As in sports, home turf has its advantages. Froggie thinks that formal education is much better than Homeschooling.F-Formal education with formal educators is a very efficient way of gaining knowledge.
What kind of "knowledge" are you talking about, would be my question.
Apparently, teachers are "doing" our kids a real "service" these days.
That aside, you forget to gain real "valid" knowledge is running a company in real life situations. To get out of the class room and experience life. I plan to give my kids a business to run in the near future. Look at Michael Dell who dropped out at age 19 to start Dell Computers. Bill Gates was also a drop out. Even Richard Branson the billionaire who started Virgin Group ( Virgin records, Virgin Airlines...) dropped out at age 16.
There are other famous millionaires out there like Quentin Tarantino, Dave Thomas, Johnny Depp, Nicholas Cage, Christina Aguilera, Jim Carrey, John Travolta, Chris Rock, Joe Pesci, all drop outs and all doing just fine.
It really depends on the individual. Formal education isn't "everything" as a do or die situation. There are plenty of people that were home schooled like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore F. Roosevelt and Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Ansel Adams, C.S. Lewis, Sir Isaac Newton and many more.
F-This is the downfall of homeschooling. The supposed teacher is not qualified, nor has the experience to help the student formulate the synergies between the ideas being taught.
Complete horseradish! There are large amounts of data/statistics that say the exact opposite of what you are claiming. If you need more there is plenty out there.
I remember a teacher bragging to me that her school had a respectable(?) 20 to 1 student to teacher ratio and I thought that my 1 to 1 ratio was far greater for my children.
They explain how they help build up the children and self esteem by their reward system. Ah, self esteem. We don't raise bullies by falsely building up the kids self esteem. Self esteem movement is more dangerous then you could possibly imagine. Need more proof? 1, 2,3, you get the picture.
My kids all learned to read at age three using Starfall which they love. I print out worksheets for my kids over at Kidzone. I even found a group called Homeschool Dads for support. There is plenty of help out there and Google will show you the way.
There are a great deal of advantages for homeschooling. Such as...
* Parents design the curriculum, ensuring that children are taught relevant, interesting information.* Children are given more attention because of the smaller class size, allowing for more one on one time.
* Children have less distractions resulting from social pressure from other students.
* Children have greater respect for their parents than any one else, meaning that children will cooperate more with parents than public school instructors.
* Parents will be allowed more time to bond with their children in a very positive way.
We teach our kids how to talk, how to eat, how to tie their shoes and get dressed, and how to ethically maneuver in this world. We are the only ones to show them what importance God is to us. Really, who cares more about their kids then the parents?
Sure there are dysfunctional parents out there, but no matter what outside influence the most impact will be from the parents good or bad. My children do not get exposed to gangs, my kids to not get exposed to drugs, my kids do not get exposed to inappropriate behavior or content. The most important thing is they do not get indoctrinated into a secular mindset. My kids know God.
Could you only imagine if there were no public schools for kids to acquire drugs or get bullied into gangs? Where the parents were forced to interact with their children on a daily basis instead of pawning them off to someone at a day care or school where the people caring for the kids considers the task a form of income or just a job. What a great world this would be.
I cannot do a homeschooling post without mentioning HSLDA who was very instrumental in keeping homeschooling legal here in California. We are lifetime Members.
So, please Froggie and stay in school if you choose. I will raise my kids Godly, thank you.
Update: Apparently CNN is reading my posts. Even though they covered it up and linked to Mental Floss, good for them.
tinyurl.com/HomeSchoolAdv
Amen Dan-
ReplyDeleteI hear you can get good online tutors as well, both for the students and the parents.
Really, the internet removes much of the criticism Sr. Frog has made, and as you point out, today's teachers are often far from qualified.
Add to this the terrible distractions and dangers in today's schools? the open hostility to our faith?
Then Home Schooling makes perfect sense, with the proof in the product.
Homeschoolers who are properly schooled soar over their PS counterparts.
I remember my own Jr high and High School exp.
It was a drug store, a party, an orgy and I saw many smart kids go down in flames.
Well, Dan, you have reminded me of "A House for the Feeble-minded." (I am offering 150 points on my blog to the first person who can get the reference.) It gives a hint to my thoughts on the educational system.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on the individuals doing the home-schooling. Creationists like yourself doing it, your kids will be ignorant as hell about the physical sciences, but I suspect that they won't be going into those fields in the first place.
ReplyDeleteUh, yeah. I just looked at those "statistics" of yours. Yeah, from the "Home School Legal Defense Association". Yep, real unbiased there.
ReplyDeleteI've looked around their curriculum site, in their science section a bit, and good grief.
The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible
dinosaurs by design
God's Design for Chemistry- Properties of Atoms & Molecules
God's Design for Chemistry Properties of Matter
Great, just more religious indoctrination. Whoever the hell uses that crap for their kids WILL raise them with a stunted science education!
Reynold- How do you like your crow?
ReplyDeleteGet your order in early.
Lol!
5 4 3 2 1 Gnash teeth!
Crow? Huh?
ReplyDeleteI'll leave the teeth gnashing to you when your "prophecy" about the "destruction" of San Francisco fails to happen by the end of the year.
Sorry Reynold, but crow aint Kashrut. lol!
ReplyDeleteI truly pray you survive the shock.
Kosher food or not aside, Dan, you're acting weird. I wonder how you'll react by the end of the year when your prophecy fails. Will you say that "god spared" San Fran or something and deny that you were wrong, or will you say that 2009 wasn't the year of judgement after all?
ReplyDeleteKosher food or not aside, Dan, you're acting "weird".
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean acting "weirdly"?
Were you home-schooled or something?
No, I'm just in a silly mood after a bad day. I try to keep my spirits up with humor.
When up for 36 hours straight, one's grammer skills go to hell. (don't ask)
ReplyDeleteSo, I notice that you never answered my question.
Apparently, teachers are "doing" our kids a real "service" these days.
ReplyDeleteYes, and home schooling parents are completely guiltless, right?
At least in the examples you gave, the persons had to demonstrate teaching qualifications before they were allowed to teach -- all the people I've listed had to do was fuck.
There are other famous millionaires out there... [who are] all drop outs and all doing just fine.
So you want your kids to grow up and be just like Quentin Tarantino, Johnny Depp, et al? Bill Gates, Michael Dell? They dropped out of college. I'd guess they had more than a superficial understanding of basic algebra, too...
There are plenty of people that were home schooled like [various notable Americans, and a couple worthless Brits]...
Funny. Appeal to popularity? Is it safe to say there are various nut-jobs and criminals who were home-schooled, too? I tried, but those aren't the sorts of records people choose to keep, and anyway, one would have to become famous indeed for primary education records to be retained.
I remember a teacher bragging to me that her school had a respectable(?) 20 to 1 student to teacher ratio and I thought that my 1 to 1 ratio was far greater for my children.
Except, that in your case, neither member of the ratio is an actual teacher. That you are educating your children is not in dispute -- rather, that you are teaching them. Teaching, see, implies an intent, and a grasp of the subject matter in question. You have neither. You have an intent to teach, but you are ignorant as to the application of that intent, and therefore what is learned is not necessarily what you intend to teach.
As to your list of 'advantages' of home-schooling...
Parents design the curriculum, ensuring that children are taught relevant, interesting information.
How do parents demonstrate that their notion of "relevant, interesting information" is actually educationally relevant?
Children are given more attention because of the smaller class size, allowing for more one on one time.
...sans variety. There is a reason home-schooled kids are known for being poorly adjusted later in life. The reduced attention also requires a child to cope with the fact that he is not always the center of said attention, and it provides a vehicle for a child to learn personal responsibility. Likewise, where peer relationships are unable to be had (which is admittedly not always the case), awkward (to say the least) times lie ahead with respect to social engagements and social interactions.
My own brother has a sealed juvenile record for leaving a detailed message on a girl's answering machine regarding his desires -- he was home-schooled, and had little social interaction, and just didn't know what behavior was appropriate.
(In case you're wondering, I was long out of the house.)
There is a distinct trade-off between smaller class sizes and lack of variety in social exchanges.
Children have less distractions resulting from social pressure from other students.
The "distractions" are beneficial, or at least can be, and while 'negative' social pressure is potentially problematic, social isolation is likewise problematic. Again, a balance must be struck.
Children have greater respect for their parents than any one else, meaning that children will cooperate more with parents than public school instructors.
This is extremely misleading, and mostly bull. Children may have greater respect for their parents in general, but they also have an established rapport with them, and know when and how much they can push the limits. With a reasonably unfamiliar adult in an authority position, those limits are wholly unknown, and thus the child will generally react in a respectful manner. It is partially for these reasons that changing teachers every year or two is to a child's benefit.
Of course, I'm no psychologist, so I defer to anyone with credentials in that area, but I'd say that learning how to deal with relatively unfamiliar authority figures is useful, and that stagnancy in the educational relationships is detrimental. There is also a reason why, in the public education system, students cease to have a single primary educator after elementary school -- the subject matter is too specialized and broad for any one person to be reasonably expected to be able to effectively teach it. To know it well enough to give a general overview, complete with factual and memory errors? Possibly, but not well enough to teach it.
Cooperating with parents is not the same as cooperating with other adults in authority positions, and children need to learn how to do that, too.
Parents will be allowed more time to bond with their children in a very positive way.
This is also bunk, through and through. Since at least one parent generally has to work, the plural, "parents," is misleading. Likewise, the parent-child bond is greatest well before formal education begins, and necessarily erodes from there into a peer-peer relationship. Some famous guy once spoke about this, saying that, "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother..."
"In a positive way"? True, or, equally true, in a negative way. That modifier is meaningless, just like this whole "point." If a parent is incapable of, or unwilling to, develop a positive relationship with his child, then perhaps the question is not whether that parent should be educating his child, but whether that person should be a parent.
I suspect you and I agree in principle that having genitalia is not a sufficient qualification for becoming a parent, yet for some reason you seem to believe that this is all that is required to educate a child. Surely, you jest?
We teach our kids how to talk...
No, they learn this by observing us, including our mistakes. It is through exposure to various speech styles in a given language set that children learn to differentiate between proper speech, and improper speech. From only their parents, children learn only how their parents speak.
...how to eat...
Strictly speaking, this is instinctual. The "rooting" reflex is proof enough of this fact. What you mean to say, is that you teach your children the eating etiquette of your culture -- which is asinine, too. Your children need little to no actual instruction to be able to mimic your use of a fork, and the utensil is quite unnecessary to the task in any event. Do your children know how to use chopsticks to eat?
...how to tie their shoes and get dressed
More and more things children learn by observation. The mechanics of buttons, snaps, zippers, Velcro, and shoelaces require more in the way of muscle development than they do instruction. Without being able to tie a bow knot on her shoes, my eldest was nonetheless able to tie her shoes so well that it took a pair of scissors to untie them (or, perhaps, several minutes of concentrated effort and patience), and even then when she was only two.
Once again, though, what you are actually teaching is not so much wardrobe selection and manipulation, but cultural sensibility, and your "instruction" is quite unnecessary, despite your pride in this "accomplishment."
...and how to ethically maneuver in this world.
No, again. Your children learn by trial-and-error what they can get away with doing, both in and out of your presence. While your behavior certainly influences what they learn, your instruction is no more responsible for this acquisition of know-how than your "instruction" in how to see. Children are truly remarkable, Dan, they will learn no matter how hard their parents strive to prevent them from learning; they will learn not just what the parent seeks to teach, but they will learn far more than this -- for good or ill.
The only thing I can say with any real authority here, though, is that regardless of your "instruction," it's safe to say that your children will fail any college entrance math exam.
College, by the way, is the place that all those famous Americans you referenced earlier ended up going, despite their lacking formal education to that point. If you can find a similar list of noteworthy Americans who were home-schooled, but didn't attend college -- or, more to the point, who were exclusively educated in an informal environment (including so-called "formal" home-schooling systems) -- then we can discuss the benefits of home-schooling further, but I'm going to make the bold assertion that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al would not have become the historical figures they did were it not for their economic status, their historical context, and their formal college education.
Could you only imagine if there were no public schools for kids to acquire drugs or get bullied into gangs? Where the parents were forced to interact with their children on a daily basis instead of pawning them off to someone at a day care or school where the people caring for the kids considers the task a form of income or just a job. What a great world this would be.
Yeah. It's called the Dark Ages, at the most recent. Public school systems [ostensibly] seek to give the opportunity for social advancement to all members of a society -- not just the wealthy and powerful.
Really, who cares more about their kids then the parents?
Me, for one, evidently.
I appreciate your concern, but a good parent should be able to help his child(ren) overcome the [real or imagined] evils so prevalent in the public school system. If, rather than pulling out of public education, you instead sought to fix public education, perhaps that system would benefit, and even become more personally acceptable for you. Additionally, rather than blaming the educational system, you may eventually recognize that the problems in education are the result of bad parenting, ultimately -- not bad educators. If some requirement other than penis-wielding were needed to become a parent, perhaps the percentage of parents who give a shit would increase...
You? Me? We're not mere penis-wielders, despite our other differences, but come on, man. Fix parenting, and your perceived problem with education will likewise be fixed.
--
Stan
Reynold-
ReplyDeleteI've answered that question a thousand times, but maybe I missed you.
That's one of those trick questions like, "When did you stop beating your wife".
I will not consider the possibility that God lied to me.
I've seen far too much physical evidence as well, so by this, I have complete confidence.
So to answer a "what if" question would be to consider what is outside of reality. Like "what if you woke up on mars?".
Does that answer your question?
No. For one thing, there is no way in hell I could wake up on mars. On the other hand, all we have to do to test your "prophecy" is to just wait and see.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, you'll have to admit that it failed, and you've left too much of an internet footprint to deny it.
By the end of this year you're going to have one hell of a reality check, one that you did not want.
Unless you're just spoofing all of us.
That's one of those trick questions like, "When did you stop beating your wife".
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this evaluation of the question posed...
So to answer a "what if" question would be to consider what is outside of reality. Like "what if you woke up on mars?".
I agree, however, with the thrust of this one...
For one thing, there is no way in hell I could wake up on mars.
Again, I disagree with this evaluation...
On the other hand, all we have to do to test your "prophecy" is to just wait and see.
...but with this one I again agree.
You two are going around in circles, but the fact is that the question does not consider things outside of reality. Just as Reynold could very well wake up on Mars tomorrow -- an admittedly slim possibility, but clearly not outside the realm of possibility -- so, too, could god have lied to El Dani, or, more likely, could El Dani merely be deluded. These are not outside the realm of possibility, and thus they can be evaluated.
If someone asked me, "What if you woke up tomorrow and murdered your wife?" I would recognize that it is preposterous, but nonetheless a possible action whose likelihood I could evaluate. I can say that I won't do that, but it is no less possible an event than were I to eat a bowl of cereal tomorrow. As with Reynold waking up on Mars, or El Dani waking up on New Year's Day to an intact California, both are possible, despite how likely they may or may not be.
So, Reynold's question is possible to answer without denying your belief in the inevitability of the demise of California. Just because you don't believe god is lying to you, or that you are deluded, doesn't mean you can't imagine your response were one of these two scenarios to play out.
If Reynold were instead to ask, "When will you admit that you're deluded?" then that would be a trickster question, but it's not what's been asked. Just because it's uncomfortable to imagine these possibilities does not mean it's impossible to imagine.
--
Stan
Either Dan's post is some kind of joke or else it is one of the most delusional screeds I have read in quite some time.
ReplyDeleteEl Danno remains the most bat shit crazy bastard on the nets.
Just sayin'.
Love ya Froggie! (I am crazy!)
ReplyDeleteSo are you bipolar? Schizophrenic?
I thought I was your hero? The greatest poe ever? lol!
Stan- here's what I meant.
If I were to answer the "what if" would be to confess to a certain level of doubt, no matter how small and I have no such doubts on any level.
As to the possibility? No God cannot lie, and you have not considered all the evidence. I've only shared a tiny bit of it on my blog, and much of it, the most powerful parts I have orders to keep secret for now.
If all the evidence was before you, and you knew what I knew, you would agree that it is surely coming and soon.
Dan, sorry my bad.
ReplyDeleteI try not to hijack blogs like this so sorry.
Back on topic-
As to the possibility? No God cannot lie...
ReplyDeleteThis is not necessarily in dispute. Instead, there is the possibility, that even you should be able to admit, that you may be deluded. It may be that you've been hearing Satan, who has devised an elaborate scheme to deceive you. Your unwillingness to consider your actions should this possibility obtain is tantamount to admitting that you are indeed insane.
I could be wrong about virtually everything I've ever said or thought, and I could be insane. This is possible. I don't live as though it is the case, and I don't doubt my own sanity; and I am no less capable as a result. The same is true for you -- you could imagine the possibility without admitting doubt. I fail to see the utility in maintaining your facade of denial.
Anyway, back to the topic... Kids "educated" by dumb parents -- no matter the system under which they are educated -- are far more likely to themselves be dumb.
Incidentally, I wonder if any statistics exist which show the socio-economical divisions extant amongst families which opt to home-school their children...
For the slow of wit, I'm wondering if the "problems" Dan alludes to with respect to public education are correlated to the fact that public education is free. To successfully home-school one's children, materials must be purchased, and a system of some sort must generally be adopted -- which, as I understand it, require a tuition of sorts. So I would be surprised to hear that the home-schooling community entertained a sizable number of poor families.
For better or for worse, the poor population has a higher occurrence of the negative influences Dan callously ascribes to public education. Fix parenting, fix socio-economic status, and education is likely to follow.
--
Stan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteMy answers to all your statements can be found im my comment in the previous post.
I know teachers; and you are no teacher.
"I hear you can get good online tutors.."
ReplyDeleteTutors cannot replace competent teachers.
"Don't you mean acting "weirdly"?
ReplyDeleteWere you home-schooled or something?"
The problem is Dan, you are so far out there it is impossible to parse your humor from your other hogwash.
""I hear you can get good online tutors.."
ReplyDeleteThey are quite expensive.
The problem is Dan(i), you are so far out there it is impossible to parse your humor from your other hogwash.
ReplyDeletePlease take your meds and let me know when I'm your hero again.
;)
"I will raise my kids Godly,..."
ReplyDeleteKids are in school 35 hours per week. That leaves 72 waking hours to teach them your irrational belief systems.
Of course you feel that is not enough. In order to thoroughly condition them you must totally isolate them from society and totally immerse them in your cult-like atmosphere.
"I plan to give my kids a business to run in the near future."
Sure. Then the ignorant cretins can pray for the profits to come in. Right on Dan.
Dani'El said--
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm just in a silly mood after a bad day. I try to keep my spirits up with humor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What happened, Dani'El? Did some homosexual dodge the rock you threw at him? God hasn't burned all those nasty homos yet and it's bringing you down?
CH What happened, Dani'El? Did some homosexual dodge the rock you threw at him?
ReplyDeleteTypical liberal turnspeak.
They throw stuff at me, I bless them.
They spit at me for simply reading the bible on the bus.
Oh those poor innocent sodomites, so persecuted in San Francisco.
El Danno,
ReplyDelete"Please take your meds and let me know when I'm your hero again."
OK, you got me there.
Let me qualify this.
You are either,
A- Crazy as a shit house rat, or
B- The most successful Poe, Evah!
If A is true, good luck.
If B is true, you are my hero.
Capice?
Sorry mein Froggie,
ReplyDeletebut you forgot-
C- The Real McCoy.
Alles Klar?
;)
"They spit at me for simply reading the bible on the bus."
ReplyDeleteSomehow, I rather doubt that. I don't think you could resist, at the very least, telling the people around you that they were going to burn. I also don't think that people are scanning to see if anyone happens to be reading a bible. I do think you like to draw attention to yourself.
Dani'El whined--
ReplyDeleteThey spit at me for simply reading the bible on the bus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Probably because you're reading it at the top of your lungs. But take heart. Think of how happy you'll be when the entire city of San Francisco is ablaze! All those burning homos. Makes your mouth water, doesn't it Dani'El?
I'm just guessing, but I'll bet El Dani is reading his bible on the bus aloud, and from Genesis 19...
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Dani is the kind of guy who'd scream at someone about their dead wife.
ReplyDelete"Charles! Charles!!
Where is Diana your wife!?
The blood of Diana cries out from the ground, Charles!
Where is Diana your wife!?"
Several members of the media looked over their shoulders red faced with anger.
I continued.
"Charles! Where is your wife!?
The blood of Diana cries out from the ground!
You are living in sin with that woman!
Charles! WHAT DID YOU DO!!!?
Come out of that limo you coward!!"
and hears voices and fights invisible monsters.
Homeschooling is probably totally OK up to the beginning of highschool, as long as you get your kids into some sports teams, drama classes, art clubs or whatever so that they can socialize. Scouts and Guides are pretty good for this sort of stuff too.
ReplyDeleteIf you're wanting to teach your kids privately beyond that point then the best course of action would be to sit the GCSEs or American equivalent yourself - and don't teach a subject that you can't score an "A" in. Otherwise you are obviously providing a substandard education.
Oh and to deny them any subject that their local might allow them to choose is to rob them of an education.
ReplyDeleteCwC- I think the terrible conditions in the Public schools keeps getting ignored here.
ReplyDeleteMany inner city schools are scenes of anarchy, violence, drugs, etc.
Even in the 70's my High School in
middle class white Orange County CA was an orgy of drugs, lust and decadence.
The distractions were overwhelming to me, and coupled with the slow pace and crowded classrooms, I didn't get much of an education.
I did come out of it with some terrible habits that came to bring much suffering later in life.
I had a trade right out of school as I had learned photography from my father, so my lackluster education did not hurt me much.
The vices did.
And as Dan pointed out, a good church can provide all the social stuff. The best softball leagues are run by churches, and there are homeschooling internet communities popping up all over.
The internet removes a lot of the problems with any shortcomings the parents may have.
And again, the Teachers are often not qualified themselves.
They are failing basic tests here in CA, even in their own subjects.
Also- Anyone see Kaitlyn around?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen her for some time and I'm a bit worried about her.
Kaitlyin?
You OK?
CodewordConduit said...
ReplyDeleteHomeschooling is probably totally OK up to the beginning of highschool, as long as you get your kids into some sports teams, drama classes, art clubs or whatever so that they can socialize. Scouts and Guides are pretty good for this sort of stuff too.
Isn't to prevent his kids 'socializing' with (what he thinks is) the wrong kind of kids, one of the reason for Dan to homeschool his offspring?
Dani' El, you said:
ReplyDeleteThey throw stuff at me, I bless them.
They spit at me for simply reading the bible on the bus.
Oh, innocent Daniel. But wait, didnt you abuse a widowed man (Prince Charles) in the cruelest way?
In your own words:
I worked my way to the front of the crowd just as the limos pulled up and started.
"Charles! Charles!!
Where is Diana your wife!?
The blood of Diana cries out from the ground, Charles!
Where is Diana your wife!?"
Several members of the media looked over their shoulders red faced with anger.
I continued.
"Charles! Where is your wife!?
The blood of Diana cries out from the ground!
You are living in sin with that woman!
Charles! WHAT DID YOU DO!!!?
Come out of that limo you coward!!"
Yes Daniel, the stones are never thrown by you.
I'm sorry about this Dan.
ReplyDeleteMy bad for bringing it up and thereby provoking the wicked to flame your blog in my honor.
They don't have the chutzpah to do it on my blog, so they come here to take their cheap shots.
I could easily give answer that would shut them down, but it would only serve to feed their evil lusts.
In fact I've given answer to every charge they've made here on my own blog, but some simply like to chant lies long enough until others believe them.
Anyway.
I stopped posting at Ray's blog for the very reason it would cause problems like this, so I will say farewell to avoid it happening here.
Of course, I always appreciate your comments over at my place and I look forward to meeting you soon.
Your brother in the Lord of Glory, Messiah Yeshua.
Dani' El
PS, To my other friends here. I've enjoyed your company and spirited debates and will also see you around.
Dani' El,
ReplyDeletewhat lies? Those were your own hateful words, proudly displayed on your own blog.
Relevant when you insist "They throw stuff at me, I bless them", surely?
Puuullleeease.
ReplyDeleteSpare us the drama.
Cheesh.
Dan: the bearded homeschooled man looks familiar, somehow... ah, yes, he's that guy who was born the same day as Charles Darwin! I bet that was a great conversation starter for him!
ReplyDelete"I could easily give answer that would shut them down,..."
ReplyDelete****rolling eyes****
Dani' El
ReplyDeleteI've posted on your old blog before. On your new blog you seem to have the same postings as on your old one, though my comments are no longer visible.
Why does it take more "chutzpah" to go after you on your own blog than it does here? Are you planning on doing something with our IP addresses?
k44 messages! Wow I was just going to "check in" from the weekend but it looks like I need more time to respond. Sooy folks it's just too gorgeous out to be online. A trip to Yosemite might be in order for today but we will see. I will get back to these comments tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dani'El for your support here.
Reynold,
Yeah, from the "Home School Legal Defense Association". Yep, real unbiased there.
Are you claiming statistics are biased? Ad Hom's aside you cannot refute the data out there. Maybe I should do a part deux with more staggering data. I would be worth the data gathering if time permits.
Creationists like yourself doing it, your kids will be ignorant as hell about the physical sciences, but I suspect that they won't be going into those fields in the first place.
I cannot believe you are really showing your cards here. You are a pure bigot to Christians. My kid wants to be a paleontologist although she admits that she wants to be a Creation paleontologist. You know full well the only people that would prevent her from her doctorate is the secular scientists in charge of her getting her PhD. Wake up!
No time it's 65 degrees and breezy just to nice not to enjoy.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteYeah, from the "Home School Legal Defense Association". Yep, real unbiased there.
Are you claiming statistics are biased? Ad Hom's aside you cannot refute the data out there.
If the people in charge of collecting the data are not trustworthy and biased, one is justified in being suspicious. Those people are not third party researchers but are just more xians pushing an agenda.
Battling for the heart and soul of homeschoolers Salon.com. October 2, 2000.
Reading, writing, & right-wing politics Boston Globe. August 15, 2004.
With all due respect, after dealing with xian apologists and creationists and reading the articles above, I don't have much faith that those people would be much different.
Maybe I should do a part deux with more staggering data. I would be worth the data gathering if time permits.
Go right ahead. Just make sure you can back up your claims.
Creationists like yourself doing it, your kids will be ignorant as hell about the physical sciences, but I suspect that they won't be going into those fields in the first place.
I cannot believe you are really showing your cards here. You are a pure bigot to Christians. My kid wants to be a paleontologist although she admits that she wants to be a Creation paleontologist.
Then as I said, your kid is going to be way behind the curve when she gets into college. The crap that the people you link to has nothing but out of date, already refuted stuff.
Unless you're using some different materials?
I'm not bigoted against Christians, Dan, I'm "bigoted" against those who distort science and peddle lies to children.
Deal with it.
You know full well the only people that would prevent her from her doctorate is the secular scientists in charge of her getting her PhD. Wake up!
You idiot...ever stop to think WHY those "secular scientists" would prevent her from getting her PhD?
Did you?? Let me explain by analogy because I know damned well you didn't think about this at all...Would you want a person to recieve their MD if they did not recieve the proper training for it, and were not shown to be fully compotent in their field of study?
Same with paleontolgy. Or ANY field that one goes into. If one relies on junk materials that distort the evidence, or leave stuff out, they are going to be behind the curve when they get into university. When/if your daughter gets there, she is going to be in for a very rude surprise at all the stuff the creationists did not tell her.
Unless of course, you actually use stuff that isn't tainted by creationist bs, like Dinosaurs by Design and whatnot.
Dan tells us:
ReplyDelete"Like in sports, home turf has it's advantages. Froggie thinks that formal education is much better then Homeschooling."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But did anybody else notice his grammar mistake (which I put in bold font)? He said "then" when he should have said "than."
Now, tell me again how great homeschooling is, Dan?
"Like in sports, home turf has it's advantages. Froggie thinks that formal education is much better then Homeschooling."
ReplyDeleteWell, if we're going to pick nits, Dan made two additional mistakes here, both in the first sentence. Of course, if enough people say or write something, it is only a matter of time before a "mistake" becomes an "accepted variant" and finally "correct". This is evolution at work, and indeed, the evolution of languages was one thing that inspired Darwin to look for evolution elsewhere.
"My kid wants to be a paleontologist although she admits that she wants to be a Creation paleontologist."
ReplyDeleteNo Dan. You have brainwashed her into that irrational thinking.
Paeontologists do much course work in geology since evolution predicts that certain fossils will be found in certain strata.
I find it hilarious how people like Ken Ham try to explain away the geologic column.
Please tell us how all those fossils got classified and arranged in their particular position in the geologic column by a long term huge rainstorm and ensuing flood.
That scenario is easily modeled and the result is always the same. You end up with every different species being washed into the low spots together. This is admixture.
The geologic column clearly shows the oldest and most simple single celled microscopic organisms at the bottom with successively complicated organisms up through the column.
To try to say that a flood did this is absolutely absurd beyond description.
The creation scientists are nowdays making the claim that the process is quite mysterious (when it is actually very well understood as is the mountain building process) and then they go on to point out what they consider to be certain anomalies in the geologic column.
That is always their M.O. Creationists never come up with research to show their processes. They merely obfuscate and lie about the known scientific facts.
First, I find it of no value to poke fun at Dan, or anybody else, for failures in grammar/spelling, for reasons of a possible home-schooled past (which, if I recall correctly, Dan did not have); poor grammar/spelling comes from every educational background.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, as I have attempted to note before, the nature of public education being what it is, it should come as no surprise, and it should hardly be a blight on its success, that there are so many poorly educated persons in a public education system. Public education is [ostensibly] the least common denominator. Those children who "win" the parent lottery, and receive a better education, are far more likely to become "successful." Dan's children, for better or for worse, seem to have an opportunity for a higher quality education, but he seems set in preventing as much of that as possible.
Please tell us how all those fossils got classified and arranged in their particular position in the geologic column by a long term huge rainstorm and ensuing flood.
That's easy. The larger (and more complex) species have more fat cells, and fat cells are more buoyant than non-fat cells. Also, they have larger lungs, and thus a greater capacity for air, which means they stay afloat longer still. Therefore, the more dense, less fatty, and less overall buoyant species landed at the bottom first.
As for the enormous size of many species of dinosaur, well, their greater bone mass overcame the buoyancy offset by their lungs, and they were incredibly fit, so they had little in the way of fat deposits. Also, they lacked the muscle strength and endurance (despite their physical fitness) to swim as long as their mammalian cousins -- sorry, fellow creations -- which is just another strike against them.
You just have to approach the problem from the correct perspective -- that the bible is true and correct, and therefore any data which appear to contradict the bible must be reinterpreted in such a way that the two can agree. Note, of course, that this reinterpretation of data is by no means a compromise -- the bible trumps all.
This is why, quite simply, humans assumed the earth was a flat disc for so long -- the data supported it, and so did the bible -- but then when it was discovered that the earth was roughly spherical, the bible was finally correctly interpreted to say so the whole time. This is again why our modern understanding of disease has spawned a new, corrected interpretation of certain scriptures concerning blood and life.
Can't you see? When you accept the authority of the bible, all of these "problems" rapidly sublimate; we just have to either reinterpret the data in a bible-friendly way, or recognize that our current interpretation of the bible is erroneous, and pursue the proper interpretation.
It's all very simple, really.
...............
Anyway, Dan, your fire-and-forget methods of posting are getting old. If you're unprepared, or unwilling to defend your own subject, perhaps you'd be better off postponing your post until such a time that you can respond.
Oh, and I just noticed this gem from El Dani:
Homeschoolers who are properly schooled soar over their PS counterparts.
Data, please, or it didn't happen. While you're at it, don't think I didn't notice the qualifier, "who are properly schooled," which is conspicuously absent from the public school "counterparts." Are you asserting that "properly schooled" home-schooled students "soar over" "properly schooled" public school students?
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteAfter all Dan's efforts to convince me that the flood occured you have managed to do it in three paragraphs.
That was brilliant.
I am not worthy!
'Cept for one little thing. Much of the fosil record is made up of flora, which are anchored in place and who's specific gravity would have them precipitate out together.
We still find them in successively complex forms up through the column.
Have a go! :)
Stan,
ReplyDeleteRemember, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!
Stan: yep. This goes not only for science, but also morals: slave-holding Southerners quoted the Bible to support slavery; nowadays, the Bible is "correctly" interpreted as being anti-slavery.
ReplyDeleteAnd as Jack Chick says, now that we know that protons repel one another, we can say that the Bible has been telling us all along why they stick together in atomic nuclei: because Jesus holds them together (Colossians 1:17: "He himself existed before anything else did, and he holds all things together.") The Bible scoops science once again!
Always take statistics about homeschooling that are generated by homeschooling advocacy groups with a pound of salt.
ReplyDeleteFOR EXAMPLE:
Dan posted a link to a frequently cited page on the Home School Legal Defense Association site. Among other things, this page claims that homeschooled students perform slightly higher on average than schooled students on standardized tests such as ACT. This is technically true, but extremely misleading.
The statistics come from a 1998 report on scores from the ACT organization. While this report does indeed state that homeschooled students get higher scores on average, it also shows another revealing number. In 1998, home schoolers accounted for just 2,610 test takers, compared with a total of 995,038 total students who took the test. That means that as a whole, homeschoolers account for only about 0.26% of all ACT test takers.
How many total home schoolers are there? Home schooling advocacy groups from that time estimated that there were between 750,000 and 1.5 million home schooled students, and about 50 million public and private schooled students.
Guessing somewhere between those numbers, we can see that about 2% of students are home schooled. Yet only 0.26% of all test takers were home schooled. What this means is that if you are home schooled, you are almost ten times LESS LIKELY to take this college entrance exam at all. I think this qualifies as not just an underrepresented group, but MASSIVELY underrepresented.
Interpretation: Parents who are diligent about home schooling and know what they're doing can indeed train kids to do exceptionally well. These are almost certainly not the parents who have no clue about math and science and are staying one step ahead of their kids in the textbook.
If you do manage to raise a kid who takes college entrance exams then he may do well, but that makes you a marked exception to the rule. Most home schooled kids apparently aren't driven to take the exams at all, and this is far more common an occurrence than those kids who are well served by responsible homeschooling.
For more stuff I've written on home schooling, including some very heated discussions, see this post.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYes, and home schooling parents are completely guiltless, right?
Normally I would say touché but "apples and oranges" my friend.
My kids are not (ever) going through those disturbing articles that you linked to but there is a good chance they would go through what I linked to if I sent them away to school.
If parents are doing those things to their kids then like I said "Sure there are dysfunctional parents out there, but no matter what outside influence the most impact will be from the parents good or bad." So the subject of public school becomes irrelevant like your point.
At least in the examples you gave, the persons had to demonstrate teaching qualifications before they were allowed to teach
Again, you almost got a touché but you must remember that I got my education FROM public schools and passed. Again your argument is rendered mute since I have to reeducate myself in order to teach the subject. So in a sense I am getting my education, not from the public school that I attended, but from self driven learning.
So you want your kids to grow up and be just like Quentin Tarantino, Johnny Depp, et al?
So you miss the point entirely. I am saying that many accomplished people succeed without formal education. That it is possible to achieve without a public school or university. It all depends on the individual. Again your point is lost.
Funny. Appeal to popularity?
No it isn't a fallacy it is a list, called evidence, that people can get by without formal education. Again, epic fail on your argument.
Is it safe to say there are various nut-jobs and criminals who were home-schooled, too? I tried, but those aren't the sorts of records people choose to keep
See! Then you attempted to do the very same thing. You tried to find evidence but could not yet you still believe it anyway. No wonder you believe in things that cannot be shown with evidence like evilution.
Teaching, see, implies an intent, and a grasp of the subject matter in question. You have neither. You have an intent to teach, but you are ignorant as to the application of that intent, and therefore what is learned is not necessarily what you intend to teach.
Are you claiming teachers know all the subject matter. Would you like evidence to the contrary?
Did I tell you I went to a public school in Illinois? Well I saw, first hand, the complete failure of actual teaching. The entire school was way more interested in making State for the sports teams. Our football team went state four years in a row when I was there but we had kids that were scrawny their sophomore year only to "balloon" by their senior year to hulk like status. We all joked about it. Steroids were rampant in our school and no one cared because we were indeed making strides in our sports.
There is a reason home-schooled kids are known for being poorly adjusted later in life. The reduced attention also requires a child to cope with the fact that he is not always the center of said attention, and it provides a vehicle for a child to learn personal responsibility. Likewise, where peer relationships are unable to be had (which is admittedly not always the case), awkward (to say the least) times lie ahead with respect to social engagements and social interactions.
Mere assertions? Should we count assertions? Again, fail?
My own brother has a sealed juvenile record for leaving a detailed message on a girl's answering machine regarding his desires -- he was home-schooled, and had little social interaction, and just didn't know what behavior was appropriate.
Small world because my brother has the exact thing. He was publicly schooled, and had a great deal of social interaction, and did know what behavior was appropriate. Next?
(In case you're wondering, I was long out of the house also.)
There is a distinct trade-off between smaller class sizes and lack of variety in social exchanges.
Pure hogwash assertions.
Children have greater respect for their parents than any one else, meaning that children will cooperate more with parents than public school instructors.
This is extremely misleading, and mostly bull.
I have witnessed this between my own kids compared to kids who go to public schools. So your claim of bull is bull.
There is also a reason why, in the public education system, students cease to have a single primary educator after elementary school -- the subject matter is too specialized and broad for any one person to be reasonably expected to be able to effectively teach it. To know it well enough to give a general overview, complete with factual and memory errors? Possibly, but not well enough to teach it.
Funny, in my own experience, I had a few wonderful teachers and many not so wonderful. If the good ones taught me every subject I would have learned a lot more. I respected those teachers and wanted to please them since I enjoyed their classes so much. That reminded me of a teacher in my past. We had a teacher that would cry outside in the hall, during class, because kids would tease him so much. I cannot even tell you what he taught or if I did good or not in his class.
We teach our kids how to talk...
No, they learn this by observing us, including our mistakes.
Good point
...how to eat...
Strictly speaking, this is instinctual.
More and more things children learn by observation...Your children learn by trial-and-error what they can get away with doing, both in and out of your presence.
Thanks for arguing my point and diminishing Froggie's point. Education is observed and taught through experiences and involvement throughout someones life there is less emphasis on being taught in a stale class room being lectured and more on experiencing things themselves and observing things themselves. Public teaching for children is a "have to" situation, my kids learn what they "want to" which is healthier and more productive and exciting. BTW often it is the same subjects. Out of the desires of the grown ups or out of the desires of the child with grown up guidance. We made our choice.
The only thing I can say with any real authority here, though, is that regardless of your "instruction," it's safe to say that your children will fail any college entrance math exam.
Mwahahaha, That is hogwash again. Mere assertions with authority? Give us a break.
Public school systems [ostensibly] seek to give the opportunity for social advancement to all members of a society -- not just the wealthy and powerful.
Is that why rich send there kids to privately funded schools? Is that why most drugs, gangs, and teen pregnancies originate from public schools. Puullleese.
If, rather than pulling out of public education, you instead sought to fix public education, perhaps that system would benefit, and even become more personally acceptable for you.
Tell that to the rich people.
Additionally, rather than blaming the educational system, you may eventually recognize that the problems in education are the result of bad parenting, ultimately -- not bad educators.
Fair enough bad parenting pushes kids to be bullies, join gangs, and become promiscuous with drug use so they go to schools to feed all these desires. So you want my child to interact with kids with bad parents? So they too can lean how to be bad and to learn from bad kids? Nice argument(?), but no thanks.
Fix parenting, and your perceived problem with education will likewise be fixed.
I will concede to some of the problems but not all. As long as the teacher unions exists and teaching is a mere job instead of a selfless passion nothing will get fixed anytime soon. BTW parenting is a selfless passion of mine and I am confident that it is for you also. That is what these kids need, it's called love.
Froggie,
ReplyDelete"I plan to give my kids a business to run in the near future."
Sure. Then the ignorant cretins can pray for the profits to come in. Right on Dan.
I forgive you for such evilness towards my children. Any wonder why I keep my kids away from people with the likes of Froggie? BTW aren't you in education or something to do with children? Scary with that type of bigotry.
CwC,
ReplyDeleteIf you're wanting to teach your kids privately beyond that point then the best course of action would be to sit the GCSEs or American equivalent yourself - and don't teach a subject that you can't score an "A" in. Otherwise you are obviously providing a substandard education.
You know full well that kids get HS diplomas every day without even knowing how to read. So there is nothing sacred about HS diplomas.
Plus, I can issue my own HS diploma. I will also provide transcripts for college. Many colleges are accepting transcripts from kids that are home schooled.
Oh and to deny them any subject that their local might allow them to choose is to rob them of an education.
California wants to teach homosexual history for young kids (5 year old). Needless to say that will not happen in the School of Marvin. que sara sara. The public school system do not want my kids they are forcing peoples hand to remove the kids.
Public School=Den of Evil. Led by homosexual congressman Barney Frank
I haven't been through all of it but the statistics for many of the issues being brought up here can be verified HERE.
ReplyDeleteThis 2003 report might be worth looking at also.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteIf the people in charge of collecting the data are not trustworthy and biased, one is justified in being suspicious.
That goes for secular scientists also right? So then you agree that evilution is suspicious then good. You cannot have it both ways.
If you haven't read the study, then what parts of your argument do you think it supports? Can you be more specific?
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteReading, writing, & right-wing politics Boston Globe. August 15, 2004.
Biased from the home of homosexual congressman Barney Frank.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteI'm not bigoted against Christians, Dan, I'm "bigoted" against those who distort science and peddle lies to children.
Really? When did you start fighting against evolution then?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteUnless of course, you actually use stuff that isn't tainted by creationist bs, like Dinosaurs by Design and whatnot.
Yea, stupiddinosaurlies.org doesn't sound biased at all.
(sarcasm)Secular BS? Of curse not.(/sarcasm)
captain howdy,
ReplyDeleteBut did anybody else notice his grammar mistake (which I put in bold font)? He said "then" when he should have said "than."
Ouch!
See what that public education did for me...Yuck!
Thanks for the correction.
Now, tell me again how great homeschooling is, Dan?
Great, evidenced by my public education.
Kazim,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the research and links from the "other side's" perspective. I will take a look at it after my kids studies. :p
My kids are not (ever) going through those disturbing articles that you linked to but there is a good chance they would go through what I linked to if I sent them away to school.
ReplyDelete...which is exactly what I would expect a child-abuser to say.
You missed the point. It is merely that worthless parents come in all flavors. Your bald assertion that your children have a "good chance" of going through the abuse you described fails for the same reason that my joke failed. Due to the sheer numbers of students enrolled in public school systems, I would say the odds are far lower in the public school system for such occurrences, but feel free to bash the public system from without.
So the subject of public school becomes irrelevant like your point.
So you do recognize that with regard to abusive situations, the educational system is irrelevant. Thanks for the concession, unwitting though it was.
Again, you almost got a touché [regarding the requirement of a public educator to demonstrate knowledge/credentials prior to teaching] but you must remember that I got my education FROM public schools and passed. Again your argument is rendered mute [sic] since I have to reeducate myself in order to teach the subject.
Bzzzt. Thanks for making my point, genius. You are "teaching" sans demonstrated ability/credentials. Who cares from where you received your education? You're not qualified to teach. If you care to show otherwise, feel free to seek certification. With such certification in hand, no one here could question your qualifications.
I am saying that many accomplished people succeed without formal education. That it is possible to achieve without a public school or university. It all depends on the individual.
1. I was questioning the definition of "successful" in your parlance.
2. If you are here stating explicitly that you are not seeking to prepare your children for the possibility of university attendance, then you will have made the counter-point (again, unwittingly).
The issue is not one of the ability to "achieve," but of the opportunity to receive a higher education. If you limit your children in this capacity, you necessarily limit their opportunities in the future... Or were those businesses you plan on offering your children lemonade stands?
No [a list of prominent historical figures who were ostensibly home-schooled] isn't a fallacy it is a list, called evidence, that people can get by without formal education. Again, epic fail on your argument.
Bzzzt. Ignorant much? Which of those figures had no formal education, Dan?
To take only my favorite from your list (do your own damned research), Thomas Jefferson "began attending a local school" at the age of 8-9. Following his father's death and his subsequent inheritance, he "he was taught at the school of the learned minister James Maury" beginning at the age of 14-15. Following this school, he attended William & Mary college.
"[P]eople can get by without formal education"? Not Thomas Jefferson, evidently.
...it is a list, called evidence...
Yes, but for whom?
No wonder you believe in things [such as the existence of ne'er-do-wells who were home-schooled] that cannot be shown with evidence like evilution. [sic]
Right. So you contend that none of the criminals in society were home-schooled. Pfft. That data, if available at all, is likely only so in the penitentiary systems, but if I take this chart to be representative of inmate education in the U.S. (the chart is for the District of Columbia), then apparently 20% of inmates were exclusively home-schooled...
...or don't you like how I've chosen to read the data?
The point is that this particular data is most likely not recorded, to the detriment of either point or counter-point. Criminals exist, and it should be expected that a representative percentage of them were home-schooled... Indeed, those criminals who were raised by criminals presumably had no formal education whatsoever... Hey! Just like Thomas Jefferson!!!!11!!
Are you claiming teachers know all the subject matter.
No, I'm claiming that good teachers have a solid grasp of the subject matter, and that what is learned matches up with what was intended to be taught. I'm claiming also that neither exists for your children.
Thanks for arguing my point and diminishing Froggie's point.
Your inability to distinguish the differences between "teaching," "instruction," and "learning," is not my problem. The sooner you figure it out, the greater the chance that your children will learn through your instruction what you are trying to teach.
Public teaching for children is a "have to" situation, my kids learn what they "want to" which is healthier and more productive and exciting.
This is all crap. Public education ideally teaches the most useful subject matter, in an effort to facilitate future opportunity. If you choose to equate that with a "'have to' situation," then so be it. The fact of the matter is that a child who fails to learn trigonometry (as an example) is more likely to find himself stuck working the drive-thru than one who succeeds at same. When, I wonder, was the last time you asked your children what subject matter they'd like to be taught, and how does that square up with the CA requirements for obtaining a high school diploma as a home-schooled student?
(Before you cry foul, I am well aware that CA doesn't require a specific curriculum for a home-schooled student to receive a "diploma," but then, dropping out is legal, too. We're talking about higher education -- college -- and for that, either the CHSPE or a standardized college entrance examination, or a combination, is required, and your willy-nilly child-selected curriculum -- which is hogwash -- will not necessarily suffice.)
I said:
Public school systems [ostensibly] seek to give the opportunity for social advancement to all members of a society -- not just the wealthy and powerful.
To which Dan responded:
Is that why rich send there [sic] kids to privately funded schools? Is that why most drugs, gangs, and teen pregnancies originate from public schools.
Dear moron,
"Ostensibly" means, from m-w.com, "being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real." Thus, this is the stated goal of the public school system, and a worthy one, despite your jeers. Since the wealthy and powerful already have this opportunity through private schools, the opportunity is therefore extended to the poor and powerless.
In point of fact, if you have data to back up your claim that drugs/gangs/pregnancies obtain at a higher rate in public schools rather than private schools, the floor is yours. You've apparently never been to a private school, or you'd know that if you want sex, drugs, or alcohol, that's where you go (especially Catholic schools).
Nice try...
Tell that to the rich people.
Worry not, Dan, you are not alone in your guilt.
BTW parenting is a selfless passion of mine and I am confident that it is for you also. That is what these kids need, it's called love.
You would be wrong. In your case, evidenced by a preceding remark which I will quote below, parenting is a selfish passion, even if vicarious. I am not blameless here, though, for I, too, am selfish with respect to my children's education, but I'm far closer to being selfless in this respect than you are...
Anyway, here's that damning quote, which illustrates anything but selflessness and love:
So you want my child to interact with kids with bad parents? So they too can lean how to be bad and to learn from bad kids?
No, Dan, I want your good children, who have good parents, to interact with good children who have bad parents, so that your good children can be examples to those other good children. I want you, as a good parent, to be involved in your good children's school, and to interact with the bad parents of those other good children, so that you can be an example to the bad parents. I want you to join me and my wife, as positive examples of good parenting, engaging with those other good children and bad parents, so that they can see that not all parents are bad, or how to be good parents. I want you to help me show the educators, who became educators out of a selfless passion to teach (or didn't you know that teacher's salaries are shit?), but who lost that passion due to a lack of involvement on the part of good parents, that there are good parents, who have the selfless passion that they, the educators, used to have. I want all children to benefit from my selfless passion, though I admit that I want my own children to benefit most. I want more parents to love their children, and I want more children to be loved.
What do you want, Dan?
--
Stan
California wants to teach homosexual history for young kids (5 year old). Needless to say that will not happen in the School of Marvin.
ReplyDeleteWhat? You're not going to teach your kids about the special relationship David had with Jonathan? What about Jesus surrounding himself with privateers? Paul and Silas were awfully close -- they were even cellmates; will your children not learn of their discreet rendezvous?
Surely you're not going to so restrict their education...
--
Stan
***Beware...Editorial License Invoked***
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that in average public schools, the failure of the student is often the parent's fault for not supporting the students efforts and not teaching their kids the actual value of their free education.
Once a student senses that his parents have no interest in their education they become unmotivated and even smart kids just get by as C students.
I don't think that the public schools were ever intended to take the place of parents. I have always considered our schools as starting points for the basics.
We have motivated our kids and taught them the value of education from first grade up.
In my case we have some great memories about some of my home made scientice experiments gone awry (including the infamous black powder experiment where I lost both eyebrows, and the physics experiments were the most fun, except for the accident. My son and I underestimated how far out trebuche would project a softball and it went through the kitchen window.)
We made batteries out of lemons, built radios, etc. Field trips, volunteer work. Every one of my kids understood how an ohm/volt meter worked by age ten. I bought magazines galore and if one of the kids took an interst in one I would subscribe to it (these were pre- internet days, mostly.)
But, mostly, we taught them to be critical thinkers and I'll tell you what. It shows.
I have to admit, a lot of kids are never challenged or inspired by their parents.
Now I'm rambling and reminiscing so I'll go, but in my opinion, public shools are regarded by me as the minimum education for kids.
Kazim,
ReplyDeleteNicely done. I've noticed that statistics on homeschooling are only available from homeschoolers and other studies are hard to find since it is very difficult to track this. I'll be saving that stuff to my journal for future use. Thanks.
I'll see you at your blog.
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"As in sports, home turf has its advantages."
Better?
Stan,
ReplyDeleteOr were those businesses you plan on offering your children lemonade stands?
Well, we do have two lemon trees...
Stan,
ReplyDeleteThere are three types of education. Taken from "A Thomas Jefferson Education"
Public education - Public education (or conveyor-belt education) - A public education prepares everyone for a job, any job, by teaching them what to think. Public education historically existed to teach the poor so they could land a job. The poor had no other option, but public education.
I am accomplishing this with my children. Have no fear they will all be gainfully employed and/or employable.
Professional education - Professional education is anything from apprenticeship & trade schools to law, medical & MBA schools. These programs create specialists by teaching them when to think.
This I cannot give my children on my own but one of many Christian universities can.
Leadership education- (Jefferson education) - Leadership education teaches students how to think and prepares them to be leaders in their homes & communities, entrepreneurs in business, and statesmen in government.
This type of education is not taught in public schools since they require drones to get in line and be "good" employees.
Contrarily, this is one of the most beneficial teachings of homeschooling, that I am giving my children, since I can choose the curriculum and methods of teaching.
I can give these children the tools how to think and to think for themselves and to initiate change. I give them real life experiences, along with Biblical teachings, to guide them.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI want you to join me and my wife, as positive examples of good parenting, engaging with those other good children and bad parents, so that they can see that not all parents are bad, or how to be good parents.
You just made me think of something though. I believe you are the most abusive parents on this planet. Walk with me for a moment. If the Bible is true and Christianity is the reality then you are sending your children into the abyss. You are not warning them of Hell and speaking of Salvation.
Non believers and secular public schools are doing something criminal to the children. They are not preaching to them the "good news" and their kids are in jeopardy of eternal damnation. You are allowing your kids to burn in hell for all of eternity. What kind of parenting is that?
Luckily you are not the one in charge of your child's salvation so all is well, in spite of your teachings. My Dad tried very hard not to show me Christ but his failure was my gain.
Maybe a class action Lawsuit is in order for the secular public school system for abuse of children. I will consider it...
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteOnce a student senses that his parents have no interest in their education they become unmotivated and even smart kids just get by as C students.
You do understand those "labels" are complete crap. Didn't even Einstein received "C's" in school. Didn't he drop out even? Don't quote me on this but I read somewhere that he did terrible in school.
I am accomplishing [a "how to think" education] with my children.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure your children will regurgitate your beliefs as long as their desire for a reasonably tolerable roof as provided by you endures.
Have no fear they will all be gainfully employed and/or employable.
I promise to pay for the pizza.
[A professional education] I cannot give my children on my own but one of many Christian universities can.
...so long as they want to be pastors, choir members, or biblical historians. I took a look at the degree offerings for Oral Roberts University, and the list is vanishingly short. Don't worry, though, your kids won't go there.
I guess that so long as the goals your children form fit into the small scope of allowed goals from your perspective, they can get the professional education you describe... Otherwise, get the hell out and pay for your own damned college, eh?
[A leadership] education is not taught in public schools since they require drones to get in line and be "good" employees.
Now you're projecting. Just because your parents didn't instill in you a drive to learn, and just because you didn't take any individual responsibility as a student to strive in the wake of your parents' failure, doesn't mean that student's aren't provided the tools to think for themselves, and determine for themselves the methods of sound thought.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure your claim, that a leadership education "is not taught in public schools," is explicit in the quote you provided:
A public education prepares everyone for a job, any job, by teaching them what to think. Public education historically existed to teach the poor so they could land a job. The poor had no other option, but public education.
...or didn't you read and/or comprehend your own source?
The so-called "Jefferson education" is not K-8, and is generally not K-12. Elementary school is the "public education" described in your source. In high school, students are provided the means to discover the methods of sound thought, and provided an environment in which they can steer themselves either toward a vocation ("professional education") or further study ("leadership education"), without committing themselves in one direction or the other.
I don't doubt your ability to half-assedly provide your children with the "public education" so described, I just doubt you're more qualified than trained educators, and I question your motives, your tactics, and your curriculum. Your children may even get into whatever school or vocation they want, but they'll suffer because of your decision to home-school them -- or so is my prediction.
You're raising PKs, and you don't even know it. Have fun with that.
--
Stan
You just made me think of something though. I believe you are the most abusive parents on this planet. Walk with me for a moment. If the Koran is true and Islam is the reality then you are sending your children into the abyss. You are not warning them of Hell...
ReplyDeleteNon believers and secular public schools are doing something criminal to the children. They are not preaching the Koran to them and their kids are in jeopardy of eternal damnation. You are allowing your kids to burn in hell for all of eternity. What kind of parenting is that?
Luckily you are not the one in charge of your child's salvation so all is well, in spite of your teachings.
ReplyDeleteRight. It's god's fault.
I thought you were a Calvinist, Dan? I don't have anything to do with who is and who is not elected, remember?
What kind of parenting is that?
It's responsible. If my kids want to become Christians, that'll be their decision, not mine. Your children have not been afforded the opportunity to make up their minds, and thanks to your indoctrination, making their own decision will be quite difficult for them even when they have escaped your influence. If you're so sure that you're correct, why indoctrinate them?
You do understand those "labels" are complete crap. Didn't even Einstein received "C's" in school. Didn't he drop out even? Don't quote me on this but I read somewhere that he did terrible in school.
It really is difficult to type "wiki einstein" into your browser, isn't it?
First, those labels aren't total crap. They are a reasonably accurate gauge of a student's understanding of the material presented, for better or for worse. For every "Einstein" drop-out/C-student, there are ten thousand actual drop-outs/C-students. If you read about the real Einstein's education, you'll see he did fantastically well in elementary school, and then devoured some math/physics books, and re-entered school at an engineering school, only to so detest it that he quit. He tried to go to college, but couldn't pass the entrance exam. There's more to it, sure, but it's long, and you can do your own damned research.
Cleaning up after you is like cleaning up after a puppy. It's cute, but it still shits all over the floor.
--
Stan
By the way, Einstein did fine at school. He did fail French though.
ReplyDeleteHere's some cut and paste about Einstiens grades. Which were good.
Easy. In 1896, which was Einstein's last year at the school in Aargau, the school's system of marking was reversed.
A grading of "6", which had previously been the lowest mark, was now the highest mark. And so, a grading of "1", which had been the highest mark, was now the lowest mark.
And so, anybody looking up Einstein's grades would see that he had scored lots of grades around "1" - which under the new marking scheme, meant a "fail".
Oh, and Dan, don't think I haven't noticed that you were well and thoroughly destroyed on every point, in your response to my initial comment. Do you need a tissue?
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Well, I'm open to the idea that homeschooling can be beneficial: I mentioned before that my Dad is a public school teacher, and I'm not that long out of school. The public school system is not a perfect system, and there are certainly parents out there capable of giving their children a good education.
ReplyDeleteHowever...
Dan, your understanding of many fields of science, especially biology, geology, and physics, leaves a lot to be desired. This has nothing to do with your religon: I have no problem with you raising them in Christ, and indeed, I support you in this endeavor. But this has to do with basic science.
Science is very very clear on the subject: the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion years old. All earth-based life is decended from a common microscopic ancestor. These things are not in doubt.
Now, if you were going to legitimately teach your children about these fields, and point out valid flaws, even then I would have no problem with it. But the 'flaws' in the theory of evolution, for example, have been refuted time and time again. In order to maintain the belief that they exist, your own mental image of evolution must be wrong. And if your mental image of something is wrong, then you can't possibly teach what it states.
So, here's my recommendation. I realise I can't convince you to allow another to teach these subjects to your children. So when you do get to biology, physics, and other fields which dispute the young earth account, do your children a favor: read up on the subject. And I don't mean Answers In Genesis and Ray Comfort: find out what the scientists you disagree with really state. Evolution: Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer, is a good place to start.
Also, before you bring your childrens attention to a 'flaw' in the mainstream synthesis, check it's validity. TalkOrigins.org, despite your distaste, has the most comprehensive list of creationist claims. Check to see if your claim is on there, read the refutations, give some serious thought to whether or not your claim is acientifically valid despite those refutations (assuming it's on there), and then proceed accordingly.
As Glen Morton has said, creationism can be a massive stumbling block, both to scientific understanding and to faith. The false belief that creationism, and thus denial of the scientific evidence, is a necessary part of christianity has lead many away from God. If you're going to teach creationism to your children, spend a good amount of time researching everything you intend to tell them on the subject: you don't want them coming back later and saying "You lied to me."
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteyou don't want them coming back later and saying "You lied to me."
Thanks for your kindness and I don't mind if they accuse me of lying as long as I haven't and I can show them that. Don't misunderstand me, I present "their" side and mine with everything.
Force feeding God is no way to show love to our kids. Not doing so is showing hatred to our kids so I hope y'all, unlike my Dad, at least tell the story of Jesus and present a fair side of Christianity to your children. You know in case you are all wrong. To allow them to be guided by God and decide for themselves what is truth.
We do have our copy of Prentice Hall Biology and we have looked at some things together already. I let them know what the current secular scientists believe and say is truth and then I give them God's Word.
As an ode to D’Souza, I will let them all know that science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. That science then, in that sense, is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops.
I will discuss the billions of years that is claimed by secular scientists with the huge assumptions in radiometric dating. Just like the teachers, I will give my side of the puzzle. Unlike the secular teachers and many Atheists, I will not hold back the truth for anyone. We are not afraid of the limits of science.
We are cautious of the unlimited fervor of secular influence in today's society. My children will grow up knowing their Fathers presupposition and worldview. I am sure you realize all children grow up that way.
Damn, Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe semi logical tone of that comment almost brought a tear to my eye.
"As in sports, home turf has its advantages."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I meant, Dan. I hope you don't take umbrage at my nitpicking: as Stan said, correct spelling isn't that important, and what is "wrong" today may become "right" tomorrow, as I said. I must also say, as someone who has been following your blog from the very first post (remember, you deleted my first comment because I offered to buy you a drink?), that you have opened up a great deal since then, and are now much more willing to at least hypothetically entertain notions that go against your beliefs. For that I salute you, and I don't really care how you spell. If you insist on teaching your kids, though, please try to teach them correctly: it won't hurt, and it might help them in their later lives.
P.S. For anyone who has trouble remembering that possessive "its" has no apostrophe, and gives a rat's ass about it, think about it this way: none of the possessive pronouns has an apostrophe.
mine
yours
his
hers
its
ours
theirs
You wouldn't write "her's", now would you? I must admit that I have seen "your's" and "their's", though. Something about the internet makes people funny about apostrophes: they put them in where they don't belong, and leave them out where they do belong. "Your going to stay in you're room today" is acceptable internetese, for instance.
/grammar rant.
Yea, stupiddinosaurlies.org doesn't sound biased at all.
ReplyDelete(sarcasm)Secular BS? Of curse not.(/sarcasm)
How's about reading something and checking up on it, Dan?
Sheesh.
BTW, evolution is the theory that best describes the complexity of life we see around us today. You can ignore the evidence all you want. As far as I've seen, the only lies evolution is involved with are the lies evangelicals tell about it.
Dan said (with respect to teaching science):
ReplyDeleteDon't misunderstand me, I present "their" side and mine with everything.
Can you briefly outline your chosen curriculum on the topic of evolution?
I'm just wondering how much of "their" evidence you actually present before you slam debunk it all by teaching about the lack of crocoducks and the convenient shape of bananas.
Thanks
Something about the internet makes people funny about apostrophes: they put them in where they don't belong, and leave them out where they do belong. "Your going to stay in you're room today" is acceptable internetese, for instance.
ReplyDeleteNO!
NO!
/me rubs internet users' noses in inappropriate apostrophe use.
I'll tell you what. If apostrophe use suddenly takes a giant step forward, and the many other inexcusable errors begin to vanish (e.g. then/than, singular subject v. plural verb, proper punctuation use, etc.) -- if these common internet errors suddenly take a sharp decline, then I'll stop using profanity.
Deal?
--
Stan
How to deal with the apostrophes that are ruining our lives.
ReplyDeleteDan you mentioned that your daughter would like to be a paleontologist. If she wanted to attend a good university in the UK (Cambridge in this case), she'd probably need an A-grade on a paper like this.
ReplyDeleteDan, reckon you could get a top grade on this? No evilution involved! If not, are you really offering your daughter the best scientific education?
Oh I should add, that paper is only a GCSE (for ages 15-16), she would have to do an additional A - Level paper (at age 17 or 18) in order to qualify for a good uni.
ReplyDeleteAnother combined science paper.
Stan says:
ReplyDeleteIf apostrophe use suddenly takes a giant step forward, and the many other inexcusable errors begin to vanish (e.g. then/than, singular subject v. plural verb, proper punctuation use, etc.) -- if these common internet errors suddenly take a sharp decline, then I'll stop using profanity.
...in other words, when Hell freezes over.
Reynold: very nice. I liked the rule "add an apostrophe whenever you want." Especially funny to me was the popular but incorrect rule "when pluralizing a word that ends with a vowel, add an apostrophe", for instance "potatoe's", because in German, foreign words that end with a vowel are correctly pluralized thusly- for instance, Foto's.
Sarah: I'm sure Dan could get a top grade on a test like this- it's pretty simple- couldn't you, Dan?
Thanks for your kindness and I don't mind if they accuse me of lying as long as I haven't and I can show them that.
ReplyDeleteFair enough Dan. I suppose it comes from the fact that passing on lies, even if you believe them to be true, can often be interpreted as lying, and that leaves an impression. This impression can persist even if you let others know you didn't mean to lie. As an example, you said this:
I will discuss the billions of years that is claimed by secular scientists with the huge assumptions in radiometric dating.
Now, I know you truly believe that scientists make huge assumptions in radiometric dating. I also know this to be false: any assumptions made are checked against other forms of dating over and over again, and the results have been found to be consistent over and over again. In addition, many of the assumptions can be easily tested: their being false would leave evidence.
In any case, even though I know you aren't dishonest, this statement is, and I have trouble with the idea that you are planning to teach it to your children.
I suppose I should relay my own story, to give you an idea of why I feel this to be so important. When I was young, religon was never brought up at home. During primary school, though (public school, by the way), I encountered two concepts: one in "religous education" class every thursday (I remember colouring in pictures of Jesus, and watching a cartoon where teenage time-travellers went back and talked to biblical figures) and another from who knows where (probably Jurrassic Park): that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago.
One of the first questions I remember asking my parents was this: "If Adam and Eve lived 6000 years ago, what about the dinosaurs?"
They explained (to the best of my memory) quite simply that not everyone believes the same things, and it was up to people to make up their own minds (knowing me, I probably kept asking questions after that, but that's the one I remember). Perhaps if I'd been told that some christians believed in an old earth, I wouldn't have rejected religon (at the point in my life, the terms "christianity" and "religon" were interchangable), but my parents didn't make that distinction.
Young earthism turned me off christianity.
Of course, I don't see this as a bad thing (my mind is very analytical, I doubt I could hang onto any sort of religous faith for any length of time), but I do think I rejected christianity for the wrong reasons. I've since come to the conclusion that christianity, unlike many other religons and definately unlike YECism, is quite compatable with the findings of modern science.
I've since come to the conclusion that christianity, unlike many other religons and definately unlike YECism, is quite compatable with the findings of modern science.
ReplyDeleteQuasar: a very liberal form of Christianity is certainly more compatible with modern science than YECism. The question is, how far are you willing to interpret large parts of the Bible as being allegorical, and how far are you willing to suspend disbelief about, say, people being raised from the dead?
Be that as it may: as I've said here before, no one has a worldview that is logically justified all the way down: everyone, theists, agnostics, and atheists, in order to function in society, must have ideas of good and bad (or right and wrong, or merely æsthetic preferences- whatever you call the concepts that guide us along our path) that are irrational to some extent.
That being the case, I don't really have a bone to pick with any belief system, as long as its practitioners behave nicely.
At the risk of being ridiculed, I must humbly admit that I doubt my ability to pass the exams Sara(h?) posted...
ReplyDeleteGive me a math or physics exam of similar caliber, though, and I'll happily flaunt all of my basic arithmetic errors.
--
Stan
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteYoung earthism turned me off christianity.
I am sure that is what you believe and I wish that were the case but unfortunately it isn't.
"I suppose it comes from the fact that passing on lies, even if you believe them to be true, can often be interpreted as lying, and that leaves an impression...
(John 15:19, Ephesians 1:4, James 2:5,1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 17:14)
Stan,
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of being ridiculed, I must humbly admit that I doubt my ability to pass the exams Sara(h?) posted...
Thanks for that. Honesty is so refreshing and feels good! Right! That is why its hard to understand why people reject God. God is truth.
Anyway I wanted to make the point that everyone has holes. (huh?)
Everyone, no matter what education they will have, will not have all knowledge of everything. We all have passions and focuses, we excel more in some area then others, we all have have gaps. My kids will have some gaps but they will have plenty of opportunity throughout their lives to fill in those gaps or holes.
Overall, my kids will be educated and gainfully employed. They will have a true understanding of God and will have the tools to make choices in life that are productive and wholesome. I am sure we can all agree that not all children have this same opportunity.
Removing God from a child's life is the most dangerous thing you can do. It is the ultimate hole or gap that unsuspecting children will fall into and will not be able to get themselves out of like me. Without God intervening in that person's life, like mine, they will be lost.
I am a Christian in spite of my upbringing and education and I will not risk that for my children. I will increase their odds of making it.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Removing God from a child's life is the most dangerous thing you can do. It is the ultimate hole or gap that unsuspecting children will fall into and will not be able to get themselves out of like me. Without God intervening in that person's life, like mine, they will be lost."
I thought you were a Calvinist supporting the concept of election.
If you are, then it matters not one iota how the children are raised.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteUpdate: Apparently CNN is reading my posts. Good for them.
ReplyDeleteStan, you seem like denying all the problems in state schools. The only argument you have is that home-teaching parents are not trained by the state.
ReplyDeleteLet me tell you something: I am a trained teacher and I will not let my children go to a state school. Got it? Simply because what I was traind for is far less than enough for approaching a child's educaton correctly.
I had to get trained in many more trainings to say,'Yes, now I understand what to do." But I will never let my children get exposed to the undertrained, problematic, exhausted, disappointed teachers in the system not to mention the children population growing up in families who do not care of them in a responible way.
I will bring up my child not the system! And yet one more argument: what I have learnt about teaching and modern pedagogy and psychology and methodology and sociology etc. can be learnt and practised by ANYONE within a month! Those who care and feel responsible.
You know, hearing the same arguments over and over again proves me that the sstem works and brainwashes everyone - to repeat what THEY want to hear. That's sad.
oliveR
Stan said, "First, those labels aren't total crap. They are a reasonably accurate gauge of a student's understanding of the material presented, for better or for worse."
ReplyDeleteThose labels are total crap. Let me tell you why:
Laet us take a child who is very diligent and wants to get a good grade. But he needs a lot of time to learn something. So one afternoon he spends hours to lean everything. Then, at school, he is asked to give a presentation but because he is frustrated type, the teacher says, it is only a "C". This was not fair right?
Now let's see the other side. Another student who can memorise more easily goes home, doesn't learn at all but right before the lesson reads the stuff, gives a presentation and gets an 'A'.
Now the question is: if you take the effort into consideration and mental capacity of the two students which of the two students would you praise? The first one got the max out of his capabilities whilst the second got the minimum out of it. Is this an 'A'? I mean: has boy improved just a little bit? NOPE. That is NOT an 'A'.
You see, from the REAL pedagogy point of view the second studend should get a 'C' and first should get another way to show what he knows.
oliveR
Thanks so very much oliveR,
ReplyDeleteYou inspire us to do the right thing by loving these children of ours and teach everything we possibly can about being Godly. That is, after all, the foundation that will make them better students of life.
A real eye opener, in the very early months, I noticed I was insecure in thinking my child's knowledge would be a direct reflection of my ability to teach. The pressure was on! I was over teaching and pushing.
I am sure you have witnessed this yourself but I found when I get out of the way, the children excel pass my expectations and are empowered and excited to learn more. We now enjoy our time and school is not perceived as work, its mostly fun time for them. Sure, there will be holes that any child may or may not have but they have the tool to know how to fill those holes anytime they feel the need.
The internet sure is a great source of help and I love the security of knowing my children are safe and happy while learning and exploring life.
Grades, what are those? :7)
Take care,
Dan
I remember when I was young and going to public school. I was in the Honor Roll from Elementary through Junior High. But even though I did relatively well, now that I look back I realize how much better I could've done if I was homeschooled. My family was poor so I had to walk to school. That obligated me to wake up at 5 in the morning just so I can get to school on time. Not that I was lazy, but studies have shown that kids and teenagers do need more sleep and generally do better when they wake up a little later. I'd get to school still half asleep and freezing cold since I live in New York and as you know public school year mostly takes place during the fall and winter seasons. During class I did my best to pay attention but there was always someone that wanted to keep talking or making noise, or distracting somehow. Then there were teachers who refused to go beyond the set standard and treated all of its students like robots. Reprimanding anyone who learned or thought differently. I even had one who tried to fail me just because I told him I wanted to do a project alone because I learn better alone rather than in groups. Despite all this I managed to graduta HS a year early and was valedictorian at the ceremony. But frankly I was just happy to be out of there, I didnt even stay to take pictures. My high school participated in a program that gave college credit to students who voluntered as teachers for a year or two so many of my "teachers" were just 20something year old college kids, very unqualified. It was also full of gangs, drug dealers and believe it or not even prostitutes. I have an older brother who protected me from all that but it was an open secret and its not hard to imagine that many good kids like myself weren't as fortunate to have a big brother as I was. A lot of schools here in NY sweep these things under the rug so they wont loose federal funding.
ReplyDeleteTo this day I believe that the stress of having to deal with kids that weren't as mature as I was, having to conform to educational levels I was ahead of and having to explain my self to inexperienced teachers held me back. College was a welcome relief but I still found it difficult to keep up since I was working full time as well. I decided to take online courses and it felt like I was learning at lightning speed and retaining far more information as well. If I had known I could've homeschooled when I was younger, I wouldve begged my mother to homeschool me. Not to say that public school is a waste of time, its just a lot of time wasted, and its not flexible enough to fit the learning needs of those of us who dont fit their general standards. I have a daughter now and at first I thought that because I live in a good neighborhood now that maybe her public school experience would be different but now im seriously considering homeschooling her. Her teachers are great, the classes are good, and the school is really good too. But I do feel like they just aren't challenging her enough, that the teachers are too buisy dealing with 2o other students to really help her learn as well as she can and that some are even setting her up to fail. My daughter follows the set courses at school, but at home, ever since she was a baby I've always challenged her with things a level above her age and she's always done very well. Even though she's in the 4th grade, at home she does 5th grade math and science, 7th grade reading, and is taking lessons in music and art programs that her school doesnt have. Last week her gym teacher threatened to fail her just because she didnt wear the proper sweatpants! I called her homeroom teacher to request that she switch her seat away from a boy that kept bothering her and the only thing she did was move him to the adjacent seat. She tells me shes bored with her classes because kids keep bothering her and she's already done most of the work at home and that she likes it better when she goes to the museums and science fairs with her parents. As a college graduate im still paying off loans so finances are a concern if I choose homeschooling for her since I'd have to cut back on my hours at work. But now that I've done more research and read your blog, I'm starting think its riskier not to homechool. Thank you so much for all the information posted, its really done a lot to help in my decision.
ReplyDeleteSarah,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for the encouraging words and even the story of your own school struggles. They are good reinforcements to what I already know. I was frightened as to the idea that "I" was the one that was going to teach the kids, but after a short time I saw how easy and fun it was to get out of the way and let them learn, and teach, themselves. The internet has revolutionized the resources for us home schooling parents. I could not do it without Google.
I have provided just a few links to help out parents in the sidebar of this blog. Its right under the "friends" section, its called "Free Homeschooling Resources" and there are literally thousands more. These are the ones we use.
My daughter is much like yours. She would be in the 4th grade today but is far more mature and advanced in her studies and is a wonderful reader. She is such a great sister to the boys and I feel so blessed to see them all grow up together and learn from each other. All my kids have very good manners and are curious, have excited personalities, and are quite happy. Imagine how great it would be to grow up never to have someone call you a failure or give you bad marks. I was not the best student, but I was nobody's fool either. High school made me feel that I was a failure in that I should have done better. I carried that for a long time.
Best advice I can give you is this, I use to force the issue to study. I was so indoctrinated in the public school system that I thought 8 hours a day, every day, I had to sit them down and "school" them. Plus it was now "MY" responsibility to make smart kids. I met resistance and it was beginning to be a nightmare. Abby never wanted to read the books I was forcing her to read and such. I learned that when I pulled my forceful hands off them and let them explore themselves on their own pace that they started to explore, and bloomed! They came to me with more questions and was curious about life. That was the key. They led their own schooling. Now, I act as more of a rudder to their being a Captain of their own ship. They request information and I just steer them in the right direction and, most importantly, get out of the way to allow them to explore their environment themselves. All of them are exceeding in all areas. Abby, now 7, is even doing flash animation and is quite good at it. She is very creative and explores the tools to express herself.
I am very happy to hear that you will, at the very least, consider home school that precious daughter of yours. Don't be afraid to keep them safe at home. At the bottom of this post tells the real struggle in public schools that I agree with. They are just churning these kids out like a factory, and not letting them be individuals. One of my boys has autism and would basically be teased all day at a public school because of his repetitive sayings. (btw, Temple Grandin the Movie, is a must see!) He is growing up in a warm loving environment that allows him to grow up as kids should. With God and liberty. Blessings.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to point out that people are starting to notice the benefits of homeschooling and even trying to emulate it.
Even Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple agrees with us.
It will be the greatest choice you ever made for you and your kids. I certainly trust you teaching your daughter more the someone with a mere "job" to teach her. File the paperwork to remove her today. Go HERE to find out what exactly you need to do to get her out. As you can see, I am excited for you.
Opps I said Abby was 7 for some reason. She is now 9 for what its worth.
ReplyDelete"Let's recognize the impact of policies on marginalized communities. Advocating for just and inclusive policies is a step towards addressing systemic inequalities."Visit globallyviz.com!
ReplyDelete