Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

not sure how i feel about this. i do feel that a minimum level of education should be manditory for homeschool teachers, but why does it have to be a teaching degree? so...like...if your parents each have a phd, but not in teaching, they are not fit to teach.

I can understand the reasoning behind this, but I do think its bullshit though, from a "peronal rights" piont of view. If a parent wants to raise their kid to be an ignoramus, then so be it. Besides, aren't most home-schooled kids from religious families?

My wife's side of the family (a cousin) has some serious born-again bible-beaters who happen to home school their two daughters, her (the mother) response to this was "this is wrong, why do people pass judgement on things they're ignorant and fearful about." Which is hilarious, since she's against giving gays and lesbians equal rights.

What does this have to do with gays?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What does this have to do with gays? Ha. Funny.

Anyways, fascist mother****ers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ha. Funny.

Anyways, fascist mother****ers.

Is "Fascist" your word of the week?

Originally posted by BackFire
Is "Fascist" your word of the week?

If by "week" you mean "ever" and by "word of the" "word I use when it feels appropriate" then no. That sentence doesn't make one piece of ****ing sense you idiot.

Personally I think public or private schools are better for a child then home teaching but it is (as Robtard said) a bullshit law to pass.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If by "week" you mean "ever" and by "word of the" "word I use when it feels appropriate" then no. That sentence doesn't make one piece of ****ing sense you idiot.

Tard.

You've used Fascist like 40 times this week. Sound like a damn highschooler who just found out what the word meant and wants to apply it to everything you hear about that you don't like ****** ass son of a *****, ****. Go back to hot topic so you can call the local mall security guard a fascist, stop having sex with children.

That sentance is perfect English you foreigner, learn the language damn it. It makes perfect sense.

Why do you make me rape you?

why doesnt the states just keep children at birth. The Government already tells people how to raise children and now you are forced to let the states brainwash them. It really doesn't take that much knowledge to teach children basic subjects. Considering that many high school graduates have reading and math skills at only an 8th grade level, where as children that are home schooled are often at college reading and math levels by freshman year of high school. Perhaps the teachers should be forced to have higher degree's

That's ****ing stupid and ridiculous.

If as a parent, I want to raise my student away from the public school system and essentially home school them, that is entirely my prerogative.

Besides, the public school system sucks as it is.

I used to be homeschooled. I actually learned a lot. My parents don't have teaching degrees, but they each have a considerable college background in science, math, etc. I homeschooled for ten years until I started attending an early college high school last year. There weren't any gaps in my education as far as I could tell, even compared to the people who had been in public or private schools most of their lives.

On the other hand, I know plenty of ultra-conservative, illogical, crazy homeschool families that made homeschooling into a secondary religion. They usually had parents who homeschooled because they thought it was more important for their kids to choose their own education...meaning if the homeschooler wants to read Harry Potter for eight hours for his school time, that is part of his development. They had come to all these conclusions with help from each other and none of them had more than two years of college in their education. How retarded is that?

But I'm still waiting for an answer to schecter's question.Originally posted by Schecter
not sure how i feel about this. i do feel that a minimum level of education should be manditory for homeschool teachers, but why does it have to be a teaching degree? so...like...if your parents each have a phd, but not in teaching, they are not fit to teach.

I wonder where the rights of parents to own their children ends and the rights of the children to own themselves begins?

Originally posted by BackFire
Tard.

You've used Fascist like 40 times this week. Sound like a damn highschooler who just found out what the word meant and wants to apply it to everything you hear about that you don't like ****** ass son of a *****, ****. Go back to hot topic so you can call the local mall security guard a fascist, stop having sex with children.

That sentance is perfect English you foreigner, learn the language damn it. It makes perfect sense.

Why do you make me rape you?

Bardock, does it ever feel weird that BackFire likes to keep such close tabs on you? I'd be creeped...

Motherfukers.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Bardock, does it ever feel weird that BackFire likes to keep such close tabs on you? I'd be creeped... I'm used to it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Tard.

You've used Fascist like 40 times this week. Sound like a damn highschooler who just found out what the word meant and wants to apply it to everything you hear about that you don't like ****** ass son of a *****, ****. Go back to hot topic so you can call the local mall security guard a fascist, stop having sex with children.

That sentance is perfect English you foreigner, learn the language damn it. It makes perfect sense.

Why do you make me rape you? You would say that. You're a fascist.

Originally posted by Devil King
I wonder where the rights of parents to own their children ends and the rights of the children to own themselves begins?

When they turn 18.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What does this have to do with gays?

If you can't see the humor in what is happening to her in regards to what see said and her stance on others rights, then... I don't know.

This is just my experience, but the only homeschooled person I know is this ultra-right wing girl who's parents pulled her out of school because I was questioning her religion to much.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is just my experience, but the only homeschooled person I know is this ultra-right wing girl who's parents pulled her out of school because I was questioning her religion to much.

I believe that statistically, most home-schooled kids come from religious households.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe that statistically, most home-schooled kids come from religious households.

I would assume that streotypically but I'm not sure that matters. You should be able to raise your kids as you please.

Hell, most people don't leave high school with great understandings of math and science (which I would guess is the biggest concern).

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm used to it.

You would say that. You're a fascist.

Not the point!

Originally posted by Robtard
When they turn 18.

I'm not talking about the age where they become responsible for their own actions, I'm talking about the irrelevant-to-age concept that children don't have to be what their parents want them to be. Which, typically, means little mental clones of the parents who think and act exactly the way the parent does.

So, at what point does the interest of a well-rounded and open minded person outweigh parental ownership and indoctrination?

I was homeschooled for four years.

From second grade to sixth grade.

I had severe learning problems in school because I was worse than a text book example of the type 1 ADHD listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder

I needed special attention and care. That could not be provided in a public school and my parents could not afford a private tutor.

I don't know how my mother did it, but she single handedly helped me get better control of myself and taught me.

If I would have stayed in homechool, I could have been done with high school in just a year and a half and could have started college at the age of 13.

When I went back into school in the sixth grade, I tested at or slightly below grade 14 for all categories except for reading comprehension. (Meaning, I tested at a college sophomore level on the national standardized test.) I tested lower in reading comprehension because, just like all standardized tests, the multiple choice answers provided are not exactly correct and there is no option "E" where you can write in your own answer.

I was given the option to forgo all of middle school and start in high school...and then from there I could have taken these state tests that would allow me to get credit for each state required high school classes to get credit for that course. I believe most states have this option. Of course, I wanted to play football, so I chose to stay in my peers age group. My mother urged me to forget about football and think more long term and I rejected that...probably the stupidest thing I have EVER done in my life. In the end, I tore muscles in my left ankle and never got a change beyond making the first cut at a division one college.



Why did I put all of that up here?

Simple.

IF the parents can handle it, even a learning disabled child can greatly excel in homeschool. Homeschool CAN be the best form of education only if the parent knows what they are doing. If any of you went to a public school, you know that the courses run very slow and the material is dummied down to be generic enough for all the students. In homeschool, this does not have to be the case and the student can work as fast as they want to. School books cost ALOT but you can forgo any books aimed at children and go straight to university textbooks. As long as the parent is capable of adequately explaining the material, even the average child can adapt and learn quickly.

Again, I can see the merit to both sides of the story in this situation. Similar to what Robtard said, most the homeschoolers I knew were homeschooled because their parents were highly religious and some of them creeped me out.


Alright, comence the insults.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not talking about the age where they become responsible for their own actions, I'm talking about the irrelevant-to-age concept that children don't have to be what their parents want them to be. Which, typically, means little mental clones of the parents who think and act exactly the way the parent does.

So, at what point does the interest of a well-rounded and open minded person outweigh parental ownership and indoctrination?
That's a very good question.

I'd assume it's the same age when for instance, the child can say what parent they want to be with in the case of a divorce in court. I'm not sure what that age is, but whatever age it is when you as a child, can make a clear decision based on what you want.

It varies from state to state, but the most common answer I found was 12.

I do actually very much agree with the idea that it is part of the purpose of school to not only teach but also to open up a child to ideas and exoeriences beyond their parents. It's a very horrible thing for a child to be suffused in the world of their family and nothing else.

Meanwhile,,, I find it hard to objct to parents wanting to homeschool having to be actually qualified to do it, because otherwise the risk is that the child suffers, and the childs cannot do anything about it. There is nothing wrong with professionalising a sector. And yes, you can have a phD and be a lousy teacher.

I also think it is hard to argue with the logic behind the law that is at the centre of all this- a law requiring all children to go to a properly credentialled school. That's a perfectly reasonable law encompassing a very positive conceot.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I do actually very much agree with the idea that it is part of the purpose of school to not only teach but also to open up a child to ideas and exoeriences beyond their parents. It's a very horrible thing for a child to be suffused in the world of their family and nothing else.

Meanwhile,,, I find it hard to objct to parents wanting to homeschool having to be actually qualified to do it, because otherwise the risk is that the child suffers, and the childs cannot do anything about it. There is nothing wrong with professionalising a sector. And yes, you can have a phD and be a lousy teacher.

I also think it is hard to argue with the logic behind the law that is at the centre of all this- a law requiring all children to go to a properly credentialled school. That's a perfectly reasonable law encompassing a very positive conceot.
I agree with the beginning to an extent. It is the purpose of school to teach you about experiences and ideas to enrich the learning process, but sadly, from my own public school experience, that just simply isn't the case. You don't learn to think or be creative or be intuitive in school. You don't learn to look beyond the box and be praised for intellectualism. Instead, you are trained to memorize, memorize and memorize. You are taught that the only way to succeed in life is to go through school and work. Work. Work. Work.

Granted, I'm not saying homeschool would be any better nor private school for that matter (although I'd assume a private school would be the best opportunity out there because it is a private school -- you don't have to have a dumbed down general curriculum). However, that alternative should definitely be allowed and encouraged. Freedom is the key here.

Ok but at the same time it's not as if a parent often does not have the best interest of the child at hand.

It's not as if public schools put up a great argument for not using homeschooling nowadays.

Well that's more of an argument ti re-focus the aims of the school system.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a certain responsibility here to make sure children are properly taught and the only way to try and ensure that is to make sure they have credentialled teachers. If you do not ensure that then you will be actively conniving in denying some children an education- not just failing to give them one, actively making sure they do not. That's not acceptable.

Home schooling- ok. But it's not an excuse for the teacher- parent or otherwise- to be an amateur. Far too many kids will be hurt by that.

Having a teaching degree doesn't mean that you can teach every subject. Saying that, having a teaching degree in this country means very little.

I believe that if the child wants to be home schooled and the parents want to home school them, there's no problem. I don't care if all they learn is how to sow, it's their choice. However, a child that doesn't want to be home schooled, should not be just because their parents want them to.

Assuming you are correct about them not being worth much- which frankly, I would take issue with you about- then that's merely an argument to improve the standards of the teaching degree.

A child is not in a position to make such a choice, and desrves better than possibly being completely messed up by amateur teaching.

Compulsory education for all was a MAJOR break through in the civilised world. That is a concept that must be accompanied by a professional ethic.

Obviously a country that has lwful standards of public education should enforce those in homeschooling as well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Assuming you are correct about them not being worth much- which frankly, I would take issue with you about- then that's merely an argument to improve the standards of the teaching degree.

A child is not in a position to make such a choice, and desrves better than possibly being completely messed up by amateur teaching.

Compulsory education for all was a MAJOR break through in the civilised world. That is a concept that must be accompanied by a professional ethic.

Well, they do have worth in the world of professional occupations. However, you can get accepted to study for a teaching degree with three D's. Though this is true with every degree, I feel that teaching degrees should be more exclusive than that.

A child of secondary school age would be, perhaps it should be compulsory to study in public education until the child reaches that age, then the decision would be up to them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was homeschooled for four years.

From second grade to sixth grade.

I had severe learning problems in school because I was worse than a text book example of the type 1 ADHD listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder

I needed special attention and care. That could not be provided in a public school and my parents could not afford a private tutor.

I don't know how my mother did it, but she single handedly helped me get better control of myself and taught me.

If I would have stayed in homechool, I could have been done with high school in just a year and a half and could have started college at the age of 13.

When I went back into school in the sixth grade, I tested at or slightly below grade 14 for all categories except for reading comprehension. (Meaning, I tested at a college sophomore level on the national standardized test.) I tested lower in reading comprehension because, just like all standardized tests, the multiple choice answers provided are not exactly correct and there is no option "E" where you can write in your own answer.

I was given the option to forgo all of middle school and start in high school...and then from there I could have taken these state tests that would allow me to get credit for each state required high school classes to get credit for that course. I believe most states have this option. Of course, I wanted to play football, so I chose to stay in my peers age group. My mother urged me to forget about football and think more long term and I rejected that...probably the stupidest thing I have EVER done in my life. In the end, I tore muscles in my left ankle and never got a change beyond making the first cut at a division one college.



Why did I put all of that up here?

Simple.

IF the parents can handle it, even a learning disabled child can greatly excel in homeschool. Homeschool CAN be the best form of education only if the parent knows what they are doing. If any of you went to a public school, you know that the courses run very slow and the material is dummied down to be generic enough for all the students. In homeschool, this does not have to be the case and the student can work as fast as they want to. School books cost ALOT but you can forgo any books aimed at children and go straight to university textbooks. As long as the parent is capable of adequately explaining the material, even the average child can adapt and learn quickly.

Again, I can see the merit to both sides of the story in this situation. Similar to what Robtard said, most the homeschoolers I knew were homeschooled because their parents were highly religious and some of them creeped me out.


Alright, comence the insults.

Well I agree that for child protegies home schooling is by far the best option outside of early college, but it's my view that you should have to take a test proving the school curriculum cannot provide for you before becoming homeschooled. Because it's BS the way some Christian families will homeschool their kids so they can avoid letting them hear viewpoints other then their own.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, they do have worth in the world of professional occupations. However, you can get accepted to study for a teaching degree with three D's. Though this is true with every degree, I feel that teaching degrees should be more exclusive than that.

A child of secondary school age would be, perhaps it should be compulsory to study in public education until the child reaches that age, then the decision would be up to them.

You need A-Cs in English and Maths and if you are going to teach a particular subject, much higher in that subject.

Home schooling at Secondary school age is not easy because of the specialisation required. It's very hard for a parent to be able to cover the whole curriculum competently, and so again that is simply removing any attempt to achieve standards for the child.

We cannot gain-say this argument by assuming the public/state school system doesn't work. As I say, that can only be an argument for improving the system. Throwing it out to the amateur world is NOT a general solution.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, comence the insults.

Yes, yes, you're a genius, you've said it repeatedly. Was it really necessary to say it once gain though?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that's more of an argument ti re-focus the aims of the school system.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a certain responsibility here to make sure children are properly taught and the only way to try and ensure that is to make sure they have credentialled teachers. If you do not ensure that then you will be actively conniving in denying some children an education- not just failing to give them one, actively making sure they do not. That's not acceptable.

Home schooling- ok. But it's not an excuse for the teacher- parent or otherwise- to be an amateur. Far too many kids will be hurt by that.

Look, no one would advocate an ******* parent homeschooling their child.

The public school system is not 100 % and neither is homeschooling. Let a parent decide. If it's that bad at home, the child is ****ed regardless.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You need A-Cs in English and Maths and if you are going to teach a particular subject, much higher in that subject.

Home schooling at Secondary school age is not easy because of the specialisation required. It's very hard for a parent to be able to cover the whole curriculum competently, and so again that is simply removing any attempt to achieve standards for the child.

We cannot gain-say this argument by assuming the public/state school system doesn't work. As I say, that can only be an argument for improving the system. Throwing it out to the amateur world is NOT a general solution. How exactly does Homeschooling work in the US or UK? Do you know?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously a country that has lwful standards of public education should enforce those in homeschooling as well.

Let's be honest, those lawful standards are pretty low. "No Child Left Behind" made things even worse.

I'm not going to go into education standards in the U.S. because they are a damn joke.

Originally posted by BigRed
That's a very good question.

I'd assume it's the same age when for instance, the child can say what parent they want to be with in the case of a divorce in court. I'm not sure what that age is, but whatever age it is when you as a child, can make a clear decision based on what you want.

It varies from state to state, but the most common answer I found was 12.

Aye, but kids often don't know what they really want. The 12 year old could choose one parent (in the divorce court example) and then feel differently a few months down the road when daddy's house isn't any better than mommy's. Sure he gets to watch more TV than she'd let him, but then he has to do more chores. Or whatever. Then he decides to switch back, it's painful for everybody, and the fact is that he was given a choice that he wasn't mature enough to make anyway.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not talking about the age where they become responsible for their own actions, I'm talking about the irrelevant-to-age concept that children don't have to be what their parents want them to be. Which, typically, means little mental clones of the parents who think and act exactly the way the parent does.

So, at what point does the interest of a well-rounded and open minded person outweigh parental ownership and indoctrination? It's still 18.

I'm gonna put something out here, and it won't go over well, but it's the truth: Kids aren't equal.

They are people sure, with thoughts and hopes and dreams, and should be allowed to express themselves, but once they've been heard and if the parents want different..... that's it. They obey.

(I'm of course Not talking about illegal, harmful, or dangerous activities or habits, so don't go there with that strawman.)

I tell the youth group I lead that all the time: I love you guys but you're not equal.

You're still learning. You're still in development, forming mindsets and attitudes, along with your personal standards and ideals which are still being forged, and coupled with raging hormones and changing physicality, sexuality, and identity, your not in any place to say what's best for you.

Those that are older, wiser, and have lived life are.

You may be smart, may have tons of knowledge, but there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. (knowing how to apply said knowledge in real life situations, due to experience)

And religion doesn't count either. It's like anything else: advice not to use credit cards or drink and drive. The kid can hear it, know it's what the parents think, and after turning 18 then chooses whether or not they will go along with that line of thinking. But the parents still have every right to teach those ideas to the kids, as long as they are not illegal and harmful. (and I mean things that are legally defined as such, not your "opinion" that religion can be harmful.)


*braces for flaming*

What does children not being equal have to do with this conversation? The varying strengths and weaknesses of various children are not in question.

Again, age is not an issue in all this.

A child's potential to **** up his or her own life isn't relevant to this discussion either.

In fact, you have only really made one point, and that is that parents having their own ideas about the world and life and demanding that their children think and act exactly as they do is not only expected, but is also a rational parenting tool.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And religion doesn't count either. It's like anything else: advice not to use credit cards or drink and drive. The kid can hear it, know it's what the parents think, and after turning 18 then chooses whether or not they will go along with that line of thinking. But the parents still have every right to teach those ideas to the kids, as long as they are not illegal and harmful.
I agree! It's every parent's right to shelter their children from all alternate viewpoints!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that's more of an argument ti re-focus the aims of the school system.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a certain responsibility here to make sure children are properly taught and the only way to try and ensure that is to make sure they have credentialled teachers. If you do not ensure that then you will be actively conniving in denying some children an education- not just failing to give them one, actively making sure they do not. That's not acceptable.

Home schooling- ok. But it's not an excuse for the teacher- parent or otherwise- to be an amateur. Far too many kids will be hurt by that.
Well, I suppose requiring a parent to fill out a form of some sort indicating that they are at least competent enough to teach and have the child's best interests in mind would be more than enough. I'm still not even sure about that because I think it's kind of bullshit that I have to go through any kind of form to teach my own kid in my own home.

The SC has pretty much upheld that educational choice is okay as long as the state can implement state requirements. That seems fair enough to me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Assuming you are correct about them not being worth much- which frankly, I would take issue with you about- then that's merely an argument to improve the standards of the teaching degree.

A child is not in a position to make such a choice, and desrves better than possibly being completely messed up by amateur teaching.

Compulsory education for all was a MAJOR break through in the civilised world. That is a concept that must be accompanied by a professional ethic.
A student can just as easily be "messed up" from an inexperienced or poor teacher in a public school setting as they can be by an amateur parent teaching in a home school setting.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Aye, but kids often don't know what they really want. The 12 year old could choose one parent (in the divorce court example) and then feel differently a few months down the road when daddy's house isn't any better than mommy's. Sure he gets to watch more TV than she'd let him, but then he has to do more chores. Or whatever. Then he decides to switch back, it's painful for everybody, and the fact is that he was given a choice that he wasn't mature enough to make anyway.

It's still 18.

I'm gonna put something out here, and it won't go over well, but it's the truth: Kids aren't equal.

They are people sure, with thoughts and hopes and dreams, and should be allowed to express themselves, but once they've been heard and if the parents want different..... that's it. They obey.

(I'm of course Not talking about illegal, harmful, or dangerous activities or habits, so don't go there with that strawman.)

I tell the youth group I lead that all the time: I love you guys but you're not equal.

You're still learning. You're still in development, forming mindsets and attitudes, along with your personal standards and ideals which are still being forged, and coupled with raging hormones and changing physicality, sexuality, and identity, your not in any place to say what's best for you.

Those that are older, wiser, and have lived life are.

You may be smart, may have tons of knowledge, but there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. (knowing how to apply said knowledge in real life situations, due to experience)

And religion doesn't count either. It's like anything else: advice not to use credit cards or drink and drive. The kid can hear it, know it's what the parents think, and after turning 18 then chooses whether or not they will go along with that line of thinking. But the parents still have every right to teach those ideas to the kids, as long as they are not illegal and harmful. (and I mean things that are legally defined as such, not your "opinion" that religion can be harmful.)


*braces for flaming*
Thank you.

Kids, face it, you all can't be winners. The real world is not like that. Don't let idiot teachers and pricinpals and the like confuse you. You lose some and you win some. Life isn't fair. Life isn't equal.

That being said, from my own personal experience, there comes a time when a person does know indeed what is best for them. No later than the age of fifteen in my opinion. At fifteen at least, you have some sort of semblance for what is best for you and can start leaning off that dependency on the adult or other adults to make decisions for you. A time as to come when the parent can cast you out to sea and let you hook on the fish that you want to and not fear for they can always reel you back in and unhook you from that fish.

Originally posted by BigRed
A student can just as easily be "messed up" from an inexperienced or poor teacher in a public school setting as they can be by an amateur parent teaching in a home school setting.
No they really can't. In public school you will have multiple teachers and at least SOME of them will be decent. If your parent sucks though, that's the only perspective you get.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, yes, you're a genius, you've said it repeatedly. Was it really necessary to say it once gain though?

WTF are you talking about? I was referring to the negative connotation that is given to "home-schoolers".

But if you want to take it that direction..What do these things mean to you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I had severe learning problems in school because I was worse than a text book example of the type 1 ADHD

Originally posted by dadudemon
even the average child can adapt and learn quickly.

I was and still am at a disadvantage to someone like you. My point wasn't to say "OMG look at me...". It was to show the merits of homeschooling even on a significantly learning disabled child.

Just think of the progress an AVERAGE person could have made in the same environment. With proper refinements, someone like you could have been done with high school by 11. THAT was more or less my underlying point. Homeschooling can be very successful and sometimes, it is one of the best options. (Depending on the parents.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
No they really can't. In public school you will have multiple teachers and at least SOME of them will be decent. If your parent sucks though, that's the only perspective you get.
That may be a possibility, but home schooling could still prove to be highly effective.

While also true as you and others have eluded to, it could be disasterous and detrimental to the child in the long-term.

But I still think the freedom to decide is perfectly okay. No educational system has been proven to be effective full-proof.

I don't know who said it ...but I agree with the person who mentioned regulating or standardizing even homeschoolers. (I think it was Ush.)

I believe that once a year-public, private, and home schoolers-should be subjected to a national standardized test. This happens already, for the most part, but I don't think homeschoolers are included.

Like I said, I think a child should have to take a test proving they cannot be provided for by the public school system. If they get the correct scores THEN they can be homeschooled.

IMO it is inexcusable that Christian parents should be able to pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like I said, I think a child should have to take a test proving they cannot be provided for by the public school system. If they get the correct scores THEN they can be homeschooled.

IMO it is inexcusable that Christian parents should be able to pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints.

Oh, was that you who mentioned testing homeschoolers?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like I said, I think a child should have to take a test proving they cannot be provided for by the public school system. If they get the correct scores THEN they can be homeschooled.

IMO it is inexcusable that Christian parents should be able to pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints.
That is one thing that bothers me. If you've seen Jesus Camp , you'll know why. They basically brainwash their children on everything they believe. I think that is repulsive personally. That definitely is problematic.

There definitely are some kinks that need to be worked out on a state to state basis.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, was that you who mentioned testing homeschoolers?
Yeah, that is what I proposed. You were ADHD and a child prodigy. You're an example of someone who the test would pass.

Originally posted by BigRed
That is one thing that bothers me. If you've seen Jesus Camp , you'll know why. They basically brainwash their children on everything they believe. I think that is repulsive personally. That definitely is problematic.

There definitely are some kinks that need to be worked out on a state to state basis.
Exactly, and that's why there needs to be a test to prove they have legit reasons for pulling their child out, as well as benchmark tests and other ones to prove the parents are accomplishing their goals.

Where I come from, there were about two hardcore, right-wing, Jesus-freak type kids in my class. I made a school message board with a religion forum, and immediately started arguing with them. I whooped their ass, they were so uninformed and I think she got humiliated in front of everyone for her inability to form a coherent argument. I think her parents ended up pulling her out for homeschooling because they knew I was poking holes in her ideology every day.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You need A-Cs in English and Maths and if you are going to teach a particular subject, much higher in that subject.

Home schooling at Secondary school age is not easy because of the specialisation required. It's very hard for a parent to be able to cover the whole curriculum competently, and so again that is simply removing any attempt to achieve standards for the child.

We cannot gain-say this argument by assuming the public/state school system doesn't work. As I say, that can only be an argument for improving the system. Throwing it out to the amateur world is NOT a general solution.

''For applicants who may have left formal education some time ago, extensive relevant knowledge and experience and, normally at least one good pass at A-level or two good AS-levels, an Access or other equivalent qualification will be required.'' - Nottingham Trent.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160 '' Plymouth. (A D is 60 points).


''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160'' - Leeds Metropoliton.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 180'' Newman University College.

All for teaching degrees.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
''For applicants who may have left formal education some time ago, extensive relevant knowledge and experience and, normally at least one good pass at A-level or two good AS-levels, an Access or other equivalent qualification will be required.'' - Nottingham Trent.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160 '' Plymouth. (A D is 60 points).


''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160'' - Leeds Metropoliton.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 180'' Newman University College.

All for teaching degrees.

This is for UK schools, right?

I get the general idea, but translate for me.

What is A-level? I hear that in talk of British education and sports.

A levels are what we do after secondary school, which we finish after our GCSEs at the age of 16. They're completely voluntary and are necessary to get into university (A levels). You usually take three or four subjects, it stands for Advanced Level.

They're not particularly hard, just bloody boring while you're doing them.

ah, I got ya. cheers.

Originally posted by BigRed
That is one thing that bothers me. If you've seen Jesus Camp , you'll know why. They basically brainwash their children on everything they believe. I think that is repulsive personally. That definitely is problematic.

There definitely are some kinks that need to be worked out on a state to state basis.

Even as a committed Christian in full-time ministry that works for my church, I agree with you on the Jesus Camp deal. That type of indoctrination isn't right. (From my perspective, it isn't even necessary, as God will reveal Himself to the kids on a much more easy, sunday-school type level)


(open question to all):

Counterpoint: Telling parents that they can't "pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints" as King Kandy said, is basically forcing indoctrination upon the kids by putting them in an abortion approving, evolution theory pushing, "we as humans were just accidents" mentality that many parents don't agree with or approve of.

Is that not just as bad?

Or because it's not religion, then you think forcing a viewpoint on them different than that of what the family wants is okay?Originally posted by Devil King
What does children not being equal have to do with this conversation? The varying strengths and weaknesses of various children are not in question.

Again, age is not an issue in all this.

A child's potential to **** up his or her own life isn't relevant to this discussion either.

In fact, you have only really made one point, and that is that parents having their own ideas about the world and life and demanding that their children think and act exactly as they do is not only expected, but is also a rational parenting tool. Was attempting to answer you. There is no point where a kid can break free of what his parents want him to be, until age 18. (or legal emancipation)

Kids as a whole don't know what the heck they are doing, and only have a semblance of what TRUE wisdom is. So the whole mindset of "breaking free of the indoctrination of the parents" is nonsense to me, because as I said, unless it's illegal or harmful, then the kid doesn't have anything better anyway. Just some ideas, some blind stabs in the dark, but he doesn't know better than his parents.

Thousands of years of generations have thought so, and by and large, they get around 24, 25 and realize that 'ol mom and pop did know a thing or two.

The idea of "breaking free" of what they try to impart as values is just flight of fancy emotionalism, and except for certain dangerous, illegal situations, not grounded or based in any concrete reason to NOT do what they say, or take on what they believe, and based more on silly teenage rebelliousness.

As the individual matures and grows, they may have other experiences, beliefs may differ, etc...but until the thought police come, it's still up to the parents to train up the kids in the way that they feel they should go, and no teenage impulsive, selfish "I want it now!" thinking should even be considered or discussed in the fashion of "...when is it viable, and can override what the parents want them to do."

That answer it a little more clearly?




Thread topic: It's ridiculous. Parents can homeschool children if they wish. As long as the kids are able to pass age-required material in all subjects, I don't see what the issue is. Parents don't help hardly ANY kids past 8th grade, and what they learn, in school or at home, is up to their personal discipline, study habits, and so on. (special needs kids, however, unless cared for by a trained specialist or parent who is such, should be in a school to help them through their developmental delays or other issues.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Was attempting to answer you. There is no point where a kid can break free of what his parents want him to be, until age 18. (or legal emancipation)

Which begs the logical next question to my statements. At what point does it become the job of the government to step in and mandate how you raise your kids? At what point does society step in and say that a child should be exposed to a variety of ideas as opposed to the dogmatic (and varied) up-bringing of their parents? When does the village raise the child? I think the over all question involved in this judgement is that of a child's right v. a parent's. It isn't about kids being too stupid or a prents engrained ideology that they want to pass on to another generation. (Which is what you're saying is totally legitimate...but it ignores progress)

I think a lot of it has to do with these parents wanting to validate their own outlook by assuring that their children subscribe to the same ideas, religion or social understanding.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile,,, I find it hard to objct to parents wanting to homeschool having to be actually qualified to do it, because otherwise the risk is that the child suffers, and the childs cannot do anything about it. There is nothing wrong with professionalising a sector. And yes, you can have a phD and be a lousy teacher.

In case you haven't noticed, there are plenty of people with teaching degrees who are lousy teachers as well. But how often do you come across a lousy teacher who is a PHD who wants to educate his kids himself?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like I said, I think a child should have to take a test proving they cannot be provided for by the public school system. If they get the correct scores THEN they can be homeschooled.Tests need improvement though. No Child Left Behind isn't the only reason either.

If you are proposing the same idea as the other dozen million people who say that, you are saying that you want these tests to be standardized by the state. But if you haven't noticed, state tests are a joke. My parrot could ace half of them (of course, you have to acknowledge my parrot is a lot smarter then some high school students but he's still just a parrot). If I were writing a plan to educate students in my state, I would only use a state accredited university.

It isn't uncommon for major departments of prestigious universities to outline how much a student has to learn clear from kindergarten to be ready to attend college by his mid teen years. Of course you can't get everything from one university because some departments are more cooperative than others. But when there is such a large list to choose from, it doesn't take more than some devoted searching to find education plans for individual subjects from state accredited universities.

That means they could have 3rd grade math tests from the math department of Bowdoin university and 5th grade science tests from Caltech. So I think the governments responsible for education should rely a lot more on universities to set their standards. If the students can't pass a test that is on the path to being in college, they should get extra training in the subject.

Children have a right to not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in any educational setting. The purpose of education is to teach children how to think, not to learn what to think. It is questionable whether one who would remove a child from an educational setting for the sole purpose of limiting intellectual diversity has any business teaching a child at all.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Children have a right to not be indoctrinated

So when does a parent's desire to validate and indoctrinate take a back seat to the child's right to not have an unindoctrinated up-bringing?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The purpose of education is to teach children how to think, not to learn what to think.

while I agree with the intent of what you are saying, the systems of education that exist were established mainly to serve the interests of the ruling classes. Churches provided basic public education that allowed people to work for the elite class who had the money to go to the universities. The first public schools were established, largely, as a reaction to urbanization and lots of kids with nothing to do. Basically, public school was established to prevent youth crime.

Even today, most schools aren't interested in teaching children how to think. Thinking kids cause stress for the teacher and power struggles in the class, they disrupt and challenge, or they get bored with material that isn't engaging. Students who only know what to learn sit still for 6 consecutive hours and don't get into trouble. This isn't always the case, and I know I had some excellent teachers.

blah, education is weird, I'm sure this is totally unrelated to your point, but I think it bares mention. It is really idealistic to talk about education standards for home schooling when we don't really even have a coherent idea for how to educate in general.

So, how do we "teach" without indoctrinating?

you can't

even the concept we have as a modern western society of "open mindedness" or "new experiences" can be described as "indoctrination", depending on how you play with the word.

I'd rather look at what types of things work for various goals in society. And, then of course comes the moral issues of what goals is it appropriate for the education system to try and achieve. Like, in all honesty is it a bad idea to get kids off the street for the day if it really does prevent youth or gang crime? Even if for just that reason alone? I don't know, like I said, its weird, for me at least. I have very strong beliefs about most of the competing rights in this case.

Originally posted by inimalist
I have very strong beliefs about most of the competing rights in this case.

Expand on this more for me.

Hard to say.

Teach: "to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in"

Impart: "1. to make known; tell; relate; disclose
2. to give; bestow; communicate: to impart knowledge.
3. to grant a part or share of. "

Indoctrinate: "1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning."

Imbue: "impregnate or inspire, as with feelings, opinions, etc."



So really, they are the same only one is coming from a bias.

And that bias can be anything: Vegan food is what's best for you, Credit Cards are foolish, or there is a God.


Again, as long as it's not illegal or harmful, the parent really has all the rights here to teach or "indoctrinate" as they see fit. The child, once over 18 can decide to eat red meat or not, get a credit card and max it out or not, and follow God or not.

It's silly to pretend otherwise, this is one of a parent's basic rights and until the child is old and experienced enough (18 at least) to make their own responsible choices it's a moot point.


And if the parents want them taught at home to "indoctrinate" them, it's not much different from what the schools do, it just comes from a certain viewpoint.

And it's the right of every parent to execute , if they so choose. (it's not like "the world" has got it all figured out anyway. Anybody know anybody out there who's got it all explained and under control?)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Expand on this more for me.

alright...

It's kinda campy, but I really think education is the key to the future. Science, technology, social understanding, all of these things are byproducts of a society with high educational standards. I feel education is in the security interests of the western world, crucial to maintaining at least a military balance with oppressive nations who might, MIGHT, want to take our freedoms. I honestly believe (and there are some studies that support this) that a multi-ethnic schoolroom, where students participate and especially problem solve with people of other cultures is the single best way to eliminate prejudice. So, I feel very strongly that all children deserve the ability to benefit from a good education. I think it is criminal to deny this to your child and tantamount to abuse (my moral opinion, not legalistic) to indoctrinate children with provably wrong nonsense and hate.

However, I also see no reason, from a legal perspective, why the government should have any specific right to ban it. The legal tradition in the west is that children are property of their parents. Circumcision is a perfect example of this. A parent is allowed to have a part of the child's penis cut off. While this is a salient example, to me at least, we have to remember that rights aren't just something to be thrown about. While clearly only specific rights could be given at specific time, we must recognize that children in many ways are incapable of making proper decisions all the time, and there must be some form of control and discipline

That being said, my relationship with my mother was ruined because of constant fighting and power struggles over, at least in my opinion, me asserting my independence and autonomy. There is clearly a point where parental "ownership" of a child does not work.

This isn't to say homeschooling can't work. If your father is Carl Sagan, why would you go to school? Not even that, any competent teacher is going to be 30000 times more effective in a one on one environment (or however many siblings) than in a class like my cousin's, which is a grade 6/7 split with 1 teacher for over 30 kids. So, for that reason, the whole idea of restricting homeschooling, to me, seems daft. It seems almost more appealing, although there is the trade off. While for some people it will be far more rewarding, some people loose out, imho, too badly.

But then this brings up the whole idea of school as a system of control. I am very much against the idea of the government being able to set a curriculum, which is essentially giving the government the right to decide what the people in the society think is true. Certain text book companies have ties with religious or political groups, and economic interests largely dominate which books children get, and not quality.

Then there is the content of the education. Even at my university, I feel mostly like stuff is being spoon fed to me, and pretty much any prof I have talked to about the issue (from a good variety of fields) seems to agree that this is the trend. My girlfriend goes to a school with probably 10 times the student population, and she says that it is different there, so it is very possible that the size of my school plays a role, but many articles are being written, especially in conservative publications, about this being a trend across North America.

.
.
.

so I hope that is moderately coherent...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
decide to eat red meat or not

you don't think it would be foolish for a parent to try and control their child's eating habits?

you don't think it could be potentially harmful, say to girls, for them to say, have food issues?

You don't think it would be foolish for the state to try and control the child's eating habits?

This is goofy man.

Parents tell the kids what to eat all time. And they should!

We're not talking about whackos making kids eat paste, or people who are wrongfully and willingly let an alergic child eat something he shouldn't, but instead a parent doing what they believe is best for their kid.

That's still the right of every parent, isn't it?

Really, out of that whole post I'm surprised you would pick that small part.




Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.

If the kids can meet all educational requirements in all subjects, then this idea that homeschool parents must be certified is complete nonsense. Educationally, they are fine.

It's people that want to promote abortion, evolution, and other theories as truth and stop people from thinking any other way that really would want homeschooling so severly restricted as to make it almost unavailable to parents.

Originally posted by inimalist
alright...

It's kinda campy, but I really think education is the key to the future. Science, technology, social understanding, all of these things are byproducts of a society with high educational standards. I feel education is in the security interests of the western world, crucial to maintaining at least a military balance with oppressive nations who might, MIGHT, want to take our freedoms. I honestly believe (and there are some studies that support this) that a multi-ethnic schoolroom, where students participate and especially problem solve with people of other cultures is the single best way to eliminate prejudice. So, I feel very strongly that all children deserve the ability to benefit from a good education. I think it is criminal to deny this to your child and tantamount to abuse (my moral opinion, not legalistic) to indoctrinate children with provably wrong nonsense and hate.

However, I also see no reason, from a legal perspective, why the government should have any specific right to ban it. The legal tradition in the west is that children are property of their parents. Circumcision is a perfect example of this. A parent is allowed to have a part of the child's penis cut off. While this is a salient example, to me at least, we have to remember that rights aren't just something to be thrown about. While clearly only specific rights could be given at specific time, we must recognize that children in many ways are incapable of making proper decisions all the time, and there must be some form of control and discipline

That being said, my relationship with my mother was ruined because of constant fighting and power struggles over, at least in my opinion, me asserting my independence and autonomy. There is clearly a point where parental "ownership" of a child does not work.

This isn't to say homeschooling can't work. If your father is Carl Sagan, why would you go to school? Not even that, any competent teacher is going to be 30000 times more effective in a one on one environment (or however many siblings) than in a class like my cousin's, which is a grade 6/7 split with 1 teacher for over 30 kids. So, for that reason, the whole idea of restricting homeschooling, to me, seems daft. It seems almost more appealing, although there is the trade off. While for some people it will be far more rewarding, some people loose out, imho, too badly.

But then this brings up the whole idea of school as a system of control. I am very much against the idea of the government being able to set a curriculum, which is essentially giving the government the right to decide what the people in the society think is true. Certain text book companies have ties with religious or political groups, and economic interests largely dominate which books children get, and not quality.

Then there is the content of the education. Even at my university, I feel mostly like stuff is being spoon fed to me, and pretty much any prof I have talked to about the issue (from a good variety of fields) seems to agree that this is the trend. My girlfriend goes to a school with probably 10 times the student population, and she says that it is different there, so it is very possible that the size of my school plays a role, but many articles are being written, especially in conservative publications, about this being a trend across North America.

.
.
.

so I hope that is moderately coherent...

Yes, that puts into perspective for me a lot better.


Your post reminds me of something....


Why do we say things likes "can we teach without indoctrinating?"(my thoughts and I believe DK's thoughts) Where do we draw the line at speculating too much? Is not our species survival based on a complex social system that is passed down from generation to generation with a teaching-learning relationship?

We learn mostly from our mother's in the beginning. I don't think it is necessary, or rather, we shouldn't worry about indoctrinating or social/behavioral ideals because that is what we are programmed to do. Is that not part of what makes the human species such a success?

Our simple inquisitiveness allows our to discard what we perceive as negative ideals. That is the beauty of being human!!!!!

If a child, by the time they are 18, cannot decide that their extremist parents were wrong in "imprisoning" their children, then they deserve their fate...they deserve their "enslavement of the mind". They are their parents drones. However, we see less and less of this "drone" mentality because of the great information revolution. I wish there was a way that the peskier drone's could die off via a natural selection process. Maybe there will come a time for that when it becomes necessary to have your children "built" genetically. The drones, or the conservatives, will die out or be forced to adapt.

To get back on track...you are absolutely right about the one-on-one statement. I was relegated to a failure and a waste of effort by the public school system and my mother rescued me from that ignorant judgment.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You don't think it would be foolish for the state to try and control the child's eating habits?

This is goofy man.

Parents tell the kids what to eat all time. And they should!

We're not talking about whackos making kids eat paste, or people who are wrongfully and willingly let an alergic child eat something he shouldn't, but instead a parent doing what they believe is best for their kid.

That's still the right of every parent, isn't it?

Really, out of that whole post I'm surprised you would pick that small part.

here is the thing, it is completely relevant, because it is discussing control on children by the parent.

Clearly, you do not believe that a parent has the right to harm their child. Let me assure you, there are things parents can do with the best interests of their child in mind that have extremely negative consequences.

Controlling what, how, what time, etc of the food your child eats can lead to control issues over food. In girls mostly, but sometimes in boys, this can manifest as psychological issues surrounding food, and in many cases, eating disorders.

Considering eating disorders are a silent epidemic affecting young girls, one would think you would support actions that reduce the prevalence of these conditions.

Much like with education, restrictions and control on the part of the parent can have massive negative consequences to the child.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, that puts into perspective for me a lot better.


Your post reminds me of something....


Why do we say things likes "can we teach without indoctrinating?"(my thoughts and I believe DK's thoughts) Where do we draw the line at speculating too much? Is not our species survival based on a complex social system that is passed down from generation to generation with a teaching-learning relationship?

We learn mostly from our mother's in the beginning. I don't think it is necessary, or rather, we shouldn't worry about indoctrinating or social/behavioral ideals because that is what we are programmed to do. Is that not part of what makes the human species such a success?

Our simple inquisitiveness allows our to discard what we perceive as negative ideals. That is the beauty of being human!!!!!

If a child, by the time they are 18, cannot decide that their extremist parents were wrong in "imprisoning" their children, then they deserve their fate...they deserve their "enslavement of the mind". They are their parents drones. However, we see less and less of this "drone" mentality because of the great information revolution. I wish there was a way that the peskier drone's could die off via a natural selection process. Maybe there will come a time for that when it becomes necessary to have your children "built" genetically. The drones, or the conservatives, will die out or be forced to adapt.

I don't know much about the more sci-fi stuff you got into at the end, but I do mostly agree with you. It isn't entirely negative that we are programmed to quickly absorb social influence as a child, rather, we should take advantage of it. And even writing that makes me feel like a fascist, because I know that indoctrinating a child from a young age like that, into anything, is brain washing...

I digress. My only concern is that much of what you think is the rational choice of the 18 year old to determine their beliefs is not. Hatred can be passed easily, ignorance can be passed easily.

And if I can speak idealistically, a perfect education system, ignoring the political implications of public education, would be so good that the advantages of homeschooling wouldn't be there. It would be individualized and adaptive to engage students. It would be relevant and personal.

As far as curriculum, I also have to disagree with homeschooling in some cases. The religious people that do it specifically to keep their children away from science are doing a disservice to the nation they belong to. They are traitors, plain and simple, because they are making the next generation less capable of dealing with the real problems of the world, and weakening their contry's international standing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To get back on track...you are absolutely right about the one-on-one statement. I was relegated to a failure and a waste of effort by the public school system and my mother rescued me from that ignorant judgment.

The smartest people I know aren't in school. They work at pizza shops or making glass bongs or doing labour. They are more well read, engaged with issues and the world, interested in science, whatever. We don't agree on lots of things, and we have great discussions.

The system fails many, many people, and as a result, fails everyone.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Children have a right to not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in any educational setting. The purpose of education is to teach children how to think, not to learn what to think. It is questionable whether one who would remove a child from an educational setting for the sole purpose of limiting intellectual diversity has any business teaching a child at all. I suppose you would indoctrinate a kid into anti indoctrination?

Everything is a sort of "brain washing."

As aforementioned, this is about making sure they will teach kids how to think and not necessarily making them bright individuals.

It's nothing but a difference in micro and macro management.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular

FAIL.

Originally posted by chithappens


Hell, most people don't leave high school with great understandings of math and science (which I would guess is the biggest concern).

Define Basic ?

Even that is streaching it.

Funny enough, the episode of Home Improvement came on where Brad was in a realtionship with some girl only because she was doing his homework, then Tim tried to help him multiply complex fractions and he couldn't do it.

Originally posted by grey fox
Define Basic ? Only if you define love.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Only if you define love.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know much about the more sci-fi stuff you got into at the end, but I do mostly agree with you.

I hold that in the future, parents will design their children with their doctor.



Originally posted by inimalist
It isn't entirely negative that we are programmed to quickly absorb social influence as a child, rather, we should take advantage of it. And even writing that makes me feel like a fascist, because I know that indoctrinating a child from a young age like that, into anything, is brain washing...

I digress. My only concern is that much of what you think is the rational choice of the 18 year old to determine their beliefs is not. Hatred can be passed easily, ignorance can be passed easily.

I was talking about this earlier. The lovely thing about a humans is we can decide against our indoctrinations despite having endured the virtual tortures that indoctrinated us to begin with. When I was referring to the killing off of the "drones" I was referring to people who simply do not have the capacity to "think outside the box" of their indoctrination. Personality is a combination of genetics and environment, right?(This assumes that the person does not have a soul.) If we do not have souls, that means in the not so distant future, parents may get the choice to select things as complex as the personality of their children and, naturally, immunities and strengths. These extreme religious people may consider it to be playing God. It may become necessary to have your child programmed with specific immunities because of germ-warefare or simply new and destructive pathogens. These "drone" types who can't think for themselves, or rather, outside of their dammed beliefs/perspectives, will come to a bridge: the natural progression of things would force them to throw away their stupid beliefs or die. This would help to eliminate the "drone" mentality that seems to damn progression.

I know, that was a lot of information that I inferred that I expected you to pick-up. I apologize.

Originally posted by inimalist
And if I can speak idealistically, a perfect education system, ignoring the political implications of public education, would be so good that the advantages of homeschooling wouldn't be there. It would be individualized and adaptive to engage students. It would be relevant and personal.

You sir, are describing an improbable utopia.

Originally posted by inimalist
As far as curriculum, I also have to disagree with homeschooling in some cases. The religious people that do it specifically to keep their children away from science are doing a disservice to the nation they belong to. They are traitors, plain and simple, because they are making the next generation less capable of dealing with the real problems of the world, and weakening their contry's international standing.

I was referring to these people as the "drones".

Originally posted by inimalist
The smartest people I know aren't in school. They work at pizza shops or making glass bongs or doing labour. They are more well read, engaged with issues and the world, interested in science, whatever. We don't agree on lots of things, and we have great discussions.

The system fails many, many people, and as a result, fails everyone.

Now that's quite awesome. You must know a lot of people then. Are you a people-person?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Only if you define love.

What you have whenever your in children's vicinity.

Originally posted by grey fox
What you have whenever your in children's vicinity.
I suppose headache is a type of love...

Originally posted by Quark_666
I suppose headache is a type of love...




LOL at the blunt but true happenings of the "vicinity" comment.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.

If the kids can meet all educational requirements in all subjects, then this idea that homeschool parents must be certified is complete nonsense. Educationally, they are fine.

It's people that want to promote abortion, evolution, and other theories as truth and stop people from thinking any other way that really would want homeschooling so severly restricted as to make it almost unavailable to parents.

There I agree with you, though I feel that home-schooling is bad, generally speaking, as I highly doubt most parents either have a well-rounded ability to teach or they'll actually hire someone with that ability and being in a school atmosphere teaches vital social skills, that can't be learned at home. I still feel if the parent wants to raise an ignorant fool who will be in for a huge surprise when they finally have to go out into the real world, then so be it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but telling a little kid that "Jesus is God and this is how we came to be" etc. etc. etc. IS indoctrination as fact, it's not like you're giving the child a choice in believing or not, is there?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was talking about this earlier. The lovely thing about a humans is we can decide against our indoctrinations despite having endured the virtual tortures that indoctrinated us to begin with. When I was referring to the killing off of the "drones" I was referring to people who simply do not have the capacity to "think outside the box" of their indoctrination. Personality is a combination of genetics and environment, right?(This assumes that the person does not have a soul.) If we do not have souls, that means in the not so distant future, parents may get the choice to select things as complex as the personality of their children and, naturally, immunities and strengths. These extreme religious people may consider it to be playing God. It may become necessary to have your child programmed with specific immunities because of germ-warefare or simply new and destructive pathogens. These "drone" types who can't think for themselves, or rather, outside of their dammed beliefs/perspectives, will come to a bridge: the natural progression of things would force them to throw away their stupid beliefs or die. This would help to eliminate the "drone" mentality that seems to damn progression.

I know, that was a lot of information that I inferred that I expected you to pick-up. I apologize.

I was referring to these people as the "drones".

yes, drones might be a good word, but maybe more insulting than I want to be. Drones do what they do with the best of intentions.

I still disagree with you about people overcoming parental influences. Depending on your environment, lessons you learn from your family and direct community can become as hard wired as your understanding of gravity (not the concept, but the fact that things fall and you are able to take that into account without even thinking about it).

People can do it, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that it is something we cannot assume is natural. The common folklore of people going through a "phase" of resisting their parents and coming to their own ideas is true, to some extent, however, it is very easy for parents to stunt or disable this growth. From there, the personality characteristics of the child kick in, but I wouldn't even think that 50% of children have the balls to tell their parents where to stick it, and to follow up on that, I don't think an internet discussion forum is going to produce a good sample of people for this. I'm sure there is a higher percentage of confrontational/assertive people here than in the general population at large. So, while I'm sure many people here are willing to stand up for themselves, I don't think it is a quality of most people in society.

I guess thats a bit tangental... I'm not sure I'm too thrilled about the idea of people "dying off", but ya, sink or swim. If it comes to what you are describing, it is totally possible, although I think that would probably just lead to two distinct human populations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now that's quite awesome. You must know a lot of people then. Are you a people-person?

actually, no, I don't know too many people, nor am I much of a people person...

Thats just an observation based on my own experiences, so don't take it as written in stone or anything. But thanks, I was hoping that line at the end wasn't pushing the tastelessness of the post.

Originally posted by inimalist
The smartest people I know aren't in school. They work at pizza shops or making glass bongs or doing labour. They are more well read, engaged with issues and the world, interested in science, whatever. We don't agree on lots of things, and we have great discussions.

The system fails many, many people, and as a result, fails everyone. I agree in part. I think it can go a couple ways though. In one sense, there are a lot of people out there that are doing ordinary jobs (like you mentioned), but are geniuses and probably could change the world, but certain circumstances flat lined that possibility. The system as you eluded to. For instance, to get a book published, you need an angent, but to get an angent, you need to publish a book. So it is a really complicated system. You have to have connections with a lot of people that are up there in the food chain or at the very least, know people that know people that are up there in the food chain.

On the same token though, there are lot of people that could be more, could be greater than where they are, have that poential, but practically and quite bluntly, are too lazy to get there. They want the system to come to them. They want the success to knock on the door. Instead of taking the initiative to go out there and change the system and beat the system or work within the system in some capacity.

I really think it goes both ways. I'm not sure if I'm even talking about what you were thinking, but nonetheless...

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, drones might be a good word, but maybe more insulting than I want to be. Drones do what they do with the best of intentions.

I still disagree with you about people overcoming parental influences. Depending on your environment, lessons you learn from your family and direct community can become as hard wired as your understanding of gravity (not the concept, but the fact that things fall and you are able to take that into account without even thinking about it).

I completely understand your point. These items would fall under learned "behavior" that is executed at the subconscious level. But this hearkens back to my other point............see my below response.

Originally posted by inimalist
People can do it, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that it is something we cannot assume is natural. The common folklore of people going through a "phase" of resisting their parents and coming to their own ideas is true, to some extent, however, it is very easy for parents to stunt or disable this growth. From there, the personality characteristics of the child kick in, but I wouldn't even think that 50% of children have the balls to tell their parents where to stick it, and to follow up on that, I don't think an internet discussion forum is going to produce a good sample of people for this. I'm sure there is a higher percentage of confrontational/assertive people here than in the general population at large. So, while I'm sure many people here are willing to stand up for themselves, I don't think it is a quality of most people in society.

I guess thats a bit tangental... I'm not sure I'm too thrilled about the idea of people "dying off", but ya, sink or swim. If it comes to what you are describing, it is totally possible, although I think that would probably just lead to two distinct human populations.

I have termed the "God defyers" as "hyperperfects". Yes, humanity would diverge into two groups. Race would no longer be defined by skin color but race would be defined as the "hyperperfects" and the "lessers" and varying degrees inbetween. If humanity suffers atrocities that require artificial construction of DNA, those who do not have the "mods" should die off, eventually. These extreme religionist homeschooler types would definitely fall under the category of the "lessers"...because of their stubborn beliefs...again, they would call the hyperperfects the "God Defyers". This would force the subconscious, almost instinctual, behaviors to come to the surface and be questioned by those labeled as the "lessers". The "lessers" who employ adequate willpower to throw their indoctrinations aside would adapt and take gene therapy and artificially create their children.

Indeed, the subject is tangential. But it crosses my mind when I think about those religious homeschooler types.



Originally posted by inimalist
actually, no, I don't know too many people, nor am I much of a people person...

Thats just an observation based on my own experiences, so don't take it as written in stone or anything. But thanks, I was hoping that line at the end wasn't pushing the tastelessness of the post.

Do you live in a big city? There is a shortage of the people in my area like the ones you described. Maybe its because I live in the bible belt and instead of self educated, philosophizing intellects, I experience indoctrinated and intellectually damned laymen.

Originally posted by BigRed
I agree in part. I think it can go a couple ways though. In one sense, there are a lot of people out there that are doing ordinary jobs (like you mentioned), but are geniuses and probably could change the world, but certain circumstances flat lined that possibility. The system as you eluded to. For instance, to get a book published, you need an angent, but to get an angent, you need to publish a book. So it is a really complicated system. You have to have connections with a lot of people that are up there in the food chain or at the very least, know people that know people that are up there in the food chain.

On the same token though, there are lot of people that could be more, could be greater than where they are, have that poential, but practically and quite bluntly, are too lazy to get there. They want the system to come to them. They want the success to knock on the door. Instead of taking the initiative to go out there and change the system and beat the system or work within the system in some capacity.

I really think it goes both ways. I'm not sure if I'm even talking about what you were thinking, but nonetheless...

no, you are totally on point. I was certainly getting really into the more idealistic stuff, but there are lots of other issues that are much more pragmatic that are much more important to address.

Along with motivation, levels of access to a system would also play a major role, and I'm sure the two would be inter-related. Without an extended rant about inequalities in access, I'd say I agree with you 100%, someone who is not interested in educating themselves doesn't really deserve it. I think it's tragic... But ya, hopefully they end up wanting better for their children.

But ya, I'd be willing to bet the majority of cases of people who completely turn their back on the system were in some way or another excluded from it from the beginning.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I completely understand your point. These items would fall under learned "behavior" that is executed at the subconscious level. But this hearkens back to my other point............see my below response.

I have termed the "God defyers" as "hyperperfects". Yes, humanity would diverge into two groups. Race would no longer be defined by skin color but race would be defined as the "hyperperfects" and the "lessers" and varying degrees inbetween. If humanity suffers atrocities that require artificial construction of DNA, those who do not have the "mods" should die off, eventually. These extreme religionist homeschooler types would definitely fall under the category of the "lessers"...because of their stubborn beliefs...again, they would call the hyperperfects the "God Defyers". This would force the subconscious, almost instinctual, behaviors to come to the surface and be questioned by those labeled as the "lessers". The "lessers" who employ adequate willpower to throw their indoctrinations aside would adapt and take gene therapy and artificially create their children.

Indeed, the subject is tangential. But it crosses my mind when I think about those religious homeschooler types.

I don't know, I'll ignore the pretty overt tone set with some of your word choice... But honestly, this isn't really my cup of tea. I'm not a big subscriber to the idea that people are going to start modifying themselves within any time frame that is relevant to me. Sure, we will probably be able to screen for new genetic diseases and eliminate them, but to the point where people are modifying themselves? Thats too speculative for me.

I think I was talking about what, imho, is a natural reverence for authority that we have. We are set up to assign certain individuals as authority figures and we basically never question them due to things like cognitive dissonance and cognitive consistency.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you live in a big city? There is a shortage of the people in my area like the ones you described. Maybe its because I live in the bible belt and instead of self educated, philosophizing intellects, I experience indoctrinated and intellectually damned laymen.

lol, no, its really more that we are drug users, to be honest. Taking psychedelics sort of encourages exploring the mind, and even just being on them makes you ask new questions about common stimuli.

Most people aren't intellectuals, no matter where you go. And the people who think they are, are almost never. Thats one of the things that I really like about the internet. Lacking any real salon to attend and discuss politics and philosophy, there are message boards.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Counterpoint: Telling parents that they can't "pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints" as King Kandy said, is basically forcing indoctrination upon the kids by putting them in an abortion approving, evolution theory pushing, "we as humans were just accidents" mentality that many parents don't agree with or approve of.
Way to miss the point.

My point wasn't to teach kids evolution in the classroom (I don't want to get into that, it's been debated to death.) The point is that in school, your PEERS will expose you to many, many viewpoints, and your parents will only expose you to one. It had little to do with the curriculum (though that's certainly part of it.) Having people's kids exposed to multiple viewpoints is that opposite of indoctrination.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Tests need improvement though. No Child Left Behind isn't the only reason either.

If you are proposing the same idea as the other dozen million people who say that, you are saying that you want these tests to be standardized by the state. But if you haven't noticed, state tests are a joke. My parrot could ace half of them (of course, you have to acknowledge my parrot is a lot smarter then some high school students but he's still just a parrot). If I were writing a plan to educate students in my state, I would only use a state accredited university.

It isn't uncommon for major departments of prestigious universities to outline how much a student has to learn clear from kindergarten to be ready to attend college by his mid teen years. Of course you can't get everything from one university because some departments are more cooperative than others. But when there is such a large list to choose from, it doesn't take more than some devoted searching to find education plans for individual subjects from state accredited universities.

That means they could have 3rd grade math tests from the math department of Bowdoin university and 5th grade science tests from Caltech. So I think the governments responsible for education should rely a lot more on universities to set their standards. If the students can't pass a test that is on the path to being in college, they should get extra training in the subject.
Not quite the issue, my proposed test would have nothing to pass. It would be like a personality test, with multiple, equally valid results. Either you are the type who could learn in a public school, or you aren't. It has nothing to do with your test-taking abilities.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know, I'll ignore the pretty overt tone set with some of your word choice... But honestly, this isn't really my cup of tea. I'm not a big subscriber to the idea that people are going to start modifying themselves within any time frame that is relevant to me. Sure, we will probably be able to screen for new genetic diseases and eliminate them, but to the point where people are modifying themselves? Thats too speculative for me.

We are already modifying ourselves with cybernetic enhancements. Amputees and quadriplegics are the first to go down the paths of enhancement. Right around the corner is gene doping(it is rumored that some already gene dope)...and eventually genetically "designing" our offspring. It is possible that the latter will not happen in our lifetimes, but it may happen in just a decade, to an extent. Some argue that it is already happening when you select your "sperm donor"...but that isn't the same thing, imo.

Genetic diseases, environmental changes, and simple enhancements to allow better interfaces with technology (Like changing our blood PH and tissue type or other exotic things that would better interface with electronics.) are all examples of reasons to modify our genetics. Who knows, we never progress beyond very complex "gene doping" type of modifications. (Such as intrauterine(or even injecting straight into the baby as it develops!!!) injections that modify the genetics of your baby as it develops. This example would describe selecting the genetics of your child.)

Originally posted by inimalist
I think I was talking about what, imho, is a natural reverence for authority that we have. We are set up to assign certain individuals as authority figures and we basically never question them due to things like cognitive dissonance and cognitive consistency.

I would agree that there seems to be an inherent attribute of respect for persons higher up in the social hierarchy(Such as parents or law enforcement), but not by any means are these people never questioned. I know you didn't say all people and you realize that the majority of people question authority at some level, but we are talking about overly religious homeschoolers....in which case, I still believe that the parents are questioned by their future drones...it seems to be part of human nature to question.


lOriginally posted by inimalist
ol, no, its really more that we are drug users, to be honest. Taking psychedelics sort of encourages exploring the mind, and even just being on them makes you ask new questions about common stimuli.

Most people aren't intellectuals, no matter where you go. And the people who think they are, are almost never. Thats one of the things that I really like about the internet. Lacking any real salon to attend and discuss politics and philosophy, there are message boards.

You use psychedelics? heh heh

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.
Dude that's not the point. Seeing only one side of the issue is wrong no matter WHICH side it is. This is not science vs God, this is multiple issues vs one. I am equally against Atheists not telling their kids about religion, as I am against christians only telling their kids about Christianity. This has nothing to do with any specific issue.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We are already modifying ourselves with cybernetic enhancements. Amputees and quadriplegics are the first to go down the paths of enhancement. Right around the corner is gene doping(it is rumored that some already gene dope)...and eventually genetically "designing" our offspring. It is possible that the latter will not happen in our lifetimes, but it may happen in just a decade, to an extent. Some argue that it is already happening when you select your "sperm donor"...but that isn't the same thing, imo.

Genetic diseases, environmental changes, and simple enhancements to allow better interfaces with technology (Like changing our blood PH and tissue type or other exotic things that would better interface with electronics.) are all examples of reasons to modify our genetics. Who knows, we never progress beyond very complex "gene doping" type of modifications. (Such as intrauterine(or even injecting straight into the baby as it develops!!!) injections that modify the genetics of your baby as it develops. This example would describe selecting the genetics of your child.)

lol, fair enough, if that is the extent you are talking about, then of course, a lot of that is only a few years off.

Personally, I can't wait until I can get some bioluminescent genes

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would agree that there seems to be an inherent attribute of respect for persons higher up in the social hierarchy(Such as parents or law enforcement), but not by any means are these people never questioned. I know you didn't say all people and you realize that the majority of people question authority at some level, but we are talking about overly religious homeschoolers....in which case, I still believe that the parents are questioned by their future drones...it seems to be part of human nature to question.

I don't know. I'm not sure how optimistic I am about people. I don't think we question, I think we pick our sacred cow and denounce everything else.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You use psychedelics? heh heh

ya, I don't necessarily recommend it...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, as long as it's not illegal or harmful, the parent really has all the rights here to teach or "indoctrinate" as they see fit.

Indoctrination is harmful to children.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's silly to pretend otherwise, this is one of a parent's basic rights and until the child is old and experienced enough (18 at least) to make their own responsible choices it's a moot point.

. . . And it's the right of every parent to execute , if they so choose. (it's not like "the world" has got it all figured out anyway. Anybody know anybody out there who's got it all explained and under control?)

The rights of the parents do not supercede what is in the best interests of the child.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
And if the parents want them taught at home to "indoctrinate" them, it's not much different from what the schools do, it just comes from a certain viewpoint.

In private and public schools, children are exposed to a multiplicity of views. How can this be characterized as indoctrination?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In private and public schools, children are exposed to a multiplicity of views. How can this be characterized as indoctrination?

It depends on whether or not you believe that personal beliefs are based on rational choice.

Or whether or not you believe that the concept of multiplicity is indoctrination.

I actually think this is a very difficult question to answer

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.

Yet it is parents who are seeking to limit intellectual diversity, not private and public schools.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
If the kids can meet all educational requirements in all subjects, then this idea that homeschool parents must be certified is complete nonsense. Educationally, they are fine.

Why should home educators be held to a different standard of certification than private and public educators? By your reasoning, any one is qualified to teach in any educational setting so long as students meet educational requirements.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's people that want to promote abortion, evolution, and other theories as truth and stop people from thinking any other way that really would want homeschooling so severly restricted as to make it almost unavailable to parents.

The scientific ignorance illustrated in this post represents one of the dangers of home schooling. Relativity is "only a theory," but you do not question whether or not gravity exists. Yet, you question the validity of Evolution, which has more scientific support than Relativity.

Moreover, the notion that abortion is being promoted in public schools is a conservative Straw Man. In my entire public school educational experience in characteristically liberal Chicago, abortion was rarely, if ever discussed, let alone promoted.

Originally posted by inimalist
It depends on whether or not you believe that personal beliefs are based on rational choice.

Or whether or not you believe that the concept of multiplicity is indoctrination.

I actually think this is a very difficult question to answer

Indoctrination is "to imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view." By definition, representing a multiplicity of views is not indoctrination. What one believes about multiplicity is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Indoctrination is "to imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view." By definition, representing a multiplicity of views is not indoctrination. What one believes about multiplicity is irrelevant.

lol

no, sending a child to a school for the expressed reason of exposing them to a multiplicity of views is an ideological statement. I'm not criticizing it, I think it is a good point of view, but it has no more objective validity than the idea that children should be raised with a single view.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, sending a child to a school for the expressed reason of exposing them to a multiplicity of views is an ideological statement. I'm not criticizing it, I think it is a good point of view, but it has no more objective validity than the idea that children should be raised with a single view.

According to what reasoning?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to what reasoning?

what do you mean?

are you saying you don't think pluralism is an ideology?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to what reasoning?

If you understand this question:

Originally posted by Devil King
So, how do we "teach" without indoctrinating?

Then you understand the reasoning.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not quite the issue, my proposed test would have nothing to pass. It would be like a personality test, with multiple, equally valid results. Either you are the type who could learn in a public school, or you aren't. It has nothing to do with your test-taking abilities. I have to doubt the ability of even a highly advanced personality test to decide something like that long term. Personality tests require a certain skill as well...the ability to know the answer to the question doesn't always come naturally, even if the test is asking you about yourself.

Originally posted by inimalist
It depends on whether or not you believe that personal beliefs are based on rational choice.

Or whether or not you believe that the concept of multiplicity is indoctrination.

I actually think this is a very difficult question to answer
I wouldn't necessarily say multiplicity is indoctrination. At least in a school setting of some sort, you do get exposed to other people's outlook on life. That being said, a certain way a teacher teaches, can definitely be indoctrination. Overall, I think school is indoctrinating. The second you arrive in the first grade, the very first thing you get is a box. A small little box, all of your own. You are taught to love the box, know everything about the box and work hard for the box. But you aren't taught to see beyond the box, look past the box and build a bigger and more grandiose box. That's my gripe with school.

By no means am I preaching that home schooling is better of an alternative or any less of an indoctrinating lesson, but I certainly don't think school is all high and mighty above home schooling.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I have to doubt the ability of even a highly advanced personality test to decide something like that long term. Personality tests require a certain skill as well...the ability to know the answer to the question doesn't always come naturally, even if the test is asking you about yourself.
Well of course, not having any knowledge of psychology I would be the wrong person to ask regarding the structure of this test. But we both agree that in principle, a system should be in place to decide if someones homeschooling is legitimately needed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet it is parents who are seeking to limit intellectual diversity

Exactly.

In my limited experience with homeschooled...students...I have encountered only 2 types. And my experience certainly can't be held out as representative, but from what I am hearing in this thread, it seems to be.

They fit into 2 categories; they are being removed from the public school system because they have behavioral problems that the school system is either unwilling or unable to address and their removal is essential for a conducive environment for the other students or they are removed from the school sysytem because their parents do not want them exposed to ideas that run contrary to their own. Being from the south, the majority of homeschooled children I encountered were being taught at home because of religious concerns held by their parents.

But anyone who argues that the science class is a form of indoctrination has spent little time paying attention in one. In my case, I went to a religious private school, and it was the objective study of multiple religions in religion class that did the most to enlighten me to the topic of religion. This is religious exposure that does not take place in public school. And I think most of these parents who refuse to understand that there isn't indoctrination in a science class are confused because religion isn't taught side by side with science; as though they are two sides of the same coin.

Originally posted by Devil King
Exactly.

In my limited experience with homeschooled...students...I have encountered only 2 types. And my experience certainly can't be held out as representative, but from what I am hearing in this thread, it seems to be.

They fit into 2 categories; they are being removed from the public school system because they have behavioral problems that the school system is either unwilling or unable to address and their removal is essential for a conducive environment for the other students or they are removed from the school sysytem because their parents do not want them exposed to ideas that run contrary to their own. Being from the south, the majority of homeschooled children I encountered were being taught at home because of religious concerns held by their parents.

Very well put. I have only encountered those two types as well.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

no, sending a child to a school for the expressed reason of exposing them to a multiplicity of views is an ideological statement. I'm not criticizing it, I think it is a good point of view, but it has no more objective validity than the idea that children should be raised with a single view.

Seconded.

Originally posted by inimalist
what do you mean?

are you saying you don't think pluralism is an ideology?

Qualify the statement, " "has no more objective validity than the idea that children should be raised with a single view."

To paraphrase David Horowitz, the central purpose of education is the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of children to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry is indispensable to the achievement of these goals. It is exposing children to a multiplicity of views, not a single view that fosters free inquiry.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is exposing children to a multiplicity of views, not a single view that fosters free inquiry.

Which serves as an obvious condemnation of the idea that it is beneficial to either the learning-disabled/behaviourally-challenged or the religously inclined to be denied exposure to others in a society in which they are expected to function.


it is also a direct contradition to Sithsabre's notion that kids won't figure out for themselves that all children are not equal, created as such or otherwise.

Now, obviously the believe in exposing people to a multitude of views is an ideology, but if a country decides that it wants their citizens to hafve a standard of education to give them the possibility to function in every paths they should choose it is a necessary one I would say.

stop spamming up my page!

Originally posted by Noone cares
stop spamming up my page!

I SHALL NEVER!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
I SHALL NEVER!!!

Damn you!!! I'll have to start again!

Originally posted by Howdy man
Damn you!!! I'll have to start again!

I screencapped it, if it's any consoltation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I screencapped it, if it's any consoltation.

Yes, thank you...

Originally posted by minimalist
Yes, thank you...

You're welcome.

So..you find me pretty in a ...basic sense?


Wanna...go get some drinks sometime?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You're welcome.

So..you find me pretty in a ...basic sense?


Wanna...go get some drinks sometime?


I am in Austria in August, playing golf through Alpina.

Originally posted by Nomodstoday!
I am in Austria in August, playing golf through Alpina. We could meet...and hang out.

I play Golf, too. I suck though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We could meet...and hang out.

I play Golf, too. I suck though.

It might be a plan.. The golf courses of Austria are beautiful in the pictures.

Originally posted by Nomodstoday!
It might be a plan.. The golf courses of Austria are beautiful in the pictures. Well, Austria itself is really beautiful, so it is likely.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, Austria itself is really beautiful, so it is likely.

I hate you Bardock. Like some of the people in the comics forum you have outgrown being annoyed by trollish tactics. I thought Devil King was on the way to that, then he lost it!

Originally posted by Nomodstoday!
I hate you Bardock. Like some of the people in the comics forum you have outgrown being annoyed by trollish tactics. I thought Devil King was on the way to that, then he lost it! It's a hate/love thing, I figure. Also, you are not really trolling me, so you shouldn't take it to hard, I am sure you could if you tried hug

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a hate/love thing, I figure. Also, you are not really trolling me, so you shouldn't take it to hard, I am sure you could if you tried hug

No, i'm, not trolling you.

Originally posted by Nomodstoday!
No, i'm, not trolling you.

Fair enough.

What do you think about homeschooling?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough.

What do you think about homeschooling?

Probably provides a more hot housed environment for the wealthy leading to better grades. Almost certainly would lead to problems getting on with peers for some.

Originally posted by Nomodstoday!
Probably provides a more hot housed environment for the wealthy leading to better grades. Almost certainly would lead to problems getting on with peers for some.

The second part is probably true. But at least in the United States it seems less the Rich that try homeschooling (I assume Private Schools cover that market), but people that want to shield their children from a multitude of views. Usually those views that are either true or make life in a society easier. Do you think Homeschooling should be a possibility for everyone? And to what degree should it be controlled?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The second part is probably true. But at least in the United States it seems less the Rich that try homeschooling (I assume Private Schools cover that market), but people that want to shield their children from a multitude of views. Usually those views that are either true or make life in a society easier. Do you think Homeschooling should be a possibility for everyone? And to what degree should it be controlled?

In the U.K. this type of homeschooling has led to 13 year olds at Cambridge in the past.

Originally posted by Nomodstoday!
In the U.K. this type of homeschooling has led to 13 year olds at Cambridge in the past. Well, I guess it can be excellent for some people. I wonder if those children get along with their "peers" very well though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess it can be excellent for some people. I wonder if those children get along with their "peers" very well though.

I doubt they ever had peers.

Originally posted by Erasmus
I doubt they ever had peers.
Possible, but once they enter university they will have co-students and such. I wonder if there are studies on that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Possible, but once they enter university they will have co-students and such. I wonder if there are studies on that.

Because they enter University at 13 etc, the parent often attends with them.

Originally posted by BigRed
I wouldn't necessarily say multiplicity is indoctrination. At least in a school setting of some sort, you do get exposed to other people's outlook on life.

alright, and lets even suppose, for the sake of argument, that none of these multiple ideologies is out to indoctrinate you by itself.

I think you allude to it in your own response, but the culture itself, as opposed to the specific ideologies surrounding you, is what indoctrinates a child. By all means, indoctrinating a child into having an open and tolerant world-view is something I am for. Indoctrinating them into the idea that they are all equal and that people should be allowed to express themselves is essential to a functioning democracy. Whatever culture a child is brought up in will indoctrinate them.

Originally posted by BigRed
That being said, a certain way a teacher teaches, can definitely be indoctrination. Overall, I think school is indoctrinating. The second you arrive in the first grade, the very first thing you get is a box. A small little box, all of your own. You are taught to love the box, know everything about the box and work hard for the box. But you aren't taught to see beyond the box, look past the box and build a bigger and more grandiose box. That's my gripe with school.

aye, I share this gripe. It is also the case that those who think outside the box are considered "disruptive" in a class (and really, 30+ students, what math teacher has the time or the patience to go over first principles with a student who needs them to learn math; here is the equation, just rinse and repeat).

Originally posted by BigRed
By no means am I preaching that home schooling is better of an alternative or any less of an indoctrinating lesson, but I certainly don't think school is all high and mighty above home schooling.

agreed.

Originally posted by Devil King
But anyone who argues that the science class is a form of indoctrination has spent little time paying attention in one. In my case, I went to a religious private school, and it was the objective study of multiple religions in religion class that did the most to enlighten me to the topic of religion. This is religious exposure that does not take place in public school. And I think most of these parents who refuse to understand that there isn't indoctrination in a science class are confused because religion isn't taught side by side with science; as though they are two sides of the same coin.

I agree with most of this, and add that my high school was fortunate enough to have a very wide selection of courses, like philosophy, world religions, ancient civ, politics, etc, which I have learned most schools do not have . Like you said, this is hugely important, and really was formative to who I am and how I understand the world.

However, because I'm on the subject, I'd take you up on the indoctrination part. I get that you aren't even talking about pluralistic world-views at this point, but the teaching of fact. I would go back to the question you asked earlier about whether teaching is indoctrination and say that, without the subjective intent of language, or rather, in a mechanistic way, that teaching and indoctrination are the same thing.

My thought would be that it is the ascribing of a "true" relationship between to pieces of knowledge. For science it may be "Baking soda is a base" and "vinegar is an acid" as opposed to "gay people are sinners". And yes, I understand that science also is about asking questions, but really, there are many basic principles of science that students need to learn before they are properly able to question stuff, meaning they aren't equipped to question whether baking soda is really a base when it is being taught to them. I don't know, my personal thought is that it is the same thing going on, developmentally, when a person learn anything. I'd say they also learn how much they are allowed to question a "truth" through cultural indoctrination.

(I guess I should also point out that I'd be in favor of using one of many synonymous terms in pace of indoctrination, like learning, acquiring knowledge, socializing, etc. I think the only real reason to have separate terms for these things is to condemn what another group of people teach).

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Qualify the statement, " "has no more objective validity than the idea that children should be raised with a single view."

Children should be exposed to a single world-view
Children should be exposed to multiple world-views

now, an important factor here is the explicit desire to expose children to multiple world-views through education rather than it being a consequence of the education process itself. I don't think it changes the point, but it would take more finagling in the "socialization is cultural indoctrination" side of things, which is admittedly a hard sell, and may only be relevant to the way I come at issues.

What objective scale could prove one of these statements to be more valid? I believe the latter to be far more beneficial to almost every facet of society, but benefit is not a proof. These are essentially competing moral sentiments, which, from any humane moral view is easily decided, but from a point of objective validity, it is impossible to know which is true. Essentially in this case, it boils down to the stupid "you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore you cannot prove that a single world-view isn't actually the best way" or rather, it is impossible to obtain the proof that a single world view would be best.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To paraphrase David Horowitz, the central purpose of education is the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of children to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry is indispensable to the achievement of these goals. It is exposing children to a multiplicity of views, not a single view that fosters free inquiry.

you don't think that is a statement of ideology?

(and really, what education system is he talking about. the purpose of education has never been about such lofty goals)

Originally posted by King Kandy
I am equally against Atheists not telling their kids about religion, as I am against christians only telling their kids about Christianity.

Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.

It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.

I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.

It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.

When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)

This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up.

In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.

As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.


Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!

How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!"

I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.

It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.

I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.

It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.

When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)

This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up.

In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.

As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.


Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!

How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!"

I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming.

I thought you had a great point and I was agreeing with you all the way until the last part. Now I'm convinced that home schooling, for Christians, is not a good idea.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.

you are ok with parenting techniques that are harmful and destructive but also legal?

I wouldn't normally nit pick, but you italicized "legally"

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.

It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.

I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.

It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.

When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)

This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up.

In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.

As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.


Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!

How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!"

I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming. What you said about being on par is kinda the point. Meaning if the curriculum states that Evolution has to be taught (which makes sense, it being a scientific fact), then Home Schooled kids would have to learn about it as well. Except for that I think I mostly agree with what you said.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought you had a great point and I was agreeing with you all the way until the last part. Now I'm convinced that home schooling, for Christians, is not a good idea.

Me too. I want them in the schools with the other kids. You can go ahead and agree with the rest of the post without feeling bad. Originally posted by inimalist
you are ok with parenting techniques that are harmful and destructive but also legal?

I wouldn't normally nit pick, but you italicized "legally" My point was that people can say that Christian teaching qualifies as "harmful" because they don't believe it. Legal definitions are what we're talking about here anyway, and my point is that parents can teach kids whatever they want, it's not our business, unless it's illegal.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Me too. I want them in the schools with the other kids. You can go ahead and agree with the rest of the post without feeling bad. My point was that people can say that Christian teaching qualifies as "harmful" because they don't believe it. Legal definitions are what we're talking about here anyway, and my point is that parents can teach kids whatever they want, it's not our business, unless it's illegal.

I was disillusioned by the delusional part.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
My point was that people can say that Christian teaching qualifies as "harmful" because they don't believe it. Legal definitions are what we're talking about here anyway, and my point is that parents can teach kids whatever they want, it's not our business, unless it's illegal.

so what would your opinion on harmful legal action be?

Does a parent have the right to do anything legal that they want to the child?

Originally posted by inimalist
so what would your opinion on harmful legal action be?

Does a parent have the right to do anything legal that they want to the child?

My opinion would be that harmful legal action should be illegal.

Yes, a parent has a right to do anything legal that they want to their child, hence it being called "legal".

Originally posted by inimalist
Children should be exposed to a single world-view
Children should be exposed to multiple world-views

now, an important factor here is the explicit desire to expose children to multiple world-views through education rather than it being a consequence of the education process itself. I don't think it changes the point, but it would take more finagling in the "socialization is cultural indoctrination" side of things, which is admittedly a hard sell, and may only be relevant to the way I come at issues.

What objective scale could prove one of these statements to be more valid? I believe the latter to be far more beneficial to almost every facet of society, but benefit is not a proof. These are essentially competing moral sentiments, which, from any humane moral view is easily decided, but from a point of objective validity, it is impossible to know which is true. Essentially in this case, it boils down to the stupid "you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore you cannot prove that a single world-view isn't actually the best way" or rather, it is impossible to obtain the proof that a single world view would be best.

The implicit argument presented by each statement is that one is more beneficial than the other. Since each produces results that can be measured, benefit is an objective proof of the claims being made.




This statement is tautology:

Originally posted by inimalist
. . . the purpose of education has never been about such lofty goals . . .

This:

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.

It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.

I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.

It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.

When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)

This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up.

In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.

As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.


Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!

How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!"

I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming.

Does not address this:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet it is parents who are seeking to limit intellectual diversity, not private and public schools.




Why should home educators be held to a different standard of certification than private and public educators? By your reasoning, any one is qualified to teach in any educational setting so long as students meet educational requirements.




The scientific ignorance illustrated in this post represents one of the dangers of home schooling. Relativity is "only a theory," but you do not question whether or not gravity exists. Yet, you question the validity of Evolution, which has more scientific support than Relativity.

Moreover, the notion that abortion is being promoted in public schools is a conservative Straw Man. In my entire public school educational experience in characteristically liberal Chicago, abortion was rarely, if ever discussed, let alone promoted.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
''For applicants who may have left formal education some time ago, extensive relevant knowledge and experience and, normally at least one good pass at A-level or two good AS-levels, an Access or other equivalent qualification will be required.'' - Nottingham Trent.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160 '' Plymouth. (A D is 60 points).


''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160'' - Leeds Metropoliton.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 180'' Newman University College.

All for teaching degrees.

Ush, you can reply to this as well, if you wish.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Evolution has to be taught (which makes sense, it being a scientific fact),

When was it promoted from being a theory? I missed that apparently.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
When was it promoted from being a theory? I missed that apparently.

It got promoted from guess to scientific theory with the same likelyness as the theories about gravity and a round earth about 150 years ago. Except for that, you probably didn't miss anything else.