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


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores
1 minute ago, unixknight said:

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.

Another time. 

Vort pointed out only one plank of that argument in a recent post above.  But there are many more.  Most of the time, public schoolers don't see it because they argue each plank on their own.  But put together, you simply can't deny it.

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

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?

Consistency if only good if A) The students are consistent and B) the program is a good one.  But we know that not all students are the same (by this I mean that nearly every student really ought to have a customized curriculum -- an impossible task for public schools) and we see that as a rule the public school experience is a bad one.

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

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.  

It is the natural human inclination to care most about that which they spend the most time on.  With a stay-at-home mom, they will tend to care about home and family most.  And that SAHM will then engage the father when he returns from work.

You take both parents out of the home for most of their waking hours and how often are they really engaged in their children's education?  I'd argue that apathy is more common than not with two working families.

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

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?

Again, exceptions, not the rule.

As far as two income homes, I don't think they are as necessary as people think.  While there are exceptions (again with exceptions) most households can get by on just one income.  And the problem is that those families who TRULY need two working parents to get by, will often be in poorer quality school districts.  Thus nullifying the argument.

My wife could take a job and we could add another 50% to our household income.  But we choose to get by with less because we understand need vs. wants and the meaning of sacrifice.  No, I'm not calling all 2-income homes greedy and selfish.  I'm saying that many times, we see so many conveniences and wants as needs to the point that we neglect things of greater import.  We all do that.  This just happens to be one weapon of choice for many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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 live in Florida.  We have lots of good public schools.  We also have tons of bad public schools.

Public School is the same as "outsourcing".  Here are things I outsource in my home:  I hire an electrician, a plumber, and an auto mechanic, a yard person, a cleaning person, a laundry person for suits, and sometimes a cook (restaurants).  I also hire teachers.

Yes, my husband can fix electrical stuff, can fix the plumbing, and can do yard work and maybe fix the car.  I can clean my house, do laundry, and cook.  I can also teach.  But, we opted to hire a professional because my husband and I are much better computer techs than we are an electrician, plumber, lawn maintainer, auto mechanic, house-cleaner, launderer, cook, or teacher.  So, I program so I can hire those people better at doing those things.  Now, there is nobody better than me at raising my children and teaching them good manners and right conduct.  There is also nobody better than me at teaching them good principles, socio-political ideology, and establishing their identity.  So, I don't hire those things out.  So, I don't expect the teachers to teach my kids good manners and right conduct, etc.  My kids don't expect to learn those from school.  So if the teacher attempts to and it contradicts what I teach them at home, then they treat them just like anything else their friends tell them that are not correct.  Ignore them.

So, when my kids were 4 years old, I went around searching for the best school that has the best teachers for my children.  I found this good public school that had better records than the Catholic School my brother's kids went to so I went and bought a house within a couple miles of it.  In Florida, you don't have to move to attend a school that is not your neighborhood school but we moved anyway just so my kids will have neighborhood friends from school.  My 2nd child went to that school but it didn't work out for him.  So, I pulled him out of the school and put him in a private Montessori.  The next year, the public school Montessori had an opening, so I moved him there and he thrived so much he skipped a grade. 

So then my kids started middle school - I, once again, searched high and low for a good fit for my children.  My first child went to a School of the Arts with award-winning music department - Public School.  My 2nd child went to a Science and Technology school that has an awesome Engineering track - also a Public School.  Sure, I had to drive 20 miles downtown but they were the perfect fit for my kids.

So then my kids started high school - same thing.  High and low.  First child ended up in the higher level School of the Arts - another Public School consistently rated among the top 80 public schools in the nation.  2nd child went to an International Baccalaureate program in a College-Prep Public High School consistently rated among the top 20 public schools in the nation.

So, my oldest kids' school is as liberal as liberal can get.  There is only 1 male to 4 females in that school and half the males is either gay or has transitioned into a woman.  But even in that liberal school they still have a bunch of conservatives - interestingly huddled in the Bible Study Club.  It is organized by the Baptists and my LDS son, his Catholic best friend, and his Atheist other best friend (who is ultra liberal and the son of lesbian parents) joined the Club.  My son and his friends wear MAGA hats on hat day without trouble.  But, all of those kids have the potential of getting to Julliard.  Last year's graduates boasted one kid that received a full-ride scholarship to Julliard, another kid that received $80K from the US Navy to go towards (Nuclear, I think) Engineering.  Several kids that received full-ride scholarships to FSU and UF music programs.  Etc. etc. 

My 2nd kids' school is the opposite - more conservative than liberal.  Several of his teachers including his US History Teacher (who taught Constitution) are Trump supporters.  The football team and the ROTC go to conservative rallies.  But, there is a group of "Bernie Bros" and "Yang Gang" in the school too.  But that school is a University feeder.  It's just expected that if you graduate with honors in that school, you'll be accepted to an Ivy League-level school in a Bachelor of Science program.  If you're not planning on college, this school may just be too much work.

If your kid wants to be a doctor, we have a Public High School that is tailored for bio/medicine.  If your kid wants to be a lawyer, we have a Public High School that is tailored for that (Berkley can learn from that School how to handle political dissent on campus).  If your kid wants to be in the military, we have a Military Academy Public High School.

That's the cool thing about "hiring out" education where you have School Choice programs.  Yeay Florida.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I live in Florida.  We have lots of good public schools.  We also have tons of bad public schools.

Public School is the same as "outsourcing".  Here are things I outsource in my home:  I hire an electrician, a plumber, and an auto mechanic, a yard person, a cleaning person, a laundry person for suits, and sometimes a cook (restaurants).  I also hire teachers.

That sounds like you have a lot of CHOICE.  One big problem with public schools is that choice is often unavailable to most families.  Without choice (read: competition) school often lack the motivation to successfully educate.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

That sounds like you have a lot of CHOICE.  One big problem with public schools is that choice is often unavailable to most families.  Without choice (read: competition) school often lack the motivation to successfully educate.

Everybody has a choice.  Home School is just another choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Another time. 

Vort pointed out only one plank of that argument in a recent post above.  But there are many more.  Most of the time, public schoolers don't see it because they argue each plank on their own.  But put together, you simply can't deny it.

Maybe.  As you said, another time.  Things get quiet enough around here sometimes that we need a new lively topic ;)

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Consistency if only good if A) The students are consistent and B) the program is a good one.  But we know that not all students are the same (by this I mean that nearly every student really ought to have a customized curriculum -- an impossible task for public schools) and we see that as a rule the public school experience is a bad one.

This I agree with as one of the cons of public schooling.

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

It is the natural human inclination to care most about that which they spend the most time on.  With a stay-at-home mom, they will tend to care about home and family most.  And that SAHM will then engage the father when he returns from work.

You take both parents out of the home for most of their waking hours and how often are they really engaged in their children's education?  I'd argue that apathy is more common than not with two working families.

I don't think that's fair.  I would agree that apathetic parents are more likely to prioritize a career over kids, but that doesn't account for parents who simply have no alternative.  Ask a lot of those parents why they're 2 income and they'll tell you it's because they're prioritizing their kids' needs.

Here's a twist:  What about families that are 2 income in order to afford a private school?  (Not an argument, just a thought that occurred  to me just now.)  

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Again, exceptions, not the rule.

As far as two income homes, I don't think they are as necessary as people think.  While there are exceptions (again with exceptions) most households can get by on just one income.  And the problem is that those families who TRULY need two working parents to get by, will often be in poorer quality school districts.  Thus nullifying the argument.

My wife could take a job and we could add another 50% to our household income.  But we choose to get by with less because we understand need vs. wants and the meaning of sacrifice.  No, I'm not calling all 2-income homes greedy and selfish.  I'm saying that many times, we see so many conveniences and wants as needs to the point that we neglect things of greater import.  We all do that.  This just happens to be one weapon of choice for many people.

I think the question of whether a family can get by on a single income depends largely on geography.  You can be stuck in an area where the cost of living is legitimately high, but not have the ability to move to a cheaper area.  There are plenty of possible causes for this.  Maybe one of the parents has a skillset that isn't in demand everywhere so they have to go where the work is.  Maybe there are other commitments like taking care of family that keeps someone in the area.  I could go on but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.  I suppose those are the exceptions you mention, but I don't think we have a way to know just how often it occurs.  Is it the exception to the rule?  I don't think it's that rare.  Not in the majority perhaps, but I really don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mores said:

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

Historically...  Clearly enough for Public Schooling to be seen as a possible solutions...   If you want to ignore how it was the failure of enough of the Parents in the first place that made Public Schooling even possible there is nothing I can to to counter willful ignorance.  The simple fact it required enough parents to give up homeschooling by voting for and allowing Public Schools in the first place.  Ignoring (or belittling) that fact means you are ignoring history and doomed to repeat it making same kind of mistakes.  Unless you want to make the case that Human nature has significantly altered in the last few hundred years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mores said:

Consistency if only good if A) The students are consistent and B) the program is a good one.  But we know that not all students are the same (by this I mean that nearly every student really ought to have a customized curriculum -- an impossible task for public schools) and we see that as a rule the public school experience is a bad one.  

This is not about Public vs Private vs Home School because any of those have those same problems with customized curriculum (yes, Home Schoolers have this problem too when they're following some off-the-shelf curriculum).  This is about the DESIGN of the educational experience.  My son went to a Montessori PUBLIC School.  In the Montessori design, the student designs the curriculum.  That's why they have 3 grade-levels in one class room.

 

15 minutes ago, Mores said:

It is the natural human inclination to care most about that which they spend the most time on.  With a stay-at-home mom, they will tend to care about home and family most.  And that SAHM will then engage the father when he returns from work.

You take both parents out of the home for most of their waking hours and how often are they really engaged in their children's education?  I'd argue that apathy is more common than not with two working families.

This is also not about Stay-At-Home Moms versus Working Moms.  This is about Priorities and Organization.  Just because a woman is a SAHM does't mean she will tend to care about home and family most.  And just because a woman is a Working Mom doesn't mean she will not tend to care about home and family most.  The location of both parents does not dictate engagement.  The COMMITMENT of parents is what dictate engagement.

Example:  I chose to work.  I don't have to.  But I chose to because I'd rather work on a computer all day long than teach my children math and science and history and language... or clean the house.  So I work so I can pay somebody to teach math and science and history and language... and clean my house.  This decision doesn't give me an excuse not to be fully engaged with my children's education.  After all, when you hire a plumber, you don't just let the plumber do his thing and not make sure he is doing the thing right and of good quality.

I sometimes go out of the country for months at a time.  The beauty of technology is that I can be halfway around the world and still be fully engaged in my kids' education.

So yes, I chose a contractor job rather than an employee job so I have the flexibility to Organize my hours around my family's schedule.

 

15 minutes ago, Mores said:

As far as two income homes, I don't think they are as necessary as people think.  While there are exceptions (again with exceptions) most households can get by on just one income.  And the problem is that those families who TRULY need two working parents to get by, will often be in poorer quality school districts.  Thus nullifying the argument.

My wife could take a job and we could add another 50% to our household income.  But we choose to get by with less because we understand need vs. wants and the meaning of sacrifice.  No, I'm not calling all 2-income homes greedy and selfish.  I'm saying that many times, we see so many conveniences and wants as needs to the point that we neglect things of greater import.  We all do that.  This just happens to be one weapon of choice for many people.

Money is just a tool.  It is not the amount of household income that is the goal.  The goal is to accomplish what you need to accomplish in the best and least-difficult way possible.  Money is simply a means for you to either 1.) make a difficult task easier, 2.) accomplish more tasks.  For example - I can garden and feed the family without much money.  Or I can work for money buy food to feed my family.  If it is easier for me to garden than to work-for-pay, then I will garden.  But the goal is done - I fed my family.

So telling a wife - you shouldn't work - is not good.  Rather, telling a wife - set your priorities - is better.  Then she can decide how best to accomplish those priorities.  If the priorities are - So I Can Have A STEM Career - instead of the kids... we're gonna need to get those priorities straightened out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Maybe.  As you said, another time.  Things get quiet enough around here sometimes that we need a new lively topic ;)

Agreed.

24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

This I agree with as one of the cons of public schooling.

Thank you.

24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I don't think that's fair.  I would agree that apathetic parents are more likely to prioritize a career over kids, but that doesn't account for parents who simply have no alternative.  Ask a lot of those parents why they're 2 income and they'll tell you it's because they're prioritizing their kids' needs.

Fair has nothing to do with it.  It is basic human psychology.  Can people work against it with conscious effort?  Sure.  But how often is that the case?

24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Here's a twist:  What about families that are 2 income in order to afford a private school?  (Not an argument, just a thought that occurred  to me just now.)  

The devil's in the details.

24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think the question of whether a family can get by on a single income depends largely on geography.  You can be stuck in an area where the cost of living is legitimately high, but not have the ability to move to a cheaper area.  There are plenty of possible causes for this.  Maybe one of the parents has a skillset that isn't in demand everywhere so they have to go where the work is.  Maybe there are other commitments like taking care of family that keeps someone in the area.  I could go on but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.  I suppose those are the exceptions you mention, but I don't think we have a way to know just how often it occurs.  Is it the exception to the rule?  I don't think it's that rare.  Not in the majority perhaps, but I really don't know.

Have you never reinvented yourself?  People think they have to stay with a profession no matter what.  Why not change professions?  Just look at stuff Mike Rowe promotes.  My son took one college course and with some hard work got an industry certification.  He's now making more money than a friend of his with a degree that should be paying more, but isn't.

While we cannot know just how frequently things like this happen, I find it very telling that the prophet tells young couples that they don't need to worry so much about finances before having children.  The immediate argument from those less likely to follow prophetic counsel is that they simply can't afford it.  It makes me wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mores said:

Fair has nothing to do with it.  It is basic human psychology.  Can people work against it with conscious effort?  Sure.  But how often is that the case?

No, I meant I don't think you were being fair in your argument.  I agree that generally people put most of their energies into that which they most value... but that assumes they have the choice to do so.

5 minutes ago, Mores said:

Have you never reinvented yourself?  People think they have to stay with a profession no matter what.  Why not change professions?  Just look at stuff Mike Rowe promotes.  My son took one college course and with some hard work got an industry certification.  He's now making more money than a friend of his with a degree that should be paying more, but isn't.

While we cannot know just how frequently things like this happen, I find it very telling that the prophet tells young couples that they don't need to worry so much about finances before having children.  The immediate argument from those less likely to follow prophetic counsel is that they simply can't afford it.  It makes me wonder.

Well there's a difference between counsel and commandment.  When it's a commandment, you just do it.  When it's counsel, it's reliable advice from someone who understands everybody's circumstances aren't the same.

Changing careers ain't easy, and yes I've done it.  When I was a young lad, back when the world was young, I was an auto mechanic.  I did that for a few years, and was a fully certified Master Auto Tech by ASE.  I guess you could say I was committed to the career.  But it wasn't making enough of an income for me to move my wife and 3 kids out of her parents' basement, so I decided it was time for a change.  I started going to night school, (thanks to money my dad has saved years before for a college fund I hadn't fully used) and earned a Bachelor's Degree a few years later.  Now I make easily 3 - 4 times what I was making then, so yes I do know what that's like.  (I'm also preparing to make another change over the next few years.)

But can everybody do that?  I was fortunate.  I was blessed with a dad who didn't blow the college fund when I hadn't used it all.  I was blessed with in-laws who let us have a basement where we didn't have the huge rent we would have in this area.  I was blessed by my family with the motivation and energy to work 40 hours a week + all the schooling concurrently for 4 years.  I was blessed by Heavenly Father with the wetware in my skull to handle the new skillset on top of the old one.  I count myself EXTREMELY blessed by the circumstances I enjoyed.  I don't think most people have all those advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mores said:

The devil's in the details.

Have you never reinvented yourself?  People think they have to stay with a profession no matter what.  Why not change professions?  Just look at stuff Mike Rowe promotes.  My son took one college course and with some hard work got an industry certification.  He's now making more money than a friend of his with a degree that should be paying more, but isn't.

This is not the answer. 

The answer is... teach people, especially the young ones, Purpose.  Or Destination.  Then set Goals to accomplish them.  This is not a critique of your son, but just a way to present what I'm trying to say - your son making more money doesn't indicate at all that he is in a better position than his friend.  It depends on your son's Purpose.  Money is just a tool to achieve that Purpose.  The time and effort to make Money has to be worth the Purpose of that Money.  Otherwise, it's just another waste of time and effort spent on something that does not achieve the Purpose.  But time and effort spent on other things other than making Money is better spent if it is better at achieving one's Purpose.  So, maybe your purpose is to make money to feed and house your family.  Okay, so you set the Goal - I need at least $30,000 every year to feed and house my family.  So you have 2 jobs - one that makes $28,000 but it's a job that you would do even if you don't get paid (like coaching basketball, or something).  Or you get one that makes $100,000 but it's a very high stress situation where you have to compete with a bunch of egotistical engineers.  Do you really need that $70,000 or would it be better to just find ways to slash $2,000 from the goal.  Either way, you still end up achieving the purpose of feeding and housing your family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

No, I meant I don't think you were being fair in your argument.  I agree that generally people put most of their energies into that which they most value... but that assumes they have the choice to do so.

Everybody has a choice.  Just like Rush said - even choosing to do nothing is a choice.  The lack of choice is sparked by the very human trait of comfort-zones.  One of God's greatest gift to man is Choice.  Other humans can take that gift away.  In the USA, you don't have that much of a problem with that.  A lot of times in the USA, the lack of choice is self-inflicted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Everybody has a choice.  Just like Rush said - even choosing to do nothing is a choice.  The lack of choice is sparked by the very human trait of comfort-zones.  One of God's greatest gift to man is Choice.  Other humans can take that gift away.  In the USA, you don't have that much of a problem with that.  A lot of times in the USA, the lack of choice is self-inflicted.  

I think that's easy for those of us here to say.  Not everybody has all the options you might think they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I agree that generally people put most of their energies into that which they most value... but that assumes they have the choice to do so.

They do. That's the problem. They are told by society that they have no choice, and that they need that second income. But it's a lie. They don't need it. And I'm not talking about becoming a welfare dependent. I'm talking about taking control of your destiny by "owning" your choices.

Taking personal responsibility for your life is mocked by the cool kids, and you will have no end of people telling you that your income is only a mere $200,000, so you need to be very careful about having that second child. Others will point out the welfare queens who pop out babies and then keep soaking up more public "entitlement" funds to pay for them. These two are represented as the polar choices, with a smooth continuum from "good responsible people with lots of money and few children" right on through to "evil irresponsible societal leeches scamming the system." There is little acknowledgement that it's possible—indeed, desirable—to make children your priority without becoming a welfare dependent.

Again, I pass no personal judgment on those who insist they "need" to have two incomes. In some few cases, I might even agree with them. But I don't have to pass personal judgment on them to recognize that they are mostly wrong. One need not have a six-figure income to successfully raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and well-educated children. We should try to dispel that caricatured untruth. It has already caused much harm, and will cause much greater harm moving forward, as new generations accept the lie as truth and use it as a foundation for their own judgments, both in their own lives and for those they associate with. I don't want my children looked down on or thought badly of because they choose to live more modestly and focus their resources on my grandchildren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think that's easy for those of us here to say.  Not everybody has all the options you might think they do.

In the USA, they do.  That's why I love the USA.  You define a Purpose.  You set a goal to achieve that purpose.  Then there are quadzillions ways to get there.  Some easier than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Again, I pass no personal judgment on those who insist they "need" to have two incomes. In some few cases, I might even agree with them. But I don't have to pass personal judgment on them to recognize that they are mostly wrong. One need not have a six-figure income to successfully raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and well-educated children. We should try to dispel that caricatured untruth. It has already caused much harm, and will cause much greater harm moving forward, as new generations accept the lie as truth and use it as a foundation for their own judgments, both in their own lives and for those they associate with. I don't want my children looked down on or thought badly of because they choose to live more modestly and focus their resources on my grandchildren.

It's not about one income versus two incomes.  Or $30,000 versus $300,000.  It is about PURPOSE and the best way to achieve it.  Money is JUST A TOOL.

There are just as many people who look down on somebody's children because they drive to Church in a souped up BMW as those who look down on children or think badly of because they choose to live more modestly. 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's not about one income versus two incomes.  Or $30,000 versus $300,000.  It is about PURPOSE and the best way to achieve it.  Money is JUST A TOOL.

I agree.

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There are just as many people who look down on somebody's children because they drive to Church in a souped up BMW as those who look down on children or think badly of because they choose to live more modestly.

I disagree. While such envy doubtless exists, I disbelieve that just as many Latter-day Saints look down on or think badly of their fellow Saints because of their financial success as for their financial lack of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I agree.

I disagree. While such envy doubtless exists, I disbelieve that just as many Latter-day Saints look down on or think badly of their fellow Saints because of their financial success as for their financial lack of success.

I wasn't talking about LDS exclusively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

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

We homeschool too. My youngest is in a homeschool  Co-op  class where the kids just finished reading the Constitution and rewriting it in their own words. It's part of a year long curriculum called Key of Liberty. All the kids also memorized the Declaration of Independence and they know what it means.

Also I am Left-leaning and I support the Constitution. 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I wasn't talking about LDS exclusively.

I guess the "drive to Church" part threw me. Class envy is a cancer in our society, I agree. But I take a dim view of those who wallow in jealousy toward the financially successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

They do. That's the problem. They are told by society that they have no choice, and that they need that second income. But it's a lie. They don't need it. And I'm not talking about becoming a welfare dependent. I'm talking about taking control of your destiny by "owning" your choices.

That's really easy to say when you've made good choices and been blessed with good circumstances like we've been.  I've tried that very same argument when talking to people who are in a very crappy situation in life and they set me right down into a reality I hadn't seen before.  It's easy to say that "well they can pick up another skill" or "well they can just move."  Yeah.  We can sit in our nice house that the nice paycheck from our nice job that our nice education allows us to have and say "well if I could do it, why can't they?"  

And we aren't even talking about poor people per se.  I agreed earlier that there are plenty of people who just don't get it and think a 200k salary isn't enough to raise two kids on.  Of course that's absurd, but that's also not who I'm talking about.  More on that below, because @anatess2 is making a similar point.

 

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Taking personal responsibility for your life is mocked by the cool kids, and you will have no end of people telling you that your income is only a mere $200,000, so you need to be very careful about having that second child. Others will point out the welfare queens who pop out babies and then keep soaking up more public "entitlement" funds to pay for them. These two are represented as the polar choices, with a smooth continuum from "good responsible people with lots of money and few children" right on through to "evil irresponsible societal leeches scamming the system." There is little acknowledgement that it's possible—indeed, desirable—to make children your priority without becoming a welfare dependent.

Again, I pass no personal judgment on those who insist they "need" to have two incomes. In some few cases, I might even agree with them. But I don't have to pass personal judgment on them to recognize that they are mostly wrong. One need not have a six-figure income to successfully raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and well-educated children. We should try to dispel that caricatured untruth. It has already caused much harm, and will cause much greater harm moving forward, as new generations accept the lie as truth and use it as a foundation for their own judgments, both in their own lives and for those they associate with. I don't want my children looked down on or thought badly of because they choose to live more modestly and focus their resources on my grandchildren.

I agree with all of this, but one also need not homeschool to raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted and well educated children.  I've got 3 adult kids (out of 6) and I'll tell you right now the biggest impact on their lives, in terms of morality and reason, wasn't their having gone to public school.  My oldest 2 are pretty conservative thinkers, one is to the right of me, even.  The youngest is going down the leftist path and for that I blame the college she chose to go to.

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In the USA, they do.  That's why I love the USA.  You define a Purpose.  You set a goal to achieve that purpose.  Then there are quadzillions ways to get there.  Some easier than others.

You know, we very often applaud guys like Jordan B. Peterson because he correctly points out that what we want is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  I agree with that 100%.  The problem is we speak those words but we rarely think about them.  We talk about equality of opportunity but how far does that go?  We already have mechanisms for people to go to college, even if they're poor.  We have laws to protect people from racism and sexism.  We have programs to assist all kinds of people in all kinds of ways.  Great.

But what we forget is that any opportunity requires a person to have certain things that not everybody does.  Time, energy, money and health are not apportioned to all in equal measure.  (Well, time passes at the same rate for everybody, but how much of it you have at your disposal is more a function of the other factors.)  I've known 2 income households who honestly are doing the best they can.  I would not insult them by suggesting they could be doing better about living on one income so that the kids could be homeschooled.  Some people live in areas they can't afford on one income and can't just move.  Some people have health issues that result in massive medical debt.  Some people have skills that just aren't in demand and don't have the ability to change that at the moment.  This ain't a small list of exceptions.   

Just now, Vort said:

I guess the "drive to Church" part threw me. Class envy is a cancer in our society, I agree. But I take a dim view of those who wallow in jealousy toward the financially successful.

Well, to be fair, you take a dim view of a lot of people.  :lolsign:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

I guess the "drive to Church" part threw me. Class envy is a cancer in our society, I agree. But I take a dim view of those who wallow in jealousy toward the financially successful.

It's not just about the jealousy toward the financially successful - although that's a plague in our society.  But, it's a lot of church (I should've used small c in the earlier post) folks who believe that if you drive a BMW (or basically have nice things) you're bad because... how many people could have been fed for the price of that BMW.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I agree with all of this, but one also need not homeschool to raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted and well educated children.

I am a homeschooler and a homeschooling proponent, but not a homeschooling evangelist. If you think I am, you are mistaken. I happen to think public schools are potentially very beneficial and probably necessary for us at this time, even though I think they're very poorly implemented.

My point is not that every good parent should homeschool, but that the argument against homeschooling that goes, "We can't homeschool because we desperately need two incomes to keep us afloat, and we depend on the state-run schools to babysit our children so we can make that extra money we need", is mostly bogus. For every time it's valid, there are two or three or five or twenty cases where it's used but it's just a false excuse.

If you want to send your children to public school, then do it. That's your choice, and you get to make it. But don't try to put up some bogus excuse as your reason. Own the decision.

This goes far beyond homeschooling, of course. At its base, it's not even a homeschooling discussion; it's a discussion of priorities.

And I know all about people's personal demons preventing them from achieving what they want and making them more dependent than they should be. You're looking at Example #1.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I am a homeschooler and a homeschooling proponent, but not a homeschooling evangelist. If you think I am, you are mistaken. I happen to think public schools are potentially very beneficial and probably necessary for us at this time, even though I think they're very poorly implemented.

My argument is not that every good parent should homeschool, but that the argument against homeschooling that goes, "We can't homeschool because we desperately need two incomes to keep us afloat, and we depend on the state-run schools to babysit our children so we can make that extra money we need", is mostly bogus. For every time it's valid, there are two or three or five or twenty cases where it's used but it's just a false excuse.

This goes far beyond homeschooling, of course. At its base, it's not even a homeschooling discussion; it's a discussion of priorities.

And I know all about people's personal demons preventing them from achieving what they want and making them more dependent than they should be. You're looking at Example #1.

Yeah the example you shared earlier is a really good one in making that point.  I mostly agree here but, as you already know, I don't agree that the benefit of daycare provided by schools is bogus as often as you might think. 

But we can't really prove that part either way, because I suspect we each have personal experiences that tilt our view one way or the other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, unixknight said:

But what we forget is that any opportunity requires a person to have certain things that not everybody does.  Time, energy, money and health are not apportioned to all in equal measure.  (Well, time passes at the same rate for everybody, but how much of it you have at your disposal is more a function of the other factors.)  I've known 2 income households who honestly are doing the best they can.  I would not insult them by suggesting they could be doing better about living on one income so that the kids could be homeschooled.  Some people live in areas they can't afford on one income and can't just move.  Some people have health issues that result in massive medical debt.  Some people have skills that just aren't in demand and don't have the ability to change that at the moment.  This ain't a small list of exceptions.   

One income or two incomes or even no income is not the choice.  First you have to establish a Purpose.  This is where the problem lies.  Time and attention spent on A means time and attention not spent on B, C, D... So, a person spending time and attention finding money is not spending that attention on something else.  So, what is the Purpose?  If the Purpose is, say, to teach children the gospel, then time and attention spent finding money is time and attention not spent on teaching the gospel.  Make sense?

So, saying "I have no choice"... well, in the USA, there are a quadzillion choices.  But not all of those choices achieve the Purpose.  Because, if the purpose is, say, to teach the gospel to the children, you can get that done living on Trump Tower or in a tent on the streets of San Francisco.

The problem I see is that a lot of people talk about these things with Money as the Purpose.  It is not.  Money is just a TOOL.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

One income or two incomes or even no income is not the choice.  First you have to establish a Purpose.  This is where the problem lies.  Time and attention spent on A means time and attention not spent on B, C, D... So, a person spending time and attention finding money is not spending that attention on something else.  So, what is the Purpose?  If the Purpose is to teach children the gospel, then time and attention spent finding money is time and attention not spent on teaching the gospel.  Make sense?

So, saying "I have no choice"... well, in the USA, there are a quadzillion choices.  But not all of those choices achieve the Purpose.  Because, if the purpose is, say, to teach the gospel to the children, you can get that done living on Trump Tower or in a tent on the streets of San Francisco.

We aren't talking about teaching the Gospel though.  We're talking about public school vs. homeschool.

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

The problem I see is that a lot of people talk about these things with Money as the Purpose.  It is not.  Money is just a TOOL.

So is a screwdriver, but no matter what my purpose is, I can't remove a screw without one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share