our granddaughters. :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2013, 08:23 AM
Is Homeschool the Best Preparation for College? Experts Say It Strengthens Students Independence (http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-homeschool-the-best-preparation-for-college-experts-say-it-strengthens-students-independence-103257/)
BY TYLER O'NEIL , CP CONTRIBUTOR
August 29, 2013|1:40 pm

A homeschool girl, now studying at a state college, says that instead of stunting her social and intellectual growth, homeschooling actually toughened her up for the real challenges of college life. Christian homeschooling advocates argue that studying at home frees kids up to thrive and is a better option than public and even private school for grades K-12.

Homeschooling "did not prepare me to get smashed every weekend, engage in casual sex, or try every drug known to man," Katie England, a student at Colorado State University in Pueblo, wrote in a Wednesday blog post. Instead, this teaching style strengthened her independence, she said. "It did prepare me to counter culture, a skill with which very few kids come out of high school equipped."

Christian homeschooling pioneer Gregg Harris, who serves as director, event developer, and instructor at the Noble Institute, told The Christian Post on Wednesday that homeschoolers "tend to be good at organizing their time and attacking a project, studying for the sheer delight in the learning process." Learning in the home allows kids to pursue what they love, so "education becomes a feast rather than something they have to get over with."

Rincewind
01-09-2013, 09:23 AM
From the same article...


He [Harris] stressed that while homeschooling may be effective, it is no substitute for the Holy Spirit.

WTF?!

Desmond
01-09-2013, 09:43 AM
From the same article...


He [Harris] stressed that while homeschooling may be effective, it is no substitute for the Holy Spirit.

WTF?!
A homeschool advocate with a religious agenda? Will the wonders ever cease?

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2013, 12:54 PM
If homeschooling strengthens students' independence from their peers at the cost of making them dependent on religious dogma then the price in that specific case is much too high. It's not clear from England's post (off the link) whether that was the case with her or not, because she doesn't discuss whether exposure to facts and fair perspectives contrary to her upbringing actually modified her views.

pax
01-09-2013, 02:27 PM
I'd say it depends entirely on the parents and the environment, especially when it comes to homeschooling high school.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2013, 02:41 PM
I'd say it depends entirely on the parents and the environment, especially when it comes to homeschooling high school.

Agreed; I've clarified my previous post slightly.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2013, 03:44 PM
A homeschool advocate with a religious agenda? Will the wonders ever cease?
And atheopaths don't have any agenda do they? They want people to send their kids to them for atheopathic indoctrination. But by all means, ignore the facts that homeschoolers often perform much better than those in the atrocious American government schools. It's notable that many opponents of school choice send their own kids to private schools.

Desmond
01-09-2013, 04:02 PM
And atheopaths don't have any agenda do they? They want people to send their kids to them for atheopathic indoctrination. Schools free of religious indoctrination - Oh, the humanity.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2013, 04:19 PM
Schools free of religious indoctrination - Oh, the humanity.
Not at all—plenty of atheopathic religious indoctrination, as well as wasting time on politically correct BS on race and gender, at the expense of learning how to read, write, and add up.

Desmond
01-09-2013, 04:47 PM
Not at all—plenty of atheopathic religious indoctrination,Such as?


as well as wasting time on politically correct BS on race and gender, Whereas at home you would be quite free to teach your beliefs about the rightful places of women and racial groups.


at the expense of learning how to read, write, and add up.Some people can walk and whistle at the same time, though admittedly you may not be able to relate to them.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 02:42 AM
Such as?
Goo-to-you evolution, moral relativism, sex ed to grade 1 or younger—Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergartners ‘Is the Right Thing to Do’ (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-sex-ed-kindergartners-right-thing-do).


Whereas at home you would be quite free to teach your beliefs about the rightful places of women and racial groups.
Of course. Would use Thomas Sowell's astute analysis on racial issues rather than the black-armband PC crap that actually harms the very groups it pretends to protect. In the article I cited, there were high-achieving women who had been homeschooled. Sowell has shown that the biggest rises for American blacks and women came before the Civil Rights and Feminist movements.


Some people can walk and whistle at the same time, though admittedly you may not be able to relate to them.
Evidently you are unaware of how many people go through the American government school system unable to do these things. Leftards tacitly admit this with their calls for yet more money to be thrown at education, although "Despite the clamor about low teacher pay in America, the average teacher in a taxpayer-supported public school earns more in base salary alone — with summers off — than the median U.S. household earns in an entire year (http://news.newsmax.com/?Z64vaxwmQOFrjPPOCtYvKDaHvXbetJU1Z)." They also clamour for smaller class sizes, but apparently the even smaller class sizes of homeschooling are no good.

Desmond
02-09-2013, 08:00 AM
Goo-to-you evolution,Nothing to do with atheism - plenty of theists who accept evolution.


moral relativismagain nothing to do with atheism.


, sex ed to grade 1 or younger—Nothing to do with atheism.

Do you have anything real to add to the discussion?


Of course. Would use Thomas Sowell's astute analysis on racial issues rather than the black-armband PC crap that actually harms the very groups it pretends to protect. In the article I cited, there were high-achieving women who had been homeschooled. Sowell has shown that the biggest rises for American blacks and women came before the Civil Rights and Feminist movements.We recognize what you really think by your fruits.


Evidently you are unaware of how many people go through the American government school system unable to do these things. Leftards tacitly admit this with their calls for yet more money to be thrown at education, although "Despite the clamor about low teacher pay in America, the average teacher in a taxpayer-supported public school earns more in base salary alone — with summers off — than the median U.S. household earns in an entire year (http://news.newsmax.com/?Z64vaxwmQOFrjPPOCtYvKDaHvXbetJU1Z)." They also clamour for smaller class sizes, but apparently the even smaller class sizes of homeschooling are no good."Base salary alone"? What portion is base salary of their total OTE? In any event for someone who seems to spend a considerable amount of time copy/pasting economists and social commentators you seem to not want such subjects studied.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 11:11 AM
Nothing to do with atheism - plenty of theists who accept evolution.
Evolution is a pseudo-intellectual crutch for the atheistic faith.


again nothing to do with atheism.
Of course it is, by denying any basis for any objective morality.


Nothing to do with atheism.
Yes it does, by divorcing sex from family.


Do you have anything real to add to the discussion?
Yes, but too deep for you evidently. Do you have any substantial reasons for preferring the one-size-fits-all age-segregated herds of the government schools?


We recognize what you really think by your fruits.
I.e. judging policies by their actual results not their stated intentions. I.e. leftard economics actually hurts the poor, and affirmative action in the USA actually hurts blacks, and feminism has resulted in replacing alleged dependence on husbands with real dependence on the government.


"Base salary alone"? What portion is base salary of their total OTE?
They often have jobs for the three months of school holidays. But the point was that even their base salary for 9 months is more than a majority of makes in 12 months.


In any event for someone who seems to spend a considerable amount of time copy/pasting economists and social commentators you seem to not want such subjects studied.
I want them studied properly, not the leftard PC crap that passes for education these days.

Desmond
02-09-2013, 11:58 AM
Evolution is a pseudo-intellectual crutch for the atheistic faith.Not at all. As already mentioned there are theists who accept evolution, billions of them actually.


Of course it is, by denying any basis for any objective morality.
Not exclusive to atheists at all.


Yes it does, by divorcing sex from family.What does that have to do with advancing your proposition that sexual education of primary schoolers is an atheistic attribute?



Yes, but too deep for you evidently.You keep on typing but nothing you have written advances your claim Re atheism.


Do you have any substantial reasons for preferring the one-size-fits-all age-segregated herds of the government schools?Not the subject at hand.


I.e. judging policies by their actual results not their stated intentions. I.e. leftard economics actually hurts the poor, and affirmative action in the USA actually hurts blacks, and feminism has resulted in replacing alleged dependence on husbands with real dependence on the government.Pull the other one, it has bells on.


They often have jobs for the three months of school holidays. But the point was that even their base salary for 9 months is more than a majority of makes in 12 months.A majority of people with comparable tertiary education?



I want them studied properly, not the leftard PC crap that passes for education these days.SO you are happy for such classes to occur "at the expense of learning how to read, write, and add up" provided that it is done well?

Rincewind
02-09-2013, 12:00 PM
Evolution is a pseudo-intellectual crutch for the atheistic faith.

Rubbish. Atheism is simply the denial of a god. It does not require evolution per se. And as rr said (and you igored) plenty of theists accept the scientific fact of evolution and so do not require a "crutch".


Of course it is, by denying any basis for any objective morality.

Again not required by atheism. You could be atheist and believe in an objective morality. By the same token a theist could perfectly well believe in no objective morality.


Yes it does, by divorcing sex from family.

Now you are making no sense whatsoever. But you haven't made any sort of case linking whatever you mean by "divorcing sex from family" has anything to do with atheism.


Yes, but too deep for you evidently.

Fly-weight would be an exaggeration of your intellectual contribution to this board's non-chess section. Particularly when discussion ethics or biology, you get out of your depth before you finish the first post and then just thrash about with infantile invectives until everyone else gets bored reading them.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 01:36 PM
RW is like GF: full of Alinskyite fluff but totally lacking in substantive argument.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2013, 02:15 PM
RW is like GF: full of Alinskyite fluff but totally lacking in substantive argument.

Given the validity of at least the first three of Rincewind's replies in #308, and that they were certainly not less "substantive" than the comments they were posted in reply to, if Rincewind deserves to be compared to Alinsky then that is a compliment to Alinsky.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 02:34 PM
Oh, what a surprise. It's doubtful that any of the critics could provide an argument that convinces them that theism is logically compatible with evolution.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 02:41 PM
Not at all. As already mentioned there are theists who accept evolution, billions of them actually.
People you would hardly respect as being coherent.


Not exclusive to atheists at all.
Atheists are among the leaders.

vWhat does that have to do with advancing your proposition that sexual education of primary schoolers is an atheistic attribute?[/QUOTE]
Should be obvious: family is too closely associated with Judeo-Christian morality. Conversely, if we are just rearranged pond scum, then why not teach sex to young kids.


Pull the other one, it has bells on.
I.e. keep your myths that opposing certain policies means not caring about the people they are claimed to help. That way, you can avoid responsibility for the problems these policies cause.


A majority of people with comparable tertiary education?
Yes, when compared to the days per year worked.


SO you are happy for such classes to occur "at the expense of learning how to read, write, and add up" provided that it is done well?
Obviously learn the latter first. They could learn these things if all the PC crap wasn't imposed as well.

And you desperately want to find excuses for government schooling despite the superior results of homeschoolers. The real reason is that government schools indoctrinate kids into favouring government. It's no accident that Hitler's government outlawed homeschooling, a law that's still operative in Germany.

Rincewind
02-09-2013, 03:16 PM
It's no accident that Hitler's government outlawed homeschooling, a law that's still operative in Germany.

Perhaps it is also no accident that more than 100 Nobel laureates have come from Germany.

Desmond
02-09-2013, 03:27 PM
People you would hardly respect as being coherent.Irrelevant (and wrong, as it happens). Your line #1 item for "atheopathic [sic] religious indoctrination" is shown to be no such thing.


Atheists are among the leaders.Your line #2 item is not looking too promising either. You're not even trying to claim atheists are exclusively morally relativistic. Anything better you want to trot out, or is it time to cut and paste bump another dormant thread and try your luck there?


vWhat does that have to do with advancing your proposition that sexual education of primary schoolers is an atheistic attribute?
Should be obvious: family is too closely associated with Judeo-Christian morality. Conversely, if we are just rearranged pond scum, then why not teach sex to young kids.Quite a bizarre non sequitur, even for you.


I.e. keep your myths that opposing certain policies means not caring about the people they are claimed to help. That way, you can avoid responsibility for the problems these policies cause.Simply that >12,000 posts entrenching yourself as an objectionable bigot are not going to be undone by saying otherwise.


Yes, when compared to the days per year worked.Ipse dixit and that is not what you claimed.


Obviously learn the latter first. They could learn these things if all the PC crap wasn't imposed as well.

And you desperately want to find excuses for government schooling despite the superior results of homeschoolers. The real reason is that government schools indoctrinate kids into favouring government. It's no accident that Hitler's government outlawed homeschooling, a law that's still operative in Germany.Hitler comparisons, eh? A sure sign of a winning argument. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2013, 03:38 PM
Oh, what a surprise. It's doubtful that any of the critics could provide an argument that convinces them that theism is logically compatible with evolution.

It's doubtful that that is relevant. I've known highly educated scientists with 30+ years of academic or museum experience who are both theists and evolutionists. The possibility of the two beliefs being logically incompatible doesn't seem to affect their thought patterns because they switch between one mode of thinking and the other depending on the issue being considered. You think they're being inconsistent, I think they're being inconsistent, but neither of us could convince them of that. Their existence is an empirical fact and trying to wish away that fact based on the inconsistency involved is pointless.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 03:56 PM
Irrelevant (and wrong, as it happens). Your line #1 item for "atheopathic [sic] religious indoctrination" is shown to be no such thing.
Of course it is, since evolution is taught as a justification for rejecting any relevance for God, and pushed dogmatically while outlawing any criticism.


Simply that >12,000 posts entrenching yourself as an objectionable bigot are not going to be undone by saying otherwise.
Bigot: someone who disagrees with you and has the better arguments. Cf. racist: conservative beating a leftard in a debate.


Hitler comparisons, eh? A sure sign of a winning argument. :lol:
It's a statement of fact that Hitler outlawed homeschooling and that this law has not been repealed. He said:

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already.... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." [Hitler speech, Nov. 6, 1933. Quoted in William L. Shirer, "Education in the Third Reich," ch. 8, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959)]
Allusions to Godwin's Law are irrelevant here.

Rincewind
02-09-2013, 04:07 PM
Allusions to Godwin's Law are irrelevant here.

Not at all. Homeschooling is illegal in many jurisdictions. Your example of being illegal in Germany and that the law was passed under Hitler is nothing more than a Godwin response to you losing the argument. If Hitler did it, it must be wrong.

How about Sweden, where elective homeschooling is also illegal? I assume the lack of the spectre of Nazism doesn't serve your non-argument.

Desmond
02-09-2013, 07:57 PM
Of course it is, since evolution is taught as a justification for rejecting any relevance for God, and pushed dogmatically while outlawing any criticism.For a start, you classified (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=338091&postcount=73) Roman Catholics, Christians who accept evolution, as "almost certainly Christian". I went to a Catholic school and was taught evolution in year 11-12 biology - you are dead wrong about it being atheistic.

As you appear to have abandoned your other two "points", I think it safe to put this to rest.


Bigot: someone who disagrees with you and has the better arguments. Cf. racist: conservative beating a leftard in a debate.You being a bigot has nothing to do with this discussion nor with me calling you one; it's what you are.


It's a statement of fact that Hitler ...irrelevant, appeals to Godwin have nothing to do with whether they are facts or not.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2013, 04:33 AM
Not at all. Homeschooling is illegal in many jurisdictions. Your example of being illegal in Germany and that the law was passed under Hitler is nothing more than a Godwin response to you losing the argument. If Hitler did it, it must be wrong.
I also showed from a quote from him why he did it. And it's notable that it was one of his laws that stayed on the books.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2013, 04:35 AM
For a start, you classified (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=338091&postcount=73) Roman Catholics, Christians who accept evolution, as "almost certainly Christian". I went to a Catholic school and was taught evolution in year 11-12 biology - you are dead wrong about it being atheistic.
Yet after that teaching, you are atheopathic. Not a very good argument for churchian compromises. I've also said that holding two mutually incompatible thoughts in the same skull does not disqualify a person from being a Christian.


You being a bigot has nothing to do with this discussion nor with me calling you one; it's what you are.
You repeating this projection-motivated lie doesn't make it true. But it's typical of the Alinsky tactics of "personalize" and "freeze" one's opponents.

Desmond
03-09-2013, 07:29 AM
Yet after that teaching, you are atheopathic. Not a very good argument for churchian compromises. Yet it shows that the teaching of evolution in schools is not an atheistic attribute, it is simply good education to teach scientific fact and is done by religious groups that no sane person would seriously consider atheistic.


You repeating this projection-motivated lie doesn't make it true. But it's typical of the Alinsky tactics of "personalize" and "freeze" one's opponents.Happy to address any on-topic point you may make at some point, though there is not much left to address. Of course as usual you were the one to personalize by introducing charged terms such as "athoepathic", which incidentally go towards bigotry (fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's religion).

Rincewind
03-09-2013, 08:41 AM
I also showed from a quote from him why he did it. And it's notable that it was one of his laws that stayed on the books.

Yes I get it, Hitler did it, therefore it must be wrong. Just like his quit smoking campaigns.

Now how about Sweden?

How about the scientific fact of evolution that is accepted by academies of sciences from all over the world, from every inhabited continent and all faiths. Also accepted by the Catholic and Episcopal Communions the two largest christian denominations in the world.

How about all those elective homeschooled Nobel laureates?

Regarding this final point I did a quick search and found Schrodinger, who grew up in 19th century Austria and whose grandfather was a professor of Chemistry and it seems he was only homeschooled until around the age of 10. The other guy who comes up is a Canadian Williard Boyle who again was homeschooled up to high school age (when he went off to boarding school) and this was due to living in a remote community.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2013, 09:54 AM
Yes I get it, Hitler did it, therefore it must be wrong. Just like his quit smoking campaigns.
It was one law that stayed on the books, and his reason was very clear: to indoctrinate the kids.


How about the scientific fact of evolution that is accepted by academies of sciences from all over the world, from every inhabited continent and all faiths. Also accepted by the Catholic and Episcopal Communions the two largest christian denominations in the world.
Not that an atheopath like you thinks that they are anything but useful idiots. Also, no one has to defend the roundness of the earth by appealing to majority opinion, simply because science is not decided by majority vote.


How about all those elective homeschooled Nobel laureates?
Did any of them go through the American government school system? You didn't look too hard, e.g. Who are famous or important homeschooled men and women from history? (http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm) This includes Nobel laureates Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Pierre Curie.

Rincewind
03-09-2013, 12:17 PM
It was one law that stayed on the books, and his reason was very clear: to indoctrinate the kids.

Whereas the homeschooler's aim is to indoctrinate the kids with religious propaganda which is not supported by science at all!

However it is no substitute for the holy spirit.


Not that an atheopath like you thinks that they are anything but useful idiots. Also, no one has to defend the roundness of the earth by appealing to majority opinion, simply because science is not decided by majority vote.

As a member of academia I view academies as more than a collection of useful idiots. You should really stop making you crazy accusation of what I think of believe since you are patently hopeless at it.

I also note you conflate the idea that academies "accept" evolution with the idea that academies "decided" that evolution is true by majority vote. The first notion is a simple statement of fact that virtually all of the world's experts in the life sciences recognise that evolution is scientific fact and that the theory of evolution is borne out by the sheer weight of all known scientific evidence, such that contrary positions are simply scientifically untenable.


Did any of them go through the American government school system?

That's unimportant. We were actually talking about the German system which has produced around 100 laureates.


You didn't look too hard, e.g. Who are famous or important homeschooled men and women from history? (http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm) This includes Nobel laureates Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Pierre Curie.

I should have said scientific Nobel prizes since the biggest problem with homeschooling is providing sufficiently well rounded education particularly with quantitative subjects such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.

Pierre Curie is a good find but he was educated well before the turn of the 20th century when the education system was not very well regulated. I also note the page you link to however is a little odd since it includes Albert Einstein as a homeschooled scientist. So you need to be a bit more careful of what you use as a reliable source of information.

Einstein attended a Catholic Elementary school from the ages 5-8 and then Luitpold Gymnasium (now known as the Albert Einstein Gymnasium) until around the age of 15. At this time his family suffered financial problems and relocated to Italy however Albert (perhaps after a short hiatus) remained in Munich to matriculate from the Luitpold Gymnasium. After this he sat entrance exams for Swiss Federal Polytechnic but failed the non Maths/Physics part of the exams but due to his exceptional grades in maths and physics was encouraged to complete his schooling at Aargau Cantonal School, which he attended for around 2 years, after which he was enrolled in Zurich Polytechnic.

So it what sense was Einstein homeschooled? I can only think that he must have received some home instruction in the period when his family was in Italy and perhaps he has a period away from the Gymnasium. However his experiences at gaining tertiary position in Switzerland seem to indicate that if anything, this hampered rather than helped his further education.

pax
03-09-2013, 01:37 PM
Whereas the homeschooler's aim is to indoctrinate the kids with religious propaganda which is not supported by science at all!

Could we please differentiate between the homeschoolers who are motivated by religion and those who are not? Homeschooler might be a synonym for religious fundy in the US, however in Australia the demographic is much wider.

Rincewind
03-09-2013, 02:05 PM
Could we please differentiate between the homeschoolers who are motivated by religion and those who are not? Homeschooler might be a synonym for religious fundy in the US, however in Australia the demographic is much wider.

Sure, I was parodying Jono's position where all government schools are the brain-child of Adolf Hitler with the aim to indoctrinate the recruit pool for the Hitlerjugend.

In my challenge to find a homeschooled Nobel laureate I would like Jono to find someone electively home educated in the 20th century who received a Nobel prize (other than peace or literature). I don't care the reason that the homeschooling was elected for the student. In that regard, Curie and Schrodinger are partial matches but both began education in 19th century.

pax
03-09-2013, 08:03 PM
In my challenge to find a homeschooled Nobel laureate I would like Jono to find someone electively home educated in the 20th century who received a Nobel prize (other than peace or literature). I don't care the reason that the homeschooling was elected for the student. In that regard, Curie and Schrodinger are partial matches but both began education in 19th century.

I'm certain it will be possible to find such. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more common than the average, since very prodigious are quite often homeschooled, because the state school systems sometimes don't often handle very advanced kids particularly well.

pax
03-09-2013, 08:09 PM
Here is one, homeschooled until Yr 9:

http://www.examiner.com/article/winner-of-2009-nobel-prize-dr-willard-s-boyle-homeschooled-by-mother

Desmond
03-09-2013, 08:13 PM
Who are famous or important homeschooled men and women from history? (http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm) This includes Nobel laureates Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Pierre Curie.

Benjamin Franklin - invented the lightning rod

That must have come as a shock.

Rincewind
03-09-2013, 11:03 PM
Here is one, homeschooled until Yr 9:

http://www.examiner.com/article/winner-of-2009-nobel-prize-dr-willard-s-boyle-homeschooled-by-mother

I mentioned Boyle earlier. He was not really electively homeschooled since his father was a doctor at a remote logging community. He went off to boarding school for senior school.

Rincewind
03-09-2013, 11:18 PM
I'm certain it will be possible to find such. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more common than the average, since very prodigious are quite often homeschooled, because the state school systems sometimes don't often handle very advanced kids particularly well.

You'd think so but that doesn't seem to be the case. It is also interesting that Germany has produced around 100 Nobel Laureates with homeschooling effectively outlawed. So regulated education at public and private schools such as is compulsory in Germany and the norm for the vast majority of students cannot be too bad.

I'm not sure what you mean by "state school systems sometimes don't often handle very advanced kids particularly well". Since there are options outside of state schools in most countries including Germany, some of which offer special programs for bright children. In many states of Australia the education departments run a selective schools system for bright kids and the private school system is also an option.

The thing that I think is holding back an over representation of homeschooled Nobel laureates is that the vast majority of homeschooled students in the US and a large proportion in the UK and Australia are electing to be homeschooled by the parents who are dissatisfied with the quality of the religious component (not enough religion) and science component (too much inconvenient science) in the non-homeschooled options that are available.

Rincewind
03-09-2013, 11:21 PM
Benjamin Franklin - invented the lightning rod

That must have come as a shock.

Citing "famous homeschooled men and women from history" is like citing famous people from history who never used facebook.

Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Madame Curie all never used Facebook! There must be something in that.

Patrick Byrom
04-09-2013, 12:48 AM
I'm certain it will be possible to find such. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more common than the average, since very prodigious are quite often homeschooled, because the state school systems sometimes don't often handle very advanced kids particularly well.
Selective state schools can do very well with bright kids - the Bronx HS of Science has probably produced more Nobel laureates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_laureates_by_secondary_school_affiliat ion)than any other school.

Even non-selective ones can do okay - Peter Doherty (Medicine) was educated at Indooroopilly SHS.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2013, 04:16 AM
You'd think so but that doesn't seem to be the case. It is also interesting that Germany has produced around 100 Nobel Laureates with homeschooling effectively outlawed.
But over half of those had their education before Hitler outlawed homeschooling.


So regulated education at public and private schools such as is compulsory in Germany and the norm for the vast majority of students cannot be too bad.
Yet in America, even many leftards admit that it's failing to teach many kids to read. One silly bint even said:

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good.
The article citing this, Slate: Only bad people won’t sacrifice their children on altar of public education, or something (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/29/slate-only-bad-people-wont-sacrifice-their-children-on-altar-of-public-education-or-something/)went on to say:


Finally, here’s Benedikt’s argument for why we should not worry so much about the education in schools as the experience, which sounds as though it came from The Onion rather than Slate:

Also remember that there’s more to education than what’s taught. As rotten as my school’s English, history, science, social studies, math, art, music, and language programs were, going to school with poor kids and rich kids, black kids and brown kids, smart kids and not-so-smart ones, kids with superconservative Christian parents and other upper-middle-class Jews like me was its own education and life preparation. Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me. In fact it’s part of the reason I feel so strongly about public schools.
Frankly, this is one of the most honest expressions of what liberals believe to be the purpose of public schools I’ve ever read. It’s most certainly not about educating children, but about social norming … down to the lowest common denominator. Rather than finding ways to provide poor children an effective and productive education so that they can compete better for jobs and wealth down the road, we just need to make sure everyone gets the same lousy education so, er, we can all have fond memories of puking our guts out before basketball games at the gym. And let’s not miss the none-too-subtle assignment of responsibility for that drunkenness on the families from the trailer park.



I'm not sure what you mean by "state school systems sometimes don't often handle very advanced kids particularly well".
Pax is right. By the very nature of mass-produced education, it is geared towards the ever-decreasing mean. Kids much brighter or much less bright are left out. Many disruptive kids are actually bright kids bored with the slow teaching of stuff they had long ago mastered.

In America, the teachers on average have the lowest academic record of any graduate. Further, bright students are repelled from education courses by all the mickey-mouse subjects.


The thing that I think is holding back an over representation of homeschooled Nobel laureates is that the vast majority of homeschooled students in the US and a large proportion in the UK and Australia are electing to be homeschooled by the parents who are dissatisfied with the quality of the religious component (not enough religion) and science component (too much inconvenient science) in the non-homeschooled options that are available.
It is multi-causal. The parents also cite the crappy academic quality of the government schools run on the Soviet-style monopoly. For example, see 18 Reasons Why Doctors and Lawyers Homeschool Their Children (http://childrensmd.org/uncategorized/why-doctors-and-lawyers-homeschool-their-children-18-reasons-why-we-have-joined-americas-fastest-growing-educational-trend/), by KATHLEEN BERCHELMANN, M.D., MARCH 25, 2013. Here is one obvious advantage:

3) Our kids are excelling academically as homeschoolers. Homeschooling allows us to enrich our children’s strengths and supplement their weaknesses. The kids’ education moves as fast or as slow as required for that particular subject area. They are not pigeon-holed and tracked as gifted, average, or special needs.

It is also better for the family:

7) Our family spends our best hours of each day together. We were giving away our kids during their best hours, when they were rested and happy, and getting them back when they were tired, grumpy and hungry. I dreaded each evening, when the fighting and screaming never seemed to end, and my job was to push them through homework, extracurriculars, and music practice. Now, our kids have happy time together each day. At recess time, the kids are actually excited about playing with each other!

There are also the practical benefits of not being tied down to the school year:

12) Be the master of your own schedule. Homeschooling provides a great deal of family flexibility, which is a tremendous asset for our busy family. For example, we save a lot of money on plane tickets because we have the flexibility to fly almost any day of the week. Zoos, children’s museums, libraries, parks, etc., are far less busy on weekdays as they are on weekends. Scheduling anything is eons easier—doctor’s appointments, piano lessons, vacations, etc.

This is a very important reason:

16) Better socialization, less unhealthy peer pressure and bullying. Our kids no longer beg for video games we don’t want them to have or clothes we don’t like, or junky snacks they saw at school. One of our children struggled socially in school, and his schoolmates were ruthlessly mean. Despite a school anti-bullying policy and our best efforts to work with the teacher, nothing changed. Last year he played alone on the playground everyday. Now he’s organizing playground games at our homeschool co-op, and he’s smiling again. No one has ever said an unkind word to him at our co-op, because every child is there with his or her own parent. Our kids have plenty of time with friends, but without the unhealthy peer pressure and bullying.

Research continues to show that homeschooled kids do well socially. Our kids have no shortage of time with friends—each week they attend homeschool co-op, scouts, sports, dance, choir, piano, religious education and have plenty of time to play with neighborhood friends. Add in the birthday parties and homeschool field trips, and we find ourselves having to decline activities so that we can get our homeschooling done!

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2013, 04:19 AM
Benjamin Franklin - invented the lightning rod

That must have come as a shock.
Not bad. :lol:
But he predated the Nobel Prize.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2013, 04:21 AM
Pierre Curie is a good find but he was educated well before the turn of the 20th century when the education system was not very well regulated.
This would indicate that it's not necessary for schooling to be regulated to produce outstanding students. If education is such a public good that government must fund it, this still doesn't show that it should provide it. Walter Williams writes in Government allocation of resources enhances the potential for human conflict, while market allocation reduces it (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/education-15125-government-computer.html):

Just as in the car and computer examples, the solution is to take the production of education out of the political arena. The best way is to end all government involvement in education. Failing to get government completely out of education, we should recognize that because government finances something it doesn't follow that government must produce it. Government finances F-22 Raptor fighter jets, but there's no government factory producing them. The same could be done in education. We could finance education collectively through tuition tax credits or educational vouchers, but allow parents to choose, much like we did with the GI Bill. Government financed the education, but the veterans chose the school.
Government allocation of resources enhances the potential for human conflict, while market allocation reduces it. That also applies to contentious national issues such as Social Security and health care. You take care of your retirement and health care as you please, and I'll take care of mine as I please. If you prefer socialized retirement and health care, that's fine if you don't force others to participate.
I'm afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of government to impose their preferences on others.


I also note the page you link to however is a little odd since it includes Albert Einstein as a homeschooled scientist.
And you will see that I didn't include him, although that would have been ideal if true, because my reading shows that he wasn't homeschooled. The ones I cited I checked independently.

Rincewind
04-09-2013, 11:11 AM
Regarding religion-based homeschooling the best interests of the children are the furthest things from the minds of the parents. The parents aim is to produce soldiers for the culture of war of Christianity vs Secularism.

Even well meaning parents with a religious bent can easily be lured down the fundamentalist path because the religious nutjobs are running the Christian homeschool industry. Producing textbooks that deny secular science and reinforcing fundamentalist Christian paternalism.

See for example

The dark side of home schooling: creating soldiers for the culture war (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/08/christian-home-schooling-dark-side)
The Guardian

Quoting former homeschooled student Ryan Lee Stollar


"The Christian home school subculture isn't a children-first movement. It is, for all intents and purposes, an ideology-first movement. There is a massive, well-oiled machine of ideology that is churning out soldiers for the culture war. Home schooling is both the breeding ground – literally, when you consider the Quiverfull concept – and the training ground for this machinery. I say this as someone who was raised in that world."

The last two paragraphs provide a succinct view which pretty sums up my position too...


In America, we often take for granted that parents have an absolute right to decide how their children will be educated, but this leads us to overlook the fact that children have rights, too, and that we as a modern society are obligated to make sure that they get an education. Families should be allowed to pursue sensible homeschooling options, but current arrangements have allowed some families to replace education with fundamentalist indoctrination.

As the appearance of HA* reminds us, the damage done by this kind of false education falls not just on our society as a whole, but on the children who are pumped through the ideology machine. They are the traumatized veterans of our culture wars. We should listen to their stories, and support them as they find their way forward.

* HA is Homeschoolers Anonymous a site set up by Ryan Lee Stollar to provide support for students recovering from (particularly) fundamentalist christian homeschooling.

http://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2013, 12:40 PM
Regarding religion-based homeschooling the best interests of the children are the furthest things from the minds of the parents.
I cited a long piece from someone who was not interested in that, and not surprisingly you fail to address any of this doctor/mum's points. In any case, parents are far more likely to have the best interest of their kids than the teachers' unions.


The parents aim is to produce soldiers for the culture of war of Christianity vs Secularism.
Even if that is true of some, which is not for that doctor/mum I quoted, I fail to see why this is worse than the government school producing sheep/soldiers for its own culture war of atheopathic statism.

Trust you to cite from that leftist rag Guardian citing one embittered ex homeschooler. There are thousands of people with terrible memories of the government schools got every one like that.

Rincewind
04-09-2013, 02:33 PM
I cited a long piece from someone who was not interested in that, and not surprisingly you fail to address any of this doctor/mum's points. In any case, parents are far more likely to have the best interest of their kids than the teachers' unions.

Well intended and intelligent parents are able to provide a homeschool education which is as good as government schools. The key factor is that the education would have to be sensible. The issue is there is a lot of homeschool material being produced which is not sensible. So in at least some cases, children are being taught all sorts of ridiculous nonsense as a part of their homeschool education.


I fail to see why this is worse than the government school producing sheep/soldiers for its own culture war of atheopathic statism.

You haven't demonstrated an agenda in public schools to do so.


Trust you to cite from that leftist rag Guardian citing one embittered ex homeschooler. There are thousands of people with terrible memories of the government schools got every one like that.

Many people have many memories from them school years, both good and bad. I fail to see the comparison though. You have not demonstrated an agenda for public schools to teach children nonsense. On the converse side there are movements in the Christian homeschool market like Quiverfull which is all about producing a lot of children and shielding them from modern society as much as possible so that they might impose the Biblical ideal of patriarchal enslavement.

pax
04-09-2013, 02:57 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "state school systems sometimes don't often handle very advanced kids particularly well". Since there are options outside of state schools in most countries including Germany, some of which offer special programs for bright children. In many states of Australia the education departments run a selective schools system for bright kids and the private school system is also an option.

Some schools just don't accelerate, period. Reading an account of Terry Tao's schooling is interesting. It took his parents some time to find a school which was sufficiently flexible in its approach to handle such an unusually gifted kid (though curiously it was a very local state school which was the most suitable in the end thanks to an understanding principal). Even then, a great deal of his learning in the lower primary school years at least, was "home" learning.

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10116.aspx

Rincewind
04-09-2013, 03:23 PM
Some schools just don't accelerate, period. Reading an account of Terry Tao's schooling is interesting. It took his parents some time to find a school which was sufficiently flexible in its approach to handle such an unusually gifted kid (though curiously it was a very local state school which was the most suitable in the end thanks to an understanding principal). Even then, a great deal of his learning in the lower primary school years at least, was "home" learning.

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10116.aspx

That was 30 years ago. Although progress is sometimes slow, I don't believe it is static, even in South Australia.

For example the high schools The Heights, Glenunga International and Aberfoyle Park High run selective programs for bright kids.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 02:20 AM
Well intended and intelligent parents are able to provide a homeschool education which is as good as government schools.
Better, as amply shown, especially in the USA which has a government school monopoly unlike Australia. Yet teachers are often from the poorest-performing of all graduates. And the system itself makes things worse, since the teachers have lots of kids at any one time. So a lot of time is spend on crowd control, and the pace must be at the mean, with few allowances for the child's individual optimum.


The key factor is that the education would have to be sensible. The issue is there is a lot of homeschool material being produced which is not sensible. So in at least some cases, children are being taught all sorts of ridiculous nonsense as a part of their homeschool education.
Sez you. But homeschoolers often win the US spelling bee competitions. Then teachers' unions whinge that it's unfair, because homeschoolers have more time to study!


You haven't demonstrated an agenda in public schools to do so.
Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:


I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … .
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. [J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26 (emphases added)]


Many people have many memories from them school years, both good and bad. I fail to see the comparison though.
But you compare one loser who hates his homeschooling years with those who loved their government schooling years. How about comparing like with like?


You have not demonstrated an agenda for public schools to teach children nonsense.
Yes there is. The "Black Armband" view of history is one. So is the multiculturalist agenda, when it means praising any culture except the west, and not condemning any culture but the west. The moronic "whole language" way of teaching reading, aka "look and guess", also turns out many students who can't read and write properly.


On the converse side there are movements in the Christian homeschool market like Quiverfull which is all about producing a lot of children and shielding them from modern society as much as possible so that they might impose the Biblical ideal of patriarchal enslavement.
I have no interest in defending Quiverful. I know many homeschoolers who reject this. Clearly that young lady in the article I cited earlier could not have been a product of Quiverful-type stuff. And clearly, that doctor/homeschool-mum is not either.

Desmond
05-09-2013, 09:12 AM
homeschoolers often win the US spelling bee competitions. Not that that makes a poofteenth of difference in the age of autocorrect. A fundamentally deficient knowledge of science in favour of religious indoctrination, on the other hand, is much harder to remedy.

pax
05-09-2013, 11:26 AM
Sez you. But homeschoolers often win the US spelling bee competitions. Then teachers' unions whinge that it's unfair, because homeschoolers have more time to study!

Yeah, this proves very little, and the point about more time to study is probably a valid one!

If someone wins a spelling bee because they spend five hours a day reading a dictionaries and making word lists at the expense of, say, maths, history and writing, that's not necessarily a good thing!

Rincewind
05-09-2013, 11:41 AM
Better, as amply shown, especially in the USA ...

If you think it has been shown, let alone "amply shown," then you have been out of science far too long.


Sez you. But homeschoolers often win the US spelling bee competitions. Then teachers' unions whinge that it's unfair, because homeschoolers have more time to study!

Spelling Bee competitions are hardly preparing students for the 21st century as Brian pointed out above.


Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith.

As "some humanist leaders" are neither running schools nor setting curriculum this does in no way demonstrate an agenda in public education. You might have an agenda to spread your silly unscientific fairytales into schools. That doesn't bother me so long as those who are in charge recognise it as the rubbish it is. The same goes for Dunphy, whoever that is.


But you compare one loser who hates his homeschooling years with those who loved their government schooling years. How about comparing like with like?

I believe Stollar quite enjoyed his schooling at the time. He is a good speaker and spoke passionately at homeschool conventions. If was only later when he saw through the lies that he recognised his homeschool years for what they were.

In any regard I wasn't doing a comparison, I was demonstrating the existence of a dogmatic religious element to the homeschool market which is not children-first. They have an agenda and the children are the pawns.


Yes there is. The "Black Armband" view of history is one.

You can argue about history and society studies until you are blue in the face. The black armband debate is not so much about the teaching of historical events (although in some cases historical data is disputed) but more about the focus. It is not blatant nonsense but an area of debate in history.


So is the multiculturalist agenda, when it means praising any culture except the west, and not condemning any culture but the west.

Your strawman view of multiculturalism does not flatter you.


The moronic "whole language" way of teaching reading, aka "look and guess", also turns out many students who can't read and write properly.

There are proponents for both sides of that linguistic debate. You have obviously picked one, I am open minded.


I have no interest in defending Quiverful. I know many homeschoolers who reject this. Clearly that young lady in the article I cited earlier could not have been a product of Quiverful-type stuff. And clearly, that doctor/homeschool-mum is not either.

Possibly who knows the issue is that unscientific religion masquerading as science which is picked up by fundamentalists and unsuspecting moderates alike. The dangers are mentioned in a quote from the Guardian story by a homeschooling mum...


"If you are the average Christian home schooler with no agenda, and you have the choice between attending a secular home schooling convention and a Christian one, chances are you'll choose the Christian convention. But they only allow certain speakers who follow their agenda. So you have no clue. What you don't realize is that they are being run by Christian Reconstructionists."

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
05-09-2013, 12:09 PM
If it wasnt for homeschooling jono might not have been able to spell bint and femonazi correctly. :D

The results speak for themselves !!

Rincewind
05-09-2013, 12:42 PM
If it wasnt for homeschooling jono might not have been able to spell bint and femonazi correctly. :D

I don't know if Jono was unhomeschooled or not but he certainly displays all of the hallmarks.

Unscientific worldview.
Unnuanced view on nearly every subject.
Hostile suspicion of government, subject matter expertise and modernity.


Have I missed anything?

pax
05-09-2013, 01:21 PM
I don't know if Jono was unhomeschooled or not but he certainly displays all of the hallmarks.

Unscientific worldview.
Unnuanced view on nearly every subject.
Hostile suspicion of government, subject matter expertise and modernity.


Have I missed anything?

Again, stereotypes of the nature of homeschooling are unnecessary and unfair.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 02:40 PM
If it wasnt for homeschooling jono might not have been able to spell bint and femonazi correctly. :D

I've always spelled bint correctly, and it's "feminazi", moron.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 02:49 PM
As "some humanist leaders" are neither running schools nor setting curriculum this does in no way demonstrate an agenda in public education. You might have an agenda to spread your silly unscientific fairytales into schools. That doesn't bother me so long as those who are in charge recognise it as the rubbish it is. The same goes for Dunphy, whoever that is.
Obamov now wants sex ed for kindergarten kids. And about the only thing that kids learn in "New Math" is that Heather has two mommies.


I believe Stollar quite enjoyed his schooling at the time. He is a good speaker and spoke passionately at homeschool conventions. If was only later when he saw through the lies that he recognised his homeschool years for what they were.
Yet totally unproven. It is just his assertion. Also, would he have been a good speaker if he had gone to the government schools? The story could have found hundreds of alternative points of view from kids who were bullied, left behind because they learned slower than the mean, bored shitless because they were much brighter than the mean and smarter than the low-scoring graduates who "teach" them, girls who became pregnant at highschool as they practised their sex ed, …


In any regard I wasn't doing a comparison, I was demonstrating the existence of a dogmatic religious element to the homeschool market which is not children-first. They have an agenda and the children are the pawns.
I would trust fundamentalist Christian parents to care more about their own children than secular educrats care about other people's children.


You can argue about history and society studies until you are blue in the face. The black armband debate is not so much about the teaching of historical events (although in some cases historical data is disputed) but more about the focus. It is not blatant nonsense but an area of debate in history.
Kids were getting only one side, and it was careless with historical facts too. We should learn the strengths of Western civilization, not an unmitigated diet of its flaws.


Your strawman view of multiculturalism does not flatter you.
It's the right one.


There are proponents for both sides of that linguistic debate. You have obviously picked one, I am open minded.
But the educrats have picked the look and guess method, against a more logical alphabetic method that used to produce results.


Possibly who knows the issue is that unscientific religion masquerading as science which is picked up by fundamentalists and unsuspecting moderates alike. The dangers are mentioned in a quote from the Guardian story by a homeschooling mum...


"If you are the average Christian home schooler with no agenda, and you have the choice between attending a secular home schooling convention and a Christian one, chances are you'll choose the Christian convention. But they only allow certain speakers who follow their agenda. So you have no clue. What you don't realize is that they are being run by Christian Reconstructionists."
I've spoken at lots of homeschool conventions, none of which were run by Christian Reconstructionists. I'm not one.

Rincewind
05-09-2013, 02:54 PM
Again, stereotypes of the nature of homeschooling are unnecessary and unfair.

I wasn't generalising all homeschooled as being like Jono. God forbid!

I was comparing Jono's behaviour with which might be produced from religiously motivated homeschooling environment.

Rincewind
05-09-2013, 03:11 PM
Obamov now wants sex ed for kindergarten kids. And about the only thing that kids learn in "New Math" is that Heather has two mommies.

I wonder if there is a Godwin's law equivalence for Obama. You seem to use Obama and Hitler in a very way in posts here.


Yet totally unproven. It is just his assertion.

Seeing as though it an assertion about his state of mind and beliefs how would you like it proven?


Also, would he have been a good speaker if he had gone to the government schools? The story could have found hundreds of alternative points of view from kids who were bullied, left behind because they learned slower than the mean, bored shitless because they were much brighter than the mean and smarter than the low-scoring graduates who "teach" them, girls who became pregnant at highschool as they practised their sex ed, …

Your strawman view of the education system shows how out of touch you are with reality.


I would trust fundamentalist Christian parents to care more about their own children than secular educrats care about other people's children.

I would trust someone trained to teach a subject to do a better job and at least not confound the transmission of knowledge with their confusion of subjects they don't really understand.


Kids were getting only one side, and it was careless with historical facts too.

Ipse dixit.


We should learn the strengths of Western civilization, not an unmitigated diet of its flaws.

The black armband movement was in some ways a reaction to the earlier period where the "three cheers" approach dominated.


It's the right one.

I note that you use the word "right" as a synonym for batshit crazy.


But the educrats have picked the look and guess method, against a more logical alphabetic method that used to produce results.

I think you will find the reality is more complex than that. Both whole of language and back to basics methods are employed to varying degrees. However I'm not a linguist and neither are you. You just have a deep mistrust of anything you cannot understand. I guess linguistic pedagogy is yet another entry on that rather long list.


I've spoken at lots of homeschool conventions, none of which were run by Christian Reconstructionists. I'm not one.

You may not have known whether they were reconstructionists or not. If you were speaking at these conferences then I assume they were at least young earth creationism friendly, which is to say anti-science.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
05-09-2013, 03:47 PM
I've always spelled bint correctly, and it's "feminazi", moron.

That was obviously my point you pedantic idiot.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 10:54 PM
Your strawman view of the education system shows how out of touch you are with reality.
Mot a strawman when it comes to America. In Oz there is a slightly more even playing field that enables more Australians to choose alternatives to the government schools.


I would trust someone trained to teach a subject to do a better job and at least not confound the transmission of knowledge with their confusion of subjects they don't really understand.
Teacher training is more about things like crowd control. Many of the schoolteachers in America are not well qualified in their subjects.


The black armband movement was in some ways a reaction to the earlier period where the "three cheers" approach dominated.
That's one of the problems with the government schooling: the bureaucrats instead of parents decide. Why should the kids have to put up with something just because some West-hating bureaucrats decree that previous curricula were too pro-West.


I think you will find the reality is more complex than that. Both whole of language and back to basics methods are employed to varying degrees. However I'm not a linguist and neither are you. You just have a deep mistrust of anything you cannot understand. I guess linguistic pedagogy is yet another entry on that rather long list.
I have a mistrust of "education" that turns out large numbers of kids who can't read or write! This was not true of the older alphabetic approach that explained the function of the letters.


You may not have known whether they were reconstructionists or not.
I have a fairly good idea.


If you were speaking at these conferences then I assume they were at least young earth creationism friendly, which is to say anti-science.
Not that a mathematician blinded by atheopathy and socialism would know. Much better than you, and better than a typical journo who wouldn't know a Reconstructionist if he tripped over one.

Meanwhile: How American Homeschoolers Measure Up (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/How-American-Homeschoolers-Measure-Up.html?soid=1101381905269&aid=0oKEDqOQ9w4).

Rincewind
06-09-2013, 01:10 AM
Mot a strawman when it comes to America. In Oz there is a slightly more even playing field that enables more Australians to choose alternatives to the government schools.

It isn't even the reality restricting your view to just the government schools. It is perhaps the parody of government schools that is used by current affairs shows but that is only if they are giving the unemployed and dodgey builders the week off.


Teacher training is more about things like crowd control. Many of the schoolteachers in America are not well qualified in their subjects.

Ipse dixit.


That's one of the problems with the government schooling: the bureaucrats instead of parents decide. Why should the kids have to put up with something just because some West-hating bureaucrats decree that previous curricula were too pro-West.

Not bureaucrats, specialists in educating in those subject areas.


I have a mistrust of "education" that turns out large numbers of kids who can't read or write! This was not true of the older alphabetic approach that explained the function of the letters.

Literacy levels are nowhere near as bad as they were before compulsory public education was mandated around the turn of the 20th century.


I have a fairly good idea.

Ipse dixit. There are a lot of people working to put on a conference and you are unlikely to know everyone involved. Whether they are reconstructionist or not if they let a failed physical chemist talk as an authority on biology they have a few problems.


Not that a mathematician blinded by atheopathy and socialism would know. Much better than you, and better than a typical journo who wouldn't know a Reconstructionist if he tripped over one.

There is little doubt that Rushdoony was influential in motivating people to homeschool which is evidenced by the number of parents and kids who have left the movement and spoke about their negative experiences on Homeschool Anonymous.


Meanwhile: How American Homeschoolers Measure Up (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/How-American-Homeschoolers-Measure-Up.html?soid=1101381905269&aid=0oKEDqOQ9w4).

Funny pamphlet. I like the bit "On average, homeschoolers rank in the 87 percentile for national standardised tests. Hint: It means 87% of all students scored lower than homeschoolers" That just doesn't make any sense. At best you can say that that on average 86% of non-homeschooled students scored lower that the average homeschooled student.

Anyway if you really want to know how homeschooling measures up you should look for some research which is not being funded by an organisation with a vested interest in the industry (like HSLDA and NHERI).

See for example "Does Homeschooling ‘Work’? A Critique of the Empirical Claims and Agenda of Advocacy Organizations" 2013 by Lubienski, Puckett and Brewer.


Advocates often strongly suggest a causal connection between homeschooling and academic success, postsecondary attainment, and even enjoyment of life. Seemingly, these benefits are experienced all at a reduced cost per student. It is through such claims that homeschooling advocates have expanded the practice of homeschooling and have pressed for fewer state regulations and less oversight. This article outlines and challenges those claims, showing the tenuous basis for such conclusions. Instead, in an era when policymakers demand evidence of effective educational practices, we note the remarkable lack of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of this popular approach and suggest that continued efforts to claim such evidence exists indicates the desire of advocates to further advance what is largely an ideological agenda of deregulation as an end in itself.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
06-09-2013, 01:33 AM
Mot a strawman when it comes to America.

homeschooling is the winner !!!!

Capablanca-Fan
03-10-2013, 08:07 AM
RW just cites advocacy groups for government schools, and Duckbrain is just a troll. Government schools suck in more and more taxpayer money for fewer results. Libertarian John Stossel argues in Escaping 'Government' Schools (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/20504) (2 Oct 2013):

Most services improve. They get faster, better, cheaper. But not government monopolies. Government schools are rigid, boring, expensive and more segregated than private schools.

I call them “government” instead of “public” schools because not much is “public” about them. Members of the public don't get to pick their kids' schools, teachers, curriculum or cost.

By contrast, supermarkets are “private” yet open to everyone. You can stroll in 24 hours a day. Just try that with your kid's public school. You might be arrested.

Now a school choice movement has given government schools a sliver of competition. Private schools, charter schools, vouchers, education tax credits and the Web offer competition. Not all the alternatives work, but with competition, bad alternatives die and good ones grow.

This will help all kids.

But so far, the alternatives reach only a small number of kids. Unions and bureaucrats don't want competition, and they use their political clout to stifle it. But gradually, they're losing.

After fighting homeschooling for years, they've stopped trying to ban it, and today homeschoolers fare better on tests and college admission. So, some in the government monopoly claim that if your kids are homeschooled, they will not be properly socialized (in the sense of interacting with peers, that is, not in the sense of belonging to government).

But homeschooled kids participate in all sorts of social events with other homeschooling families – plus theater, ballet, karate and other classes that most kids get and that some only wish they did.

Homeschoolers do just fine. Somehow, without government control, they prosper.

Rincewind
03-10-2013, 10:07 AM
In truth what I reproduced was a quote from the peer-reviewed Peabody Journal of Education published by the very respectable academic publishers Taylor and Francis. From their website...


Aims & scope


Peabody Journal of Education (PJE) publishes quarterly symposia in the broad area of education, including but not limited to topics related to formal institutions serving students in early childhood, pre-school, primary, elementary, intermediate, secondary, post-secondary, and tertiary education. The scope of the journal includes special kinds of educational institutions, such as those providing vocational training or the schooling for students with disabilities. PJE also welcomes manuscript submissions that concentrate on informal education dynamics, those outside the immediate framework of institutions, and education matters that are important to nations outside the United States. Finally, it includes topics that are linked to the social and organizational context in which formal and informal education take place.

The Editor cooperates with groups of scholars to present multifaceted, integrated expositions of important topics. A given issue of PJE may contain contributions from social scientists, historians, philosophers, attorneys, practitioners, and policymakers.

Unsolicited proposals for special issues--including designation of participating scholars and an outline of articles--will be accepted for review. Additionally, the Editor cooperates with Editorial Board members to identify potential topics, Guest Editors, and contributors. PJE has the flexibility to consider publishing monographs or a series focused on particular lines of inquiry. In all cases, the Editor and the Editorial Board will ensure that each issue is carefully reviewed and its articles will comprise a high-quality contribution to understanding and practice.

(emphasis added)

In reply Jono regurgitated an unreviewed opinion piece from whatever right wing website he happened to be visiting at the time.

Capablanca-Fan
18-10-2013, 03:04 AM
It should say something, except to the braindead leftists like RW and Duckbrain, that huge numbers of US government school teachers refuse to send their own kids to government schools. After all, who would want to eat at a restaurant where many of its chefs and waiters won't eat what they're cooking?

Where Do Public School Teachers Send Own Kids? (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/20956)
By Larry Elder · Oct. 17, 2013


Guy walks into a restaurant. Says to the waitress, “I'd like some scrambled eggs and some kind words.” She brings the eggs. The guy smiles, “Now how about the kind words?” Waitress whispers, “Don't eat the eggs.”

This brings us to the fact that urban public school teachers are about two times more likely than non-teachers to send their own children to private schools. In other words, many public school teachers whisper to parents, “Don't eat the eggs.”

About 11 percent of all parents – nationwide, rural and urban – send their children to private schools. The numbers are much higher in urban areas. One study found that in Philadelphia a staggering 44 percent of public school teachers send their own kids to private schools. In Cincinnati and Chicago, 41 and 39 percent of public school teachers, respectively, pay for a private school education for their children. In Rochester, New York, it's 38 percent. In Baltimore it's 35 percent, San Francisco is 34 percent and New York-Northeastern New Jersey is 33 percent. In Los Angeles nearly 25 percent of public school teachers send their kids to private school versus 16 percent of Angelenos who do so.

The study, conducted in 2004 by the Fordham Institute, said: “These findings … are apt to be embarrassing for teacher unions, considering those organizations' political animus toward assisting families to select among schools. But these results do not surprise most practicing teachers to whom we speak. … The data have shown the same basic pattern since we first happened upon them two decades ago: Urban public school teachers are more apt to send their own children to private schools than is the general public. One might say this shows how conservative teachers are. They continue doing what they've always done. Or it might indicate that they have long been discerning connoisseurs of education. …

"The middle class will tolerate a lot – disorder, decay, and dismay, an unwholesome environment, petty crime, potholes, chicanery and rudeness. One thing, however, that middle class parents will not tolerate is bad schools for their children. To escape them, they will pay out-of-pocket or vote with their feet. That is what discerning teachers do.”

The same applies to the far-left politicians who hate school choice, from Obamov down, who send their own kids to the best private schools that money can buy.

Rincewind
18-10-2013, 09:55 AM
Meanwhile Jono keeps cutting and pasting from the same right wing websites.

BTW I have no issue with school choice. School choice has nothing to do with home schooling.

pax
18-10-2013, 10:55 AM
About 11 percent of all parents – nationwide, rural and urban – send their children to private schools. The numbers are much higher in urban areas. One study found that in Philadelphia a staggering 44 percent of public school teachers send their own kids to private schools. In Cincinnati and Chicago, 41 and 39 percent of public school teachers, respectively, pay for a private school education for their children. In Rochester, New York, it's 38 percent. In Baltimore it's 35 percent, San Francisco is 34 percent and New York-Northeastern New Jersey is 33 percent. In Los Angeles nearly 25 percent of public school teachers send their kids to private school versus 16 percent of Angelenos who do so.

I have no particular issue with the source study for this data, but the way Elder (and, by extension, Jono) have used it is intellectually dishonest. Why pick Philadelphia in particular, or Chicago? Why not Seattle or Austin? The answer, of course, is that Philadelphia, Cincinnatti and Chicago are the highest numbers - the ones most likely to support Elder's argument.

When you compare like with like: national average private school enrolments in urban areas vs public school teachers in urban areas, the difference is much less stark (17.5% vs 21.5%). It's still valid to question whether this is a significant difference and the reason for it, or to ask about specific issues in specific cities, but that wouldn't have the "public schools are terrible and teachers know it" headline impact that the right wing commentariat are looking for.

One of the more interesting findings of the study is that high income parents are much more likely to send their kids to public schools if they are teachers, while low income parents are less likely to send their kids to public schools if they are teachers. The reason for this is unclear.

http://www.edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/Fwd-1.1_7.pdf

Capablanca-Fan
18-10-2013, 11:27 AM
I have no particular issue with the source study for this data, but the way Elder (and, by extension, Jono) have used it is intellectually dishonest. Why pick Philadelphia in particular, or Chicago? Why not Seattle or Austin? The answer, of course, is that Philadelphia, Cincinnatti and Chicago are the highest numbers - the ones most likely to support Elder's argument.

When you compare like with like: national average private school enrolments in urban areas vs public school teachers in urban areas, the difference is much less stark (17.5% vs 21.5%). It's still valid to question whether this is a significant difference and the reason for it, or to ask about specific issues in specific cities, but that wouldn't have the "public schools are terrible and teachers know it" headline impact that the right wing commentariat are looking for.
Why not? Nothing you say above alleviates the concern that the public should have: if the government schools are so wonderful, why do so many schoolteachers avoid them for their own kids? your own article says


One of the more interesting findings of the study is that high income parents are much more likely to send their kids to public schools if they are teachers, while low income parents are less likely to send their kids to public schools if they are teachers. The reason for this is unclear.

http://www.edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/Fwd-1.1_7.pdf
How did you get that? From that paper:


Strikingly, urban public school teacher households earning less than $42,000 a year (approximately the median national income) send their children to private school at a rate of 14.9 percent, a rate 4.6 percentage points higher than the private-school enrollment rate of all families at similar income levels (10.3 percent). Simply put, as income decreases, a greater percentage of urban public school teachers choose private schools.

pax
18-10-2013, 01:09 PM
Why not? Nothing you say above alleviates the concern that the public should have: if the government schools are so wonderful, why do so many schoolteachers avoid them for their own kids?

If the difference was in fact 20-30% as Elder's dishonest article implies, there would be a huge question. As it is, there is a small difference between the rates of public school attendance of *urban* households only (why this distinction has been made in the study is not clear). The question is still valid, but it is far less significant when the difference is only 4%.



How did you get that? From that paper:


Strikingly, urban public school teacher households earning less than $42,000 a year (approximately the median national income) send their children to private school at a rate of 14.9 percent, a rate 4.6 percentage points higher than the private-school enrollment rate of all families at similar income levels (10.3 percent). Simply put, as income decreases, a greater percentage of urban public school teachers choose private schools.

? Isn't that exactly what I pointed out? The flipside is that teacher households with incomes over $82k send their children to public schools at a 9% higher rate, but nobody seems keen to point out this fact.

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2013, 12:05 AM
If the difference was in fact 20-30% as Elder's dishonest article implies, there would be a huge question. As it is, there is a small difference between the rates of public school attendance of *urban* households only (why this distinction has been made in the study is not clear). The question is still valid, but it is far less significant when the difference is only 4%.
Hardly "dishonest". Even if a lower percentage of teachers sent their kids to government schools than the general public, it would still be worth wondering what they know about the government schools so that they avoid them for their own kids. Similarly, would people eat at a restaurant if they knew that there were even some cooks who would never eat there themselves? But in reality, the percentage of schoolteachers avoiding government schools for their own kids is higher, which greatly strengthens the argument. Similarly, many Democratic politicians who oppose school choice for the masses send their on kids to the best private schools money can buy. This is typical for leftards: government control for thee but not for me. Similarly, no Obamovcare waivers for the plebs and Christian-owned businesses, but Obamov, Congress, and his cronies in the unions and big business are exempt. Once again, people should be forced to eat what they cook, metaphorically.

pax
19-10-2013, 01:17 AM
Hardly "dishonest".

It's dishonest because he deliberately skews the data by choosing the data points which suit him, and ignoring the rest. But I guess that's just standard practice for you.

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2013, 03:43 AM
It's dishonest because he deliberately skews the data by choosing the data points which suit him, and ignoring the rest. But I guess that's just standard practice for you.

Typical leftard personality politics, ignoring the elephant in the room: that the masses are supposed to be happy with being forced into government schools that many schoolteachers themselves avoid for their own kids.

pax
19-10-2013, 12:08 PM
Typical leftard personality politics, ignoring the elephant in the room: that the masses are supposed to be happy with being forced into government schools that many schoolteachers themselves avoid for their own kids.

Personality politics? How it is personality politics to point out that he is (and you are) deliberately choosing data points which fit with his preferred conculsion and ignoring the others. *Some* schoolteachers choose private schools, they do so at a rate slightly higher than the general population in urban areas. The vast majority of schoolteachers are still choosing public schools. It is valid to ask if the differences are significant and why they exists. But you are acting as though all schoolteachers avoid public schools like the plague. You went looking for a raging inferno and barely found a puff of smoke.

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2013, 12:12 AM
Personality politics? How it is personality politics to point out that he is (and you are) deliberately choosing data points which fit with his preferred conculsion and ignoring the others. *Some* schoolteachers choose private schools, they do so at a rate slightly higher than the general population in urban areas. The vast majority of schoolteachers are still choosing public schools. It is valid to ask if the differences are significant and why they exists. But you are acting as though all schoolteachers avoid public schools like the plague. You went looking for a raging inferno and barely found a puff of smoke.
The preferred conclusion is that there is still a large number of government schoolteachers (and Democrat politicians) who oppose school choice for the masses but use private schools for their own kids. This suggests that many of those in a good position to know about government schools are avoiding them.

pax
22-10-2013, 11:39 AM
The preferred conclusion is that there is still a large number of government schoolteachers (and Democrat politicians) who oppose school choice for the masses but use private schools for their own kids. This suggests that many of those in a good position to know about government schools are avoiding them.

A 'large number', and 'many' being still a small minority. Who says they oppose school choice? They are themselves availing themselves of just that choice (to either use the free government education system or to pay for a different option).

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2013, 03:03 PM
They are against school choice for the masses. They must pay for the crappy government schools regardless of whether they use them, and pay on top of that if they want something better for their kids. What these government schoolteachers don't want is real school choice: i.e. if there is government funding, then it follows the student, much like the GI Bill, rather than the school.

Rincewind
22-10-2013, 05:09 PM
They must pay for the crappy government schools regardless of whether they use them, and pay on top of that if they want something better for their kids.

In Australia most private schools also receive government funding so people sending their kids to government schools are also paying (in part) for the private education of someone else's kids.

pax
23-10-2013, 06:30 PM
They are against school choice for the masses. They must pay for the crappy government schools regardless of whether they use them, and pay on top of that if they want something better for their kids. What these government schoolteachers don't want is real school choice: i.e. if there is government funding, then it follows the student, much like the GI Bill, rather than the school.

A huge, huge majority of the public support their taxes being used to support a public education system - yes, even the education of other people's kids! So I'm afraid you're on your own on this particular bandwagon.

The teachers you mention don't generally complain about their taxes being used to support a system which they might personally choose not to use!

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2013, 04:46 AM
In Australia most private schools also receive government funding so people sending their kids to government schools are also paying (in part) for the private education of someone else's kids.
It's not ideal by any means, but it's much better than the educratic monopoly in America.

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2013, 01:16 PM
35 Reasons to OUTLAW Homeschooling! (http://bluemanoreducation.com/homeschool-blog/21-reasons-to-outlaw-homeschooling-now/)
Posted on September 10, 2013

I compiled this list to help the “ban-homeschooling” fanatics come up with some better arguments to make their case.

5. Because, bullies build character!
6. Because, homeschoolers aren’t social; they have little interest in sex, drugs and alcohol.
10. Because, if students didn’t spend all their time sitting in classes, practicing sports and studying homework, their non-union parents might impact their lives in an unauthorized way
16. Because, nothing helps children grow into mature adults, like spending all their time with immature children their own age.
17. Because, science is believing “bang” everything came from nothing and “poof” man crawled out of a mud puddle.
18. Because, a student-teacher ratio of 30:1 isn’t crowded – it’s cozy!
20. Because, if the Government has to force you to do something, you just know it’s for your own good.
28. Because, irresponsible parents can’t be trusted to give their children free condoms and birth control.
35. Because, great leaders like, Hitler, Marx and Stalin all agree that homeschooling is really bad!

Rincewind
08-11-2013, 01:22 PM
17. Because, science is believing “bang” everything came from nothing and “poof” man crawled out of a mud puddle.

Displaying once again that someone with a PhD in Chemistry can be either really clueless about science or simply very dishonest.

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2013, 01:47 AM
Displaying once again that someone with a PhD in Chemistry can be either really clueless about science or simply very dishonest.
Rubbish. Many big bang proponents do claim that the universe came from nothing. The man crawling out of the puddle was meant to be a contraction of the atheopathic teaching that we are basically rearranged pond scum. We are fully aware of the teaching that it happened gradually over vast eons of time. Of course our resident socialist with his touching faith that "government knows best" has nothing of substance to offer.

Rincewind
09-11-2013, 12:01 PM
The man crawling out of the puddle was meant to be a contraction of the atheopathic teaching that we are basically rearranged pond scum.

So I guess that just makes you more dishonest than clueless. But there is a little bit from each column.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2014, 07:01 AM
HOME-SCHOOLING: Socialization not a problem (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/13/home-schooling-socialization-not-problem/)
Washington Times, December 13, 2009

One of the most persistent criticisms of home-schooling is the accusation that home-schoolers will not be able to fully participate in society because they lack “socialization.” It’s a challenge that reaches right to the heart of home-schooling, because if a child isn’t properly socialized, how will that child be able to contribute to society?

Until recently, “Homeschooling Grows Up” was the only study that addressed the socialization of home-schooled adults. Now we have a new longitudinal study titled “Fifteen Years Later: Home-Educated Canadian Adults” from the Canadian Centre for Home Education. This study surveyed home-schooled students whose parents participated in a comprehensive study on home education in 1994. The study compared home-schoolers who are now adults with their peers. The results are astounding.

When measured against the average Canadians ages 15 to 34 years old, home-educated Canadian adults ages 15 to 34 were more socially engaged (69 percent participated in organized activities at least once per week, compared with 48 percent of the comparable population). Average income for home-schoolers also was higher, but perhaps more significantly, while 11 percent of Canadians ages 15 to 34 rely on welfare, there were no cases of government support as the primary source of income for home-schoolers. Home-schoolers also were happier; 67.3 percent described themselves as very happy, compared with 43.8 percent of the comparable population. Almost all of the home-schoolers — 96 percent — thought home-schooling had prepared them well for life.

This new study should cause many critics to rethink their position on the issue of socialization. Not only are home-schoolers actively engaged in civic life, they also are succeeding in all walks of life. Many critics believed, and some parents feared, that home-schoolers would not be able to compete in the job market. But the new study shows home-schoolers are found in a wide variety of professions. Being home-schooled has not closed doors on career choices.

Adamski
18-06-2014, 09:28 AM
Completely agree with what CF posted. We hone-schooled our son and he is well "socialized*.

Rincewind
18-06-2014, 10:21 AM
I'm less worried by the socialisation issue more worried by the dangers of children being taught technical subject by well-meaning but poorly prepared teachers who don't really understand the subjects themselves. There is a distribution of abilities when it comes to home school instructors, but it is difficult to argue that good intention is a sufficient replacement for knowledge.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2014, 03:33 AM
I'm less worried by the socialisation issue more worried by the dangers of children being taught technical subject by well-meaning but poorly prepared teachers who don't really understand the subjects themselves.
This happens a lot in the government schools as well! In the USA, schoolteachers are often the graduates with the worst GPS. Even in my own school days, I had teachers without degrees in the subjects they taught, and that was at one of the best government schools in NZ overall. This was even more prevalent in other schools.

In any case, that article was to answer the opposite objection to what you have: the homeschooling opponents concede the indisputable fact that homeschoolers excel academically as a group, but are allegedly not socialized, although ‘socialization’ in government schools often means bullying, peer pressure, and sexual experimentation, while the artificially age-segregated herds have no application to adult life.

Rincewind
19-06-2014, 10:32 AM
schoolteachers are often the graduates with the worst GPS.

Homeschooling parents often have no tertiary education whatsoever.

MichaelBaron
19-06-2014, 12:03 PM
Given that in most government schools, primary schools is all about ''having fun'' rather than learning something, home schooling can not be any worse than that :)

MichaelBaron
19-06-2014, 12:05 PM
Homeschooling parents often have no tertiary education whatsoever.

I suspect that in most cases they do. However, I do agree with your other point that in many cases, home schooling is linked to the kids's social problems in school.

Rincewind
19-06-2014, 12:35 PM
I suspect that in most cases they do. However, I do agree with your other point that in many cases, home schooling is linked to the kids's social problems in school.

And in many cases school teacher graduates are not those with the worst GPS. The key difference is that professional school-teaching has minimum standards which are certified by tertiary education institutions largely by testing graduates under exam conditions. Home-school instructors have no minimum standard education beyond compliance with an administrative framework.

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2014, 05:13 AM
This shows that opponents of homeschooling are rather desperate. RW is not too worried by the lack of socialization, but the lack of teacher qualifications. But given the academic successes of homeschoolers, other homeschool-haters whinge about lack of socialization, which is likewise shown to be bogus.

A lot of teacher training doesn't concern acquiring then imparting knowledge, but things irrelevant to the homeschooler such as crowd control and bureaucratic rules.

Rincewind
20-06-2014, 10:16 AM
RW is not too worried by the lack of socialization, but the lack of teacher qualifications.

CF provides his usual dishonest spin on my opinion. What I worry most about is lack of teacher preparation. As a tertiary educator I know too well how students without the correct grounding in fundamental concepts can struggle in tertiary courses.

Teacher qualifications are not an end in themselves but rather a framework that ensures teachers conform to a minimum standard of competence. In home-schooling no such framework exists on the educators so while they might be well-meaning, that doesn't make up for no knowing what they are meant to be teaching.

Sunrise
26-06-2014, 07:59 PM
Apparently, chess can also play a strengthening role in home schooling too...!?

Adamski
26-06-2014, 11:38 PM
Apparently, chess can also play a strengthening role in home schooling too...!?
I agree. I taught my son's group chess while I was between contracts. My wife did the rest if the teaching (with me marking work at times) and she was a qualified primary school teacher with an honours degree in English.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2014, 02:48 AM
CF provides his usual dishonest spin on my opinion. What I worry most about is lack of teacher preparation. As a tertiary educator I know too well how students without the correct grounding in fundamental concepts can struggle in tertiary courses.
I agree, since I was a uni tutor as well. But it's quite likely that those students were "educated" in the government schools.


Teacher qualifications are not an end in themselves but rather a framework that ensures teachers conform to a minimum standard of competence. In home-schooling no such framework exists on the educators so while they might be well-meaning, that doesn't make up for no knowing what they are meant to be teaching.
There are plenty of government schoolteachers for whom that applies. I've also tutored privately in highschool maths and science, and had Grade 10 students who didn't even know their time-tables.

MichaelBaron
28-06-2014, 12:42 PM
I am curious, if a parent wants to be a ''home tutor'' to his kids, are his educational qualifications to be checked? Does he need a degree of his own? Is there some kind of requirement to be satisfied?

Adamski
28-06-2014, 01:55 PM
I am curious, if a parent wants to be a ''home tutor'' to his kids, are his educational qualifications to be checked? Does he need a degree of his own? Is there some kind of requirement to be satisfied?In Australia the regulations vary by state. In NZ we had a visit from Education Dept person to check intended curriculum and comperence to teach it. This was no issue with our degrees.
Other countries/ states no doubt have their own rules.

Patrick Byrom
28-06-2014, 04:39 PM
I agree, since I was a uni tutor as well. But it's quite likely that those students were "educated" in the government schools.Selective schools (which are mainly private) are obviously likely to have a better class of student (no pun intended) than non-selective (mainly government) schools. However the selective government schools are superior to most private schools.

Patrick Byrom
28-06-2014, 04:49 PM
In Australia the regulations vary by state. In NZ we had a visit from Education Dept person to check intended curriculum and comperence to teach it. This was no issue with our degrees. Other countries/ states no doubt have their own rules.I am neither for nor against home-schooling. However, when comparing the results of home-schooled children to others, it's important to remember that home-schooling is heavily regulated. The results of deregulated home-schooling would likely be dramatically different.

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2014, 05:47 AM
In One State, More Children Homeschool Than Attend Private Schools. Why That Shouldn’t Shock You. (http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/08/one-state-children-homeschool-attend-private-schools-shouldnt-shock/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social)
Genevieve Wood, 8 September 2014

In North Carolina, the number of homeschoolers has now surpassed the number of students attending private schools.

So, why are more parents making the choice to homeschool? As with many decisions, it’s rarely one single factor. The Department of Education, which surely isn’t happy with the trend, has tracked the issue since 2003. According to its findings:


In 2003, 85 percent of parents said they chose homeschooling because of “a concern about the school environment” which included worry about safety, drugs or negative peer pressure. That number jumped to 91 percent by 2011.
In 2003, 72 percent said “a desire to provide religious or moral instruction” was a major reason. In 2011, that number had increased to 77 percent.
In 2003, 68 percent said “dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools” contributed to their decision. By 2011, that was up to 74 percent.


But, there is quite a gap between what the NEA believes about homeschooling and the actual results from homeschooling. According to Education News (http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/number-of-homeschoolers-growing-nationwide/):


Recent studies laud homeschoolers’ academic success, noting their significantly higher ACT-Composite scores as high schoolers and higher grade point averages as college students. Yet surprisingly, the average expenditure for the education of a homeschooled child, per year, is $500 to $600, compared to an average expenditure of $10,000 per child, per year, for public school students.

What is not calculated in the cost line above for homeschooling is the time spent by a parent teaching. But the bottom line is still the same – overall, homeschooling costs less than public education and produces better results.

Add that to the growing list of reasons fewer children are getting on a school bus this year.

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2014, 05:52 AM
I am neither for nor against home-schooling. However, when comparing the results of home-schooled children to others, it's important to remember that home-schooling is heavily regulated. The results of deregulated home-schooling would likely be dramatically different.

But in America, many parents provide structured lessons without any regulatory requirement, and this is a good thing. So a 2011 article reported (http://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html), “researchers conclude that ‘structured homeschooling may offer opportunities for academic performance beyond those typically experienced in public school.’”

Also, in America, educational outcomes in the public schools were better when there wasn't the heavy hand and expense of federal regulation.

pax
19-09-2014, 07:34 PM
The regulations in Western Australia are not onerous. You are required to register with the Education Department, and there is an allocated moderator who visits every six to twelve months. The moderator ensures that there is evidence of progress in each of the broad curriculum areas, but there are no specific requirements in terms of syllabus or learning approaches. They will give advice on useful sources but are not prescriptive about it. They are generally open to a range of learning styles, syllabus and materials.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
19-09-2014, 09:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetJHQ_V05o

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2015, 01:12 AM
Number of Homeschoolers Growing Nationwide (http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/number-of-homeschoolers-growing-nationwide/)
Julia Lawrence, Education News, 21 May 2012

Despite the growth of homeschooling of late, concerns about the quality of education offered to the kids by their parents persist. But the consistently high placement of homeschooled kids on standardized assessment exams, one of the most celebrated benefits of homeschooling, should be able to put those fears to rest. Homeschooling statistics show that those who are independently educated typically score between the 65th and 89th percentile on such exams, while those attending traditional schools average on the 50th percentile. Furthermore, the achievement gaps, long plaguing school systems around the country, aren’t present in the homeschooling environment. There’s no difference in achievement between sexes, income levels, or race/ethnicity.


Recent studies laud homeschoolers’ academic success, noting their significantly higher ACT-Composite scores as high schoolers and higher grade point averages as college students. Yet surprisingly, the average expenditure for the education of a homeschooled child, per year, is $500 to $600, compared to an average expenditure of $10,000 per child, per year, for public school students.

College recruiters from the best schools in the United States aren’t slow to recognize homeschoolers’ achievements. Those from non-traditional education environments matriculate in colleges and attain a four-year degree at much higher rates than their counterparts from public and even private schools. Homeschoolers are actively recruited by schools like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Stanford University, and Duke.

antichrist
25-06-2015, 03:22 AM
Number of Homeschoolers Growing Nationwide (http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/number-of-homeschoolers-growing-nationwide/)
Julia Lawrence, Education News, 21 May 2012

Despite the growth of homeschooling of late, concerns about the quality of education offered to the kids by their parents persist. But the consistently high placement of homeschooled kids on standardized assessment exams, one of the most celebrated benefits of homeschooling, should be able to put those fears to rest. Homeschooling statistics show that those who are independently educated typically score between the 65th and 89th percentile on such exams, while those attending traditional schools average on the 50th percentile. Furthermore, the achievement gaps, long plaguing school systems around the country, aren’t present in the homeschooling environment. There’s no difference in achievement between sexes, income levels, or race/ethnicity.


Recent studies laud homeschoolers’ academic success, noting their significantly higher ACT-Composite scores as high schoolers and higher grade point averages as college students. Yet surprisingly, the average expenditure for the education of a homeschooled child, per year, is $500 to $600, compared to an average expenditure of $10,000 per child, per year, for public school students.

College recruiters from the best schools in the United States aren’t slow to recognize homeschoolers’ achievements. Those from non-traditional education environments matriculate in colleges and attain a four-year degree at much higher rates than their counterparts from public and even private schools. Homeschoolers are actively recruited by schools like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Stanford University, and Duke.

But Jono, what about when the parents are like idiots, pardon the expression, and would not have a clue how to go about it? Surely a student's right is to be only taught by professional teachers? It is not chess.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 04:13 AM
Im more concerned about if the teachers are police cleared or not. I think the kids are being let down by the system if they are just left to the devices of educators who are not properly vetted.

You hear so many stories about students being taken advantage of by their teachers.

I hope nobody here who was homeschooled had a crush on their teacher.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 04:23 AM
But Jono, what about when the parents are like idiots, pardon the expression, and would not have a clue how to go about it? Surely a student's right is to be only taught by professional teachers? It is not chess.

Didnt you mention you once had chess students ?

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2015, 05:25 AM
Im more concerned about if the teachers are police cleared or not. I think the kids are being let down by the system if they are just left to the devices of educators who are not properly vetted.

You hear so many stories about students being taken advantage of by their teachers.

I hope nobody here who was homeschooled had a crush on their teacher.
The high rate of sexual abuse in government schools (http://edsource.org/2014/schools-failing-to-protect-students-from-sexual-abuse-by-school-personnel-federal-report-says/57023) is still another plus for homeschooling.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 05:47 AM
The high rate of sexual abuse in government schools (http://edsource.org/2014/schools-failing-to-protect-students-from-sexual-abuse-by-school-personnel-federal-report-says/57023) is still another plus for homeschooling.

Are you saying that there are never any romantic liasons that transpire between homeschooled students and their teachers ?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 06:03 AM
Im pretty sure most sexual abuse occurs in the home by a guardian or parent and is far more prevalent than that of private and public school sexual abuse.

What kind of opportunity for help do you expect a troubled child to receive if the person who is solely detrimental to their wellbeing controls every facet of their life ?

antichrist
25-06-2015, 07:26 AM
The high rate of sexual abuse in government schools (http://edsource.org/2014/schools-failing-to-protect-students-from-sexual-abuse-by-school-personnel-federal-report-says/57023) is still another plus for homeschooling.

Capa Fan, the parents may be atheopaths, leftards, environment nazis, femonazis, with hairy armpit female partner - surely you would want the child to be exposed to alternative viewpoint than what is in the house?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 07:37 AM
Capa Fan, the parents may be atheopaths, leftards, environment nazis, femonazis, with hairy armpit female partner - surely you would want the child to be exposed to alternative viewpoint than what is in the house?

Im sure that Capa fan would gladly step in and help with the torrid task of proselytising the deluded youngsters if that was the case.

Dont forget, Cleanliness is closest to godliness, especially of the mind.

And we cant have young minds cluttered full with things like diverse viewpoints now can we ?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 08:11 AM
Capa fan where exactly have you been finding your statistics that show public schools pose a greater threat to children than that of the family home ?

Sexual assault is most common at home. Homeschooling thus presents greater opportunity for this behaviour to occur.

Do you really want to promote an increase in the frequency of this behaviour ?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 08:29 AM
Public and private schools offer adequate socialisation which also helps to avoid rearing fearful children. Homeschooling clearly does nothing of the sort.

When finally a grown adult they should automatically refrain from spinning chaotic webs of subterfuge in order to compensate for their lifelong inability and dread of coexisting with those that they had never been given a genuine opportunity to understand and respect.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2015, 10:04 AM
Capa fan where exactly have you been finding your statistics that show public schools pose a greater threat to children than that of the family home ?
I've already cited the following (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/):


Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.

"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."


Sexual assault is most common at home. Homeschooling thus presents greater opportunity for this behaviour to occur.
Prove it.


Public and private schools offer adequate socialisation which also helps to avoid rearing fearful children. Homeschooling clearly does nothing of the sort.
Right, no peer pressure, bullying, sexual pressure … Apparently the above thinks that ideal preparation for adult society is artificially age-segregated herds. Also:

Socialization: Homeschoolers Are in the Real World (https://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp)
By Chris Klicka, Senior Counsel for the
Home School Legal Defense Association
March 2007


Often there is a charge that homeschoolers are not learning how to live in the “real world.” However, a closer look at public school training shows that it is actually public school children who are not living in the real world.

For instance, public school children are confined to a classroom for at least 180 days each year with little opportunity to be exposed to the workplace or to go on field trips. The children are trapped with a group of children their own age with little chance to relate to children of other ages or adults. They learn in a vacuum where there are no absolute standards. They are given little to no responsibility, and everything is provided for them. The opportunity to pursue their interests and to apply their unique talents is stifled. Actions by public students rarely have consequences, as discipline is lax and passing from grade to grade is automatic. The students are not really prepared to operate in the home (family) or the workplace, which comprise a major part of the “real world” after graduation.

Homeschoolers, on the other hand, do not have the above problems. They are completely prepared for the “real world” of the workplace and the home. They relate regularly with adults and follow their examples rather than the examples of foolish peers. They learn based on “hands on” experiences and early apprenticeship training. In fact, the only “socialization” or aspect of the “real world” which they miss out on by not attending the public school is unhealthy peer pressure, crime, and immorality. Of course, the average homeschooler wisely learns about these things from afar instead of being personally involved in crime or immorality or perhaps from being a victim.

Rincewind
25-06-2015, 11:48 AM
Prove it.

See Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D. National Center for Juvenile Justice July 2000, NCJ 182990.


Most (70%) of the sexual assaults reported to law enforcement occurred in the residence of the victim, the offender, or the residence of another individual. Less than two-thirds of forcible rapes (64%) occur in a residence compared with three-quarters of other sexual assaults: forcible sodomy (74%), sexual assault with an object (76%) and forcible fondling (74%). Sexual assaults against females were less likely to occur in a residence than were those against male victims (69% versus 77%).

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 02:43 PM
Apparently Capa fan is deluded in thinking that peer pressure bullying and sexual harrassment do not occur at the workplace.

Hilarious stuff.

In Capa Fans mind modern business must be some sort of social utopia where everybody loves one another and group lunch is followed by the obligatory daily recitation of kumbaya my lord. :lol:

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
25-06-2015, 02:53 PM
I've already cited the following (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/):


Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.

"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Reading comprehension skills clearly werent at the forefront of your Homeschooling.

I was comparing assault at home against assault rate at traditional learning facilities.

Not public school vs church run school vs catholic clergy.

You are a very silly sausage. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2015, 11:08 PM
Apparently Capa fan is deluded in thinking that peer pressure bullying and sexual harrassment do not occur at the workplace.
So the above thinks that kids need practice in all those?


I was comparing assault at home against assault rate at traditional learning facilities.
Well, get some data then!


Not public school vs church run school vs catholic clergy.
Are you next going to claim that kids are better with Catholic clergy than at home? That's the ‘logic’ of your position here. For that matter, why don't you push for more boarding schools if homes are so dangerous?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
26-06-2015, 03:13 AM
Hi CF,

Please take a cursory glance at Rincewinds post #411 for the relevant data you desire. I trust you are a ravenously and perspicacious reader in search of the absolute truth and this information can sate your appetite adequately.

I hope I find you in the best of health.

Kind Regards,
Larry.

P.S. - In future, can you please reply with something that actually makes sense instead of 3 random brain farts ? Thankyou. :D

Capablanca-Fan
26-06-2015, 03:51 AM
Hi CF,

Please take a cursory glance at Rincewinds post #411 for the relevant data you desire. I trust you are a ravenously and perspicacious reader in search of the absolute truth and this information can sate your appetite adequately.
Why? Because if that is used to oppose homeschooling, then why not oppose kids at their home in general and oppose day schools in favour of boarding schools?

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2015, 06:44 AM
Useful article addressing some of the fallacies that homeschool-haters frequently spout, documenting that homeschooled kids do well academically and socially. Also, many homeschooling parents are doing it for secular reasons—they want their kids to avoid the atrocious government schools with low academic standards and high violence. It's not even much of a financial sacrifice, since money earned by both parents working is sucked up by childcare or later by the costs of attending schools (textbooks, transportation) and after-school costs.

Homeschooling in the City (http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_3_homeschooling.html)
Frustrated with the public schools, middle-class urbanites embrace an educational movement.
MATTHEW HENNESSEY, City Journal, Summer 2015

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2015, 11:41 AM
Also, many homeschooling parents are doing it for secular reasons—they want their kids to avoid the atrocious government schools with low academic standards and high violence.

Avoiding bullying at both public and private schools is also sometimes a consideration for secular parents who choose it.

Adamski
06-09-2015, 05:01 PM
Avoiding bullying at both public and private schools is also sometimes a consideration for secular parents who choose it.School bullying was the very reason that my wife and I started homeschooling our son. It is a sad reality. Our son had and still has a form of muscular dystrophy. Some kids were nasty including the last straw - one attacking him with a knife and cutting his school tie. That was it for us.

antichrist
06-09-2015, 05:28 PM
Those bullies were not brought up properly, the Catholic nuns would not let them get away with it. Would have been six of the best every day.

My nephew in year 7 got picked on by a year 12 student, he thumped him so much he was sent home for a few days - he was left alone after that