Homeschooling

[Duskrider]

Contradictory - if you don't care about those other areas, then you won't have a complete education. And what is your definition of complete education? Does it include English? Art? Social Studies?

 

Please at least try to understand... I don't care about those other areas in her case. My point is not that they're irrelevant in general, it's that just because you're ok in some areas, that doesn't offset problems in areas. If you have a giant missing area in biology, your education is not adequate, no matter how brilliant you are in every other area. I think that should be obvious, since I did say complete education.

 

So yes, English, art, social studies, all of those are important. English literature (not writing... writing is mandatory) and art, less so, because of the subjective nature that means most of it comes down to personal opinion. But at least the basics must be covered.

 

Someone can always upgrade their science courses if they're not sufficient enough - did you think of that?

 

So you concede that the parents are a failure?

 

The whole point of mandatory education is that people don't have to do that on their own. Parents have a responsibility to ensure a proper education for their children, not just blow it off as "well, they can learn it themselves. I mean, how far up does this go? Maybe we should consider basic literacy optional too... after all, you can always learn to read later in life, if you really want to.

 

And this is true whether we're talking about traditional school, homeschooling, whatever. The only argument here is which method does this best.

Again contradictory - we weren't talking about middle-class biology, we're talking about college/university-level science. Read your own posts.

 

I know what my own posts say. Every comment about biology and science have been written at a middle-school level. Maybe high school at best. If you think these basic concepts are from advanced university courses, that's a pretty sad comment on your education.

 

How is that? How have I secured a minimum wage job? I don't see why this has anything to do with the topic. FYI, while I admit I'm not anywhere near the level of education as you, I did complete my Gr. 12 (in public school).

 

Congratulations. You completed the absolute minimum necessary to survive in modern society. Without that high school diploma, you'd be lucky to get even a minimum-wage job.

 

Like it or not, the trend is toward college degrees (or the equivalent technical training) being necessary for pretty much any half-decent job. A high school diploma doesn't get you much beyond a low-end job... I've known at least a couple people who got university degrees and still had trouble getting a job of any kind. One ended up working in a furniture store, with a university psychology degree because the market for decent jobs is so competitive.

 

Like I said, low-skill and unskilled labor are a dead-end option. It's bad for the current generation, and is only going to get worse for future generations. Even if you don't value knowledge for its own sake, you owe your children a proper education so they can get a decent career.

 

 

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

 

 

But really, I can sum up your entire posting history in this thread with one simple phrase: inmates running the asylum.

 

Your utterly absurd argument is that children, who lack the basic knowledge to make an informed decision, should only study the things they want to study, and forget the rest (especially any difficult subjects like math or science). This would be an absolute disaster. Our current system has its problems, yes, but your proposal would turn Canada from a well-educated first-world nation into a third-world hell in a single generation.

 

But like I said, feel free to keep this insane opinion of yours. As long as you don't get your hands on the government to make your idea official policy, it just means less competition for my children.

[Abramul]

Dusk, don't be a blowhard - it's clear that everyone else who posted in this thread doesn't exactly share your views or opinions or beliefs or whatever else you have to throw at us.

I agree with his logic. I also think that it might be an improvement if homeschooling were a privilege rather than a right, although I would note that there are certain criteria which would appear to be forbidden.

 

I disagree with the idea that an educational system should be judged solely on its failures. A case could be made, although I'm not able to make it, that the improved effectiveness at educating those whom the traditional system serves poorly outweighs the potential harm done by those who would use homeschooling to reinforce the ideology that they are already teaching their children.

 

I would also note that a system that turned out a very large proportion of highly qualified, highly motivated people would have its own drawbacks, although these could probably largely be overcome by changes in immigration policy, or by investment in automation.

[Duskrider]

I agree with his logic. I also think that it might be an improvement if homeschooling were a privilege rather than a right, although I would note that there are certain criteria which would appear to be forbidden.

 

 

The main problem is to do this successfully, you pretty much have to turn homeschooling into a private school in all but name. I mean, if you have to do the equivalent of getting your teaching license (to prove you deserve that privilege), why not just get the license, form a one-person private school, and apply for accreditation? This kind of counters two major assumptions of homeschoolers:

 

1) Any random person can do it, not just professional teachers (which is what your privilege would produce).

 

2) Homeschooling provides benefits because of its independence from the restrictions of traditional schools (which you'd have to put in place to make it a privilege).

 

 

Under these circumstances, sure, I'd allow that as a compromise. The accountability factor is included, and only legitimately qualified people are able to do it, ensuring the quality of the education provided. I just doubt many homeschoolers would accept those restrictions.

[1Prelude]

I understand what you say about religion, Dusky. I feel the same way, let's leave religion out of it.

I also am speaking about science, as in using one's head to analyze a given to reach a conclusion.

And continually saying that a person doesn't know what he's talking about, when you fail to provide evidence of your own "qualifications" on the subject is blatantly hypocritical.

 

Over the past 5 years I have gone out of my way to thoroughly educate myself on the subject of life's origins. There are simply far too many gaping holes in the theory of evolution. Sorry, but it's not a hard fact like you would have us believe. Again, this has nothing to do with religion. Believing in divine intervention has no consequence in one's personal religious life.

So yes, please do not bring religion into the debate. Let's simply discuss the validity of the theory of evolution.

[Guest]

From my perspective, I'm still not sure that whether evolution is valid or not is the biggest point of this discussion. To me, the idea that the government should be playing thought police on what parents can tell their kids about evolution is much more disturbing.

[freddycashmercury]

From my perspective, I'm still not sure that whether evolution is valid or not is the biggest point of this discussion. To me, the idea that the government should be playing thought police on what parents can tell their kids about evolution is much more disturbing.

 

The validity of the theory of evolution is what Duskrider's whole argument rests on. If we disprove that, he's got nothing.

[Guest]

No; he'll just come up with a different example. I'm more interested in the underlying principles here.

[1Prelude]

Thus the whole first 3 pages. He was hiding behind the whole evolution bit, making the discussion impossible without addressing the issue. Not that it makes any difference...

[Duskrider]

You know, screw this, I'm tired of these stupid pointless tangents. I'm done replying to the following people:

 

Rob_b:

 

You have contributed nothing to this debate besides your anti-intellectual "let the inmates run the asylum" nonsense. Your contempt for learning is the exact reason we don't let children decide on the content of their schools. While The Wall may be a good album, it is not a good argument. Feel free to come back when you have something constructive to add.

 

 

To everyone trying to argue about evolution:

 

 

Thank you for trying, but you fail. This little hijack of the discussion is over, feel free to make a new thread debating evolution if you wish to continue it. All that is relevant to this debate is the following:

 

1) Homeschooling is expected to meet the same standards of quality as traditional schools. A homeschooling parent is expected to, among other things, act as a science teacher. The job of science teachers is to teach the accepted scientific theories, including biology and evolution.

 

 

2) Evolution is a fact. Gene frequencies in gene pools change over time, producing changes in the phenotypic characteristics of the populations they produce. This is indisputable fact, backed up by vast amounts of empirical evidence from both the fossil record and direct observation and experiment.

 

 

3) The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation for the mechanism that produces these changes. It is a spectacularly successful theory, with massive explanatory power. It generates extremely accurate predictions, and those predictions have been tested experimentally with complete success. There is absoutely no counter-evidence to disprove the theory. The theory is accepted by over 99% of biologists, and is the fundamental principle of all of modern biology. The "controversy" over evolution is exactly the same as the "controversy" over the theory that bacteria cause disease.

 

If you wish to argue that evolution is wrong, and actually get a response, you will first provide me with a link to at least one paper you have published in a peer-reviewed journal of biology. Until then, your opinion has exactly zero value compared to the unanimous agreement of the relevant experts.

 

 

Accuse me of whatever fallacies, cowardly tactics, whatever you feel like. I am simply done arguing evolution with people who obviously lack even a middle-school level understanding of the subject.

 

 

From my perspective, I'm still not sure that whether evolution is valid or not is the biggest point of this discussion. To me, the idea that the government should be playing thought police on what parents can tell their kids about evolution is much more disturbing.

 

It is not disturbing at all. If it was a case of parents refusing to teach their children to read, not only would government intervention not be disturbing, there would be massive outrage if the government did not step in and remove the children from those parents. Evolution is no different. If you wish to take on the responsibility of homeschooling your children, that includes teaching them evolution. If you don't like it, public schools are this way ---->.

 

And continually saying that a person doesn't know what he's talking about, when you fail to provide evidence of your own "qualifications" on the subject is blatantly hypocritical.

 

My own qualifications are not relevant to this discussion. I am not the one trying to overrule the unanimous agreement of every relevant expert.

[freddycashmercury]

If you wish to argue that evolution is wrong, and actually get a response, you will first provide me with a link to at least one paper you have published in a peer-reviewed journal of biology. Until then, your opinion has exactly zero value compared to the unanimous agreement of the relevant experts.

 

But we're not arguing with them, we're arguing with you. Do you have a published paper in a peer reviewed journal of biology? If you do, good for you! If not, then you have no right to force evolution upon us. Your evasion of the question of validity of the theory of evolution says to me that you must have doubts. Why else would you be afraid of us uneducated homeschoolers and my good friend Rob? If a person who doesn't even have a degree in biology can disprove your theory, then shouldn't it be obvious your theory is wrong? Give us a chance to prove you wrong, thereby destroying your main argument.

 

My own qualifications are not relevant to this discussion. I am not the one trying to overrule the unanimous agreement of every relevant expert.

 

Sure they are! If you can force your theory upon us merely because your experts say it is true, then why can't we use our experts to disprove you? Plus, knowing your qualifications could hep your case. Or destroy it. This is not even a good way to approach new ideas. Once upon a time, no one believed in evolution, right? If they had had the same attitude as you, you wouldn't have the original basis for the theory of evolution.

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.