Originally posted by Robtard
I believe that statistically, most home-schooled kids come from [very]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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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 UshgarakHow exactly does Homeschooling work in the US or UK? Do you know?
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 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 KingIt's still 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'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*