[T]his pattern, grade for the sake of a grade, work for the sake of work, can be found everywhere. Ladies and gentlemen, the spirit of intellectual thought is lost. I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble, and certainly not to draw attention to myself. I have accomplished nothing and I am nothing. I know that. Rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls. Today, you should focus on your child or loved one. This is meant to be a day of celebration, and if I’ve taken away from that, I’m sorry. But I know how highly this community values learning, and I urge you all to re-evaluate what it means to be educated.- from a graduation speech by the valedictorian of Mainland Regional High School, Kareem Elnahal, critiquing his school's education process.
In my reflection, however, and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life’s most important questions are ignored here. What is the right way to live? What is the ideal society? What principles should guide my behavior? What is success, what is failure? Is there a creator, and if so, should we look to it for guidance? These are often dismissed as questions of religion, but religion is not something opposed to rationality, it simply seeks to answer such questions through faith. The separation of church and state is, of course, important, but it should never be a reason for intellectual submission or suppression of any kind.Religion has no place in school. Full stop. Ethics? Philosophy? Bring it on.
The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.posted by spacewaitress at 9:52 AM on July 5, 2006
cdavidc: To quote Bill Hicks, "You are all fucking sheep, Baaa Baaa".Heh... when I first read this (which I mostly agree with), I thought it was posted by davidmsc and couldn't help thinking "Who the hell spiked his coffee this morning?!" :)
Kill your TV
"Again, my deepest apologies, God help me."Public flameout, public apology --> dramatic teen aged angst --> ill considered self harm, or attempt?
Second, most schools (both private and public) tend to segregate kids not by "similar" age, not even by similar academic level, but in groups where everyone is born within one year. I fail to see how this really prepares kids for interacting with people older and younger than themselves (assume no siblings, as not all kids have them). In the real world, I know of no offices populated exclusively by 32 year olds.As someone who was homeschooled for most of high school, that's something that actually made the transition into "the real world" a hell of a lot easier for me. I was used to working with people who were not like me -- in opinions, ages, levels of intelligence, family backgrounds, etc. Maybe I was an exception -- I certainly did know some of the 'stereotypical homeschoolers' that people in this thread talk about. But I had friends who self-destructed in public school, too. And I worked on collaborative projects that involved a lot of people from different religions, so the 'Christian Bubble' didn't apply quite as much.
The teacher has thus become, in the vast majority of cases, a civil servant obliged to carry out the behests of men who have not his learning, who have no experience of dealing with the young, and whose only attitude toward education is that of the propagandist.Which is exactly why I no longer teach public school. Many upthread have mentioned John Taylor Gatto, who has been doing seminal research into the origins of modern schooling. He sums up much of the danger nicely:
The new dumbness is particularly deadly to middle and upper-middle class people, who have already been made shallow by the multiple requirements to conform. Too many people, uneasily convinced that they must know something because of a degree, diploma, or license, remain so convinced until a brutal divorce, alienation from their children, loss of employment, or periodic fits of meaninglessness manage to tip the precarious mental balance of their incomplete humanity.posted by LooseFilter at 2:49 PM on July 5, 2006 [1 favorite]
This sentence alone says that you and I are having very different experiences wrt homeschoolers.I'd just say that your experience is a lot narrower than some of the other posters. The homeschooling experience is about as varied as it gets, and it seems obvious that you're talking about the particular slice you've witnessed directly. Of the crowd that I hung out with in high school, one shipped off to study math and crypto. A few are successful software developers. Another works in construction, and does studio recording work in his spare time. Another became a midwife, and skydives. Another went to Russia for a bunch of relief work. Some went on to college -- some had trouble transitioning, others didn't. Some of them have done crazy and impressive things, others haven't, others are still trying to figure out where they're going.
Perhaps homeschool advocates could tell me why parents who want to homeschool should not be licensed by the state the same way public educators are? Surely parents so clever and talented with natural gifts for educating children would have no trouble with the state/national teaching exams.Different philosophy. The idea advanced by most homeschoolers is that the teacher should be a guide and resource person -- someone who shapes and directs the curriculum rather than drilling a bunch of data into the kid's head. In some cases, that meant working with local school districts so that kids could take classes at public schools in subjects where parents didn't have the necessary experience. In others, it meant taking courses at the local community college. In others, it meant finding a local parent who was an expert in their field to teach a semi-regular class.
I react violently against it because I have seen first hand the results when patently unqualified parents believe themselves to be educators.As do I, but for different reasons. I was home schooled. After being taught how to read, the education my parents saw fit to give consisted of reading the bible for six hours a day. The other home schooled families we were friends with did the same thing. Other books were by and large forbidden, or at least generally ignored. I gave myself a decent vocabulary by reading Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language cover-to-cover. As a teen, I frequently snuck off on my bicycle to the city library to read for as many hours as I could sneak in a day, despite the threat of being "corrected with the rod" if I was caught (viz., beaten with a length of wood until my god-fearing father's arm tired.) I didn't know what dating was, since I was to be married to the daughter of another home school family once we were both old enough, and no doubt given an abbreviated sex education moments before walking down the aisle. I fled at eighteen, and thanks only to a willingness to spend every waking moment learning and educating myself (and good timing with the dot-com boom) I survived the early years of being on my own. My siblings, three of whom are adults, still live at home with mommy and daddy, have never worked a day in their life, and are slated to marry other godly christians. How they will go on living is quite beyond me, what with them possessing no skills or knowledge beyond those that the Council of Nicea decided to keep.
did you have to get a GED? Or were you granted a diploma of some sort by the state? Did you have to take standardized exams?It's been a while (over a decade now, yikes) but I do remember state tests as well as some other standardized stuff through a place in Washington that we obtained some of our curriculum from. Then SATs as I was trying to figure out what I wanted to major in, etc.
That's a fallacious argument. There's children of drug addicts or abusive parents that made it to university just fine.So... because drug addicts and child abusers can have smart kids, we shouldn't consider academic performance a good metric for measuring academic performance? That's... unique. Abusive parents are obviously not protected by some impenetrable right to parent however they see fit. Neither are home schoolers free to abuse their children. What's unsettling is that you seem to see the act of educating one's children in a different setting -- regardless of the outcome -- as inherently abusive.
I can't see anything healthy about keeping your kids at home all day with only a few outings among carefully selected people that share your exact same worldview.Yeah, totally. And public school is a parade of students having sex in the halls and shooting up between classes. As I said earlier in the thread, I think there are healthy and positive ways to homeschool, as well as unhealthy and destructive ways.
So even sending your kids to school with kids of other people who may have their own different values becomes a threat to your world view.Some people really, really wig out at the concept of home schooling, and it's essentially impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them about the subject. If that's the only motivation you can imagine for home schooling, all you've established is that you should not home school anyone, under any circumstances.
I honestly thought this was one of the main attractions/features of homeschooling. If you're going to get into non-school sports, clubs, bands, cheering, etc... then... well... why not just go to school???It depends on the family, really. Some wanted to keep their child insulated from the 'indoctrination' of the Liberal Teachers Unions. Others saw the local public school as a partner/resource, and attended classes part-time. That's part of the difficulty: there are as quite a few schools of thought and approaches to teaching. Some are 'tiny little schools' complete with blackboard lessons and assignments. Others mirror montessori style approaches. Some are all about 'unschooling,' an approach that lets kids follow their interests with the parent as a facilitator/resource gatherer. I have a lot of concerns about the latter, but I know a number of people who've had great experiences with it and turned out pretty well.
(As far as my own child, the plan currently is to do public school along with after school plans at somewhere like Sylvan or similar. I have a good friend who has had simply amazing results with Sylvan.) At least we have a few years to prepare.I've generally seen that a kid with an active, engaged parent who cares about them and invests in them and is involved in their schooling is going to have a pretty equal chance whether they're home schooled or go to public school. It sounds like thought you're already giving it will put your kid in a good position.
« Older Tourfilter:... | Ken Lay... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 7:17 AM on July 5, 2006 [1 favorite]