December 1, 2011

Unschooled

This is our philosophy through the thoughts of a daughter who was raised like my kids are.

It's all about self education, not schooling.


Notice she is not a Christian per se, but its the way we raise our kids, either way. We even give freedoms, so they can explore their environment, whatever subject they want, to encourage their curiosity and passion about things they wish to do. She might want to stay up to work on a game MOD or something, that is fine with us.

Debunking Atheists, unschooling
Here is the speech, unedited, without the music and a very interesting Q&A at the end. It's longer, but worth it.

http://youtu.be/LwIyy1Fi-4Q

Even if you're an Atheist, I wish you would reconsider HOW you view things, and consider unschooling your children. We do, and the results are awe inspiring.

Kids need to be kids, inquisitive, passionate, and seeking. Your method (one that promotes pubic education) crushes that. Did your method REALLY teach you critical thinking? It seems you preach to the choir of public education. You would get a good pat on the head from your Shepherd for doing so. Because like Pavlov's dog, you were conditioned to desire that. That system of yours crushes potential of the individual. Doodling in class will get you reprimanded, or sent to some authority figure for punishment, in my house its celebrated and encouraged.

I just listened to a valedictorian that preached the exact sentiments of my beliefs. She got that title in the end because she 'followed' well the most. To me, that label is something to avoid. Its a negative. It was a brilliant speech and I am glad she reached that conclusion, instead of the "sheep" she was trained to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M4tdMsg3ts

As a business owner, admittedly, I would seek to hire the valedictorians of the world. They make things easier for business owners like myself. I know they would be good sheep for my company.

If that is your goal, then great, seek it. 


bit.ly/unschooled

71 comments:

  1. It is indeed unfortunate that modern education is so slack on teaching analytical thinking. (If it did, people would be making better choices in their voting (instead of just "who's gonna gimme my entitlements?"), and the Internet might be a slightly better place.) So, intelligent parents have to educate their children in this essential but mostly lost skill.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan:

         Home-schooling can be useful, given the right conditions. But, as a practical matter, if your primary goal is to keep your children from hearing things that contradict, or even merely challenge, the bible, you are doing your children a disservice. For most people, a formal education is superior. This is simply because the instructor must be more advanced in knowledge of the subject than the level of knowledge he wishes to impart to his students.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pvb,

    >>if your primary goal is to keep your children from hearing things that contradict, or even merely challenge, the bible, you are doing your children a disservice.

    Good then that is not the case. Did your instructors teach you anything about straw man fallacies?

    Also, you're still discrediting the student being in charge of their own knowledge. Its like forcing a kid, that wants to be a scientist, to take shop class. You merely filling them with stuff they will not use or be passionate about, and be labeled a failure (failing grades) because of it. I am sure Bill Gates got low scores in shop and P.E., as well as being shunned from the popular cliques maybe because of it, but does that mean anything?

    >>For most people, a formal education is superior.

    Kids need to be kids, inquisitive, passionate, and seeking. Your method (one that promotes pubic education) crushes that. Did your method REALLY teach you critical thinking? It seems you preach to the choir of public education. You would get a good pat on the head from your Shepherd for doing so. Because like Pavlov's dog, you were conditioned to desire that. That system of yours crushes potential of the individual. Doodling in class will get you reprimanded, or sent to some authority figure for punishment, in my house its celebrated and encouraged.

    I just listened to a valedictorian that preached the exact sentiments of my beliefs. She got that title in the end because she 'followed' well the most. To me, that label is something to avoid. Its a negative. It was a brilliant speech and I am glad she reached that conclusion, instead of the "sheep" she was trained to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M4tdMsg3ts

    ReplyDelete
  4. Speaking of critical thinking:

    As a business owner, admittedly, I would seek to hire the valedictorians of the world. They make things easier for business owners like myself. I know they would be good sheep for my company. If that is your goal, then great, seek it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great video, thanks. We "flexible schooled" our youngest her last two years (a mix of online, homeschool association, jr. college). Wish we had done it earlier, and for both girls (even though both are absolutely thriving anyway).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan:

         "Did your instructors teach you anything about straw man fallacies?"
         I know what a straw man is. But it doesn't apply here. I listed to you what I suspect is your motive. If I am incorrect, then so be it. But, your bringing up "strawman" does not suggest that I am.
         "Did your method REALLY teach you critical thinking?"
         Critical thinking is not and cannot be taught. It must develop on its own. No, formal education is superior for most people because it taps into a greater knowledge base. The fact is, Dan, that the instructors in the school system know more about their respective fields than you do.
         But let me tell you something about critical thinking. It requires that you do not take anything as an unquestioned authority. You take the bible as an unquestioned authority. And, presumably, you want your children to do the same. That means that you are opposed to critical thinking. Note: I am only saying that questioning all authorities is a necessary condition for critical thinking. It is not a sufficient condition.
         Believe me, I did not get, nor do I desire, a lot of pats on the head. I do not consider the formal education system perfect. It simply has the advantage that it exposes the student to a larger knowledge pool. Your homeschooling and the formal education proicess are both a spoon-feeding. Ideally, your children would eventually seek out knowledge on their own. This would involve both research and experimentation.
         "I know they would be good sheep for my company."
         I will note, at this point, that you and other christians brag about being sheep.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Praising the merits of critical thinking while rejecting the notion that it might challenge certain beliefs is, in a word, laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wem,

    Thanks for the strawman but that is not the case. My kids are exposed to all sorts of counter beliefs of mine. I get questioned all the time. Are you claiming I cannot present my philosophy on life,while allowing ALL counter arguments in a reverse bias sort of education? Once again, you're absurd.

    That being said. We find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case.

    You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot. For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality. You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. Both cannot be "true" at the same time and in the same way.

    So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?

    How do you know whose reality is the right reality?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "How do you know whose reality is the right reality?"

    The real one, Dan, and yours isn't real

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pvb,

    >> Believe me, I did not get, nor do I desire, a lot of pats on the head. I do not consider the formal education system perfect. It simply has the advantage that it exposes the student to a larger knowledge pool.

    Internet and libraries do even a better job then what you suggest. This appeal to authority is not a better method at all. Ipraise my kids when they seek their own knowledge.

    Here is the real point, if someone, anyone, CAN indeed flurish without public schooling, and statistically better educated at home, from where do you arrive at your conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan:

         Since you have now seen my reply, I can state categorically that your claim that I was advocating the crushing of critical thinking was a strawman. Before that point, it might simply have been an error, although I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  12.      Hmm. You actually made a post between the time I started and the time I finished. It would seem that it takes me a while to compose my thoughts.
         I do not appeal to authority. I find it strange that you have not gathered that yet. As an independent thinker, ultimately, I do not accept anything as an authority. Everything is subject to question, including the instructor's lessons. However, in (for example) higher mathematics, there are many things that I can confirm to be true that I would never have thought of on my own. History, of course, I must take with a grain of salt because it is possible that it was all invented to create the illusion of a fictional reality.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for the strawman
    You really should learn how to identify logical fallacies better. I presented no straw man.

    Two facts IRT what I *did* say:

    1) you praised critical thinking
    2) you reject critical thinking when it challenges your religious beliefs

    Conclusion: it is laughable to praise something that you categorically reject.


    How do you know whose reality is the right reality?
    I can only make an educated guess, and having done so, recognize that my guess may not be a complete picture of that reality.

    The best method of choosing between the options is to test the various models of reality, and see which stand up better to scrutiny.

    Your model stands up less well than mine does.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It amuses me when an educational paradigm comes along and claims to be new - we've been educating young people since man started to make tools, and there's little that hasn't been tried during that time. Unschooling is very much like the method used to create new hunters and farmers for thousands of years.

    This is not a criticism, however. People learn in a variety of ways, and having options to support different learning styles makes sense to me. However, homeschooling and unschooling cannot replace public education in general - there are many who cannot homeschool, and another group who could but perhaps shouldn't. I would hope that those who support homeschooling are also equally passionate about improving the public education system; while homeschooling can perhaps improve outcomes for specific individuals, only a solid public education system can improve outcomes for an entire society.

    ReplyDelete
  15. mikev6,

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    I mean the data about public school verses home educated children are quite clear and does NOT come to the same conclusions as you do. This says one of two things, it shows your bias and that you ignore the data and you barely assert that your reasoning is valid with nothing to back what your saying up. I think the current public schooling system is poison and its been evidenced by many studies, evaluations, and critiques.

    I posted THIS in one of my past home education posts before. Its worth watching again if you have seen it. It obviously disagrees with your current position.

    By claiming that people who view education as a very lucrative income source, as the public school system, verses a loving parent is ludicrous and delusional. Besides that the kids themselves are not forced to learn they are left alone so their curiosity is developed and blossoms all on their own. The most I have learned is through self education.

    Take college as a mere small example. Who sets the curve? The kids who's parents are paying for tuition, and everything else, or the parent putting themselves through college and paying for it out of their own savings? The data is clear as the method best for the person's development.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan
    You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot.

    How can you "know" this? "Divine revelation"?

    For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality.
    So in other words then, genocide does comport with your god's so-called "revealed character" since he's done it so many times in the bible.

    And no, Dan, it wasn't "capital punishment"...you can't legitimately kill babies for the crimes of their parents, and you can't claim that they'd "contaminate" the Israeli culture since they were allowed to take in virgin Midianite women who would pose a far greater risk of that!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wem,

    So you "guess" your reality is correct and FEEL mine is not? Got it.

    Didn't you just say "it is laughable to praise something that you categorically reject."

    You "categorically reject" the Creation model and Jesus Christ as Lord, YET you admit you're just "guessing" and could be wrong. *snicker

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan:

    Hmm - I'd hate to see your response to someone who actually is *against* homeschooling. Are you sure you read my comment?


    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    On this issue, I'll explain. On 'ANYTHING', that's a separate comment.

    I mean the data about public school verses home educated children are quite clear and does NOT come to the same conclusions as you do.
    This says one of two things, it shows your bias and that you ignore the data and you barely assert that your reasoning is valid with nothing to back what your saying up.


    Remember - my conclusion is that homeschooling cannot replace public schools on a large scale.

    The outcome data (performance on standardized tests, etc.) for homeschooled students is generally quite good; it certainly addresses claims that homeschoolers do not learn in their environment. However, all HS studies are self-selected - they show that "of those who choose homeschooling", outcomes are better than the general population. It is not valid to infer from those studies that homeschooling, if applied to the entire population, will have the same outcomes.

    Next, HS students are a small part of the population - some 1.5 (or 2) million out of 51 million students in the US. If HS is to supplant public schools as the dominant paradigm, it will have to grow considerably - at this level it's difficult to state that HS is making a broad impact on society versus public schools.

    Also, HS families are atypical. 66% of HS parents have degrees compared to 25% in the general population. 98% of all HS families have two parents in the home. 81% of HS families are able to function with the husband working and the wife non-working to take part in HS activities. What this suggests is that HS parents have a fairly unique profile, and trying to claim that HS will work across other many other population segments is questionable.

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, homeschooling is not really new - it was the dominant educational paradigm for hundreds of thousands of years. Despite this, almost every civilization developed more formal education methods (apprenticeships, schools, etc.) for specific purposes. It suggests that widespread use of HS may not provide the best outcome on a large scale; it may only be able to function now because it's a relatively small paradigm tapping a pool of highly educated people. If we apply it to a large pool of less educated people the outcomes may not be as good.

    And finally, there are many who simply cannot take advantage of this even if they wanted to. 26% of children in the US are in single parent homes. Many families need both parents to work to make ends meet. Also, there are children who do not thrive under homeschooling - there is no educational paradigm that works for all students.

    All of which lead to my conclusion that HS is highly unlikely to supplant public schools unless there is some other major societal shift in other areas.

    (Continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think the current public schooling system is poison and its been evidenced by many studies, evaluations, and critiques.

    I didn't claim that public schools were better, or even good. My point is that whether you homeschool or not, public schools will dominate the development of most of the children in our society for some time to come, so we can't solve
    the problem by shifting everyone to homeschooling - we need to fix public schooling and that requires support from everyone.


    By claiming that people who view education as a very lucrative income source, as the public school system, verses a loving parent
    is ludicrous and delusional. Besides that the kids themselves are not forced to learn they are left alone so their curiosity is
    developed and blossoms all on their own. The most I have learned is through self education.


    Lucrative? The starting teacher's salary in my state is about $27k. I can think of numerous careers that take the same education but start much higher.

    In a good public school, there is also room for exploration and curiosity. The issue is that we don't have enough good ones. Just because you've found a path that works for your children does not mean that you have
    no need to be concerned about public schools - the fate of the country is still tied to public schooling for the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  20. (Sorry - the system ate the first part of my reply.)

    Dan:

    Hmm - I'd hate to see your response to someone who actually is *against* homeschooling. Are you sure you read my comment?


    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    On this issue, I'll explain. On 'ANYTHING', that's a separate comment.

    I mean the data about public school verses home educated children are quite clear and does NOT come to the same conclusions as you do.
    This says one of two things, it shows your bias and that you ignore the data and you barely assert that your reasoning is valid with nothing
    to back what your saying up.


    Remember - my conclusion is that homeschooling cannot replace public schools on a large scale.

    The outcome data (performance on standardized tests, etc.) for homeschooled students is generally quite good; it certainly addresses claims that homeschoolers do not learn in their environment. However, all HS studies are self-selected - they show that "of those who choose homeschooling", outcomes are better than the general population. It is not valid to infer from those studies that homeschooling, if applied to the entire population, will have the same outcomes.

    Next, HS students are a small part of the population - some 1.5 (or 2) million out of 51 million students in the US. If HS is to supplant public schools as the dominant paradigm, it will have to grow considerably - at this level it's difficult to state that HS is making a broad impact on society versus public schools.

    Also, HS families are atypical. 66% of HS parents have degrees compared to 25% in the general population. 98% of all HS families have two parents in the home. 81% of HS families are able to function with the husband working and the wife non-working to take part in HS activities. What this suggests is that HS parents have a fairly unique profile, and trying to claim that HS will work across other many other population segments is questionable.

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, homeschooling is not really new - it was the dominant educational paradigm for hundreds of thousands of years. Despite this, almost every civilization developed more formal education methods (apprenticeships, schools, etc.) for specific purposes. It suggests that widespread use of HS may not provide the best outcome on a large scale; it may only be able to function now because it's a relatively small paradigm tapping a pool of highly educated people. If we apply it to a large pool of less educated people the outcomes may not be as good.

    And finally, there are many who simply cannot take advantage of this even if they wanted to. 26% of children in the US are in single parent homes. Many families need both parents to work to make ends meet. Also, there are children who do not thrive under homeschooling - there is no educational paradigm that works for all students.

    All of which lead to my conclusion that HS is highly unlikely to supplant public schools unless there is some other major societal shift in other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (OK - third time trying to post this part of my reply...)


    Dan:

    Hmm - I'd hate to see your response to someone who actually is *against* homeschooling. Are you sure you read my comment?


    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    On this issue, I'll explain. On 'ANYTHING', that's a separate comment.

    I mean the data about public school verses home educated children are quite clear and does NOT come to the same conclusions as you do.
    This says one of two things, it shows your bias and that you ignore the data and you barely assert that your reasoning is valid with nothing
    to back what your saying up.


    Remember - my conclusion is that homeschooling cannot replace public schools on a large scale.

    The outcome data (performance on standardized tests, etc.) for homeschooled students is generally quite good; it certainly addresses claims that homeschoolers do not learn in their environment. However, all HS studies are self-selected - they show that "of those who choose homeschooling", outcomes are better than the general population. It is not valid to infer from those studies that homeschooling, if applied to the entire population, will have the same outcomes.

    Next, HS students are a small part of the population - some 1.5 (or 2) million out of 51 million students in the US. If HS is to supplant public schools as the dominant paradigm, it will have to grow considerably - at this level it's difficult to state that HS is making a broad impact on society versus public schools.

    Also, HS families are atypical. 66% of HS parents have degrees compared to 25% in the general population. 98% of all HS families have two parents in the home. 81% of HS families are able to function with the husband working and the wife non-working to take part in HS activities. What this suggests is that HS parents have a fairly unique profile, and trying to claim that HS will work across other many other population segments is questionable.

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, homeschooling is not really new - it was the dominant educational paradigm for hundreds of thousands of years. Despite this, almost every civilization developed more formal education methods (apprenticeships, schools, etc.) for specific purposes. It suggests that widespread use of HS may not provide the best outcome on a large scale; it may only be able to function now because it's a relatively small paradigm tapping a pool of highly educated people. If we apply it to a large pool of less educated people the outcomes may not be as good.

    And finally, there are many who simply cannot take advantage of this even if they wanted to. 26% of children in the US are in single parent homes. Many families need both parents to work to make ends meet. Also, there are children who do not thrive under homeschooling - there is no educational paradigm that works for all students.

    All of which lead to my conclusion that HS is highly unlikely to supplant public schools unless there is some other major societal shift in other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan:

    Hmm - I'd hate to see your response to someone who actually is *against*
    homeschooling. Are you sure you read my comment?


    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    On this issue, I'll explain. On 'ANYTHING', that's a separate comment.

    I mean the data about public school verses home educated children are quite clear and does NOT come to the same conclusions as you do.
    This says one of two things, it shows your bias and that you ignore the data and you barely assert that your reasoning is valid with nothing
    to back what your saying up.


    Remember - my conclusion is that homeschooling cannot replace public schools on a large scale.

    The outcome data (performance on standardized tests, etc.) for homeschooled students is generally
    quite good; it certainly addresses claims that homeschoolers do not learn in their environment.
    However, all HS studies are self-selected - they show that "of those who choose homeschooling",
    outcomes are better than the general population. It is not valid to infer from those studies
    that homeschooling, if applied to the entire population, will have the same outcomes.

    Next, HS students are a small part of the population - some 1.5 (or 2) million out of 51 million
    students in the US. If HS is to supplant public schools as the dominant paradigm, it will have to
    grow considerably - at this level it's difficult to state that HS is making a broad impact on
    society versus public schools.

    Also, HS families are atypical. 66% of HS parents have degrees compared to 25% in the general
    population. 98% of all HS families have two parents in the home. 81% of HS families are able
    to function with the husband working and the wife non-working to take part in HS activities.
    What this suggests is that HS parents have a fairly unique profile, and trying to claim that
    HS will work across other many other population segments is questionable.

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, homeschooling is not really new - it was the dominant
    educational paradigm for hundreds of thousands of years. Despite this, almost every civilization
    developed more formal education methods (apprenticeships, schools, etc.) for specific purposes.
    It suggests that widespread use of HS may not provide the best outcome on a large scale; it
    may only be able to function now because it's a relatively small paradigm tapping a pool of highly
    educated people. If we apply it to a large pool of less educated people the outcomes may not
    be as good.

    And finally, there are many who simply cannot take advantage of this even if they wanted to. 26% of
    children in the US are in single parent homes. Many families need both parents to work to make
    ends meet. Also, there are children who do not thrive under homeschooling - there is no
    educational paradigm that works for all students.

    All of which lead to my conclusion that HS is highly unlikely to supplant public schools unless
    there is some other major societal shift in other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  23. (Trying to repost the first part of my reply...)


    Dan:

    Hmm - I'd hate to see your response to someone who actually is *against*
    homeschooling. Are you sure you read my comment?


    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    On this issue, I'll explain. On 'ANYTHING', that's a separate comment.

    I mean the data about public school verses home educated children are quite clear and does NOT come to the same conclusions as you do.
    This says one of two things, it shows your bias and that you ignore the data and you barely assert that your reasoning is valid with nothing
    to back what your saying up.


    Remember - my conclusion is that homeschooling cannot replace public schools on a large scale.

    The outcome data (performance on standardized tests, etc.) for homeschooled students is generally
    quite good; it certainly addresses claims that homeschoolers do not learn in their environment.
    However, all HS studies are self-selected - they show that "of those who choose homeschooling",
    outcomes are better than the general population. It is not valid to infer from those studies
    that homeschooling, if applied to the entire population, will have the same outcomes.

    Next, HS students are a small part of the population - some 1.5 (or 2) million out of 51 million
    students in the US. If HS is to supplant public schools as the dominant paradigm, it will have to
    grow considerably - at this level it's difficult to state that HS is making a broad impact on
    society versus public schools.

    Also, HS families are atypical. 66% of HS parents have degrees compared to 25% in the general
    population. 98% of all HS families have two parents in the home. 81% of HS families are able
    to function with the husband working and the wife non-working to take part in HS activities.
    What this suggests is that HS parents have a fairly unique profile, and trying to claim that
    HS will work across other many other population segments is questionable.

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, homeschooling is not really new - it was the dominant
    educational paradigm for hundreds of thousands of years. Despite this, almost every civilization
    developed more formal education methods (apprenticeships, schools, etc.) for specific purposes.
    It suggests that widespread use of HS may not provide the best outcome on a large scale; it
    may only be able to function now because it's a relatively small paradigm tapping a pool of highly
    educated people. If we apply it to a large pool of less educated people the outcomes may not
    be as good.

    And finally, there are many who simply cannot take advantage of this even if they wanted to. 26% of
    children in the US are in single parent homes. Many families need both parents to work to make
    ends meet. Also, there are children who do not thrive under homeschooling - there is no
    educational paradigm that works for all students.

    All of which lead to my conclusion that HS is highly unlikely to supplant public schools unless
    there is some other major societal shift in other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan:

    Hmm - I'd hate to see your response to someone who actually is *against* homeschooling. Are you sure you read my comment?


    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    On this issue, I'll explain. On 'ANYTHING', that's a separate comment.

    I mean the data about public school verses home educated children are quite clear and does NOT come to the same conclusions as you do.
    This says one of two things, it shows your bias and that you ignore the data and you barely assert that your reasoning is valid with nothing to back what your saying up.


    Remember - my conclusion is that homeschooling cannot replace public schools on a large scale.

    The outcome data (performance on standardized tests, etc.) for homeschooled students is generally quite good; it certainly addresses claims that homeschoolers do not learn in their environment. However, all HS studies are self-selected - they show that "of those who choose homeschooling", outcomes are better than the general population. It is not valid to infer from those studies that homeschooling, if applied to the entire population, will have the same outcomes.

    (Continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  25. (Continued from previous comment...)


    Next, HS students are a small part of the population - some 1.5 (or 2) million out of 51 million students in the US. If HS is to supplant public schools as the dominant paradigm, it will have to grow considerably - at this level it's difficult to state that HS is making a broad impact on society versus public schools.

    Also, HS families are atypical. 66% of HS parents have degrees compared to 25% in the general population. 98% of all HS families have two parents in the home. 81% of HS families are able to function with the husband working and the wife non-working to take part in HS activities. What this suggests is that HS parents have a fairly unique profile, and trying to claim that HS will work across other many other population segments is questionable.

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, homeschooling is not really new - it was the dominant educational paradigm for hundreds of thousands of years. Despite this, almost every civilization developed more formal education methods (apprenticeships, schools, etc.) for specific purposes. It suggests that widespread use of HS may not provide the best outcome on a large scale; it may only be able to function now because it's a relatively small paradigm tapping a pool of highly educated people. If we apply it to a large pool of less educated people the outcomes may not be as good.

    And finally, there are many who simply cannot take advantage of this even if they wanted to. 26% of children in the US are in single parent homes. Many families need both parents to work to make ends meet. Also, there are children who do not thrive under homeschooling - there is no educational paradigm that works for all students.

    All of which lead to my conclusion that HS is highly unlikely to supplant public schools unless there is some other major societal shift in other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  26. mikev6 et al,

    >>so we can't solve the problem by shifting everyone to homeschooling

    Sure we could. IF, like the video suggests, the community would be more welcoming to the BETTER method of raising children, unschooling, we would not have the problems we currently have with public schooling.

    >>Remember - my conclusion is that homeschooling cannot replace public schools on a large scale.

    Yes your resistance is noted, but we could, in fact, do unschooling on a nationwide scale that would please the people that actually care about the kids, and give us positive cash flow from a failed public system that could provide assistance for the single parents and other issues. Granted the gestapo unions would loose their minds, and assassinations would occur, but 'we the people' could change anything we want.

    Take THIS KID for example. There would be no issues in an environment of unschooling. Shame on his parents for allowing this to happen that long, if it was all true. My kids do not get bullies that intimidate them like that kid does. My kids, no matter how they turn out, will get a nurturing environment free to explore their curiosity to self educate.

    I do see a day without a failed public education system. Its secular indoctrination after all.

    An American Humanist named John Dunphy said in 1983:

    "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

    I digress.

    Oh and I noticed your fallacious argument. (Hasty generalization?) by saying that the starting salary of a teacher is $27k WITHOUT divulging what a union tenyard teacher earns. Many earn six figures. Same with being a cop. Sure starting salary is artificially low, to claim the exact thing you are claiming, but once you're in that union, sky is thy limit. State salaries have surpassed private salaries a long time ago and the reason why we are in such a huge debt mess. You need a bit of self education on that subject yourself.

    Its a failed system and its bursting at the seems. With the internet and access to good books, a move to self education is the goal.

    Now you also were crying about people not being fit to educate kids and I COMPLETELY AGREE. but you are missing the entire POINT of this post. It's a strawman though. You see, all you need for unschooling is a student. If you have that, you can unschool anyone, no matter what the parents education because the kid is in charge of their own education. You would have far more people curious and wanting to learn then the current, sick, society that we live in that produce sheep. Steve Jobs agrees with me.

    Anyway, you're wrong. When people start to realize they are wrong, and release the sacred cows that the unions tell you to hang onto, this society of mankind will begin to heal. Maybe the Generation RX will be fed up with the likes of you and change the system themselves. I will be fighting right along with them. Because, unlike you, we actually care about the children.

    ReplyDelete
  27. When people start to realize they are wrong, and release the sacred cows that the unions tell you to hang onto, this society of mankind will begin to heal.
    Replace "unions" with religious leaders and you'll be on to something here.

    Because, unlike you, we actually care about the children.
    Unless of course, you ever get the impression that your god wants you to exercise "capital punishment" on them ;)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan:
    You "categorically reject" the Creation model and Jesus Christ as Lord, YET you admit you're just "guessing" and could be wrong. *snicker
    Better than being absolutely sure of something, refusing to change your mind, and still being wrong! At least with WEM's way of viewing things, if he gets enough evidence that he's wrong, he'll change his mind.

    More than can be said, I think, for you.


    As for the efficacy of homeschooling, it depends on the quality of the materials and the teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Reynold,

    >>At least with WEM's way of viewing things, if he gets enough evidence that he's wrong, he'll change his mind.

    Right, so he or you cannot KNOW anything. Some evidence might someday change your position of everything you believe. I on the underhand will never be in that situation since what I know for certain has been revealed to us by our Creator. Knowledge itself and your ability to reason is evidential of my knowledge of such things as God.

    >>As for the efficacy of homeschooling, it depends on the quality of the materials and the teachers.

    ONCE AGAIN, you miss the entire point of a post. The POINT is that all you need for a successful program is a student. Teacher is NOT necessary as they are self educating. She even speaks of it not 5 minutes into that first video. Supporting a child in their education takes only love and zero doctorate degrees. I have taught them how to research things and release them as to what they choose to learn. They had to lean how to read to get the info they were seeking, so it was quickly learned and adapted for their self education. They are brilliant kids and are passing me up on many things. A structured curriculum and teacher per se, would stifle them. That was my problem in school, I was so bored in class. Any reading past the days lessons was frowned upon. I did actually get yelled at for reading ahead and doing the problems. It was "educational" alright. Just not what they intended. My kids are better for it at least.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's true that curiosity of children should be encouraged, and if it is, they can teach themselves incredible amounts of information on subjects that interest them. I've done it and still do it today, which is pretty much how I find blogs like this one, by searching for new information. I think it was evolution vs creationism which brought me to this site originally. So it's really nice to see you give so much freedom to your children in what they choose to learn...

    ...and they'd learn math better on their own than if you tried to teach them. ZING!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan:

         I never got yelled at for reading ahead. I rather doubt that you did either. With the way you settle on the simple (and wrong) answer of the bible, I rather suspect that your curiosity was minimal.
         "I on the underhand will never be in that situation since [shristians don't pay attention to evidence.]"
         Underhand is right. Your tactics are quite underhanded. Anyone who genuinely seeks truth is aware that evidence may require a modification of his beliefs. But you do not seek truth. You lie and pretend you already have it.
         Oh, you might want to ditch the voice recognition software and learn to type.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan:

    It must be difficult to live in a world where things are always either black or white.

    Basically, my view is that we can allow homeschooling options for those who want and can take advantage of it, and reform public schools for the much larger proportion of families that can't. And we have clear evidence that public schools can be much better because *really* good schools do exist both here and in other countries so it is possible. It will be a big effort, but at least it's in the realm of possibility in the near term.

    You, on the other hand, want everyone to change to your paradigm (despite the fact that you have no strong evidence that your paradigm will work on a large scale) and anyone who asks for more evidence and analysis before considering such a major re-structuring of society is either an evil unionized overpaid teacher or doesn't care about their kids. And is trying to destroy your faith. Or all of the above. And your message to the rest of us who *have* to use public schools is "I've got mine, screw you".

    This sounds more like a religion than a debate about learning choices.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So you "guess" your reality is correct and FEEL mine is not?

    For someone eager to demonstrate the utility of an objective morality, you sure are dishonest. I wrote clearly and unambiguously about how I determined that your world view should be rejected. It does not stand up to scrutiny. Your dishonesty in accusing me of "feeling" that it should be rejected is evidence that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    You're dishonest, and you enjoy being dishonest. That is not how a person would behave if he/she truly believed that lying was a moral sin.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dan quoting me:

    At least with WEM's way of viewing things, if he gets enough evidence that he's wrong, he'll change his mind.


    Right, so he or you cannot KNOW anything.
    Where the hell did you get that? You are the one who's not getting the point here. Some things, like some simple mathematics and logic can be and have been proved, so we can at least be certain of them.

    But for you to say that we can't "know" anything is really stretching what I've said. Not that I'm surprised.

    Some evidence might someday change your position of everything you believe. I on the underhand will never be in that situation since what I know for certain has been revealed to us by our Creator.
    Right...the same creator who himself has basic science mistakes in his own "holy word"!

    Knowledge itself and your ability to reason is evidential of my knowledge of such things as God.
    Given that your god's "holy word" can't be relied upon to accurately describe the world around us, I call bullshit on that. If your god is the foundation for knowledge, then his word should be consistently reliable in passing on knowledge of his own creation, should it not?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan, your rambling here:
    ONCE AGAIN, you miss the entire point of a post. The POINT is that all you need for a successful program is a student. Teacher is NOT necessary as they are self educating. She even speaks of it not 5 minutes into that first video. Supporting a child in their education takes only love and zero doctorate degrees. I have taught them how to research things and release them as to what they choose to learn. They had to lean how to read to get the info they were seeking, so it was quickly learned and adapted for their self education. They are brilliant kids and are passing me up on many things. A structured curriculum and teacher per se, would stifle them. That was my problem in school, I was so bored in class. Any reading past the days lessons was frowned upon. I did actually get yelled at for reading ahead and doing the problems. It was "educational" alright. Just not what they intended. My kids are better for it at least.

    Just was an example of my point!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, except for that bit about not needing a teacher, uh, that's kind of wrong in that even in homeschooling one has to give the kid some sodding guidance. Again, it depends on the quality of the teachers and materials.

    And yeah, I'd love to see your kids' test scores in things like biology, chemistry, history, etc....just to see how good you really are at this.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan,
    I've written an article that points out YET ANOTHER fatal flaw with your presup 'argument' - CLICK!

    Basically, you're onto a loser as you have to acknowledge the Primacy of Existence BEFORE you can even start to erect your idiot edifice. Disagree? Answer this then - would your 'god' continue to exist if there were no conscious minds to comprehend it? If 'no', then your god is imaginary, if 'yes' then you accept the Primacy of Existence.

    POW! Head shot!! If you acknowledge that the Primacy of Existence is ABSOLUTELY irrefutable, then you have to realise that it's entirely possible to gain knowledge without a source that stands outside of reality. The thing is, this argument ISN'T fatal to Christianity, but is a death blow to Presup stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  38. >> And yeah, I'd love to see your kids' test scores in things like biology, chemistry, history, etc....just to see how good you really are at this.

    Once again you missed the points. Is "good" test scores the MOST important thing? If so why? Did you see the valedictorian speech? You're clueless, its understandable. Denial is just one of your stronger traits.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan, if Reynold is so 'clueless' how come he wiped the floor with Dustin Segers on Fundamentally Flawed recently?

    Going to respond to my point?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Alex,

    Is it now your claim that an omniscient, omnipotent being could NOT reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ReplyDelete
  41. >>if Reynold is so 'clueless'...

    Did not know or hear about it. Listening to it now although I can probably guess how it will turn out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Is it now your claim that an omniscient, omnipotent being could NOT reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?"

    It is my claim that the existence of such a being is a logical impossibility, due to the two attributes you claim it has being mutually exclusive.

    As for 'how it will turn out', I think you'll be shocked to hear that it turns out with Segers thoroughly sprawled on the ropes.

    Anyway, I've asked you a question, would your god continue to exist if there were no minds to perceive it?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Alex,

    >>Anyway, I've asked you a question, would your god continue to exist if there were no minds to perceive it?

    Of course. Because universal truths do NOT depend on minds in order to exist. Would the universe and planets exist without mankind minds? Of course. It did, in your worldview even.

    >>such a being is a logical impossibility, due to the two attributes you claim it has being mutually exclusive.

    We, even Sye, has been through this before. Remember this:

    Besides, you and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

    God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).

    It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.

    As for omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It is not impossible for an omnipotent being to make another, equally powerful being. Could your god do this?

    As for the rest, I'm glad to see that you finally acknowledge the Primacy of Existence, and therefore tacitly admit that biblegod isn't a necessary prerequisite for the gaining of knowledge.

    Thanks for playing, Dan, but I didn't think you'd cave in and lose so instantly.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If Alex claims it, must make it true. Nope no fallacy there.

    "Move along folks, nothing to see here."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan
    God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).
    What about the verses in the bible where Jesus says that only the father knows the date and time etc. of the second coming? (Matthew 24:36) I know, it's dealing with "all-knowing" and not "all powerful" but the point remains.

    Or the scene in Gethsemane when he had prayed (to himself?) that he wanted god's will, not his own. (Matthew 26:39)

    It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.

    As for omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.
    "The very standard of good"? So then genocide is good then? Slavery (the biblical form just scroll down to where the word "slavery" is found) -->

    "As to slavery, i believe you are correct: slavery is perfectly biblical--always has been, always will be until Christ comes again and sets up a society that is free of all work, hardship, suffering, and servitude of any kind." is good then?

    If "god is the very standard of 'good', then why is it that when people do things that your god does (you know, lying, genocide, slavery, etc) that they are called "evil".

    If "god is the very standard of 'good'", then why is it that "acts of god" are something that insurance companies have to cover? You don't buy insurance to cover for something that's "good" now, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Once again you missed the points. Is "good" test scores the MOST important thing? If so why? Did you see the valedictorian speech? You're clueless, its understandable. Denial is just one of your stronger traits.
    Shall we talk about some of your traits, Dan? Like how long it took for you to admit that you had wrongly accused me of cowardice when I said that I would lie to the Germans about hiding Jews, in order to both protect both them and my family?

    You on the other hand, would take the Jews in, and then admit to the Germans that you had them secure in your faith that your god and your guns would protect you!

    While there is something to be said for that kind of schooling movement, at least in terms of being better able to adjust the curriculum to each kid, the bottom line is that few parents will have the knowledge or the equipment to properly teach their kids, especially when it comes to the hard sciences. Most especially when it seems that the creationists seem to have a corner on the homeschooling market! No way they'll learn honest science then.

    Wait'll those kids get to university and find out the extent to which they've been misled.


    Good, standardized test scores, that have been set up by the relevant people in the field, do help measure a person's aptitude towards that field. While it's no guarantee of success in that field, that is the way to bet. (no points to anyone who gets the original saying I cribbed that from).


    As for the debate I had with Dustin, here are are some points I didn't think to make in the debate itself.

    ReplyDelete
  48. And yet another post:

    Is it now your claim that an omniscient, omnipotent being could NOT reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    What's the evidence, Dan, that such a thing actually DID happen??

    Especially considering the points I brought up here?

    ReplyDelete
  49. dan, do you now claim that you don't accept the primacy of existence?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Y'see, I'm a little lost with your replies, as you're giving off mixed messaged. On one hand you're claiming that biblegod is a necessary precondition for knowledge, but on the other you're agreeing with the Primacy of Existence, which grounds all knowledge claims WITHOUT any need to appeal to an outside agent.

    By agreeing that reality would continue to exist without minds to comprehend it, you're admitting that knowledge of this reality can be sought and gained via senses and exploration. You are admitting that there is a reality there to experience. Now, add the fact that you claim we CAN trust our senses to that, and you've torpedoed your own presubullshit POV.

    I notice Sye has been silent on this topic, but I would say (taking a phrase of his) that the reasons for this are obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wait a minute...Dan you're planning on raising your kids with nothing but a literal YEC view of the universe, are you not? Provided with materials from YECers who themselves have to hold to an oath to never deviate from what they've already decided to be true, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  52. >>Dan you're planning on raising your kids with nothing but a literal YEC view of the universe, are you not?

    Nope none of this is true. Pretty straw man though. Sure, they will understand what my views are. So what? I don't think you understand what unschooling really is about. Truth seeking is not about indoctrination as the public schooling and "curriculum" is about.

    As a family, we are not afraid of the truth. NO MATTER what that is.

    One thing I know for certain is that "evolutionary naturalism is incoherent." (Yes, I am watching Alvin Plantinga right now)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dan:

         You are afraid of the truth. You are afraid of the possibility that your god does not exist. That is why you have to close your eyes, plug your ears, and say "la, la, la, I presuppose he is real."

    ReplyDelete
  54. Pvb,

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? :7p

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dan, I notice you are avoiding the points I raised. I would suggest this is for 'obvious reasons'

    ReplyDelete
  56. If the 'obvious reasons' are being with my kids, one turned 7 today, then you are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yet you were able to answer other points.

    I don't blame you wanting to avoid facing the fact that your presup nonsense has been thoroughly destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Is that absolutely true, or is that merely your opinion Alex?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dan:

         When you respond to no one, it is plausible that you are just too busy. When you avoid only specific questions or only specific people, "spending time with your 7-year-old son" is not going to cut it.
         "How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?"
         And there is the sham question that practitioners of Presuppositional Baloney use when they are caught in a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  60. D.A.N. said...quoting me:

    >>Dan you're planning on raising your kids with nothing but a literal YEC view of the universe, are you not?


    Nope none of this is true.
    That's a relief. So, what are you teaching them when it comes to science?

    Pretty straw man though.
    More like looking at what you say and act like here and drawing a perfectly reasonable, though hopefully wrong conclusion about how you act at home.

    Sure, they will understand what my views are.
    Will they be taught accurately about what the other views are? You know, to avoid "indoctrination"?

    So what? I don't think you understand what unschooling really is about. Truth seeking is not about indoctrination as the public schooling and "curriculum" is about.
    Uh huh...so if you were to give them a strictly YEC bible-based view of things, would that be "truth seeking" or "indoctrination".

    Truth seeking implies giving them ALL the evidence, and letting them make up their own minds. Indoctrination means one gives them a selective version of the evidence to minimize the chances that their views will deviate from what the person wants.

    As a family, we are not afraid of the truth. NO MATTER what that is.
    I'd hope so.

    One thing I know for certain is that "evolutionary naturalism is incoherent." (Yes, I am watching Alvin Plantinga right now)
    Right...the side with all the evidence for it?

    I did mention before on this blog, that the first "evolutionists" used to be YECers, right?

    The Creationists by Ronald Numbers.

    So, no. They did not "presuppose" evolution, in case you were planning on saying that.

    We're not the ones whose entire reasoning justification is a circle jerk like you presuppers.

    Now, to that idiot Alvin Plantiga...the same guy who dissed the Kitzmiller trial? The same one where it was the IDist who were caught lying under oath? The same one where Behe was presented with books that refuted his claims that evolution could not produce the blood clotting cascade? The same one where Behe under cross examination admitted that under the same characteristics that the IDists are trying to use for science, that "astrology" would also count as science?

    (See that link for links to actual transcripts, etc)

    Right...sour grapes old man, is what I say to that dolt.

    ReplyDelete
  61. For the hell of it: A great big long quote from that Dover trial link I gave previously:

    ==========
    Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

    A Yes.

    Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

    A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

    Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

    A That is correct.

    Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

    A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

    Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

    ===
    con'td

    ReplyDelete
  62. cont'd from last post:
    =======
    A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

    Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

    MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

    BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

    Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

    A Yes.

    Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

    That's the scientific theory of astrology?

    A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

    Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

    And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

    Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

    A I'm sorry?

    Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

    A It seems like that.

    Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

    A Yes.

    Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

    A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

    Q Page 132, line 23.

    A Yes.

    Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

    A That's correct.

    Q Not, it used to be, right?

    A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

    Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

    A I'm sorry?

    Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

    A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

    Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

    THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.
    ======

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ah, poor Dan, not only is he a cunt of the highest order (I've not forgotten your 'Atheists give children cancer' BULLSHIT, dick breath), but he's also utterly pathetic when it comes to dealing with the FUCKING FACT that his presup horse puke has been thoroughly destroyed.

    Dan Marvin? Hopeless Fucking Anus more like.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It seems that philosopher Stephen Law also has a go at Plantinga.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Law did speak truth.

    He said, "I really don't know what Plantinga's argument is."

    That pretty much covers it. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  66. dan misses the point.....again.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hi Dan,

    The video is interesting. I think there is something to it, but it brings up some questions.

    Many of the things I enjoy doing are things that I disliked as a kid. I was forced to do them, and I found that I actually like them. Do you force your kids to do anything?

    My other objection would be that there are some things I hate and have always hated, but are useful skills. I don't think I ever would have made myself learn how to write above about a 4th grade level. I had to be force to learn those things. I guess that leads to the same question as the previous paragraph, but posed a different way.

    Thanks,
    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  68. Bill,

    I think that is the problem in the first place. You hated to do things BECAUSE you were forced to do them. I hated to be forced to do history, I never payed attention and I gave it minimal effort. Today, I soak history up, I find it interesting and I get more today then I ever have. I wish I had discovered it on my own earlier. My kids are very, very, inquisitive and want to know things with excitement. This, of course, I encourage. My daughter was 3 when she learned how to read because she wanted to, same with my boy who is one of the best readers at age 6 now. My 2nd boy, now 5, not so much, so he lags behind on the whole "reading" part. He love math though. But so what, all kids will learn things on their own pace. Plus, its great that his siblings help him out when he does struggle, because he is doing things on his own pace. Its not like my kids will enter college age not knowing how to read, that is for sure. Its just its at their own pace. My kid took a great interest in animation and mod building very early. So instead of boring civil war date memorization she was building game Mods and learning how to manipulate flash. She is the go to person now for any questions about Photoshop, and design programs. She is excelling and is only 10.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>