The Constitution: I can't think of a better argument for Homeschool

[Guest Mores]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46054/adams-our-constitutionally-illiterate-faculty-mike-s-adams

Excerpt:

Quote

Hardly a week goes by that I do not jokingly tell a student to go find a homeschooler and ask him if he has an extra pocket copy of the constitution he would like to loan out. Like most jokes, my quip has an element of truth. In fact, this one has a firm basis in reality.

...

Keep that in mind the next time you say that the “solution” to the “problem” of constitutional illiteracy is a return to teaching civics in our public schools. Like our constitution day, a civics class taught by a progressive educator would soon devolve into an attack upon our foundational principles.

A better approach would be a wall of separation between school and state.

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Mores

[NeuroTypical]

Heh.  We homeschooled, and yes, we had more than one pocket copies of the constitution lying around.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46054/adams-our-constitutionally-illiterate-faculty-mike-s-adams

Excerpt:

 

A highly politicized site discusses constitutional knowledge from a right wing point of view.

Interestingly enough, I agree that there is a great deal of ignorance in regards to knowledge pertaining to the Constitution today, HOWEVER, most complaints I hear today from the Conservative side of politics has NOTHING to do with other's ignorance and MORE about different interpretations of the same document and what it states.

An example from the article...

Quote

• Last year, while observing a lecture, I heard a university professor tell students, “Because it is a living document, our constitution has survived for thousands of years.” The professor who made that statement has a PhD in criminology from a public university. If you think that was an isolated incident, consider another example,

While the author is correct about the 'thousands of years' statement, he also highlights the 'living document' as a mistake as well.  Unfortunately, this is not necessarily a mistake, but a disagreement on the purpose and interpretation of the Constitution itself. 

This, in general, typifies many of the ways some of those on the right criticize those on the left or those that may not agree with them.  They take their own opinion as a FACT rather than an opinion and try to vilify those who may not agree with that opinion or interpretation as being incorrect on their facts.

Luckily, those on the Right are not alone.  The Left does the exact same thing (and sometimes to more extremes).

The Constitution can be a complex document, expecting other professors to know the Constitution inside and out may be a more difficult expectation that perceived.  The author makes the notation about professors of other subjects (for example...sociology) making such mistakes.

Quote

When a professor asked me which course I most enjoy teaching and why, I replied, “Criminal procedure because of the heavy emphasis on Fourth Amendment law.” The professor responded by asking, “Which one is the Fourth Amendment?” The professor, who teaches courses in criminology, has a PhD in sociology from a public university. If you think that was an isolated incident, consider another example,

I do not expect other professors to understand the dialogue of events surrounding and concerning the Battle of Gettysburg or the Siege of Constantinople, and likewise am very grateful that I do not have to understand and know Stochastic calculus inside and out like a Mathematics Professor.  The sociology professor taught courses in criminology but without context of the situation and the courses he teaches, it is hard to lay simple criticism.  That may have been a slip of the lip, it may have been a momentary lapse of the mind (and at my age, I have a lot of difficulties even remembering where I put my keys and phone in the evening, much less simple algebraic equations any High Schooler would learn or scientific formulas at times), or a multitude of other things.  Without regular exposure, the Constitution, like the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, (or for us, the Articles of Faith) can be easily forgotten or mixed up.

In relevant comparison, we have the Articles of Faith as one of our standard ideas to express what we believe.  How many of us can quote them completely?  I am certain some can, but most Members would not be able to do so.  Many may get confused as to which Article of Faith is which number.  Add in the Ten Commandments (which is the 7th and which is the 9th commandment as a question), and then add in the Beatitudes and you'll probably find that even a majority of religion teachers (Seminary teachers, CES educators) and even more so in relation to Church leaders (Bishops, Stake Presidents, and even Seventies) cannot give you the exact answer to one of these without at least a little review before hand.

This same idea applies to the Constitution, especially the Amendments when asking those who are not regularly versed.  Many may know the general contexts of the amendments and rights (like many could probably say the ten commandments though possibly not in order, or be able to have the general idea of the articles of faith in whole, even if they are not positive of which number equates which article and cannot quote every article of faith) but be unable to quote them or list them in order.  If this gentleman studies them daily or teaches from them regularly, he will have the upperhand on most who do not have this opportunity on a weekly or even monthly basis.

That said, I AGREE that there is not enough knowledge about the Constitution among the US populace today.  Students that are growing up are particularly ignorant of many of the basic concepts taught by the Constitution, the reasons they are in the document, and the importance of how it relates to us and our society.  A prime example I see in this regards is the idea of a popular vote being what decides who is the President of the United States.  This ignorance leads to the idea that because a few LARGE cities in the US could basically win a popular vote that that thus all rulership should derive from those cities, rather than allowing the rest of the nation which may have a minority of population, but a majority of land and size have any voice at all.

Thus, while I agree with the actual premise, I am wary of the actual author's intentions behind the article.

[Guest Mores]

11 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

A highly politicized site discusses constitutional knowledge from a right wing point of view.

...

Thus, while I agree with the actual premise, I am wary of the actual author's intentions behind the article.

Let me break it down for you.  Left wingers don't care about the Constitution unless it serves their needs.  Systemic hatred of the Constitution exists among leftist organizations and leftist dominated faculties and politics.

So, YES.  Right wingers are going to complain about how left-leaning groups overwhelmingly decide they should do away with the Constitution whenever it suits them.

• Most Democrat Candidates today have openly supported the idea of getting rid of the electoral college because it happens to favor conservative thought.
• The examples he gave (that have been repeated over and over again) at universities that are overwhelmingly left leaning are ignorant of Constitutional principles, and therefore want to do away with anything that restricts their agenda.

What is the author's intention?  To encourage people to read, study, and love the Constitution.  And you're wary of that.  Well, yeah, coming from a leftist.

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

Let me break it down for you.  Left wingers don't care about the Constitution unless it serves their needs.  Systemic hatred of the Constitution exists among leftist organizations and leftist dominated faculties and politics.

So, YES.  Right wingers are going to complain about how left-leaning groups overwhelmingly decide they should do away with the Constitution whenever it suits them.

• Most Democrat Candidates today have openly supported the idea of getting rid of the electoral college because it happens to favor conservative thought.
• The examples he gave (that have been repeated over and over again) at universities that are overwhelmingly left leaning are ignorant of Constitutional principles, and therefore want to do away with anything that restricts their agenda.

What is the author's intention?  To encourage people to read, study, and love the Constitution.  And you're wary of that.  Well, yeah, coming from a leftist.

I would disagree with this idea.  I think there are just as many "Left wingers" that love the Constitution as there are "Right Wingers."  The difference I see is in how they interpret various items in relation to the Constitution and legal proceedings thereof.

Ruth Ginsburg I think has a deep love for the Constitution and the freedoms it has allowed her to progress and to bring about.  Many Right Wingers have a systematic hatred of everything she has done and some even wish dire things to occur to her.

I'd say that there is a great deal of love for the Constitution and the freedoms it ensures in this nation by many of the "Left Wingers' out there. 

[Guest Mores]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would disagree with this idea.  I think there are just as many "Left wingers" that love the Constitution as there are "Right Wingers."  The difference I see is in how they interpret various items in relation to the Constitution and legal proceedings thereof.

I NEVER stated that ALL leftists hate the Constitution.  I can name a few I personally know that have a deep respect for it, and then it is (as you say) a matter of interpretation.  What I DID SAY was (and I'll reword for clarity) that there is a SYSTEMIC effort on the part of leftist powers that is set on dismantling the careful balance that the Constitution put in place.

I gave a few examples.  Give some examples of right wingers who show hatred of the Constitution and want to dismantle it.  And can you show anything on a systemic level that would justify a "generalized" statement against right wingers?

[estradling75]

Ultimate it is not a very good argument...   Putting the best of Home school against the worst of Public school one should not be surprised at such a result.

And really the issue is not between Home school and Public schools.   But rather engaged parents and disengaged parents.  And this has a simple no brainier pattern...  Kids who have parents who are engaged do better everywhere.  Kids who have parents who are disengaged do worse.  Right now to do Home Schooling requires Parental engagement (Thus producing generally good results), but Home Schooling is not the only place engaged parents might be found.  Engaged parents can be found all over the place including Public Schools.  Public Schools also have the misfortune to be the dumping grounds for disengaged parents... And naturally that hurts it.

But Homeschooling is not the answer to the pain of public school.  Getting parents to engage is.  If you try to push Homeschooling without increasing parental engagement all you end up with is more kids with even less education.  Because the idea behind public schools if the parents will not engage with their kids maybe some other adults can.  (Of course this means the other adults get to define what is important but that is what happens when parents do not engage) 

Edited April 17, 2019 by estradling75

[unixknight]

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would disagree with this idea.  I think there are just as many "Left wingers" that love the Constitution as there are "Right Wingers."  The difference I see is in how they interpret various items in relation to the Constitution and legal proceedings thereof.

Ruth Ginsburg I think has a deep love for the Constitution and the freedoms it has allowed her to progress and to bring about.  Many Right Wingers have a systematic hatred of everything she has done and some even wish dire things to occur to her.

I'd say that there is a great deal of love for the Constitution and the freedoms it ensures in this nation by many of the "Left Wingers' out there. 

I'm gonna go with @Mores on this one.  Yes, the Left loves the Constitution when they can interpret it their way.  You can make the argument that the right is exactly the same, but I'll point out to you that the Left is the side that:

• Wants to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote
• Claims that the Constitution protects Abortion when there's precisely -zero- language to that effect
• Is happy to speak out under the blanket of the right to Free Speech while looking for ways to take that right away from others legislatively.  (Hate speech laws)
• Uses the phrase "living document" as a pretext to VERY loosely interpreting the text.

The only think I generally agree with the left on is their support for the 4th Amendment.  I have argued in the past with Conservatives who use the argument "If you have nothing to hide then you should be fine with.... "  And then we'd argue over whether a suspect should be compelled to provide a password to their device or whatever.    

I've also seen and heard many leftist commentators sneer at the conservative adherence to the Constitution.

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I'm gonna go with @Mores on this one.  Yes, the Left loves the Constitution when they can interpret it their way.  You can make the argument that the right is exactly the same, but I'll point out to you that the Left is the side that:

• Wants to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote
• Claims that the Constitution protects Abortion when there's precisely -zero- language to that effect
• Is happy to speak out under the blanket of the right to Free Speech while looking for ways to take that right away from others legislatively.  (Hate speech laws)
• Uses the phrase "living document" as a pretext to VERY loosely interpreting the text.

The only think I generally agree with the left on is their support for the 4th Amendment.  I have argued in the past with Conservatives who use the argument "If you have nothing to hide then you should be fine with.... "  And then we'd argue over whether a suspect should be compelled to provide a password to their device or whatever.    

I've also seen and heard many leftist commentators sneer at the conservative adherence to the Constitution.

-Not all the Left wants to eliminate the Electoral College.  Much like it is reflected in the Nation itself, this is a standard that comes from areas which see that they might benefit from such an action.  You would find many Democrats in the rural areas just as opposed to this idea as you would Republicans

-This is NOT an exclusivity of the Left.  In fact, when it comes to the health of the mother, incest, or rape, you will find that many on the Right will be FAR more fervent in trying to protect abortion than even those on the Left.

- Once again, when it affects someone on the Left the right also uses the talking point that though one has free speech, they must pay the consequences of such if they are fired. 

- This is a two sided argument where neither side is really correct.  It IS (and has to be, it was designed in this way, one of the purposes we actually even have amendments and as established by the supreme court to do so less than 20 years after the Constitution was written) a living document, but at the same time, it must also be stable instead of manipulated to every whim.  So, it must be something that changes according to the time (so a living document) but at the same time, it must have some stability or it cannot really provide a foundation upon which to build.

This article addresses it FAR better than I could in such a short post.

Living Constitution

Quote

Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes: there's no realistic alternative to a living Constitution. Our written Constitution, the document under glass in the National Archives, was adopted 220 years ago. It can be amended, but the amendment process is very difficult. The most important amendments were added to the Constitution almost a century and a half ago, in the wake of the Civil War, and since that time many of the amendments have dealt with relatively minor matters.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So it seems inevitable that the Constitution will change, too. It is also a good thing, because an unchanging Constitution would fit our society very badly. Either it would be ignored or, worse, it would be a hindrance, a relic that keeps us from making progress and prevents our society from working in the way it should.

On the other hand, there seem to be many reasons to insist that the answer to that question-do we have a living Constitution that changes over time?-cannot be yes. In fact, the critics of the idea of a living constitution have pressed their arguments so forcefully that, among people who write about constitutional law, the term "the living constitution" is hardly ever used, except derisively. The Constitution is supposed to be a rock-solid foundation, the embodiment of our most fundamental principles-that's the whole idea of having a constitution. Public opinion may blow this way and that, but our basic principles-our constitutional principles-must remain constant. Otherwise, why have a Constitution at all?

 

[Guest Mores]

18 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Ultimate it is not a very good argument...   Putting the best of Home school against the worst of Public school one should not be surprised at such a result.

And really the issue is not between Home school and Public schools.   But rather engaged parents and disengaged parents.  And this has a simple no brainier pattern...  Kids who have parents who are engaged do better everywhere.  Kids who have parents who are disengaged do worse.  Right now to do Home Schooling requires Parental engagement (Thus producing generally good results), but Home Schooling is not the only place engaged parents might be found.  Engaged parents can be found all over the place including Public Schools.  Public Schools also have the misfortune to be the dumping grounds for disengaged parents... And naturally that hurts it.

But Homeschooling is not the answer to the pain of public school.  Getting parents to engage is.  If you try to push Homeschooling without increasing parental engagement all you end up with is more kids with even less education.  Because the idea behind public schools if the parents will not engage with their kids maybe some other adults can.  (Of course this means the other adults get to define what is important but that is what happens when parents do not engage) 

You have a point.  We should always compare apples to apples.  But let's do that.  All other things being equal, what are the differences?

• Public schools limit the effect parents have on their children. 
• Public schools also has a MUCH greater access (time) with the children.
• Public schools actively promote liberal free speech and political agendas while stifling and punishing any conservative speech.

Given that understanding, I'd prefer my children learn nothing about politics and government than learn something wrong about them.

[Guest Mores]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

-Not all the Left wants to eliminate the Electoral College.  Much like it is reflected in the Nation itself, this is a standard that comes from areas which see that they might benefit from such an action.  You would find many Democrats in the rural areas just as opposed to this idea as you would Republicans

-This is NOT an exclusivity of the Left.  In fact, when it comes to the health of the mother, incest, or rape, you will find that many on the Right will be FAR more fervent in trying to protect abortion than even those on the Left.

- Once again, when it affects someone on the Left the right also uses the talking point that though one has free speech, they must pay the consequences of such if they are fired. 

Examples?

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Mores said:

You have a point.  We should always compare apples to apples.  But let's do that.  All other things being equal, what are the differences?

• Public schools limit the effect parents have on their children. 
• Public schools also has a MUCH greater access (time) with the children.
• Public schools actively promote liberal free speech and political agendas while stifling and punishing any conservative speech.

Given that understanding, I'd prefer my children learn nothing about politics and government than learn something wrong about them.

That is of course your right and privilege and I fully support it.  But there is a huge difference between your personal choices... and public policy.

Historically Homeschooling was the way things where...  Public schools became a popular thing because it was suppose to address the failings of the Home School system (Which back in the day everyone knew... but our current knowledge is much less clear about)  In my personal opinion Public Schools really did not deliver on the promise because it ignored the real problems and focus on symptoms.  But all the current solutions to the "Public School" problem seem to be repeating the same mistakes of focusing on symptoms rather then the fundamental cause (aka Parental disengagement).  Until you solve the problem of parental apathy you are always going to have problems and all you do with other fixes is shift them around.

 

 

[Guest Mores]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That is of course your right and privilege and I fully support it.  But there is a huge difference between your personal choices... and public policy.

Historically Homeschooling was the way things where...  Public schools became a popular thing because it was suppose to address the failings of the Home School system (Which back in the day everyone knew... but our current knowledge is much less clear about)  In my personal opinion Public Schools really did not deliver on the promise because it ignored the real problems and focus on symptoms.  But all the current solutions to the "Public School" problem seem to be repeating the same mistakes of focusing on symptoms rather then the fundamental cause (aka Parental disengagement).  Until you solve the problem of parental apathy you are always going to have problems and all you do with other fixes is shift them around.

Parental apathy does not help public schools.  Parental apathy does not help homeschools.

Parental involvement only has mild effect on public schools.  Parental involvement has a HUGE effect on homeschools.

So, what is the benefit of public schools?  You yourself agree that it has not delivered on the promise.  So, what is so GOOD about public school that causes you to support it?  I'm not issuing a challenge.  I would really like to know because I can't really see it.

The only time I see it as beneficial is in the rare instance that you have all three of the following: 1) A brilliant student 2) Parents who lacked the proper education to help the student to higher levels and 3) A top notch public school district.  While it does happen (I've seen them) I find this scenario as the exception rather than the rule.  So, we damage 95% of the children to give that 5% of children a boost?

Edited April 17, 2019 by Mores

[unixknight]

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

-Not all the Left wants to eliminate the Electoral College.  Much like it is reflected in the Nation itself, this is a standard that comes from areas which see that they might benefit from such an action.  You would find many Democrats in the rural areas just as opposed to this idea as you would Republicans

General note:  Can we save some time by skipping the "Not all x..." arguments?  Everybody here is smart enough to know that we aren't talking about homogenous groups and that people vary.  I make general statements because generalities save time when making a point.  If my intent is to comment on every single member of a group, I'll state it clearly.

So what if rural Democrats would oppose it too?  Do you see any urban Republicans calling for it?  Enough representative voices, including Congressional Democrats, have been making these noises that it's fair to say this is coming out of the left and not the right.  Immediately after the election in 2016 they performed a publicity stunt to try to legislate it away, even though that would be nigh impossible.  

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

- Once again, when it affects someone on the Left the right also uses the talking point that though one has free speech, they must pay the consequences of such if they are fired. 

Irrelevant.  Who on the right is calling for legislation like "Hate Speech" laws?

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

-This is NOT an exclusivity of the Left.  In fact, when it comes to the health of the mother, incest, or rape, you will find that many on the Right will be FAR more fervent in trying to protect abortion than even those on the Left.

This argument is irrelevant but I'll address it.  I have not observed that to be true.  While there are plenty of conservatives who would be prepared to permit abortion in such cases, nobody's defending it with that kind of fervor.  Most conservatives I've spoken to (myself included) fail to understand why we have to keep mentioning medical necessity as an exception.  Well duh.  Does it really need to be said?  Rape and incest?  Some conservatives don't see those as legitimate exceptions, some do.  It isn't clear to me why you'd say they argue for it with fervor.

To the point:  No matter what one's view may be on this matter, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention abortion.  Period.

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

- This is a two sided argument where neither side is really correct.  It IS (and has to be, it was designed in this way, one of the purposes we actually even have amendments and as established by the supreme court to do so less than 20 years after the Constitution was written) a living document, but at the same time, it must also be stable instead of manipulated to every whim.  So, it must be something that changes according to the time (so a living document) but at the same time, it must have some stability or it cannot really provide a foundation upon which to build.

We all understand the Amendment process and the need for it.  Understanding the Constitution according to the changing times is one thing.  Blatantly distorting its meaning in order to push an agenda is another entirely.  It is the latter I'm accusing leftists of.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

So, what is the benefit of public schools?  You yourself agree that it has not delivered on the promise.  So, what is so GOOD about public school that causes you to support it?  I'm not issuing a challenge.  I would really like to know because I can't really see it.

Socialization, access to programs, consistency and quality (ideally) in areas where parents may not have the knowledge...

And the elephant in the room... a lot of households have both parents working and sending the kids off to school is a pretty good method of free daycare.

That said, it is essential that parents be involved in the education process.  What the kids are taught in school may or may not conform to the truth, and then there are things like teachers making their own political views known by making remarks and comments to students.  Just the other day my daughter told me her 5th Grade teacher had told students that Trump shut the Government down because they wouldn't let him build the wall.  Of course, most of the kids lapped that up.  We live in Maryland which ain't exactly a Trump stronghold.  As a parent who is involved, I used that as an opportunity to explain to her not only how the budget process works, but give her a more objective understanding of what happened, within the realm of what a 5th Grader can understand.

[Vort]

52 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

But Homeschooling is not the answer to the pain of public school.  Getting parents to engage is.

Partially agree. Homeschooling alone is not the answer, because parents as a group are not going to take up the mantle of their own responsibility to educate their children, which has for generations been taken from the parents' shoulders. But mere parental engagement is insufficient to solve the deep and sometimes horrific problems with public schools. Fundamental change at both the administrative and the teaching levels must happen. And by change, I mean reform. And by reform, I mean revolution.

[estradling75]

Just now, Mores said:

Parental apathy does not help public schools.  Parental apathy does not help homeschools.

Parental involvement only has mild effect on public schools.  Parental involvement has a HUGE effect on homeschools.

So, what is the benefit of public schools?  You yourself agree that it has not delivered on the promise.  So, what is so GOOD about public school that causes you to support it?  I'm not issuing a challenge.  I would really like to know because I can't really see it.

The only time I see it as beneficial is in the rare instance that you have 1) A brilliant student 2) Parents who lacked the proper education to help the student to higher levels and 3) A top notch public school district.  While it does happen (I've seen them) I find this scenario as the exception rather than the rule.  So, we damage 95% of the children to give that 5% of children a boost?

I am not "supporting" public school.  I am countering the hype of homeschool...  Let me rephrase your statement above.

 

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

Parental apathy does not help public schools.

True

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Parental apathy does not help homeschools.

Hype..  More correctly Parental apathy utterly destroys homeschools.    Public schools would never have gotten of the ground if this was not true.

Homeschooling with engaged parents is one of the best (if not the best) options you can get.

Homeschooling with disengaged parents is one of the worst.  This is the fact that needs to be remembered when considering homeschooling as any kind of public policy.

 

 

 

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Partially agree. Homeschooling alone is not the answer, because parents as a group are not going to take up the mantle of their own responsibility to educate their children, which has for generations been taken from the parents' shoulders. But mere parental engagement is insufficient to solve the deep and sometimes horrific problems with public schools. Fundamental change at both the administrative and the teaching levels must happen. And by change, I mean reform. And by reform, I mean revolution.

If all parents engaged and took up their teaching responsibility public schools would go way.. That is the fix for them.  The closest thing that we might need is for topics that for whatever reason the parent can't teach and the kid really wants to learn..  (Which in itself solves alot of issues)

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Socialization

The socialization received in public schools is largely, if not uniformly, negative. Teaching someone how to be a good little communist and a loyal follower of the status quo is indeed socialization, but is not what I would consider beneficial to society or the individual. Most school "socialization" consists in learning how to be a bully or how to survive bullying, how to obey the teacher without asking inconvenient questions, and (especially for boys) how to think and act like a girl so that the teachers don't have as much trouble dealing with the little monsters.

Public school socialization can go to hell, where it attempts to lead the children.

(If you want to see why boy moms and girl moms are practically different creatures, the following video is illuminating, funny, and truthful in a deep way.)

22 minutes ago, unixknight said:

access to programs

Only if said "programs" are themselves beneficial. In many cases, this is questionable (or laughable). In most cases, a good argument can be made that, even if the "program" is beneficial, it's not the government's job to offer it.

22 minutes ago, unixknight said:

consistency and quality (ideally) in areas where parents may not have the knowledge

Ideally, teachers would be perfect people. Our world isn't ideal. You can't argue in behalf of the existing public educational system based on some unachieved ideal.

Any homeschooler knows perfectly well that having an in-depth knowledge of a subject is not necessary to teach it. What is needed is flexibility, humility, intelligence...and this thing called books.

Many and perhaps most public school teachers are simply not people you would want to raise your children. Then why give them access to your children for half their waking hours?

22 minutes ago, unixknight said:

And the elephant in the room... a lot of households have both parents working and sending the kids off to school is a pretty good method of free daycare.

Just one generation ago, this was not the case. And we were warned. Loud and clear. We chose the foolish path, and now we're paying the price.

I reject this daycare argument as any sort of rational argument that a person of goodwill and sense would accept (though I concede that many people do indeed accept and even champion it). If a man's children are not worth him changing his lifestyle and giving up toys, vacations, and big houses, then nothing is, and that man will live with his children in hell, regardless of the social programs you provide.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Vort

[Guest Mores]

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Socialization

This has been a debunked 1000 times already.  I don't care to go into it again.

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

access to programs, consistency and quality (ideally) in areas where parents may not have the knowledge...

Which I addressed in the same post you replied to.

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

And the elephant in the room... a lot of households have both parents working and sending the kids off to school is a pretty good method of free daycare.

Doesn't this conflict with the argument oft made to save public schools?  "We need to get rid of parental apathy".  So, you're going to make it easy  for parents to forget about their kids and then decry parental apathy?

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That said, it is essential that parents be involved in the education process. 

Uh.  Yeah.  Look at my previous statement.

[Guest Mores]

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am not "supporting" public school.  I am countering the hype of homeschool...  Let me rephrase your statement above.

Noted.  I'll address later.

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Hype..  More correctly Parental apathy utterly destroys homeschools.    Public schools would never have gotten of the ground if this was not true.

Theoretically & hypothetically true. 

Practically speaking, how many homeschool parents are actually apathetic about their kids' education?  If they were, they'd have left it to public school.

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Homeschooling with engaged parents is one of the best (if not the best) options you can get.

We have common ground.

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Homeschooling with disengaged parents is one of the worst.  This is the fact that needs to be remembered when considering homeschooling as any kind of public policy.

Since I've covered the excessively rare instance where this concern would be an actual issue, I'll say that I agree and offer a solution.

In most states there are at least minimum education requirements for homeschoolers.  Some require that students take a standardized test.  Most of the time homeschool students are required to at least get the minimum score that the lowest achieving public schooled child would have and still be allowed to move on to the next grade/graduate.

I have no problem with this solution.

Overall, every argument in favor of public schools today only address the exception rather than the rule. Of course there are exceptions.  I don't think any human being says that ANY system is THE BEST answer for ALL students.  I'm pointing out that the vast majority of students and society in general would be better served by having homeschool or community school (similar to charter schools) rather than the public school system.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

The socialization received in public schools is largely, if not uniformly, negative. Teaching someone how to be a good little communist and a loyal follower of the status quo is indeed socialization, but is not what I would consider beneficial to society or the individual.

I've been fortunate to have spent time with kids who were homeschooled who were in my D&D group.  Remember my thread in the advice section?  Yeah,  Penny was one of them.  Kids' beliefs are much more likely to match their parents than peers, if the parents are engaged.  I also observed that these kids tended to be limited to their own social bubble, because homeschool families tend to cluster so that they can have activities and socialization with other kids that they're missing from not being in school.

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Only if said "programs" are themselves beneficial. In many cases, this is questionable (or laughable). In most cases, a good argument can be made that, even if the "program" is beneficial, it's not the government's job to offer it.

 I agree.  Though the options are limited outside of school, as things stand right now.  Sports, band, clubs, etc.  Those things do exist outside of a school context, but they're not as common and can be expensive, which is a problem for many.

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Ideally, teachers would be perfect people. Our world isn't ideal. You can't argue in behalf of the existing public educational system based on some unachieved ideal.

Any homeschooler knows perfectly well that having an in-depth knowledge of a subject is not necessary to teach it. What is needed is flexibility, humility, intelligence...and this thing called books.

Many and perhaps most public school teachers are simply not people you would want to raise your children. Then why give them access to your children for half their waking hours?

That's where engaged parents come in.  And just a reminder:  I'm not claiming public school is perfect.  I've already provided one real life example.  The question was "is there any good in it?" and my answer is yes.  I  happen to believe, personally, that parents ought to have a choice on how their kids are educated, and I do have a real problem with laws like the ones recently passed in California that require homeschooled kid to be taught by a credentialed educator... obviously a move to discourage and ultimately eliminate homeschooling.

Those kids in my D&D group I mentioned, who were homeschooled... Not a single one of them could spell worth squat.  I'm serious.  And these are people who have read the entire library of J.R. Tolkien books and the like, so it isn't as if they weren't seeing words properly spelled.  I read their character sheets and their characters' backstories and their spelling was at a level at least three or four grades lower than where they were at.  Public schools are a long way from perfect, but homeschooling isn't always better.

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Just one generation ago, this was not the case. And we were warned. Loud and clear. We chose the foolish path, and now we're paying the price. I reject this daycare argument as any sort of rational argument that a person of goodwill and sense would accept. If your children are not worth a person changing his lifestyle and giving up toys, vacations, and big houses, then nothing is, and he will live with his children in hell, regardless of the social programs you provide.

I think that's an oversimplification of the issues.  My family has the luxury of living where we do but being able to have my wife stay at home during the day.  Around here, we're an exception.  Most people just can't afford to do that.  Even among the people we go to church with, about half the families have to be 2 income families.  (Technically we are as well, but my wife has a part time job and doesn't work during the day.)  

And it isn't always a simple as a lifestyle change.  It would be great if it were that simple, but it just isn't.  I will not pass judgement on people who feel like that's their only option.

[unixknight]

13 minutes ago, Mores said:

This has been a debunked 1000 times already.  I don't care to go into it again.

If you don't want to go into it I won't press you to, but I haven't seen a convincing debunking of that.

13 minutes ago, Mores said:

Which I addressed in the same post you replied to.

Not exactly.  You did mention cases in which the parents weren't up to the task due to education, but what about the matters of consistency and programs, such as those I mentioned to @Vort?

13 minutes ago, Mores said:

Doesn't this conflict with the argument oft made to save public schools?  "We need to get rid of parental apathy".  So, you're going to make it easy  for parents to forget about their kids and then decry parental apathy?

I don't see an equivalence between a parent working during the day and being apathetic.  In fact, I think that statement would be downright insulting to a family who can only make ends meet by being a 2 income household.  

Mind you, let's keep this in mind:  Being busy during the day doesn't necessarily have to mean a professional job.  Let's not discount moms who are kept plenty busy by toddlers and babies.  

Can't you imagine a scenario in which these parents are fully engaged with their kids when they get home?  My wife helps my kids with their homework when they get home, but if she worked during the day then either she or I would help them when either of us got home.  That doesn't count?

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

My family has the luxury of living where we do but being able to have my wife stay at home during the day.  Around here, we're an exception.  Most people just can't afford to do that.

I live near Seattle, in an outrageously expensive area. Cost of living here is very high, starting with but not limited to mortgage payments. I have been counseled in the past by my bishop to consider moving to a less expensive area, say 200 miles east. I am effectively the sole breadwinner, and my wife has spent her post-grad-school life being a so-called stay-at-home mother to our children. I make what seems to me like a very good salary, upper five figures, but for this area it's extremely unimpressive.

I have heard many people say words to the effect that you can't live in and around Seattle with a salary under $150,000. The local vomit rag (aka the Seattle Times) runs articles every month or so about how some poor family is struggling to make ends meet with a combined dual income of only a paltry $130,000. Here is an excellent example from just this past Sunday:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/moneymakeover-lacomb/

This poor, poor couple is concerned how they could possibly afford A SECOND KID. Rough stuff, huh? According to the article, these people "have good jobs, solid financial habits and money in the bank". So what's the problem? Apparently, it's their meager income...

$200,000 to $225,000 per year.

You read that right.

This is lunacy. I don't judge people, either. That's not my place; I'm happy to let God take care of that. But I do judge their actions and their values. A couple who is hauling in well over $200k per year has no cause at all, ever, of whining about how expensive it is to raise A SECOND KID.

[unixknight]

No argument form me on that, @Vort.  Too right.

That said, we're not just talking about people making a decent living and either making bad choices or being unwilling to make sacrifices.  I'm talking about people who aren't nearly as blessed when it comes to income. who could probably do more with even less than what you or I have, and still have no option but to be 2 income.