Ron Paul for president of USA 08? Your thoughts.

[elven dragonrider]

Why are all homeschoolers pretty well almost always either TOTAL religious Freaks or Really smart?
I know... I have good sources.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Why are all homeschoolers pretty well almost always either TOTAL religious Freaks or Really smart?
I know... I have good sources.

Good topic for a new thread, lol.

But maybe the problem is more solvable as "People are a mystery, and it's particularly noticeable when you're young, and really trying to establish communication with them."

(((((HUGS)))))

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Why are all homeschoolers pretty well almost always either TOTAL religious Freaks or Really smart?
I know... I have good sources.

By definition, those that are homeschooled have parents that have a very high level of concern about the public school system.

That means:

a) The parents hold very strong religious beliefs that they feel may be undermined by the diverse worldviews that are bound to come up in the public school system, via peers and teachers.

or

b) The parents are very smart themselves, and pass that along to their children.

It's classic self-selection. Homeschooling, in and of itself does not make kids smarter or more religiously dedicated. There are plenty of geniuses and religious leaders that went to public school, they just had parents that cared enough to not let their education stop with public school alone.

No child who is homeschooled has a parent that does not care about their child's education, or they would not have choosen home schooling in the first place.

Basically, the problem is not how you get your education, but whether parents are concerned enough to take and active part in it, via homeschooling or by supplementing public education. Unfortunately, many parents do not care to.

That's not to say that they don't care about their children. They simple don't know how to help educate them. That's why public school must exist.

[Curubethion]

Ron Paul '08! Now I just need to register...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

By definition, those that are homeschooled have parents that have a very high level of concern about the public school system.

That means:

a) The parents hold very strong religious beliefs that they feel may be undermined by the diverse worldviews that are bound to come up in the public school system, via peers and teachers.

or

b) The parents are very smart themselves, and pass that along to their children.

It's classic self-selection. Homeschooling, in and of itself does not make kids smarter or more religiously dedicated. There are plenty of geniuses and religious leaders that went to public school, they just had parents that cared enough to not let their education stop with public school alone.

No child who is homeschooled has a parent that does not care about their child's education, or they would not have choosen home schooling in the first place.

Basically, the problem is not how you get your education, but whether parents are concerned enough to take and active part in it, via homeschooling or by supplementing public education. Unfortunately, many parents do not care to.

That's not to say that they don't care about their children. They simple don't know how to help educate them. That's why public school must exist.

*tch* *tch* *tch*

Overly pedantic and complicated, my friend.

I'd have expected you to mention sampling error, at the very least.

According to the department of education, in 2003 there were 1.1 million homeschooled students in the US. It's worth mentioning that homeschool activists believe that number is low. How many of them do you suppose elven dragonrider has met? Not even one percent, would be my guess, because that would be over 10,000 people. Are you suggesting that all those (or even a significant percentage of them) are, as in Lake Woebegone, above average? And, since I've already pointed out that only 30% are homeschooling "to provide religious or moral instruction", the "religious zeal self-selection" argument collapses, too.

I'd say a small sample size, coupled with observers bias, was the likely cause of her conclusion. Stereotypes about homeschooling (including the attractive one that homeschoolers are somehow more concerned than average about their childrens' education) just don't reflect the diversity of the population. Some have essentially independent schools (rather like Amish plain schools) while some "home-based learning" is overseen by public schools and follows their curriculum. Some meet in co-ops for lessons and some completely unschool. Some use "classical curriculum', featuring the study of Latin, and some emphasize the study of African American or other non-European culture. They homeschool because their child has special needs, or because the parents travel with work (like the Edwards family, this year.) Or for a million other reasons.

You know I'll pick on you, when you keep making these generalizations, right?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Are you suggesting that all those (or even a significant percentage of them) are, as in Lake Woebegone, above average?

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the fact that good education is a combination of getting educated (no matter what the method), and having parents that care to assist in that education. And the latter may very well be a lot more influential than the former.

By definition, a child who is homeschooled has both of those factors, unless they are being homeschooled for purely religious reasons. In which case it is possible, though certainly not definite, that they are not actually getting as good of an education as they could, but they still have the parental involvement aspect.

By comparison, those that go to public school are getting educated, but they may or may not have the parental involvement.

So, looking at it in general terms, it's to be expected that when compared with the rest of the population "in general terms", homeschoolers tend to be either generally more religious, generally better educated, or both.

This does not mean that there are not exceptions, but I would not be surprised if these assumptions held true in a general way. Generalizations are fine. The only become problematic when they turn into stereotypes (i.e. something is true for a majority of the population and thus must be true for all the population).

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And, since I've already pointed out that only 30% are homeschooling "to provide religious or moral instruction", the "religious zeal self-selection" argument collapses, too.

No it doesn't, since I didn't claim it was true for the entire population of the homeschooled, just true for those whose parents homeschool for religious reasons.

If a child is homeschooled in a religious way, it is highly likely that they will appear religious.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
Originally Posted by brownjenkins
Proof of my point, if you don't personally need it, then no one does.

Thankfully, a large population of americans don't mind taking a bit out of their pocket to help the children who need it.

sisterandcousinandaunt:
Do I hear a tiny violin? What is the translation of "the children who need it?" Would you perhaps mean PEOPLE OF COLOR? or POOR PEOPLE? or PEOPLE WHO DON"T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF EDUCATION I DO? or IMMIGRANTS? Thank goodness those people have someone to take their kids away from them so they can be raised to be white middleclass Protestants. Because we've already covered that they don't really care about their kids, anyway.That would be this post.
Quote:
The problem with your argument is that you assume that all parents do care about their children, and have the time, money and ability to provide for them properly. Millions do not.

sisterandcousinandaunt:
Yes, in fact I assume most people care about their children. I also believe they want the best for them. I also support their right to make the decision about WHAT is best for them, and not rely on a committee of educrats to tell them what is the best life for them to have. Compulsory public education has been used, time and again, to impose certain viewpoints on the population. Government education should be about providing opportunity, not about taking babies who aren't showing sufficient "learning readiness" to a poorly educated social worker, or are "at risk" because their parents are young. Because no one EVER rescues the babies of inadequate parents in the good neighborhoods.

We're not concerned about children, with this. We're just perpetuating class distinctions that leave some on top.

And, from a personal pov, I'd thank you to keep your assumptions about my class background out of these discussions. You embarrass yourself with such stereotyping.

I can't believe I did not respond to this post before, I know I read it but I guess I forgot to comment; good post. These are exactly the issues that concern me about public schooling, and why I believe home schooling is far better.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Ron Paul '08! Now I just need to register...

Trust me on this, register to vote the very first moment that you can! Nothing's worse than having chosen a candidate and not being able to vote. (Happened to me. Sucks.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I can't believe I did not respond to this post before, I know I read it but I guess I forgot to comment; good post. These are exactly the issues that concern me about public schooling, and why I believe home schooling is far better.

So what's the option for the children of parents who don't care? Or parents who do care but aren't all that educated themselves?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So what's the option for the children of parents who don't care? Or parents who do care but aren't all that educated themselves?

They grow up to be ignorant and at a disadvantage. That however is not for the government to decide or their problem to solve.

In modern society you don't need government to solve these problems, the results would be self evident. People will see the importance of schooling their children and make it a point to educate them. This idea that people are helpless is just retarded and encourages a dependence on government that is unhealthy.

Especially since the % of the population you are is discribing small to insignificant. Even during slavery people saw the importance of education and fought for it, for themselves and their children, you really believe that people would not be able to do even more now; this kind of thinking just does not add up to me.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

They grow up to be ignorant and at a disadvantage. That however is not for the government to decide or their problem to solve.

An ignorant portion of the population leads to all kinds of other problems governments must deal with when these children reach adulthood. I think that it is cheaper and safer to try to educate them first

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

In modern society you don't need government to solve these problems, the results would be self evident. People will see the importance of schooling their children and make it a point to educate them. This idea that people are helpless is just retarded and encourages a dependence on government that is unhealthy.

Especially since the % of the population you are is discribing small to insignificant. Even during slavery people saw the importance of education and fought for it, for themselves and their children, you really believe that people would not be able to do even more now; this kind of thinking just does not add up to me.

If people are so smart, the why don't they already homeschool their children? Or, at the very least, supplement their children's public education by providing them more at home after school?

On one hand you are saying that people would see the need and do it themselves if the government did not provide it. But on the other, you are saying that public school is obviously bad (which I don't agree with), yet these same people do not realize it. If they are not at least taking what the government provides, and then adding to it, they are certainly not going to do it all themselves.

Look to many places in Africa if you want to see what a country can end up like without public education.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

An ignorant portion of the population leads to all kinds of other problems governments must deal with when these children reach adulthood. I think that it is cheaper and safer to try to educate them first

I disagree, these problems would fix themselves, the lack of education as well as the resulting social problems. Again most people do want to educate their children.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If people are so smart, the why don't they already homeschool their children? Or, at the very least, supplement their children's public education by providing them more at home after school?

They would choose to homeschool their children if the were not continually propgandised to believe that public school is better. Not to mention the fact that you could be charged with truancy too easily even when you have followed the law (pretty much the same thing with vaccines, they say it is illegal not to have your kids vaccinated and it is not; and actually charge you with a crime).

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On one hand you are saying that people would see the need and do it themselves if the government did not provide it. But on the other, you are saying that public school is obviously bad (which I don't agree with), yet these same people do not realize it. If they are not at least taking what the government provides, and then adding to it, they are certainly not going to do it all themselves.

My agruement is simply that people should have achoice to public school their children or homeschool or not at all. Not to be forced to do either or. I donot think that we should abolish public schooling (definatley improve it though).

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Look to many places in Africa if you want to see what a country can end up like without public education.

You continually speak as if the people are not told the right thing to do they can't make the right decision unless they are told what to do. Is that wha tyou really think, people need the government to tell them what to do. As far as africa is concerned...

Let me tell you that africa is in the situation that it is in because of the international bankers and their preditory lending policies and the puppet governments they back in those countries; I mentioned propaganda earlier, this info is not hard to find out. The state of africa is exactly what I fear, if you think your government is not a puppet government you have got another thing coming. Africa is a good example of what happens when the system has undisputed power. So I say to you again, do let your government have the power to decide the future of your children, that is for you to decide.

[brownjenkins]

I don't know. I've met a lot of parents over the years, and while most care deeply for their children, I think the ones that could raise them properly if purely left to their own devices are few and far between. In fact, I'm not even sure if my wife and I could, and she's extremely qualified as far as being an educator.

In my mind, if you can't learn in a public environment, you can't live in a public environment. It's far from perfect, but it brings people together, from all walks of life, all home situations, and all economic situations, in an atmosphere where they have to learn to live with one another.

Those growing years are one of the few where you will interact with people you might never see again throughout the rest of your life, and that experience of the totality of what it is to be part of the human society is essential to our future well-being, warts and all. It's an equalizer that disappears when one turns eighteen and shuffles their way into their own little corner of comfortability.

I'd never refuse someone the choice of homeschooling, but I'd advise against it. Public school is more than just education, it's about discovering ones own society.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In my mind, if you can't learn in a public environment, you can't live in a public environment. It's far from perfect, but it brings people together, from all walks of life, all home situations, and all economic situations, in an atmosphere where they have to learn to live with one another.

See, this is another one of those places where two people look at the same data and draw opposite conclusions. I don't see people of all types getting along in public schools. I see clannishness and cliqishness common to children and teens absolutely enshrined, with little or no restraint from adults. I absolutely NEVER, as an adult, leave the house after checking that my "style" conforms to my peer norm. I have friends that never judge my taste in music. No one is "a jock", or "a geek" and people from all different backgrounds live and work together. When my high school had racial problems, the black kids in our neighborhood had to sit at a table with other black kids, instead of with the kids they played with every day of their lives. School is an engine of conformity that excludes people with developmental disabilities, mental illness, and alternate styles. These days, the kids can't even express themselves with clothing. Neither my work nor my community are ever like that.

Those growing years are one of the few where you will interact with people you might never see again throughout the rest of your life, and that experience of the totality of what it is to be part of the human society is essential to our future well-being, warts and all. It's an equalizer that disappears when one turns eighteen and shuffles their way into their own little corner of comfortability.

Again, I don't see it. My home is in the neighborhood I grew up in. I socialize with people I never spoke to in school...and none of us have changed all that much. We just have real tasks, that require real diversity to solve. School doesn't. Homeschooling, at its best, does.

I'd never refuse someone the choice of homeschooling, but I'd advise against it. Public school is more than just education, it's about discovering ones own society.

See, that's what I'd say about homeschooling.

[BeardofPants]

If you think that you leave clannish-nish or clique-iness is left behind in high school... That never stops. What high school does is TRAIN people for life later on. Home schooled children learn the same skills through social groups, etc. It's a very important skill - socialising & dealing with cliques. Teens just exaggerate those skills like a thousand-times.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

If you think that you leave clannish-nish or clique-iness is left behind in high school... That never stops.

Absolutely. I see that at work. I see it in our religious divisions. I see it in our extraciricular activities. In our politics. Even in how manicured our lawns are or who owns what car or where they live etc. It never ends. Its human nature. The difference is kids are more in your face about it and you get phenomenon like "mean girls". Adults tend to be somewhat in denial about it and go about it in a subtler more hypocritical way. Its all sad though. And kids who arent prepared to deal with the clannishness of human nature are sure to have a rough time dealing with it in their real lives.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

If you think that you leave clannish-nish or clique-iness is left behind in high school... That never stops. What high school does is TRAIN people for life later on. Home schooled children learn the same skills through social groups, etc. It's a very important skill - socialising & dealing with cliques. Teens just exaggerate those skills like a thousand-times.

Maybe I'm inattentive. And maybe my experience is unusual. But, on the whole, I find people friendly, interested in new people, and open to new ideas, with very few exceptions. I work in political environments with people from all walks of life, I work in theatrical environments, similarly. Most adults I know are more interested in accomplishing something than in excluding anyone, and they'll take almost any input or assistance that helps them do it. Even the "vulgar display" aspect of life (about which I read, and see on TV) is pretty unusual irl. Online environments are different...I've seen a lot of people behave online in ways they wouldn't consider in person.

"Dealing with people" and "behaving cliquishly" are two completely different things, I think. Some people (homeschooled or otherwise) have more people skills than others, that's natural. But adults, who are tasked with the responsibility of educating children, need to give them skills for not being bullies, as well as for coping with bullies, and for not excluding people, as well as for coping with exclusion. Those skills aren't learned from peers, generally. And I understand why teachers, with other pressures, don't take them on in school, as they used to. But it's a shortcoming of the system I don't see repeated in the larger world.

As I said, maybe my experience is unusual.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Absolutely. I see that at work. I see it in our religious divisions. I see it in our extraciricular activities. In our politics. Even in how manicured our lawns are or who owns what car or where they live etc. It never ends. Its human nature. The difference is kids are more in your face about it and you get phenomenon like "mean girls". Adults tend to be somewhat in denial about it and go about it in a subtler more hypocritical way. Its all sad though. And kids who arent prepared to deal with the clannishness of human nature are sure to have a rough time dealing with it in their real lives.

Well, I don't see it. I have neighbors I don't like much. Probably there are neighbors who don't like me. But I don't believe its "human nature" at all to be mean and compete. It's not my experience, and the rough things I've experienced in my life have not been related to it.

[BeardofPants]

I'm glad that you are not experiencing or seeing it, but trust me, cliques still exist. I worked for a union recently, and I was frozen out, ignored, bullied, and treated way worse than any experience I ever had at high school.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, and most of those people had the "benefit" of public school, probably.

Wouldn't it be better to be concentrating on ending that behavior young?

It's all "getting hit on the head lessons", isn't it.