Homeschooling what-if...

[Jennarator]

Wow......sure it works for many, but it just can't for everyone. Not even close.....there are millions that just couldn't do it.

[Vort]

Wow......sure it works for many, but it just can't for everyone. Not even close.....there are millions that just couldn't do it.

Who in this thread has suggested that everyone should homeschool?

[Jennarator]

Who in this thread has suggested that everyone should homeschool?

Then why in heaven's name did everyone argue every little thing about how people just couldn't do it? Holy Cow?!?!?!

I said that not the uneducated couldn't do it and people say no anyone can do it, everything is available...no, no it's not, and the number of people that can't do it, right now, is huge! Millions! Man, making a very simple point is exasperating! I know you are still going to disagree with what i said, but the point is you get my point! Why you argue with an opinion is silly.

[carlimac]

Just a thought. Jesus was educated outside the home.

I'm home all day. I could homeschool. I have asked my kids if they want to be homeschooled. The answer: a hearty, unanimous NO! They like school. They like the activities, friends and the variety they get at school. All 7 of my kids have been excellent students. I'm not a very hands on mom when it comes to homework. I'm here if they have a question but they mostly just do it themselves without being told to. I haven't even met all the highschool kids' teachers. In fact, I've only met a few over the 11 years of having high school kids. I rarely go to parent teacher conferences because my kids are doing well and the teachers don't seem to know what to say if we come. What's the point?

I can guarantee if I tried to insert my finger into the pot of their education, it wouldn't turn out well. I've seen parents try so hard to oversee every dang little thing the kids are learning and doing at school (helicopter parenting) that it handicaps the kids. They can't think for themselves because they know mommy or daddy will do the thinking for them.

We have high expectations for our kids, virtually no punishment if they screw up (which has happened a time or two over the years) just encouragement to get the problem worked out with their teacher. They always do. We don't pay for high grades- wrong motivation. They just do well because they are curious, love to learn ( we read to them from babyhood) self motivated and know that we trust them.

This is the formula that works for us.

Edited May 13, 2013 by carlimac

[Jennarator]

Still waiting for someone to argue with me again.

[Leah]

How about I provide the evidence. Will that count? Sorry Vort... I know I'm usurping your conversations...

This method has been used by many people who successfully achieved it. This is actually not the actual method - the actual method I'm talking about came from a popular book that I have researched before but can't seem to remember the exact title of. That book had references to statistics. I will find it. It's in my pile of books here somewhere...

I wasn't responding to anything you said.

If you had read my posts, I wasn't discussing homeschooling at all.

[Wingnut]

Still waiting for someone to argue with me again.

No you're not.

[Leah]

I see this differently. You may not be part of "most" but it is true that "MOST" people CAN live on one income. But, it does require proper planning and a perspective shift to get it accomplished.

Caveat. I grew up in the Philippines. So I have a different perspective on what being "poor" means.

Documentation, please.

[Vort]

Then why in heaven's name did everyone argue every little thing about how people just couldn't do it? Holy Cow?!?!?!

I said that not the uneducated couldn't do it and people say no anyone can do it, everything is available...no, no it's not, and the number of people that can't do it, right now, is huge! Millions! Man, making a very simple point is exasperating! I know you are still going to disagree with what i said, but the point is you get my point! Why you argue with an opinion is silly.

That's not how things happened, Jennarator. Let's review this conversation:

Vort: "How would our society change if, instead, the standard idea was that parents are responsible for educating their own children? Private and even government-run (public) schools would still exist, but the prevailing ethic would be that education was the parents' duty, and the schools existed only as a resource for helping the parents?"

Jennarator: I would if I could, but I can't, and neither can many other people. Most can't teach, either.

Vort: (responding to the "many can't" assertion) People "can't" do what they think they can't do. In most cases, they really can, though they will have to scale back their perceived "needs" (e.g. McMansion or specific urban neighborhood).

Jennarator: Well, we couldn't.

Jennarator: And by the way, I don't have a McMansion. Most people are like me! Open your eyes!

Jennarator: I'm REALLY upset about this! I'm going to rant about it! I'm SO TIRED of people making assumptions! Vort, YOU said A and B and C about ME, and NOW you're assuming D! That REALLY ticks me off!

Jennarator: Maybe I should have written that, but I'm really tired of being told I'm selfish!

Wingnut: Hugs to you, you poor thing!

Vort: Um...I don't recall saying A or B or C. Can you provide a link for context? In any case, you appear to be misunderstanding what I wrote, because I didn't say what you say I said.

Jennarator: YES YOU DID!!! Right here, you said "Blah blah blah". That means you told me to give up my McMansion!!! And I don't even HAVE a McMansion!!!

Vort: Yes, I did say "Blah blah blah". But I didn't tell you to give up your McMansion. Read what I wrote more carefully.

Jennarator: You're wrong! And I already apologized for my rant (NB: You actually never apologized for it), so GET OVER IT ALREADY!

Jennarator: Okay, so I got emotional, but I DID read what you wrote! You assumed MOST PEOPLE can live on one income! I disagree!

Vort: Do you have any evidence to back this up? And what, exactly, am I supposed to "get over"? (You never do answer this.)

Jennarator: Well, what's YOUR evidence that most people can get by on only one income?! (Note that this is not an answer.)

Vort: Single-income households were the norm only a generation or two ago, and our expectations have grown disproportionately. Given these two observations, it seems reasonable to assume we could indeed live on one income, as our parents did. Now, can you provide evidence for your assertion?

Jennarator: That doesn't prove anything!

Vort: No, it's not proof, just evidence. Where is your evidence?

Jennarator: I already gave it to you! (Really?) Times have changed! I know people who can't feed their families!

Leah: (To Vort) You demand evidence but have supplied only opinion! Where's YOUR evidence, big-mouth? What fairy tale are YOU living in? It wasn't anything like that for ME!

Jennarator: ALL I'M SAYING is that most people can't homeschool! (NB: You said much more than that.) Besides, mandatory homeschooling condemns poor people to their poverty for generations!

Vort: (To Leah) I made observations X and Y. Which of those do you think are opinion? (No answer was ever made to this) Your other assertions about what I wrote are untrue.

Vort: (To Jennarator) How do you know most people can't homeschool? In any case, no one has suggested forced homeschooling.

Jennarator: Uneducated people don't know how to get educated! Widespread homeschooling is not possible!

Vort: "Millions of homeschoolers dispute your assertion."

Jennarator: Well, maybe SOME can homeschool, but MILLIONS can't!

Vort: Again, who suggested everyone must homeschool?

Jennarator: What do you mean?! Why is everyone arguing about this, then? All I said was that not everyone could homeschool! Why all the pushback?

The reason for all the pushback is because you didn't merely claim that not everyone can homeschool. My initial post on this thread admitted in the very first paragraph that, in putting the educational onus on the parents, we would not get rid of public or private schools. You got all in a tizzy because you thought I told you to move out of your McMansion and stay home with your kids and homeschool them. When you pretend (or misremember) that all you said was that everyone can't homeschool, you do violence to the actual history of the conversation.

This was caused because you took offense at something you thought I had written, without pointing to the exact thing you took offense at. I could never adequately defend myself from your allegations, because you never bothered actually to point out what offensive thing I had written (beyond the general McMansion comment, which you admitted was not targetted at you). Instead, you just made comments about what you (wrongly) assumed my general meaning to be.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Vort
Replaced missing quote that messed up the conversation recap

[Jennarator]

No you're not.

I was, but you just did....

I am still waiting to pull apart my imperfect way of expressing my opinion. Even though most people, get the general idea of what I was getting at, I think others need it to be eloquently written and efficient as well. That just isn't going to happen, since I don't write very well as anyone on here knows. But I think my idea get across, and people that pick them apart are looking to pick rather than look at what I was trying to say. Sorry, but I am dyslexic, that is just how I am.

[Jennarator]

Oh and now words are being put in my mouth.

[annewandering]

So how do we expect parents to teach kids when they cant even communicate with each other?

I have home taught and I hated it. If I had my way all kids would use the internet, libraries and personal observation as their main method of learning but some kids do not learn that way. Some subjects dont do well being taught that way. One size does not fit all. A fair compromise might be to have some subjects taught in the formal school and others by parents and other by personal exploration. Guided hopefully.

I dealt with one woman who was 'teaching' her kids. She taught the youngest to read by showing the girl a word in a book then told her what it was. Each and every time. The girl never had to know it herself because mom told her.

Nope. Some people do not make good teachers for their kids.

[Vort]

Oh and now words are being put in my mouth.

I was attempting to represent overall sentiments, not generally quoting word for word. (The two times I quoted word-for-word are in quotations marks.) If you think I have misrepresented you, just say where. I assure you it was not intentional.

It's curious to me that you have made essentially no effort to clarify any part of this conversation, while I have done almost all the heavy lifting and tried to clarify against the false allegations thrown my way -- yet you play the part of the aggrieved party and I'm the bad guy.

[carlimac]

Documentation, please.

Do you really need documentation for this? The point she's making is that our poverty levels are so far above that of third world countries that we really don't kow what being poor is. If we had to survive on one income, yes we probably could. No one needs documentation to understand that.

Have you ever read The Glass Castle? The kids in this story survived, barely. But in our society, we hopefully want to give our kids a lifestyle that's above the bare survival level. And I think it's in the interest of human dignity to do so. In order to do that, in this current time with our current economy, for many families it takes two incomes to provide this dignity. Perhaps those who believe otherwise should move to the Congo and live like everyone else there.

Edited May 13, 2013 by carlimac

[carlimac]

I was attempting to represent overall sentiments, not generally quoting word for word. (The two times I quoted word-for-word are in quotations marks.) If you think I have misrepresented you, just say where. I assure you it was not intentional.

It's curious to me that you have made essentially no effort to clarify any part of this conversation, while I have done almost all the heavy lifting and tried to clarify against the false allegations thrown my way -- yet you play the part of the aggrieved party and I'm the bad guy.

Psst. Are you trying to get another thread closed down today? Why don't we just stick to the topic.

[Vort]

Psst. Are you trying to get another thread closed down today? Why don't we just stick to the topic.

Others, such as MoE, Wingnut, and Jennarator, have attempted to make me the topic. When I challenge them on their false assertions, they go silent, thus allowing their falsehoods to just sort of live on in the cyberspace luminiferous ether. I admit it's a quixotic and pride-driven quest, but I want to challenge such untruths.

[Blackmarch]

Our societal norm today is that children attend public schools. This is true not only in the US, but across the "Western" world; for example, in Germany, it is literally illegal to homeschool your child. You are required by law to enroll your child in a government-run or approved private school, under threat of jail time and having your children taken away.

How would our society change if, instead, the standard idea was that parents are responsible for educating their own children? Private and even government-run (public) schools would still exist, but the prevailing ethic would be that education was the parents' duty, and the schools existed only as a resource for helping the parents?

I believe such an attitude would have several direct effects, all of them good:

• The parent, not the school, would be re-established as the responsible party for both teaching and disciplining the child.
• Parents would become (to use the pop psychology term) "empowered" to make educational decisions on behalf of their children.
• Horrible school texts would still exist, but many more children would be spared the evil effects of those texts, because the parents would simply choose another.
• Within a couple of generations, ideas such as Creationism and most forms of "intelligent design" would die out as they were rigorously exposed to the realities of educational Darwinianism in higher education.
• Families would be strengthened as parents reassumed their rightful place as their children's educators. (This reason alone would make the change worthwhile.)
• Right now, thousands (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands) of children get substandard education, and NO ONE is held personally responsible. It's a "systemic problem", or a result of "not enough educational funding", or other such political crap. Under the idea proposed, we would still have children receiving substandard education, but we could immediately isolate the problem (the parents) and offer them real help, not just meaningless platitudes and NEA nonsense.

Many other results, both good and (perhaps) not so good, would surely come about. The main drawback I see is that ignorant parents would tend to produce ignorant children. But, of course, I am not suggesting that all such education be unregulated. Just as we expect parents to nourish their children's bodies and take action against those who grossly violate this standard, while allowing other parents great latitude in how they approach feeding their kids, so we can take action against those who grossly violate their duty to educate their children while supporting a wide variety of attempts by other parents to do so.

I think it would be great with one proviso... Homeschooling falls apart if the parent or parents do not have the will to see it thru. Which would be my main concern; we do not have enough people willing or able to take the time and effort or even to find out how to educate their children at this time.

[carlimac]

I think it would be great with one proviso... Homeschooling falls apart if the parent or parents do not have the will to see it thru. Which would be my main concern; we do not have enough people willing or able to take the time and effort or even to find out how to educate their children at this time.

That would be moi.

[annewandering]

I think it would be great with one proviso... Homeschooling falls apart if the parent or parents do not have the will to see it thru. Which would be my main concern; we do not have enough people willing or able to take the time and effort or even to find out how to educate their children at this time.

I would be worried more about people who are not capable of teaching their children anything academic. Not everyone is a teacher no matter what their motivation and/or desire might be.

[Vort]

I would be worried more about people who are not capable of teaching their children anything academic. Not everyone is a teacher no matter what their motivation and/or desire might be.

In the first place, this is not true. Every parent (with the possible exception of the severely mentally impaired and the severely emotionally disturbed) both can and are required to be teachers to their children. Extending this to the academic sphere is perfectly natural.

Secondly, the point is not to require everyone to homeschool, though somehow several on this thread have taken that idea to heart and continue to argue vociferously against it. Rather, the point is that the educational onus should lie with the parents. If the children end up uneducated, it is a failure of the parents, not of the system. Educational resources should be made available to parents, including even such things as government-run schools. But the overall burden of educating the children should lie squarely on the shoulders of the parents. It already does in the divine reckoning, and it should legally, as well.

[carlimac]

I think it would be great with one proviso... Homeschooling falls apart if the parent or parents do not have the will to see it thru. Which would be my main concern; we do not have enough people willing or able to take the time and effort or even to find out how to educate their children at this time.

And lots of folks would be out of a job to provide for their families.

[annewandering]

In the first place, this is not true. Every parent (with the possible exception of the severely mentally impaired and the severely emotionally disturbed) both can and are required to be teachers to their children. Extending this to the academic sphere is perfectly natural.

Secondly, the point is not to require everyone to homeschool, though somehow several on this thread have taken that idea to heart and continue to argue vociferously against it. Rather, the point is that the educational onus should lie with the parents. If the children end up uneducated, it is a failure of the parents, not of the system. Educational resources should be made available to parents, including even such things as government-run schools. But the overall burden of educating the children should lie squarely on the shoulders of the parents. It already does in the divine reckoning, and it should legally, as well.

If children end up uneducated it is partly the responsibility of parents and the system but mostly of the child. No one can educate a person without their desire to be educated and if they want to be educated they will be.

And yes it is true that some people are never going to be able to teach academic subjects to their kids for a variety of reasons. Apparently you have been lucky in the people you have known. One size or talent will never fit all.

[Leah]

Do you really need documentation for this? The point she's making is that our poverty levels are so far above that of third world countries that we really don't kow what being poor is. If we had to survive on one income, yes we probably could. No one needs documentation to understand that.

Have you ever read The Glass Castle? The kids in this story survived, barely. But in our society, we hopefully want to give our kids a lifestyle that's above the bare survival level. And I think it's in the interest of human dignity to do so. In order to do that, in this current time with our current economy, for many families it takes two incomes to provide this dignity. Perhaps those who believe otherwise should move to the Congo and live like everyone else there.

I wasn't arguing anything about poverty levels.

Common practice on message boards - if you assert a fact, someone might ask you to back up your claims.

But I wasn't addressing poverty.

[Vort]

If children end up uneducated it is partly the responsibility of parents and the system but mostly of the child. No one can educate a person without their desire to be educated and if they want to be educated they will be.

This is true for adults, but much less so for children. Children under ten or twelve respond to how things are presented. It is the duty of the parents to figure out how to educate their children or otherwise to see to their education.

And yes it is true that some people are never going to be able to teach academic subjects to their kids for a variety of reasons. Apparently you have been lucky in the people you have known. One size or talent will never fit all.

You appear to be modeling education as a primarily passive activity: The child or youth sits in a chair and gets educated. In fact, good education is primarily an active activity. With the help of books and other external aids, the student educates himself (herself). This is seen even -- or especially -- in the best post-secondary schools, where the students are empowered and even required to assume the burden of their education.

Nevertheless, for those who absolutely cannot or will not educate their children, we should still provide resources for them to fulfill their duty. Ultimately, it is and should be the parents' duty, not the state's, to see to the child's education.

[dahlia]

He didn't. But we know Vort. He is a pro-homeschooling type of guy. Which is cool.

My son just broke up with one girl so he could focus on another girl he was dating. Though he had to make the choice (where's polygamy when you need it?), he was upset - "She was OK with homeschooling." I knew we'd discussed this, but had no idea it was on his marriage material list.

Oh yeah, since people are talking about whether parents can teach some subjects, I'm on a message board for academics. There is no w ay in .... that parents could do any worse than what paid 'teachers' have done to kids coming through most public schools and entering college. No sense of history (and I mean Vietnam, much less ancient history), no ability to write or critically analyze what they read, no knowledge of geography - of their own friggin' country, much less the rest of the world. It's sad, folks. There is no way the average, motivated parent with a good curriculum can't do better than what's going on in a lot of public schools.

Edited May 14, 2013 by dahlia
add'l info