[Baff]

[]I'd love a voucher system. It sucks to pay tax for a service you won't be using.[/]
Uh the vouchers would be paid with tax money for a service you won't be using.

Although you probably did use it at some point, you jerk.

I'm privately educated thanks.
My father paid twice. Once through taxation for a service he did not use and once again independantly for the service he did use.

Of course being the jerk that I am, and recognising that my dad lived in relative poverty to put me through a better school, I feel equally obliged to do the same for my own children.


So I'd like some vouchers please, so that the tax that gets collected from me to pay for my childrens education actually gets spent on my childrens education and not some wanker taxmans million pound pension instead.

[oppose_obama]

I would have done much better being home schooled. first of all both my parents were doctors. second im super smart. once I figured out how to con the system I did so effectively, all the way to law school

[Godstud]

Home-schooling is retarded. No one should be home-schooled unless you want a maladjusted and socially inept child. Very few parents are trained educators, too.

Private schooling is different.

[oppose_obama]

And people who go to public or private schools end up well adjusted and socially cool? Let me google columbine real quick and see how that works out! People are people, some know how to deal with others and some don't. Learning long division with 40 other 9 year old fuckers isn't all that great either.

[Godstud]

Flaws of homeschooling

1. Home schooling is very difficult for parents whose circumstances prevent at least one dedicated parent from giving a very large percentage of his or her time to the home school. While it is fine to argue that a family should always include one full-time parent in the home with time to teach the children, many families find themselves in circumstances which do not permit this.

2. Many parents themselves lack the education that they so earnestly want for their children.

As a consequence, home schooled children have a difficult time rising above the level of academic achievement of their parents.

This is true of many homes in which both parents are college trained and may even have advanced degrees. A large fraction of college graduates, for example, are not trained to do simple calculus a level of academic achievement easily possible for most properly educated sixteen-year-old children. Even parents holding doctoral degrees in mathematics and science are often poorly educated in literature, history, and the foundations of our civilization.

3. Home schooled children cannot attend college and graduate school without exposure to the same evils in American colleges and universities that were a primary reason for taking the children out of the public schools in the first place. There are very few institutions of higher learning where these evils are not pervasive and even fewer which offer high quality educations in such fields as science and engineering.

4. The average level of academic achievement in Christian home schools at present looks good only when compared with the disastrously poor results currently the norm in public schools. While it is true that SAT scores are a little higher for home schools than for public schools, the average public school child comes from a generally poorer home environment and a school environment that is not conducive to learning.
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p56.htm

Seems to be a contradiction about how good SATs are....

Compared to students that are signed up for regular classes, homeschooled kids at times score lower in SAT examinations. Possessing no degree or GED will present little possibility of getting into the army. - or might I add, many other jobs.
http://babytoddles.co.za/homeschooling-flaws/

[Baff]

I prefer a classroom enviroment myself.
For both teaching and studying.

I also feel that homeschooling is limited in breadth. Mum and dad don't combine to hold the same broad spectrum of skills, intresests and passions that will be available for a child to experience in a school. (Mum wants me to be good at maths like her, but I also hope to discover a talent for art...due to my inspirational art teacher.)

Plus, the playground is one of lifes fastest learning enviroments.
Peer pressure motivates.

[Rothbardian]

Home-schooling is retarded. No one should be home-schooled unless you want a maladjusted and socially inept child. Very few parents are trained educators, too.

Private schooling is different.

Its clear you have not done any actual research on this topic.

[Rothbardian]

Canadian literacy rate is 99%, as is the USA. Where are you getting your stats from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... eracy_rate

Those statistics include anyone that can write their own name. What you want to check on is functional literacy.

[Godstud]

Can you post something that shows functional literacy, or something that says that is only "spelling your own name", which is something I highly doubt?

[Baff]

I've taught from ages of 7 and up and have never yet met an illiterate student.

Reading at the very least is typically home schooled. You should not be blaming the school if your child cannot read.

[Rothbardian]

Can you post something that shows functional literacy, or something that says that is only "spelling your own name", which is something I highly doubt?

Empire of Illusion is filled with lots of well researched facts, in the off chance you're actually interested and not a troll.

Some fun facts:

* 7 million Americans are fully illiterate
* 27 million lack the remedial level of literacy required to complete a job application
* 50 million Americans read at a 4th or 5th grade level
* 1/3 of the population is either illiterate or barely literate (this figure is growing at 2 million per year)
* 42% of college graduates do not read another book for the rest of their lives
* 80% of families did not buy or read a single book in 2007
* The average American spends a full 2 months of his or her year watching television

This source:

http://www.phonicsteacher.com/Phonics/A ... Dumber.htm

Claims it's closer to 50%. There was a study done after that book was written, but I can't remember what it was called. You can maybe find it through google. But it was a government study, and it put functional illiteracy at about 50%. Functional illiteracy meaning you cannot read well enough for it to do you any good.

I have more statistics about things like how many teachers send their kids to private schools, how many kids lack basic knowledge, sexual abuse ratings from teachers (it's far worse than the catholic church). But I seriously doubt any of this will put a dent in your faith.

I've taught from ages of 7 and up and have never yet met an illiterate student.

Reading at the very least is typically home schooled. You should not be blaming the school if your child cannot read.

Obviously it's all about which school you're at. These terrible ratings are typically from very poor areas. Because that is who the state shits on the most...the poor.

The original question, of course, was whether you'd be willing to pay $15,000 a year to give a child an 'education' that cannot teach them to read when given 12 years of the child's time. Of course not, that is why it's tax funded.

[Godstud]

That blog you linked to really doesn't give information as to what the sources for the information are.

I don't really want to purchase a book, so can you link to some internet location and not to a book where I cannot verify your sources? I'm not trolling, but merely trying to examine the information you make claims to.

[Joe Liberty]

Flaws of homeschooling

1. Home schooling is very difficult for parents whose circumstances prevent at least one dedicated parent from giving a very large percentage of his or her time to the home school.

All you've shown here is that homeschooling isn't for everyone. So what? Neither are "public" schools. One of the better points in this thread was from ronimacarroni who mentioned that children should be classed based on their personal learning abilities, not artificially by chronological age. The Prussian model that Rei extolls is just a one-size-fits-all worker-bee factory that is also very well suited to the dissemination of state propaganda.

2. Many parents themselves lack the education that they so earnestly want for their children.

As a consequence, home schooled children have a difficult time rising above the level of academic achievement of their parents.

I'd like to see statistics on this, but my first reaction is to call BS. High School subjects don't require "experts" to be taught, they require attention and the ability to read.

3. Home schooled children cannot attend college and graduate school without exposure to the same evils in American colleges and universities that were a primary reason for taking the children out of the public schools in the first place.

Sure, but they're college-aged by that time, not adolescents. If the homeschooling worked they're better able to think for themselves and resist whatever bullshit they may encounter.

4. The average level of academic achievement in Christian home schools at present looks good only when compared with the disastrously poor results currently the norm in public schools. While it is true that SAT scores are a little higher for home schools than for public schools, the average public school child comes from a generally poorer home environment and a school environment that is not conducive to learning.

So despite the alleged flaws you've presented, they're still better than the "public" schools. But since we can't just admit that they're better, we have to blame the children, or the parents, or the environment, or an individual school here or there...anything but the "public" school system itself. I maintain that the system is the problem.

Possessing no degree or GED will present little possibility of getting into the army. [/i] - or might I add, many other jobs.

Some states do award diplomas for homeschooled kids, and I don't know of any state that precludes their taking the GED exam, so this isn't a valid point.

Here's a great website with a ton of info:
http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

[Baff]

The original question, of course, was whether you'd be willing to pay $15,000 a year to give a child an 'education' that cannot teach them to read when given 12 years of the child's time. Of course not, that is why it's tax funded.

I wouldn't be willing to pay anyone to teach my child to read. That's my job. And his mums job. And her mums job. And my mums job.
Writing? Meh, happy to pass the buck.

I've worked in one or two sink schools. Didn't hear of any illiterates.
Is there some standard of illiteracy then?
I had run ins with kids getting chucked out of sink schools. I had run ins with their parents too.
I've met the roughest of the rough and I have to say the government was being extraordinarily nice to them. But the child was screwed. Never had a chance from day one. He is his fathers son. Biffer Bacon from the Biffer Bacon family. Dad looked like Rab C Nesbitt. Son probably does by now too.

Or Straight A Student really nice bloke and teachers pet becomes a dad at 15 and it's all over. Nothing the school can do about it. Come exam times he's going to be up all night feeding baby and then off to work at 16. Bless him.
It's not the state that makes the poor poor. It's themselves.



Is my not wanting to read a book implicit of my incapability to do so?

P.S. Television makes you smart.

[Godstud]

High School subjects don't require "experts" to be taught, they require attention and the ability to read.

Do you know calculus? Most parents never took that when THEY were in high school and yet it's standard fare. Education levels change, and what kids are expected to know now, is more than when you were in school, and it's always changing.

You also seem to think that EVERYONE can teach, which is a delusion that many people hold. Not everyone is a good teacher or knows the different methods of teaching to get the best out of the students.

If the homeschooling worked they're better able to think for themselves and resist whatever bullshit they may encounter.

How are they going to resist something they have never been exposed to? That's like saying a home-schooled person is going to be a better public speaker. It makes no sense. If anything, they would be more susceptible to bullshit, and peer pressure, because they have no experience with it.

So despite the alleged flaws you've presented, they're still better than the "public" schools.

That still seems to be up for debate. Also, a better student doesn't necessarily mean that they're a better person, or that they're more prepared for independence.

Some states do award diplomas for homeschooled kids, and I don't know of any state that precludes their taking the GED exam, so this isn't a valid point.

SOME states... That says it all right there. It couldn't be MORE valid. It limits your child's education because they might not be able to get in the school you want them to(college/Univ.).

P.S. Television makes you smart.

I could not disagree more!!

[oppose_obama]

You would much prefer home schooling over going to the LA public school system.

[Baff]

That would rather depend on who my parents were.

I read stories in the paper about the homeschool student who is accepted into Cambridge at 14 years old about once a decade.
I knew one of them as a child. Brilliant mind, gentle and shy. Aced a load of gameshows on TV. (Got arsed raped and then killed himself).

But more often than this I see stories of homeschooling on TV. The anarchist hippy living on a boat and dole money teaching his kids how to be thick, anti social and useless, just like dad.
Or pikey kids. Growing up to be illiterate and innumerate just like mum and dad. Growing up to be as socially isolated as them. Growing up to follow them into their criminal ways.

Schools teach social conformity. Homeschools do not.

[Joe Liberty]

High School subjects don't require "experts" to be taught, they require attention and the ability to read.

Do you know calculus?

Nope, I was never taught calculus in High School. And haven't had the need for it since, despite being a mainframe systems programmer.

Education levels change, and what kids are expected to know now, is more than when you were in school, and it's always changing.

And if one plans to further one's education, the parents can find a calculus tutor.

You also seem to think that EVERYONE can teach, which is a delusion that many people hold. Not everyone is a good teacher or knows the different methods of teaching to get the best out of the students.

I do think pretty much everyone can teach. I think pretty much everyone can learn on their own, if they know how to read. The delusion is that teaching high school requires an expert. Of course I agree with you that different children require different methods, but that's hardly an endorsement of the "public" school system, where it's one-size-fits-all, top-down education. Who knows a child's learning habits better than her own parents? Not a government employee, that's for sure.

If the homeschooling worked they're better able to think for themselves and resist whatever bullshit they may encounter.

How are they going to resist something they have never been exposed to? That's like saying a home-schooled person is going to be a better public speaker. It makes no sense. If anything, they would be more susceptible to bullshit, and peer pressure, because they have no experience with it.

Who says they have no experience with it? You seem to assume that homeschooled kids are locked in closets until they're 18. They actually get to interact with people of all ages, not just those born in the same year with the same underdeveloped social skills.

So despite the alleged flaws you've presented, they're still better than the "public" schools.

That still seems to be up for debate.

Read the comment to which I posted that response, it admits that homeschooled kids see better academic results, it just tries to rationalize them away.

Also, a better student doesn't necessarily mean that they're a better person, or that they're more prepared for independence.

You can't possibly be arguing that a child attending a "public" school, where he's taught to be like everybody else his age, where he's taught the exact same things in exactly the same way at exactly the same pace, where he's subject to constant peer pressure to act and think like everybody else, will become more independent than a child given individual attention.

Some states do award diplomas for homeschooled kids, and I don't know of any state that precludes their taking the GED exam, so this isn't a valid point.

SOME states... That says it all right there.

Why does that "say it all"?

It couldn't be MORE valid. It limits your child's education because they might not be able to get in the school you want them to(college/Univ.).

You're saying that nothing else limits a kid's choices when choosing a college? Really? They don't have to worry about tuition or travel or room and board, it's all about their GED? I'll say it again: that's not a valid point.

[Godstud]

Nope, I was never taught calculus in High School. And haven't had the need for it since, despite being a mainframe systems programmer.

It is pretty much a pre-requisite in High school, and needed for post-secondary education, despite you "having no need for it" in your chosen field.

And if one plans to further one's education, the parents can find a calculus tutor.

A skilled tutor is not considered homeschooling.

I do think pretty much everyone can teach.

You'd be correct in that assumption, but not everyone can teach WELL, and with no education in teaching. I'd like it if there was a school for parents who want to home-school, though.

You seem to assume that homeschooled kids are locked in closets until they're 18.

Fact. They are not having constant social contact with other people their age.

They actually get to interact with people of all ages, not just those born in the same year with the same underdeveloped social skills.

You mean with their parents...

Read the comment to which I posted that response, it admits that homeschooled kids see better academic results, it just tries to rationalize them away.

I found sources that say homeschooling has better and worse academic results. I am not saying that they can't be better, but I am also saying that a lot depends on the teacher(parent), and that can vary greatly, just as it can in public schools. You saying it's better and that they're trying to rationalize it away is an incorrect assumption.

You can't possibly be arguing that a child attending a "public" school, where he's taught to be like everybody else his age, where he's taught the exact same things in exactly the same way at exactly the same pace, where he's subject to constant peer pressure to act and think like everybody else, will become more independent than a child given individual attention.

The child being home-schooled is not getting independent social experience that the one being taught in a public/private school is getting. The parent controls the entire environment. That is not, in my opinion, conducive to independence.

The child being home-schooled has no exposure to many things which we'd consider bad, but at the same time, if they don't encounter these things, they can't learn from the experience. The same thing happens to children sheltered by their parents, only they often aren't home-schooled, as well, so they aren't absolutely naive.

You're saying that nothing else limits a kid's choices when choosing a college? Really? They don't have to worry about tuition or travel or room and board, it's all about their GED? I'll say it again: that's not a valid point.

We are not DISCUSSING those other factors(tuition, travel, room/board, etc.). You do know what a Strawman Argument is, don't you?

I did not say "nothing else limits a kid's choices", either, so you're addressing a point that I never made. I said,

It limits your child's education because they might not be able to get in the school you want them to(college/Univ.).

[Baff]

I do think pretty much everyone can teach. .

I think everyone can teach, everyone can learn. Some people can learn better than others, some people can teach better than others.
Some people can teach some subjects better than others. Some people can learn some subjects better than others.


But also, not everyone can be taught by everyone.
If you get the wrong teacher for your student, the student will learn nothing. He may even anti-learn if he begins to associate a hated/boring teacher with a particular subject.

In my school career my grades would fluctuate from A to U in the same subject depending, as far as I can tell, only on how well I got on with my current teacher.