REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Loyalty to the State

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Sunday, March 30, 2008 17:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11055
PAGE 4 of 6

Friday, March 14, 2008 7:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem

You can't get too much more anti-social than me. There's a reason I like labwork, besides it being both intellectual and hands-on. (We lab people get to use - and create, fix and modify - a lot of cool instruments and equipment. But dealing with people out of our black-box - not so much.)

I and a number of cohorts of the same mindset were able to effectively disappear into the woodwork - in a public school. And after. When it came to sending out those class reunion notices I was interested to note we were all on the roster of MIAs. (I got the notice second or third-hand. Needless to say I wasn't interested in letting on where I or anyone else was.)

And yet you bring this up, despite the fact that there are - by the accounts posted here - a number of schools that aren't the teen-age hellholes for the anti-social you portray all schools to be.

I suspect the reason why you didn't (and still don't) like schools has more to do with your own particular anti-authority personality that seeps out in many of your posts. And not so much on the plusses and minuses of schools in general or of any school in particular.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 9:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Imma just address one point, and I think I'm done here - since the folk so against homeschooling have resorted in the same "dishonest debate tactics" they claim to dislike, but only when facing them, I guess.
Frem, you ARE a dick today. I've discussed both sides of the issue of home schooling and public schooling. The problem with homeschooling is that SOME people specifically choose home schooling to isolate their children so they can beat the crap out of them, fuck 'em twice a day, or both. The reason why I don't like unexamined home schooling is to prevent that from happening. Neither you, nor Sarge, nor CTS have come up with a solution to the problem of "disappeared" children. You don't even have the balls to say it's not an issue! Your only response seems to be to pretend it doesn't happen, or to call addressing it "dishonest".

Now THAT'S dishonest!

Now, I grant you that some could say that I'm using the "war on terror" argument- that in order to catch a small percentage of abusers I'll resort to "treating everyone like a criminal". That may be so, I'm willing to discuss numbers, procedures, consequences, legalities and sor forth to see if that holds true. (Obiously I don't think so.) But nobody has come forward to discuss that. All people seem to want to do is wave a banner that all parents should get a free pass (sotto voce: Unless they get caught)

If I remember correctly, you had more problems with school than with home so it might be unthinkable that schools might even provide a welcome respite for some. But consider that you're making some of your acquaintances through... guess what?... A SCHOOL. And that PUBLIC SCHOOL is offering a resource that the home cannot, which is access to you. So you seem to have something of a double standard going on.

Quote:

I thought about this a while, and I realize that I am probably a rarity in this, but I wonder...

Did it ever occur to anyone some kids might not WANT regular contact with people outside their family ?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Did it ever occur to you, Frem, that as a parent of a daughter with autistic-like behaviors my child NEVER wants to meet anyone outside the family????

PUHLEEZ!

But on the totally unproven theory that my SO and I are going to die someday, I've worked really hard to try to get my daughter to deal with it. Home is her shelter, but she HAS to get out once in a while!




---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 9:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, let's take another running start on this issue: There are two possible problems to homeschooling

1) Students may not get an education that allows them even the option to participate in a post-school world. That problem can be solved by requiring that homeschooled students take some sort of curriculum-based test which could allow them to ultimately get that piece of paper from HS.

2) SOME parents choose to homeschool because they're abusers. They choose to isolate their children from anybody that has any authority because they simply don't want to get caught. Now, if anyone has a solution to this problem, let me know. Or just tell me that it's not a big enough problem to deal with, and not worth disturbing other parent's rights over.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 10:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


You ain't discussin it, you're ranting and screaming, throwing worst-case examples as commonplace, and linking together assumptions to build an easy to knock over strawman, getting explicitly snide, you and Rue both, personally insulting, downright petty and irrational instead of arguing the topic, have a look at your own conduct why don't you ?

Lest you forget, my niece goes to public school, by her own choice since for her it is more convenient having all the goods in one place, she could walk away any time she wants, but what SHE wants, is what matters to me.

And given that it's the exact same school that was the end-all blowup between me and the educational system, and that they can and HAVE engaged in abusive tactics and behavior, past and present, you can assume it would not be my choice for her to go there - but I put it in HER hands.

Never for a moment forget that fact.

Part of your problem is that you are so wrapped up in fronting your damn agenda, you don't even distinguish between Me, Sarge, and CTS as individuals - screeching at one of us for a point someone else made, or lambasting us about a viewpoint or opinion offered by one of the others, and imma just downright call you out for the liar you are.

The reason you don't like unexamined homeschooling is because it goes against your holy worship of the State in all it's benevolence, I swear you sound like a damned religious zealot sometimes - and you are NOT willing to discuss those things, you wanna take them, build strawmen from them and triumph the glory of the State, rah rah rah.

Cause I *did* offer suggestions on that, and *was* willing to discuss it, till you started acting like an asswipe cause your little sacred cow got a little kicked in the knees, which might not have happened had you not *gone out of your way* earlier in the thread to make a post offering NOTHING but insult to people simply because they disagreed with you, something you *claimed* to despise around here.

You had your chance to discuss it, till you started throwing a hissy because some folks didn't agree with you.

Maybe if you acted like an adult about it, folks might give your opinion a little more credence, and might be willing to discuss things with you, but doll, this is three for three with the shit from you, on three totally different topics, and each time you have resorted to this *instead* of arguing the topic like a mature adult, and always on the assumption that folks can't live their lives properly without intervention from the state, which some of us don't hold with.

Either get OVER it, or stop wrecking perfectly good discussions with your over the top temper tantrums, dammit.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 10:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Frem... whatever.
Quote:

You ain't discussin it, you're ranting and screaming
Nope
Quote:

throwing worst-case examples as commonplace
Nope
Quote:

and linking together assumptions to build an easy to knock over strawman
Nope
Quote:

getting explicitly snide
Yep
Quote:

you and Rue both
Not Rue
Quote:

personally insulting
Yep
Quote:

downright petty and irrational
Nope
FREM:
** rant on*....
lots skipped...
*rant off*
Quote:

Cause I *did* offer suggestions on that
Yep
Quote:

and *was* willing to discuss it
Only to a certain point
Quote:

till you started acting like an asswipe
Yep
Quote:

cause your little sacred cow got a little kicked in the knees
Not by anybody here, that's for sure
Quote:

which might not have happened had you not *gone out of your way* earlier in the thread to make a post offering NOTHING but insult to people simply because they disagreed with you
yep, but followed by more substantive issues
Quote:

something you *claimed* to despise around here.
Just assume I have short hair up my *ss.
Quote:

Either get OVER it, or stop wrecking perfectly good discussions with your over the top temper tantrums, dammit.
No comment!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 11:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I personally think SignyM has a point about abusive people purposefully isolating their children.

And no, no one out of the group of CTS, Sarge and Frem, has actually come forth to even admit that such a thing happens, let alone suggest a solution.

Frem, I know you have some deeply held feelings - but they are at times in contradiction to each other. You say it's all about the children. But when it's shown that government-based monitoring can detect serious abuse that might not be addressed any other way - all of the sudden it's not about the children but about your anti-government biases. There's only ever school abuse. It's all the damn gummint. And when it comes to how to keep children safe from their homes in the absense outside intervention you get - quiet.

Not to put you on the spot but you're the only one posting at the moment.


PS From the three of you I also get the sense that teachers, education standards and curricula are trivial. Which is why I posted my little post about surgery and airplane design. Unless you can show me otherwise, I assume that at a certain point self-study breaks down as an efficient way to learn. Which is something I know in real life from having written detailed procedures of 'how to do' complex things in the lab - and having trained roughly 50 people to do those things. An explanation, a demonstration, observation and commentary from a knowledgeable person can replace dozens of pages of text and blind trial.

So for me the question is WHERE it breaks down - at what level of instruction - and not if. You all seem to assume that learning sans teacher is always sufficient.

************************************************
Unless you all really are vested in a non-technical society where shade-tree mechanics and secretive herbalists are the acme of learning.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 12:10 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
/quote]Did you say you were in Australia? Maybe the educational system there is better than here. All I can speak on is the educational system in the States.


I talked about choices. You don't have alternatives to mainstream school? I'm pretty sure there are waldorf, montesorri, steiner and other independent schools in the US.

Quote:

Here, teachers aren't experts in science, math, history, or whatever subject they are teaching. That is not what they studied in college. To get a bachelor's in education, you take mostly classes in practice and theory of education--they spend most of their time learning procedures and processes of how to teach, not what to teach. That is the substance of their credential.

but you yourself wrote at some length on how you don't need to be expert in any particular subject to teach. That it's engendering a desire to learn,and giving children access to resources which are the most important thing. I think the fact that teachers aren't expert indicates that they are not, in fact, imparting information, but trained to do pretty much what you say you do (whether they do or not is another issue)

Teachers face an endless barrage of criticism. I don't know why anyone does it frankly, because the pay is crap as well. If they aren't 'experts' they are criticised. If they don't teach the basics, they are criticised. If they teach in a manner outside of parents expertise (ie child focused) they are criticised.

Basically teachers bear the brunt of the obsessive, overbearing, overly controlling focus on children that is one of the features of parenting today, the flip side of abuse and neglect. Particularly in many middle class or aspirational families where every other child is either gifted, has a developmental disorder (pick your initials), special dietary requirements, special educational needs...aaaarrgggghhhhh.

Good grief, would it be too much if kids just actually had to cope with existing in an imperfect world where every single thing wasn't specially tailored to their individual needs????? I really worry about future generations.

A few of you have talked about your crappy experiences at school, well did you ever think that you are different to your child, that their school experience may not actually be yours???


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 12:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So, let's take another running start on this issue: There are two possible problems to homeschooling

1) Students may not get an education that allows them even the option to participate in a post-school world. That problem can be solved by requiring that homeschooled students take some sort of curriculum-based test which could allow them to ultimately get that piece of paper from HS.

2) SOME parents choose to homeschool because they're abusers. They choose to isolate their children from anybody that has any authority because they simply don't want to get caught. Now, if anyone has a solution to this problem, let me know. Or just tell me that it's not a big enough problem to deal with, and not worth disturbing other parent's rights over.


It's also interesting to come at this from another angle. Teachers who have been teaching for a long time are reporting increasing numbers of children with significant behavioural problems, much of which is observed at school entry age. Reports of family abuse are ever steadily increasing.

I think its unfair to target school and educational problems as being the cause of all ills when there are plenty of indicators that many , many families struggle with issues of setting behavioural limits and expectations. Basically, many parents are not doing a crash hot job of parenting. Are the kids that use bullying, violent behaviour doing so as a result of the 'system' or of what's going on at home? I'd say home and what they have learnt at home plays the biggest part in how kids will react to any situation.

And lastly,a kid who wishes to learn and has that love of life long learning (which inevitably will be significantly influenced by his family) will also do so at a public high school as well. Some kids excel in public schools and go on to have wonderful lives and/or careers. Some kids do crap at high school and go on to have wonderful lives and/or careers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 3:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No Magon, you didn't kill the thread.

I think people are just worn out!


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 3:42 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
... Now, I grant you that some could say that I'm using the "war on terror" argument- that in order to catch a small percentage of abusers I'll resort to "treating everyone like a criminal".



You are, but that's not the dishonest part. It's not effective, and not worth the cost, but it's fairly straightforward. What you're doing that's dishonest, and what makes it so hard to take you're arguments seriously, is this for-us-or-against-us bullshit pulled right out of the neo-con's playbook. I mentioned it before, and I'm calling you on it again.

Quote:

... Neither you, nor Sarge, nor CTS have come up with a solution to the problem of "disappeared" children. You don't even have the balls to say it's not an issue!


I'm not gonna play along with your grandstanding demagoguery by stating the obvious. I shouldn't have to defend myself with disclaimers about how much "I really do care about children's welfare after all", and I won't. I won't do that any more than I'll preface every complaint about our idiotic foreign policy with overt statement of my patriotism. So keep your propaganda.

The bottom line is I don't think your solution is worth a shit. On the whole, I just don't think that government does much to stop violence and injustice. It just organizes them. And it's not going to stop bad parents from harming their kids. What it will do is insist that we all follow the same prescription, no matter how bad that prescription may be.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 4:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, that's that then. No need to screen for child abuse, to prosecute parents, to put children into a safer environment. And really, why have any laws at all regarding child welfare ? B/c you see it involves the big boogeyman government, and that's scarier than any monster-parent could ever be.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 5:05 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
B/c you see it involves the big boogeyman government, and that's scarier than any monster-parent could ever be.



True enough.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 5:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Then you've just come down on the side of acceptable loss. Of children. As trade for your rights.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 5:23 PM

SERGEANTX


Not so much. I've just acknowledged that what you said is completely true. The government IS scarier than any one parent. It has the capacity, and the historically proven tendency to do far more harm. Seriously, one parent is really only gonna be a danger to their own kids. And then only if they can hide their malevolence from all their family and friends and neighbors (that's assuming the family and friends and neighbors aren't sitting around on their hands waiting for the government to do something).

But if they want kick it up a notch, if they want to threaten more than their own kids, they really need to get the government involved. Let the pros handle it, eh? So, you've now officially come down on the side of tyranny and evil.

Oh, I see, not fair huh?

Well, because I don't believe in the dragons at the gate, because I don't believe that, on the whole, government does jack squat to reduce the amount of injustice and evil in the world, you've declared that I hate little kids. Yeah.. I love the terrorists too. And I kick puppies.

Mostly I've just had it with morons who think that every time they get freaked out about the ugly facts of life, we gotta panic and pass a bunch of stupid laws.



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 5:43 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You're right of course.

We should just get rid of all laws - the ones that make murder and rape and assault a crime, or theft and destruction of another person's property. Or maybe the ones about stopping at red lights or driving down the right side of the street. Fuck government. Fuck rules. Fuck laws. We should just all get guns.

Right ?

But anyway, it's nice to finally know where you stand. You would prefer that there be NO laws - not even ones to punish parents after proof of abuse. Because, as you've said in so many words - "Seriously, one parent is really only gonna be a danger to their own kids" - individual children are an acceptable loss in the face of your hatred of any kind of government.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 5:45 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No Magon, you didn't kill the thread.


Wouldn't be the first time if I did. I'm violent in that way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 6:03 PM

SERGEANTX



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 6:03 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
individual children are an acceptable loss in the face of your hatred of any kind of government.



Sure, yeah, "acceptable loss". Whatever. This is a stupid game Rue.

I don't think you can honestly make a consistent argument that government eliminates more suffering than it causes. You haven't tried, so maybe you agree. You, and Signy, also haven't made any attempt to address the rather obvious idiocy of institutional education - which is what you're holding up as the only honorable way to curb child abuse. Cause, you know, anyone who disagrees burns babies alive and such.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 6:28 PM

FLETCH2


Brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend of mine almost 20 years ago. It was about higher education and the fact that in every country it's rationed in some way. In the UK at the time the government paid tuition but only if you passed a set of standardised tests to get into university. In the US entry requirements for university was lower but candidates tended to be self selecting because of the need to pay tuition.

Anyway, my friend said in effect that societies effectively limit access to higher education because in the end it still needs people to empty dustbins and repair sewers. If tomorrow every child's true potential could be realised who would do society's dirty jobs?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 6:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Maybe it would be a different society and there wouldn't be dustbins.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 6:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I don't think you can honestly make a consistent argument that government eliminates more suffering than it causes."

In how many ways ? Water treatment, sewage treatment, street-sweeping, the dreaded vaccinations - oh yeah - roads, public hospitals and medical care, research, job-safety regulations, environmental protection, just to name a few. And also education available to anyone who can't afford private education and can't do the job themselves.


"You haven't tried, so maybe you agree."

I didn't realize that was the question. And really, it isn't. But since you insist, you have your answer.


"You, and Signy, also haven't made any attempt to address the rather obvious idiocy of institutional education - "

Where do MOST children learn to read and figure ? And how does that make institutional education 'idiocy' ?


" - which is what you're holding up as the only honorable way to curb child abuse."

I think I've made a case for government intervention in general, not just via education. See I WOULD draw the line at government as safety net. But you apparently can't agree to any line, not even in cases of abuse.


"Cause, you know, anyone who disagrees burns babies alive and such."

Oh please, don't take it so personally. I don't think you personally would do such a thing, and never said so, or even implied it. I think your stance is more like this - it's not that I agree with beating my child to death, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 14, 2008 7:09 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend of mine almost 20 years ago. It was about higher education and the fact that in every country it's rationed in some way. In the UK at the time the government paid tuition but only if you passed a set of standardised tests to get into university. In the US entry requirements for university was lower but candidates tended to be self selecting because of the need to pay tuition.

Anyway, my friend said in effect that societies effectively limit access to higher education because in the end it still needs people to empty dustbins and repair sewers. If tomorrow every child's true potential could be realised who would do society's dirty jobs?




well what do we have the developing countries for?

seriously, the shitdigging jobs are becoming few and far between in the west. Dustbin men are no more in my neck of the woods. There's a man operating a truck that I'll bet required a special licence to operate. I'm sure I couldn't do it.

Factories - hmmm, not so much. Going offshore more and more to places with cheaper labour, and the ones that are left,often operate highly technical machinery.

Farming - highly mechanised. picking/harvesting/rounding up herds...all use complex machinery. Farms can be multi million dollar business and enormously complex to run.

I've worked in employment placement, believe me, in this country at least if you don't have an education you are screwed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The government IS scarier than any one parent
Unless you're the child of that parent. Sarge, you have just said yourself in so many ways what I said about you from the very beginning: You're so wrapped up in control issues that you really don't give a shit what happens to anyone, children included.
Quote:

I don't think you can honestly make a consistent argument that government eliminates more suffering than it causes. You haven't tried, so maybe you agree.
Well, now if THAT isn't an effing desperate strawman! Helloooooo.... Maybe that wasn't the topic of this thread? Meet me in another thread, and I'll be happy to exchange hundreds of posts on the topic.
Quote:

You, and Signy, also haven't made any attempt to address the rather obvious idiocy of institutional education - which is what you're holding up as the only honorable way to curb child abuse.
But education...!

Shades of But Clinton...! I know that a lot of things are wrong with education, and a lot of things should be done to fix it. But that wasn't the topic of THIS thread, was it? There are also a lot of abusive parents out there, it's really really common.... probably AS common as bad school experiences but much MUCH more devastating. But you haven't addressed that, have you?

Because in your mind, nothing bad happens except because of government. I could go on and on, but I can't force insight so this will be a good time to stop.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:10 AM

SERGEANTX


Frem, I wish I had your sense of timing. I always seem to stay at the party for one too many drinks.

I'll leave this thread to you Signym, wherein you can discuss the universal libertarian hatred of children.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, let me restate my issues with homeschooling:

1) Academic. Solved using Frem-style proposal.

2) Abuse. Some parents intent on abuse will use "homeschooling" as a way to isolate their children from view. Now, I don't lay this at the feet of homeschooling, nor have I suggested it is commonplace, but I DO see it as an unintended side effect.

I'd like to see this issue solved. I think there are far too many abusive parents, and fewer - but still too many- who "disappear" their children from public view. And since I came up with real examples... and could come up with LOTS more... it's not as if this is a theoretical concern. So people who propose homeschooling should either (a) come up with a solution to this unintended side effect or (b) come up with statistics that this isn't a big enough problem to "worry about". Since nobody has come up with either, it seems that y'all lack the intellectual honesty to even THINK about this issue.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


THIS IS FROM THE PA HOMESCHOOLER'S ASSN:
Quote:

On the other hand, there are increasing reports of homeschool child abuse in the media. It all started in October 2003 when CBS news aired a two-part series about the “dark side” of homeschooling. The Oct. 13 episode discussed a case in AZ in which an abused 14-year-old homeschooler killed himself and his two siblings while the Oct. 14 show discussed homeschool child abuse cases and murders in TX, KS, and NC....

Then three local Akron area incidents involving child abuse of homeschooled children (including starving homeschooled children found wandering in Akron after they escaped from a closet where they weremade to eat from a cat litter box) led two writers for the Akron Beacon Journal to conduct a systematic search of newspaper articles to see if such incidents were isolated. Since child abuse cases are seldom reported in the media, they instead examined murders and found that a relatively high proportion of homeschooled children had been murdered by their parents in recent years. In November 2004, they published their findings.

...
The Florida Story

The first national story of 2005 began on February 4 when homeschool parents Jim and Linda Dollar fled Florida after their child abuse was discovered. Governor Jeb Bush told the press, “I hope they find them, and I hope that they put them away for a long, long time. It’s disgusting.” But if you would just listen to the Dollars talk, you would think that they were loving parents. For example, in a 1995 questionnaire, Linda wrote, “We have five adopted children and have seen what we can do to help those less fortunate, we can see so many children who need special care, love and an opportunity to be part of a warm, loving, caring home atmosphere.” Despite their talk, their child abuse was chillingly cold. Here is a summary, from the February 5 Tampa Tribune of the torture and starvation that five of their children allegedly endured:

"Two parents arrested Friday near Salt Lake City are accused of using cattle prods, pliers, vises and starvation to torture five of their seven children. Their adopted 16-year-old son weighed 59 pounds when hospitalized Jan. 21 in Citrus County, which started an investigation, officials said. Twin boys, 14, subsequently were found to weigh 36 and 38 pounds. Two girls, 13 and 12, also were severely undernourished.... “The twins were particularly shocking,” said sheriff´s spokeswoman Gail Tierney. “The pictures were reminiscent of something you would have seen at Auschwitz.”

Florida law gives families three homeschooling options: evaluations by a certified teacher, testing by a certified teacher, or enrollment in an umbrella school. The Dollars complied with Florida law by enrolling in an umbrella school that advertised itself as “non-intrusive.” According to the Tampa Tribune, Barbara Dunlop, administrator of the umbrella school that was supposed to be supervising the Dollars, noticed that the children were abnormally small when she tested them three years ago: The adopted children of John and Linda Dollar appeared abnormally small during academic testing conducted nearly three years ago at a Lutz private Christian school. Barbara Dunlop, 51, administrator of Tampa Educational Academy of Christian Heritage Inc., said via e-mail Friday that she had noticed “some of the children were very small. The mother explained that they had been adopted and came from a family of small stature.”

Unfortunately, Dunlop failed to act upon her observation, perhaps because she still believed the myth that only parents who love their children homeschool them. She didn´t yet understand that there is a small group of parents who homeschool children that they hate in order to better control them and better hide the abuse. If she had acted upon her observation, the abuse of these children could have been ended three years earlier.

The Arizona Story
An underweight 14-year-old Arizona girl escaped from her home after allegedly being locked in her room for 15 months while sexually abused and starved by her homeschooling father. The girl finally broke out of her room and made it to a friend’s house, where she talked with child abuse authorities, who believed her.

The girl’s father, Rene Valenzuela, had signed an affidavit with the local school superintendent’s office back in 1999 when he first began to homeschool her. However, after this step he didn’t have to do anything else to comply with Arizona’s lax homeschool law. When Governor Janet Napolitano was questioned about this story, she replied with a question, “How could this happen in our state? That a young girl is kept prisoner in a home for years and as you say, no one knows about it?” During her six years of official homeschooling, since 1999, there are virtually no records to demonstrate that this girl was ever educated. Although she had apparently been given books to read and there was an unused algebra book in her room, there was no evidence that she had received an education. If the Arizona law had included annual accountability, as in Pennsylvania, this girl’s lack of education would have been discovered long before she was locked in her room for 15 months at age 13 as a sex slave.

The Iowa Story
The Iowa Department of Human Services first began investigating accused child-endangerer and homeschool dad Jon Neely when his daughter [failed to show up for a public school test required by Iowa homeschool regulations. Later they found his 10-year-old daughter, weighing 59 pounds, locked in a dark room with no furniture or light while her father and his girl friend were out. The couple were charged with child endangerment for leaving the girl with no escape in case of fire. Quotes from a February 23 Des Moines Register story suggest that Jon Neely hated this child that he had had with his just-divorced wife: Jon Neely told police he had taken out the light bulbs in the room because his daughter was being punished. He said he had removed all of the furniture because his daughter “breaks everything,” according to the warrant. Police also reported in the document that Neely later said his daughter “peed on everything and she steals.”

The Iowa case was nipped in the bud because of the quick reaction of government officials when the girl did not show up for a test required by the Iowa homeschool law. According to an AP story, Iowa Governor Vilsack reviewed the case and “says that appropriate measures were taken.”

What We Can Do
The vast majority of us teach our children at home because we love them. Our goodness shines through and can be seen in the goodness of the children that we raise. But there is a very small group of child abusers who keep children home that they hate in order to better control them and hide the abuse. Given the new media template, whenever this abuse is discovered, it will be widely publicized and the state’s Governor will be sought out for comments and action.

If the Pennsylvania homeschool community acts responsibly, we may be able to prevent similar incidents from happening in our state. Evaluators who meet in person with children may be able to recognize possible abuse situations. Almost all of these abusive parents isolated their children and use lack of food as a way to control them. Unfortunately, some evaluators are so trusting in the goodness of all homeschoolers that they sometimes do distance evaluations where they do not even meet with the children of strangers, even though the PA home education law requires that the child be protected by an interview with the evaluator.

These distance evaluators do not exist in a vacuum. Most are homeschoolers themselves. They are supported by homeschooling friends who laud them for their belief in freedom. We need to challenge our libertarian friends to act responsibly.

And when we are working as evaluators and encounter underweight homeschooled children who have been isolated from outside contacts, we should become suspicious. If it is clear that the parents hate or are not educating their children, we should inform authorities. The homeschool law in Pennsylvania gives our community a way to protect homeschooled children and at the same time protect our own reputation.



www.pahomeschoolers.com/newsletter/issue90b.htm

I know it's a lot more comfortable to get all huffy when people suggest this exists. It's far more comfortable to refuse to address the topic.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 16, 2008 12:29 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I talked about choices. You don't have alternatives to mainstream school? I'm pretty sure there are waldorf, montesorri, steiner and other independent schools in the US.

Rich people have choices. Public schools get the sort of teachers I was talking about.

Quote:


but you yourself wrote at some length on how you don't need to be expert in any particular subject to teach.

That's right. My problem with teachers vs. parents is twofold.

1. Parents have to have special skills/resources to offer, such as the time to learn with the child, the ability to support a child-led and spontaneous education, and/or an intense passion about the child's welfare. Teachers in schools either don't have those skills, or don't have those types of resources. So they SHOULD have something else to offer, like subject expertise, but they don't. So what DO they have to offer, besides a glorified babysitting service?

2. Teachers are the first to criticize homeschoolers are insufficiently qualified to teach. My point was defensive, pointing out that teachers living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If they actually had any qualifications themselves, I would take their criticisms more seriously.

Quote:

Good grief, would it be too much if kids just actually had to cope with existing in an imperfect world where every single thing wasn't specially tailored to their individual needs?????
Do you have children of your own? When your child has problems at school because of the teachers, do you tell your kid to just suck it up and "cope with existing in an imperfect world where every single thing wasn't specially tailored to their individual needs?" Do you solve your kid's educational problems by saying, "Kid, you don't fit in? Get used to it. You can't expect the world to revolve around you."

And to set things straight, homeschooling parents aren't asking teachers to tailor every single little thing to their kids' needs. They understand the school system has limitations, so they are solving the problem by withdrawing their children from a limited system to find a better fit.

Quote:


A few of you have talked about your crappy experiences at school, well did you ever think that you are different to your child, that their school experience may not actually be yours???

I had a great time at school. Straight A student, valecdictorian, teacher's pet and all. My daughter, however, begged me every day of her one month in a private school to PLEASE don't send her back. It was torture for her. So yes, I am aware that my child's experience may not actually be mine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:02 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
1) Academic. Solved using Frem-style proposal.

I don't agree with Frem's proposal. I object to any type of assessment that is knowledge based instead of effort based. Knowledge based assessements does not leave very much room for kids with learning and other disabilities. For example, Sig, how does your daughter do on standardized tests? I'm not asking to be mean or anything--just pointing out that many many parents homeschool precisely because their kids don't do well academically. Academic assessments aren't going to show their educational progress well.

Quote:


2) Abuse. Some parents intent on abuse will use "homeschooling" as a way to isolate their children from view.

This goes without saying, Sig. Abuse is a crime. Criminals usually hide their crimes. So yeah, locking their kids in a closet and calling it homeschooling is their way of hiding.

I've already proposed a solution, but your response is "Communities don't exist." Well, no shit, sherlock. Instead of creating a law to blah-blah-blah, create a community instead. It will be more effective, be more efficient, and be less oppressive.

Child abuse is ugly. Both I and my brother were physically and emotionally abused as children--while both attending school and doing absolutely fantastic in it. So again, I say, routine monitoring is not the solution to child abuse. Criminals intent on child abuse are experts at hiding, sometimes in plain sight, sometimes camouflaged. It doesn't matter what kind of law you pass--criminals are experts are getting around the law. If you don't believe me, ask Frem.

What people and kids NEED, and what they lack, are communities. They need their very own monkeysphere of folks who care for them, folks who aren't afraid to pour in some sweat and get involved.

Law is a prefabricated decision. In extreme cases, it is useful because it streamlines the response in black-and-white cases. But most child abuse cases are shades of gray that may not fit well with a prefabricated outcome. The best thing for the KIDS is involvement from people who know them, care about them, and can make good judgments about what they need. People from their community.

People used to live with extended families. Parents act up, and aunts and uncles and grandpas and cousins stepped in. They corrected the offenders and empowered the children. Short of that, there were neighbors. We don't have that anymore. I am saying the true solution to child abuse is not to draft yet another bill, but to bring community back.

It is a lot more work, but it will yield better and more lasting results. You get what you pay for.

And severe child abuse is still a crime. You treat it as any other crime. Call in suspicious activities, investigate them, and prosecute when you find sufficient evidence. You see a kid in your neighborhood who NEVER comes out of his house? THAT IS SUSPICIOUS. Call it in. That is it. You don't need to introduce new legislation to do that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:08 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
it seems that y'all lack the intellectual honesty to even THINK about this issue.

Hey, before you start on intellectual honesty, you never answered MY question. So you know, glass houses and stones, and black kettles and pots.

So how about you give it a whirl? I even listed all possible answers, just like you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 16, 2008 2:56 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
What people and kids NEED, and what they lack, are communities. They need their very own monkeysphere of folks who care for them, folks who aren't afraid to pour in some sweat and get involved.

And the children who are squirreled away from their community and abused at home are left to pure happenstance. Their lives are so unimportant that their welfare should be left to a mistake to discover them? Honestly, if sadistic parents are abusing children whom they have closed them away in the basement closet, how does the community discover them? How many years must a child endure this kind of abuse before a mistake finally reveals them to passersby? I’m all for parent’s rights. And I believe that a loving parent will provide for a child orders of magnitude better then the state is likely too, but an unloving parent will likewise do far more harm to a child. Shouldn’t the right of a child not to be subjected to the will of a sadistic abusive parent be at least something we consider? Why does it have to be so unimportant that we simply toss it out as something to be inadvertently happened upon?



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 16, 2008 3:37 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Honestly, if sadistic parents are abusing children whom they have closed them away in the basement closet, how does the community discover them? How many years must a child endure this kind of abuse before a mistake finally reveals them to passersby?

People who lock children in basement closets, where the kids never come out to be discovered by the community, don't report to authorities as homeschoolers to begin with.

If making sure all kids are inspected annually is your concern, then do that. Make it mandatory that all children have to have a physical and psychological exam at least once a year. Kids have to wear a current year sticker on their bracelets to show to everyone their exams are up to date. Like cars and their annual inspections.

But don't pretend this has anything to do with education. Using education as a logistical platform for vigilance is dishonest. If you want vigilance, have the guts to be up front about it--not hide it under the guise of making sure a kid is getting educated.

And btw, it doesn't matter how you check up on children, whether through testing or a mandatory bracelet or health exams or what. Criminals will find a way around it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 16, 2008 4:25 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
And btw, it doesn't matter how you check up on children, whether through testing or a mandatory bracelet or health exams or what. Criminals will find a way around it.

Criminals can be crafty, but it’s your unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of children that I find just as disturbing. It’s not parental rights, but parental ego that drives someone to use the parent as an excuse to leave children at the whim of happenstance. All I said from the very beginning was that California law should define homeschooling so that some type of protection existed for the children. I can’t understand why any parent would be opposed to that. I’m not talking about branding kids with stickers or any other Big Brother attitudes. I’m talking about defining the law so that the rights of children are at least as protected as the rights of parents, but from the very beginning you’ve been completely opposed to even the considering such a thing. And I can’t help but think that this is more a product of parental ego then parental rights.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 16, 2008 6:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

you never answered MY question.
I did. twice. I even capitalized the most relevant portions of the answer. But you didn't like the answer, so you ignored it. I'm not going to answer a third time.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 2:32 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I even capitalized the most relevant portions of the answer.

And I explained why "IT ISN'T" is a completely false statement. I explained that if you want to use "IT ISN'T" as an answer, you need to provide proof of the statute, as in code, chapter, and section. Just saying "IT ISN'T" without ANY substantiation of the legal requirement doesn't cut it.

I'll explain yet again. Hell, answer the following questions for starters, if you can't bring yourself to argue the "WHY" part of it.

Health: Parents are not legally required to bring their kids in for well child or even sick child visits. Are they?

Food: Parents are not legally required to feed their children a minimum number of calories or from a minimum "curriculum" of food groups. Parents are not legally required to bring their kids in for a periodic test to rule out nutritional deficits. Are they?

Clothing: Parents are not legally required to provide a certain type or amount of clothing to children. Parents are not legally required to submit to a periodic clothing inspection. Are they?

Housing: Parents are not legally required to provide a certain type or amount of shelter to their children. Parents are not legally required to submit to housing inspections, to make sure the home meets standards for cleanliness and roominess. Are they?

(I understand in some states, prospective parents, such as foster and adoptive ones, have to undergo a housing inspection before being allowed to parent. But natural parents do not have such legal requirements. Do they?)

Now if you answer, "Yes, they are," please provide substantiation. Don't just claim it because I just have to take your word for it.

If you answer, "No, they are not"--please explain why not.

Education: Most parents ARE legally required to provide a certain type (education provided in a school setting) and amount of education to their children, to be inspected periodically. See the HSDLA link above for citations of statutes, state by state. Currently, some parents can bypass this legal requirement by using the homeschooling exception. But you and others on this list WANT to toughen up the laws so the NO parents can bypass this legal requirement, and ALL parents have to submit to an inspection of their children's education. My question is, why is that, when you aren't clamoring for similar inspections in the areas of health, food, clothing, and housing?

[Edited to add:]
All the examples you and Finn gave are legal requirements for businesses or public institutions--not for PARENTS. Education is the only area in which the statutes govern PARENTS directly. If there is another area in which PARENTS are directly governed by law, please provide citations of statutes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 4:46 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but it’s your unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of children that I find just as disturbing.

Finn, Sig, you have my permission to slap me silly if I ever use this argument in a debate: "You don't agree with my solutions so you must not care as much about the problem as I do."

Seriously, anyone, slap me silly if I ever do that, ok?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 4:54 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I won't do that any more than I'll preface every complaint about our idiotic foreign policy with overt statement of my patriotism. So keep your propaganda.

The bottom line is I don't think your solution is worth a shit. On the whole, I just don't think that government does much to stop violence and injustice. It just organizes them. And it's not going to stop bad parents from harming their kids. What it will do is insist that we all follow the same prescription, no matter how bad that prescription may be.

Thank you Sarge. You really have a gift for cutting through bullshit, don't you? Well said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 5:08 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but it’s your unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of children that I find just as disturbing.

Finn, Sig, you have my permission to slap me silly if I ever use this argument in a debate: "You don't agree with my solutions so you must not care as much about the problem as I do."

Seriously, anyone, slap me silly if I ever do that, ok?

You demand intellectual honesty from us, but you're not willing to give it. Your solution to the problem of the protection of children within homeschooling is to simply wait until their abuse is accidentally discovered by passersby. So you’re not against someone calling the police to protect abused children if they happen upon it by mistake. That’s very noble of you, but it’s not a solution to the problem, so much as it is an attempt to ignore it.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 5:41 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Your solution to the problem of the protection of children within homeschooling is to simply wait until their abuse is accidentally discovered by passersby.

That is how crime is investigated in our society--by "accident," as you insist. I prefer to call it vigilance. It doesn't have to be "by mistake" if true communities existed.

A lot of cops would love to be able to inspect every home from attic to basement, say once every couple of years. Look for contraband, kids locked in secret compartments, any other crime that may be going on. Hell, while you're at it, mandate those annual physical and psychological exams of kids. Don't leave it to accident, as you say, but systematically scan society on a regular basis, like a computer routinely scans for viruses.

But in our society, something called the Constitution stands in the way of routine, general searches. That is the way the founding fathers set it up--so that crimes have to be investigated only AFTER signs of suspicion are noticed (either by accident or by vigilance). Not BEFORE.

Now maybe the Constitution is an obstacle to true prevention of crime. Maybe all these "rights" just get in the way of proactive crimefighting. If so, make your case for changing the Constitution. Make your case for changing legal tenets such as the presumption of innocence and probable cause.

But don't try to pin that on *my* personal values. I happen to agree with the Fourth Amendment, but I am hardly the only one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 8:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
(CBS) ...But homeschooling is largely unregulated.

So is homecooking.

Why do you want to regulate homeschooling and not regulate homecooking?

Let's try the same question from this angle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 9:14 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
(CBS) ...But homeschooling is largely unregulated.

So is homecooking.

Why do you want to regulate homeschooling and not regulate homecooking?

Let's try the same question from this angle.




Is that really a serious question? If so you have absolutely no sense of proportion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 9:35 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Frem,

I'd like your thoughts on this one. Since Finn and Sig have refused to answer my question, WHY IS THAT, I thought I'd take a stab at it myself.

You're good with history. Lemme know what you think.

1. Vigilance. Lawmakers can't get away with routine monitoring of child-rearing. So it mandates only the one aspect it can persuade parents to comply with. Then it piggy backs on this one area to collect intelligence on all the other aspects--for the good of the children of course. Compulsory education is less about education, and more about a logistical and convenient platform from which to spy on families.

History is replete with the govt doing one thing while calling it another. War on Iraq is supposed to be about fighting terrorists, but it really is about fighting to secure oil interests for our corporations. I call it sleight-of-mind.

2. Loyalty to the State. Compulsory education was started with encouragement by industry to train more obedient factory workers. Apparently, the same educational system instituted then is still in use today. Education is the only regulated aspect of child rearing because it is the only part where, if done correctly, can present serious challenges to state authority. Train them to be loyal to the hive when they are young, and nip any ideas of sovereignty at the bud.

I'm reading John Taylor Gatto's book right now --An Underground History of American Education.
http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/ughoae.pdf
Very eye-opening.

The judge got it exactly right. A primary purpose of education IS loyalty to the state.

--------------------------
Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.
--John Dewey, Father of American education

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 9:44 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Is that really a serious question? If so you have absolutely no sense of proportion.

It is indeed a serious question. Please be so kind as to explain it to me. Thank you.

--------------------------
Je participe
Tu participes
Il participe
Nous participons
Vous participez
Ils profitent
--From a Wall in Paris

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 10:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Having the house re-piped this week. (Just one too many galvanized pipe leaks!

Also, doing taxes.

Blech!

This topic is now a lower on my priority list.

Back with you later. Maybe.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 11:03 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Rich people have choices. Public schools get the sort of teachers I was talking about.


It's not only rich people (here) who send their kids to something other than the public school. And on the subject of cost, it would cost me significantly less to send my child to the 'best' private school in the state than homeschool him, which would effectively mean that one of us would do without an income for 12 years.

Quote:

That's right. My problem with teachers vs. parents is twofold.

1. Parents have to have special skills/resources to offer, such as the time to learn with the child, the ability to support a child-led and spontaneous education, and/or an intense passion about the child's welfare. Teachers in schools either don't have those skills, or don't have those types of resources. So they SHOULD have something else to offer, like subject expertise, but they don't. So what DO they have to offer, besides a glorified babysitting service?



you don't think that its possible that teachers can equip children to explore, self learn, and find their own resources?

If you honestly think that the only way that teaching happens is by imparting expertise then your knowledge of what is possible in public education is limited.

Quote:

2. Teachers are the first to criticize homeschoolers are insufficiently qualified to teach. My point was defensive, pointing out that teachers living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If they actually had any qualifications themselves, I would take their criticisms more seriously.

well teachers are degree qualified here, so I can only speak for here. I guess teachers do see themselves as both qualified and experienced. I don't know what their stance is generally on homeschooling, I suppose it might not be a 'group' mentality (they are individuals after all) maybe they all have different views.

Quote:

Do you have children of your own? When your child has problems at school because of the teachers, do you tell your kid to just suck it up and "cope with existing in an imperfect world where every single thing wasn't specially tailored to their individual needs?" Do you solve your kid's educational problems by saying, "Kid, you don't fit in? Get used to it. You can't expect the world to revolve around you."

er, yes I do, as a matter of fact, kind of anyway. I listen to anything that he says about school and make up my own mind about how serious it is. He has complaints and he has things that he likes. If he was being bullied or persecuted by a teacher or another student, I'd step in, but other than that, yeah I do tell him the world doesn't revolve around him.

Quote:

And to set things straight, homeschooling parents aren't asking teachers to tailor every single little thing to their kids' needs. They understand the school system has limitations, so they are solving the problem by withdrawing their children from a limited system to find a better fit.

I wasn't just talking about homeschoolers, but a pervasive philosophy of 'the world revolves around my childs needs'. I'm sure there are many reasons why people homeschool, both worthy and not so.

Quote:

I had a great time at school. Straight A student, valecdictorian, teacher's pet and all. My daughter, however, begged me every day of her one month in a private school to PLEASE don't send her back. It was torture for her. So yes, I am aware that my child's experience may not actually be mine.

From your other quotes, you sound pretty down on what school can offer, so I feel a little skeptical of your claim to a fantastic time at school.

As for me, I had a mixed bag of school experience. Nothing very bad happened, but I wasn't happy every single day. But I made some lifelong friends and had a couple of inspirational teachers along the way.

In my family situation, thankfully I wasn't homeschooled.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 11:17 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
But don't try to pin that on *my* personal values.

You pinned it there yourself - don’t blame that on me. Earlier you stated that you felt that legislation was a threat with no explanation given when you believed the point of that legislation was to provide protection for homeschooled children, but later you were prepared to accept legislation when you felt that it was only to provide a legal recourse to the parents. Legislation wasn’t such a threat in that case - so we can conclude that it is not actually legislation that you find threatening, but legislation that might protect children. There is actually an unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of children coming through in your point of view.
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Is that really a serious question? If so you have absolutely no sense of proportion.

It is indeed a serious question. Please be so kind as to explain it to me. Thank you.

There’s nothing serious about it. It’s an attempt to muddy the water. Essentially what you are trying to do is drag the discussion down into arguing the ridiculous details of irrelevant regulation to distract from the real issue of homeschooling, but no one is talking about that degree of regulation - so your question is just completely irrelevant.

Nonetheless it is worth noticing that there is implicit regulation even here as a direct result of the regulation of the food industry. Food purchased by parents either at restaurants or grocery stores for their children has already been inspected for quality. Not even that much regulation exists in homeschooling for the most part.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 11:52 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

well teachers are degree qualified here, so I can only speak for here. I guess teachers do see themselves as both qualified and experienced. I don't know what their stance is generally on homeschooling, I suppose it might not be a 'group' mentality (they are individuals after all) maybe they all have different views.


My mom homeschooled my sister and I for about 7 years. A couple years ago she started going to college again for a teaching degree.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 1:49 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
you don't think that its possible that teachers can equip children to explore, self learn, and find their own resources?

If parents can, teachers can. But not with the kind of teacher-student ratio that exists in American public schools. The school system is simply not set up for individual attention or a tailored education. Sometimes it tries, but it is very limited.


Quote:

From your other quotes, you sound pretty down on what school can offer, so I feel a little skeptical of your claim to a fantastic time at school.
No, I LOVED school. I loved my teachers, I loved my classes, I loved my books, I loved my school library. You really couldn't have found a kid who loved school more than me. Really.

I wish I could have had better, but I am grateful to have had the education I had. (I went to private schools that hired teachers who majored in the subjects they taught, rather than majored in education.) That doesn't mean that I can't step back and realize that my experience was an exception, that most kids dislike school for good reason, and that there are some serious systemic flaws in the American educational system. My husband used to teach education majors at a university. So some of my poor opinion of American teacher training comes from that.

--------------------------
You can sue a doctor for malpractice, not a schoolteacher... You can’t sue a priest, minister, or rabbi either; that should be a clue.
--John Taylor Gatto, An Underground History of American Education

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 2:05 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Earlier you stated that you felt that legislation was a threat with no explanation given when you believed the point of that legislation was to provide protection for homeschooled children, but later you were prepared to accept legislation when you felt that it was only to provide a legal recourse to the parents.

What the hell are you talking about? Now you are making shit up about me. I did no such thing. And if you interpreted that I did, you are wrong.

Quit lying about me. I really am done with you now. I don't tolerate libel well.

---------------
Edited to add for the record.

What I said precisely was:
Quote:

In my view, all legislation is a threat.
Quote:

I don't have a problem with making homeschool "legal" (if in fact it needs to be made "legal"). It is your assertion that part of this "legality" requires some minimum standard and monitoring for homeschooling abuses that I have a problem with.


Legislation is the process of making something illegal. I meant it when I said making something illegal is always a threat. To make something legal is the OPPOSITE of legislation. It is to to take out, or modify, the existing law that made it illegal to begin with.

What Finn doesn't understand is that making homeschooling "legal" does not require legislation. He is under the mistaken impression that the law specifies what is allowed and what isn't allowed. So in his view, you have to write a law that says homeschooling is allowed. How could I support that law, but oppose a law that purports to protect children?

If indeed the law says homeschooling is not allowed, all you need to do is take out that part of the prohibition. To make homeschooling "legal," there is no special "law" to support; there are only laws to oppose. I oppose the law that makes homeschooling illegal, and I oppose the laws that make not assessing children's knowledge illegal.

--------------------------
It is the great triumph of compulsory, government monopoly mass-schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best of my students' parents, only a small number can imagine a different way to do things
-- John Taylor Gatto

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 2:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
What the hell are you talking about? Now you are making shit up about me. I did no such thing. And if you interpreted that I did, you are wrong.

Quit lying about me. I really am done with you now. I don't tolerate libel well.

The only reason you’re throwing this big of a fit is because you know I’m right. You did in fact claim that you felt legislation was a threat, but you were fine with that “threat“ so long as it was only being used to make home schooling legal for parents, but not okay with it when it was suggested that part of that legality would require protection for children. It was the principle point of your argument over the last few days - you can’t now claim not to have said it.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 17, 2008 6:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
If parents can, teachers can. But not with the kind of teacher-student ratio that exists in American public schools. The school system is simply not set up for individual attention or a tailored education. Sometimes it tries, but it is very limited.


Funding schools enough to offer better teacher/pupil ratios is really important. However, the basic philosophy of child focused learning can still exist in groups.

I think that there is a degree of evidence that children work well with a mix of teaching styles (child focused/learning by rote/ exploration)hence the focus on education method rather than knowledge. You teach children how to learn rather than what to learn. That can be done quite well in a school environment.

Different people respond to flaws (or perceived flaws) in the education system in different ways. For you, it has been to opt out of formal schooling, for us, it was to involve ourselves in the school, including school policies and direction and we are involved politically as well. Having a good education system is more than just whats good for us, its what's good for us all as a country, society. That's important to us as a family.

If I was unhappy with my sons school, I would pay to send him to another type of school. Homeschooling is last on my list of options. We (as a family) all enjoy the 'community' that schools offer to iscolate ourselves like that.

but different strokes etc

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:48 - 4779 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL