Homeschooling

[1Prelude]

Alright. You make good points which I have read and will give further thought to. You also make points which I strongly disagree with. This is alright, however.

One last point on evolution: until we are through a thorough debate in which both you and I hear what each other has to say, we must agree to disagree, and leave the matter to rest.

You are correct in that there is an element of risk involved in homeschooling. I am sure that not every student of homeschooling has turned out a success story, but here are a few cases personally close to me:

 

Sister #1 - University course in small business management, running a bakery.

 

Sister #2 - Soon to take psychology and child development courses to start a home for troubled youth

 

Brother - Computer techie running a sales and repair business

 

Friend 1 - Catholic priest

 

Friend 2 - Ski instructor

 

Friend 3 - Strongly involved in federal politics, has personal offers from various MP's to work in their offices

 

Friend 4 (Actually one of those "social disaster" cases) - Training as a pilot, eventually to fly for airlines

 

Myself - Fitness instructor, and enrolled as an officer in Royal Military College, (technically a university) after which will be enlisted as a fighter pilot.

 

So yes, there are a few examples of which I would hardly classify as failures. So you are right, there is a risk, but on a percent basis the homeschooling success rate is quite high.

 

Anyhow, I'm off for now.

Thank you for discussing this in a civil manner! It has been conducive to better, more clear reasoning.

[Duskrider]

Alright. You make good points which I have read and will give further thought to. You also make points which I strongly disagree with. This is alright, however.

One last point on evolution: until we are through a thorough debate in which both you and I hear what each other has to say, we must agree to disagree, and leave the matter to rest.

 

No we must not agree to disagree. Since you are an expert in neither biology nor science in general, your opinion is irrelevant to this question. In the case of general science education, two things are important:

 

1) You teach what the experts in the field say is the correct theory (or theories). General education is not the time for exploring alternatives. Once you become an expert yourself, you are qualified to make informed decisions about alternative theories... but not before then. Evolution just happens to be the easiest test case, since it has both unanimous agreement among the experts and a significant percentage of the general population opposed to it.

 

2) The experts in biology say that evolution is the correct theory. There is no debate here. The only "controversy" comes from non-scientists, and the opinion of non-scientists on a question of science is about as relevant as my dog's opinion. My dog, by the way, agrees that evolution is correct... intelligent design and creationism are clearly wrong, because if there was any guiding intelligence, plants would grow proper steaks, not those gross fruit things.

 

Conclusion: if you wish to teach science, you teach evolution. If you wish to homeschool, you have to teach science, and by extension, biology and evolution. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, you are not qualified to teach science. And since to homeschool your children, you have to be qualified in all areas (since there is no backup teacher to cover the others), if you fail the test of science, you fail the test in general.

 

Conclusion: the average person is not qualified to homeschool their children, and the job should be left to the professionals who are qualified.

 

 

You are correct in that there is an element of risk involved in homeschooling. I am sure that not every student of homeschooling has turned out a success story, but here are a few cases personally close to me:

 

*cases*

 

So yes, there are a few examples of which I would hardly classify as failures. So you are right, there is a risk, but on a percent basis the homeschooling success rate is quite high.

 

 

Ever hear of a little concept called "confirmation bias"? How about a saying in statistics: "the plural of annecdote is not data". Look these up.

 

 

Of course given your use of "Royal", I see you're not in the US. I guess things may be different in other countries, and the rate of successful and qualified homeschoolers may be higher. Over here, I can immediately rule out well over half of them based on evolution alone (this is why I use it... opposition to teaching evolution is a huge problem here), and I can safely say that most of the rest are idiots as well.

 

This still doesn't change the basic point about accountability though... it's still a problem. Just in your case, in your country, maybe homeschoolers as a whole are able to succeed despite that problem. I still don't approve of the idea in general, even when it works sometimes, there's nothing to stop that from changing.

 

 

 

By the way, good luck with the flying fighter jets thing, I wish I could do that myself. Sadly I have to settle for designing them and flying a less impressive plane. If you're lying about this though.... I will catch you at it. Just a friendly bit of advice.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

Duskrider, don't be a fool - you obviously are not qualified to talk to normal, "non-scientists", as you so put it, so don't lecture us about why you think teaching should be left up to professionals. Just because you have (or may not have, IDK) a university degree in whatever, doesn't give you the right to force what I refer to as your views on others. And don't give me this "evolution vs. creationism" bullsh*t, I'm not buying it. If that's the only thing you can use to back up your statements, then there's really nothing to discuss, is there?

 

I believe, no, I know, that people have a right to choose their own path in life, and they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. Your blatant ignorance of these facts proves you cannot speak to non-scientists. This isn't a discussion of "those who can't teach fully, so we must leave it up to those who can", but rather "how is the best way we can teach our children so they can lead us into a prosperous future". Your indifference to others' views only hopes to create more division.

 

Besides, who in hell is gonna give a rat's fat ass about evolution (and science in general), hmm? Not I. (Mind you I have no qualms about it being taught, just that you make it sound like it should be mandatory learning.) The only time science should ever be taught is if that's something someone wants to learn, not that they have to learn. I don't see what your point is about why you dislike homeschooling so much that it should be abolished. Doing so only violates the 1st Amendment. (I know that's not what you said, but I'm getting the feeling that's what you might think.)

[Duskrider]

Duskrider, don't be a fool - you obviously are not qualified to talk to normal, "non-scientists", as you so put it, so don't lecture us about why you think teaching should be left up to professionals.

 

There isn't some magical qualification required to talk to non-scientists. All you need is an understanding of the material, something I have.

 

But anyway, my qualifications are not the issue. I happily admit that I am not qualified to be a teacher. In fact, this is exactly my point... if even I, with my education far beyond what many people get, am not qualified for the job, very few people are. This whole idea that any random person can do the job as well as the professionals is just a myth.

 

Just because you have (or may not have, IDK) a university degree in whatever, doesn't give you the right to force what I refer to as your views on others.

 

Last time I checked, I'm not forcing my view on anyone.

 

If you are talking about this thread, no views are being forced at all. If you disagree with me, feel free to post your reasons. The only thing view I am refusing to allow is the religious argument that is against forum rules. If you feel that there is a scientific theory that should be taught instead of evolution, I would like to hear it. Because that's what the point is about, scientific theories and whether the average homeschooler is qualified to teach them.

 

If you are talking about my "leave it to the professionals" position, I'm not forcing my view on anyone. I'm forcing the view of virtually every legitimate biologist on people. The only people who have a right to an opinion about what is taught in science class are the scientists who actually know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. If you don't like it, too bad, that's exactly why we don't let people like you run our schools.

 

Though really, I don't know why I care. I almost have my nice college degree and engineering license. I'm not the one who has to be worrying... I'll quite happily move somewhere less backwards, and watch you people flush this pathetic waste of a country down the toilet. It's kind of amusing, really, how efficiently you will undo everything that has given you your nice comfortable modern life.

 

And don't give me this "evolution vs. creationism" bullsh*t, I'm not buying it. If that's the only thing you can use to back up your statements, then there's really nothing to discuss, is there?

 

Have you even bothered to read my posts, or do you just plan to flame me?

 

The argument that the average person is qualified to teach in every area is the core premise of homeschooling. To undermine this assumption, all I need is one area where the average person fails. And, a point highlighted by pretty much every other poster in this thread, the average person is very clearly not qualified to teach biology. The conclusion: homeschooling doesn't work.

 

I could keep adding more possible failures of homeschooling until my keyboard wears out, but I don't need to. All I need is one area where homeschooling fails, and I win. Until you manage to disprove my argument about evolution, I don't need to provide any more.

 

I believe, no, I know, that people have a right to choose their own path in life, and they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. Your blatant ignorance of these facts proves you cannot speak to non-scientists.

 

You have a right to choose your own path in life once you are an adult and can make an informed decision. To suggest that we should let the children run their own schools is just absurd.

 

And you do not have a right to choose the path for your children. The issue here is parents acting as a substitute for the traditional schools, and this means living up to the same standards. Homeschooling is NOT a license to teach whatever you feel like. That's incredibly irresponsible, and any parents who do this should permanently lose custody of their children and be thrown in prison for child abuse. Failing to give your child a proper education is one of the worst things you can do to them, and deserves no respect.

 

This isn't a discussion of "those who can't teach fully, so we must leave it up to those who can", but rather "how is the best way we can teach our children so they can lead us into a prosperous future". Your indifference to others' views only hopes to create more division.

 

 

Fine. You want to "lead us into a prosperous future", and don't care about learning for the sake of learning?

 

Get your children advanced degrees in science, math, and engineering.

 

Or even better, don't. That way my children won't have any competition for the jobs that will improve both themselves and society as a whole. They will be quite happy to have your children around to ask them if they want paper or plastic bags for their groceries. Seriously, if you actually pay attention to trends in the global economy, you would realize just how critical math and science are right now.

 

Besides, who in hell is gonna give a rat's fat ass about evolution (and science in general), hmm? Not I. (Mind you I have no qualms about it being taught, just that you make it sound like it should be mandatory learning.) The only time science should ever be taught is if that's something someone wants to learn, not that they have to learn.

 

 

Ah, I see. You're one of those humanities types that can ask me if I want fries with my hamburger, but do it with a perfect understanding of the literary implications of my desire to eat that hamburger. It's people like you that are completely trashing our educational system right now. You are the reason the rest of the world laughs at us as they steal all of our jobs.

 

The purpose of school is not to be fun, or to tell you what you want to hear. The purpose of it is to give you a solid foundation for the rest of your life, and that means you just have to deal with it and learn the subjects you may not like. Mandatory learning is exactly what I expect... and if you think it stops at just evolution, you're entirely wrong. My ideal school system is one that children will hate, but once they get out in the real world, they will be thankful for it.

 

 

I don't see what your point is about why you dislike homeschooling so much that it should be abolished. Doing so only violates the 1st Amendment. (I know that's not what you said, but I'm getting the feeling that's what you might think.)

 

Well, it looks like your legal knowledge is just as lacking as your scientific knowledge. There is absolutely nothing in the first amendment that gives a right to homeschooling. Allow me to quote it:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

Is homeschooling a religion? No. Therefore banning it neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of one (note that this is not an absolute right: my Church Of Killing People and Taking Their Stuff is prohibited just fine).

 

Is homeschooling a question of freedom of speech? No. Removing your children from mandatory schools is not an act of speech. You are, however, permitted to whine about it all you want.

 

Is homeschooling a question of freedom of the press? No. Last time I checked, forcing your children to go to school does not stop you from printing all of the whiny complaints you feel like.

 

Does banning homeschooling remove your right to assemble? No. You may assemble all you like, but you will still bring your children to the public school.

 

Does banning homeschooling prevent you from petitioning the government? No.

 

So please, tell me exactly which imaginary first amendment you are talking about that provides you with a right to homeschool your children.

[Guest]

Duskrider, why are governmental bodies more qualified to decide what children are taught than parents (and especially why should they be given absolute, unbreakable power over such)? What control should parents have over their kids? And what about the fact that many of these "average" creationists that you speak of are products of the public school system?

[Duskrider]

Duskrider, why are governmental bodies more qualified to decide what children are taught than parents (and especially why should they be given absolute, unbreakable power over such)?

 

The difference is their qualifications and training. Do you actually know how hard it is to become a teacher? You need a university degree in education (and to teach at a higher level, in your specific subject as well), you need real-world experience as a student-teacher under close supervision, and then finally you need to get your teaching license (mandatory like a medical or engineering license). And even once you have all that, you can still be fired for poor performance, refusal to teach the material, etc.

 

Compare this to parents, where there are essentially zero laws regulating homeschooling. As long as you can pass the standardized tests (a pathetic requirement that my dog could probably meet), nothing else matters.

 

So yeah, I'd say the formal school is a lot more likely to do the job well.

 

 

What control should parents have over their kids?

 

 

In the case of their education, very little. They have some ability to teach things in addition to their formal education, as long as they aren't teaching deliberate falsehoods (such as creationism). If they abuse this control to teach false information, they deserve to lose their kids, permanently.

 

And what about the fact that many of these "average" creationists that you speak of are products of the public school system?

 

Ok, the system is a failure in many ways. Now, we have two choices:

 

1) Try to fix the system.

 

2) Scrap it entirely, and replace it with something worse.

 

I'll let you figure out which choice you prefer.

[Guest]

Do you actually know how hard it is to become a teacher?

Shockingly, yes. It isn't classified info. Besides, my mother has taught at all levels -- grade school, high school, at university as a GTA. And, also, as a homeschooling parent. I am well aware of what the state requires to be a teacher, and I am also well aware that such qualifications do not always line up with what is required to actually be a good teacher.

 

Compare this to parents, where there are essentially zero laws regulating homeschooling.

Assuming there were, they would be/are based on the same standardized tests that public schools use. Now even if you come back with 'standardized tests suck' again, that doesn't answer the heart of the matter. Even if they do, they're what the institutions you're upholding currently use, and yet still, on average, homeschoolers score higher than public schoolers. By the set standards of the government, the body you claim is the most qualified to decide what children should learn, homeschooling generally does the job better.

 

 

Also, verbose answers though you may give, they didn't really answer my questions. Why are governmental bodies more qualified than individual parents to decide what children should learn?

 

In the case of their education, very little. They have some ability to teach things in addition to their formal education, as long as they aren't teaching deliberate falsehoods (such as creationism). If they abuse this control to teach false information, they deserve to lose their kids, permanently.

This seems a horribly dangerous possibility to me. It actually makes me shiver a bit. You worry so much about giving parents too much control over children, but you don't have even a moment's hesitation about giving the government even more control than that over them?

 

Ok, the system is a failure in many ways. Now, we have two choices:

 

1) Try to fix the system.

 

2) Scrap it entirely, and replace it with something worse.

 

I'll let you figure out which choice you prefer.

Again, this doesn't answer the question. So far your fix seems to be "ban homeschooling." How does this solve for the multiple past and present public school turnouts who, despite all that fancy larnin' and those sooper trained teachers, decide that creationism is the truth? Your standard doesn't even seem to be met by your own system.

 

Edit: Bit of a late edit, but I just got back on the computer. I'd also point out that what you present above is a false dichotomy. Allowing homeschooling does not mean scrapping the public school system; nor does it mean that we cannot work to improve that system.

[Abramul]

Duskrider, what is your opinion on homeschooling for the elementary school grades? I don't really recall what the curriculum was, but I don't think it had much in the way of (complex) hard science.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

"Yes, I want to flame you" - what kind of reason is that? If I wanted to do that, you would know - I'm only here to point out the fallacies of your statements:

 

1. The reason I point out you're not qualified to talk to non-scientists is because the only language you obviously speak is university science. Just because you know more, doesn't mean you have a right to talk down to anyone who doesn't share you views (and baffle them with what you saying to them).

 

2. You clearly are imposing your views upon everyone else - otherwise, why start this debate in the first place? And if that's the case, why do it, and then take a backseat while you watch those you tried to convince earlier "flush this pathetic waste of a country down the toilet". Taking a stance like means that eventually, your so-called cushy life will be flushed away too.

 

3. What exactly are the downfalls of homeschooling, and please, share every other reason you apparently know why. Cause from what I see, the only failure you pointed out isn't as important to the average Joe as someone who is/wants to be a scientist/chemist/biologist/paleontologist/etc.

 

4. If we were to impose, quote "Failing to give your child a proper education is one of the worst things you can do to them...any parents who do this should permanently lose custody of their children and be thrown in prison for child abuse", this sort of sentence, we may as well throw every other teacher in prison too, because they're not fairing any better either.

 

5. If I recall, I never said I didn't want to learn - in fact I never said anything to of the sort. So, please don't make me say things I never said.

 

5. By all means, make you children become exactly what you are - as far as I can tell, they'd just be as arrogant and indifferent. And while my children are being welcomed by the community, you're children are being loathed by everyone else (as you are now)

 

6. Why am I suddenly the reason the world laughs at you? I'm a Canadian, you're an American, you don't need a science degree to figure out why.

 

7. *sigh* You still fail to see that what you're proposing is nothing short of communism; I mean, c'mon, what exactly are you trying to prove, hmm? If we were to impose mandatory learning, everyone would be of the same mindset, and it wouldn't be good for anything really, because creativeness, free-thinking, and imagination would cease to exist. As I said, we'd all be mindless robots.

 

8. You clearly have no idea about what is actually going on in the world - last time I checked, math and science weren't on my list of things to do before getting a job. While math is important for everyone, science is less important for the common person to learn (unless as I said they wanted to get into science-related fields at university/college). There is no critical need to learn science (math perhaps), so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Duskrider]

Duskrider, what is your opinion on homeschooling for the elementary school grades? I don't really recall what the curriculum was, but I don't think it had much in the way of (complex) hard science.

 

It's more acceptable than trying to do it for their entire education, but not by all that much. The main reason is just that the early grades are less critical, so there's more room for error. I left it out because it seems like most homeschoolers want to go all the way, including the important later grades. I could possibly see a compromise where the early grades are done at home, and the later, more specific grades are done in a traditional school, but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of homeschooling.

 

 

 

====================

 

 

And Variant, I'll get to your stuff later today. I need to look over your statistics in more detail, and that'll take a while. These other posts are just faster to reply to.