Save the cheerleaders...

Tommy brought up a good point about the interweb connected video system that just didn't work and got limited use. Some of this stuff can work well; for instance my kid's school does not issue paper books unless there is an overwhelming need. Instead, the books are on the school's Web site. (That's great if Mom n' Dad have home Internet access, not so good if they don't and it is not a district wide practice.)

I need to point out that my daughter goes to a 'magnet' school which has cut out a lot of the non essentials to focus on academics: for instance there's no sports teams or bus service which fits well with my philosophy of concentrating on the basics. They do have art, drama and music classes BTW.

But to drop taxpayer millions on a system that doesn't work is just insane.

Proper education should be one of the most important agendas. The US ranks very poorly in math and science among civilized countries, and it's getting worse, even before the current economic crisis. While the county Margie and Tommy live in may have money issues to blame, nationwide this is not really the problem.

John Brown has hit upon the real issue, that most educators are not allowed to teach. I have a good friend that is a 3rd grade teacher, and used to teach here at a school in shall we say a less than desirable neighborhood. Her old school recieved a lot more money than schools in other areas due to different methods of govt. funding for the under privilaged, but the scores were among the worst.

Then the No Child Child Left Behind act was established, and everything dropped like a rock. No longer were you allowed to teach, and you have a list of things you can and can't say in a classroom. Everything now is done to pass a certain test, not get a solid, basic education. This almost alone is dooming an entire class of kids much worse than many people know.

Funny thing, the same teacher quit here when she got married, but ironically enough, now teaches at a school in Florida that's excempt from most of the governement regulations (not publically funded), and isn't tied by the same disiplinary limitations either. This school is also not for the rich, as it is only for the underprivilaged that get to go for relatively no money, but parents have to be activily involved. The result is that their kids get far greater scores than the national average, and their graduates have a much higher degree of college bound students, especially on scholarships. She took a paycut to teach there, but now has no plans to ever leave. And it does this on a fraction of what public school systems spend per student.

The amount of money is not the answer for everything, it's the proper use of money. Once again, I'd like to see how Florida allocates it's money. I think all of your questions would be answered. Whenever you hear the line it's for the kids, it almost never is. That's just the easiest way for polititians to get a new tax approved.

Yeah, there was a 1 cent tax increase several years ago 'for education', to be used on top of property tax revenues. The bumper stickers were: 'Our kids need that penny.' Then of course it wound up actually going into the general fund so the politicians could build bridges and stuff with their names on them.

Then there was the 'Education Lottery' which does zip for the schools that need it most but has jacked up the cost of tuition at the in state universities.

Any time I hear 'It's for the children', I grab my wallet because I know it's a lie.

racerdave600 wrote: Funny thing, the same teacher quit here when she got married, but ironically enough, now teaches at a school in Florida that's excempt from most of the governement regulations (not publically funded), and isn't tied by the same disiplinary limitations either. This school is also not for the rich, as it is only for the underprivilaged that get to go for relatively no money, but parents have to be activily involved. The result is that their kids get far greater scores than the national average, and their graduates have a much higher degree of college bound students, especially on scholarships. She took a paycut to teach there, but now has no plans to ever leave. And it does this on a fraction of what public school systems spend per student.

As a Floridian, I'm very interested in knowing more about this school. My 8 year old is in private school presently, but it only goes through 5th grade. We really want to put her in a non-private setting for middle/high school, but have very limited good options here to do so. As such, an interesting and progressive model elsewhere in the state interests me greatly.

Please share if you don't mind, even if privately. Thanks!

berkeley! I just posted a very detailed reply to Margie and Snowdoggie, then needed to edit it. When I edited it and clicked "add post" it showed up as a new post at the end of the thread. So I deleted the first one, and now they're both gone.

the back button is my friend! A little cut, a little paste, and voila:

Marjorie Suddard said: And all of you hard-liners really need to explain to me how removing all of the accelerated classes from the curriculum fits in with your demands that education focus on the "hard" tasks. Way to maximize our educational dollars. And way to guarantee a mediocre result.

margie, maybe this wasn't directed at me, but i missed the part where anyone suggested removal of AP classes from curriculum is the right thing to do.

Snowdoggie said: Either home school them or pay out of your own pocket to send them to a private school that, of course, would be totally unregulated by any government entity.

snowdoggie, you say "totally unregulated by any government entity" like it's a bad thing. students in both private- and home-school situations are required to take the same standardized tests as the public school students, and there are possible repercussions for both if the students' performance is sub-par. at the private school, it should be pretty evident that income from tuition will be directly tied to performance at educating students. and at the home school, the gubmint can still step in via social services if the student's performance on the standardized tests warrants their intervention.

Snowdoggie said: This is simple in theory, but in reality going in this direction will put us at a distinct disadvantage when competing against the rest of the world. You are limiting those who can learn things like advanced physics to people who could afford private schools and highly educated parents who can teach thier own children. There is also a difference between teaching rote memorization skills that win spelling bees and providing an education that includes an understanding of advanced math and science concepts.The former can be taught at home schooling level. The latter, not so much, unless you have parents who are engineers or scientists who can take off enough time from work to teach their kids all day.

i guess i don't know how to make italics work in blockquote bubbles. oh well. i will not address the first three quarters of your last paragraph because it is opinion.

as for the last quarter of it, consider the following:

1. in a classroom, one teacher is responsible for the discipline (LOL) and the education of a whole bunch of students. break down the traditional classroom teacher's time spent on a particular subject and it looks something like this:

[begin ridiculous example] Class, please take out your Socialism books and turn to page 666. (one minute later) Joey, put your penis away. Mikey, take your hands off of Joey's penis and sit in your seat. Class, please turn around and stop looking at Joey's penis. [end ridiculous example]

the point of my ridiculous example is that there's a lot of time wasted in traditional classrooms, whether it's penis-holding or pencil-fighting or note-passing, or simply waiting for 24 children to open their books to the correct page. this is to say nothing of the 5- to 10-minute breaks, six times per day, between classes so kids can go to their lockers, exchange books, make cell phone calls, send texts, deal drugs (sorry, couldn't resist), have sex in stairwells (again, low-hanging fruit), and walk to their next classroom. I have spoken to several home school parents recently who claim less than two hours per day is spent on "curriculum", because of the inherent efficiency of the smaller "class size" and the direct disciplinary link between parent and child.

2 . home schooling a child is not the exclusive domain of that child's parents unless that child's parents choose it to be. there are many examples of successful home school "associations" (for lack of better term on my part) in which like-minded families share responsibilities for various aspects of the education process. my sister-in-law, for example, has a piano and can play it pretty well, so she does music lessons for a bunch of home school kids. my brother is an electrical engineer and tinkerer, so he does most of the math and science stuff between dinner and bedtime, after he gets home from his full time job. they are not unique in the home school world.

most of the time when someone says "can't", they really mean "haven't made the appropriate choices up to this point, and therefore am personally responsible for my inability to". they're just not smart enough to realize it.

No, that wasn't directed at you, but this whole thread WAS prompted on my part by our school board's planned removal of IB and AP from our curriculum to help balance the budget. I think that is wrong, and its wrongness seems pretty clear-cut and obvious to me. Didn't really imagine it could cause a lot of debate, honestly. At this point, however, I'm going to reserve the rest of my energies for fighting at Wednesday's meeting. Thread's over to you guys.

Margie

well, good luck and we look forward to the new auto X complex that will be needed to hide the bodies

AngryCorvair wrote: i guess i don't know how to make italics work in blockquote bubbles. oh well. i will not address the first three quarters of your last paragraph because it is opinion.

So is it also your 'opinion' that Marjorie should go out and find somebody she knows to teach her children Advanced Physics since her school district can no longer provide that service?

It is also my 'opinion' that if I need heart surgery I would rather get it from a doctor with a University Degree in Medicine that from a homeschooled guy whose dad 'got him trained' by a buddy who was a medic in the Army.

If I want a car to drive cross country at high speed in, I would rather have one designed by a team of engineers with University Degrees than one put together in the backyard by a guy whose father was a shade tree mechanic and whose uncle taught him to arc weld with a $100 welder from Harbor Freight.

Do we really want to go back to some kind of medieval apprenticeship system where you learn from your parents or your parents friends under the banner of home schooling? I think that would be going backwards.

AngryCorvair wrote: snowdoggie, you say "totally unregulated by any government entity" like it's a bad thing. students in both private- and home-school situations are required to take the same standardized tests as the public school students, and there are possible repercussions for both if the students' performance is sub-par. at the private school, it should be pretty evident that income from tuition will be directly tied to performance at educating students. and at the home school, the gubmint can still step in via social services if the student's performance on the standardized tests warrants their intervention.

You can't have it both ways. Either you have government subsidizing education or you do not. If the government sets the standards and writes the test and gives it to the homeschoolers to take, you are still depending on the government to provide materials for you and to set the standard that you must abide by. This is just government subsidized home schooling. If you are going to homeschool, then make up your own tests and decide for yourself when your child is educated, or go out into the marketplace and buy materials in the marketplace that you can use to test your children WITHOUT the assistance of a professional educator provided to you by the government.

Is there a problem with the fact that some parents might not be qualified to do this? That is my point.

Jensenman wrote: Any time I hear 'It's for the children', I grab my wallet because I know it's a lie.

..and not just for education. People love to trot out that "it's for the children!" excuse for numerous morality influenced projects of theirs.

Icepuppie:

Your predjudice against home schooling is very obvious.

While you are correct that some parents are not qualified to teach particular subjects, it is also true that some teachers are not qualified to teach particular subjects. One bad home school teacher means one bad student (or perhaps a few). 1 bad teacher with tenure can go on forever.

Government was taught at my high school by the soccer coach. AP math was taught by a football referee. The state of GA has a nearly 50% high school dropout rate.

Are you suggesting these are better scenarios to learn advanced subjects?

I've spent 15 years involved in home schooling, including 6 at levels which make me more involved than most (President of a HS Association, member of the school board, contact liason for the Superintendent of Schools). It's not for everyone, and I'm not selling it.

But please get a little educated on the subject and move beyond your biases before you spout off gobbledy gook that's not based in reality.

Ask a college admissions officer at virtually any university in the country what they think about the educational performance of the average home schooler. They are climbing over each other to get these kids in their institutions, because their performance (as a group) is significantly higher than their public educated peers (as a group).

Snowdoggie wrote: This is simple in theory, but in reality going in this direction will put us at a distinct disadvantage when competing against the rest of the world. You are limiting those who can learn things like advanced physics to people who could afford private schools and highly educated parents who can teach thier own children. There is also a difference between teaching rote memorization skills that win spelling bees and providing an education that includes an understanding of advanced math and science concepts. The former can be taught at home schooling level. The latter, not so much, unless you have parents who are engineers or scientists who can take off enough time from work to teach their kids all day.

I don't agree. You are describing a pedagogy known as "banking" which suggests that a student can only learn what their teacher "deposits" into them. To believe such is to rule out new discovery, or suggest that a student can never surpass his teacher. If it were true, we would lack virtually all the advanced thinkers and great artists that have ever been.

I've been a youth sports coach for about 14 years. I was never an athlete. But I'm very good at analyzing mechanics and communicating changes in creative and encouraging ways. That makes me a reasonably good teacher but not such good a student. I've taken 6 different teams in 2 different sports to state level tournament championships in the time I've coached, so there is a bit of a payoff. But every student I've ever coached has the advantage of becoming a significantly better athlete than I am, because I teach them to excel, I don't "deposit".

I know a young boy who is homeschooled, and has never been in a public school. He is 14 years old, yet does advanced computer programming, and has started his own business doing it. He generally makes $100 per hour for his services. His mother never finished high school, his father is a middle manager at a production facility. Neither knows much about computers or business, but they know how to teach, and how to find the resources they need to teach an advanced student.

SVreX wrote: Icepuppie: Your predjudice against home schooling is very obvious. While you are correct that some parents are not qualified to teach particular subjects, it is also true that some teachers are not qualified to teach particular subjects. One bad home school teacher means one bad student (or perhaps a few). 1 bad teacher with tenure can go on forever. Government was taught at my high school by the soccer coach. AP math was taught by a football referee. The state of GA has a nearly 50% high school dropout rate. Are you suggesting these are better scenarios to learn advanced subjects? I've spent 15 years involved in home schooling, including 6 at levels which make me more involved than most (President of a HS Association, member of the school board, contact liason for the Superintendent of Schools). It's not for everyone, and I'm not selling it. But please get a little educated on the subject and move beyond your biases before you spout off gobbledy gook that's not based in reality. Ask a college admissions officer at virtually any university in the country what they think about the educational performance of the average home schooler. They are climbing over each other to get these kids in their institutions, because their performance (as a group) is significantly higher than their public educated peers (as a group).

I don't really have a prejudice against home schooling. I am simply stating that there are limits to home schooling and those limits are the parents. Some parents are qualified to teach there kids. Others are not. That is all I am saying. There is also a point where even home schoolers will have to pass their kids on to somebody with more knowledge. How many parents know enough higher level math or physics to be able to teach their kids the subject. Sure there are a few, but that is not the mainstream.

Yes, there is a shortage of qualified teachers to teach some subjects. We need more people educated in math and sciences. Neither teachers or parents know enough about these subjects. Whether you are teaching at home or at school you have to have people that are qualified to teach the subject. We have to do more to encourage an interest in science. In the 60s we have the space program. Today, excelling in science makes you a 'nerd'. Perhaps explaining physics with the use of race cars might help. This is a cultural problem that goes beyond whether or not to home school your child.

As far as 'spouting off gobbledy gook that's not based in reality' and all of your other nasty insults, do you really think it is necessary? It really is sad that we have to trade insults in this discussion. I assure you that I know a few really nasty ones that would have you screeching at the keyboard, but I chose not to lower myself to that level.

SVreX wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: This is simple in theory, but in reality going in this direction will put us at a distinct disadvantage when competing against the rest of the world. You are limiting those who can learn things like advanced physics to people who could afford private schools and highly educated parents who can teach thier own children. There is also a difference between teaching rote memorization skills that win spelling bees and providing an education that includes an understanding of advanced math and science concepts. The former can be taught at home schooling level. The latter, not so much, unless you have parents who are engineers or scientists who can take off enough time from work to teach their kids all day.

I don't agree. You are describing a pedagogy known as "banking" which suggests that a student can only learn what their teacher "deposits" into them. To believe such is to rule out new discovery, or suggest that a student can never surpass his teacher. If it were true, we would lack virtually all the advanced thinkers and great artists that have ever been. I've been a youth sports coach for about 14 years. I was never an athlete. But I'm very good at analyzing mechanics and communicating changes in creative and encouraging ways. That makes me a reasonably good teacher but not such good a student. I've taken 6 different teams in 2 different sports to state level tournament championships in the time I've coached, so there is a bit of a payoff. But every student I've ever coached has the advantage of becoming a significantly better athlete than I am, because I teach them to excel, I don't "deposit". I know a young boy who is homeschooled, and has never been in a public school. He is 14 years old, yet does advanced computer programming, and has started his own business doing it. He generally makes $100 per hour for his services. His mother never finished high school, his father is a middle manager at a production facility. Neither knows much about computers or business, but they know how to teach, and how to find the resources they need to teach an advanced student.

So what is your arguement then? Are you saying that because some people can teach themselves that we should get rid of all of the public schools and leave everybody to teach themselves?

SVreX wrote:

I don't agree. You are describing a pedagogy known as "banking" which suggests that a student can only learn what their teacher "deposits" into them. To believe such is to rule out new discovery, or suggest that a student can never surpass his teacher. If it were true, we would lack virtually all the advanced thinkers and great artists that have ever been.

I never said that students cannot ever learn anything that a teacher does not know. You are twisting my words here.

Home schooling can be great. Private schools can be great (I worked at a Montessori school, and it was a great system). But the majority of people go through the public school system. I don't think you could take all the students in public schools and make a sudden shift to homeschooling and private schools. It just won't happen.

So, whether or not it is the best option, it is the most chosen option, and needs to be kept healthy.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: No, that wasn't directed at you, but this whole thread WAS prompted on my part by our school board's planned removal of IB and AP from our curriculum to help balance the budget. I think that is wrong, and its wrongness seems pretty clear-cut and obvious to me. Didn't really imagine it could cause a lot of debate, honestly. At this point, however, I'm going to reserve the rest of my energies for fighting at Wednesday's meeting. Thread's over to you guys. Margie

and you should fight that because it's berkeleyed up. more money isn't the answer. better use of existing money is.

Snowdoggie wrote: If I want a car to drive cross country at high speed in, I would rather have one designed by a team of engineers with University Degrees than one put together in the backyard by a guy whose father was a shade tree mechanic and whose uncle taught him to arc weld with a $100 welder from Harbor Freight.

University Engineers designed the Swing axle Corvair and the exploding Pinto. Shadetree mechanics built the first airplane.

I say this as a degreed engineer.

Snowdoggie said:

So is it also your 'opinion' that Marjorie should go out and find somebody she knows to teach her children Advanced Physics since her school district can no longer provide that service?

AC replies: two things here: 1. margie's school system is berkeleyed. she will fight to unberkeley it. she will either win or lose. 2. whether win or lose, it is my opinion that someone somewhere is going to teach margie's kids the subjects that margie wants them to take. if she wins, it will probably (speculation on my part because i don't have a crystal ball) be someone from volusia county public schools. if she loses, it will be someone else, whether that's in a different public school system, or at the local community college, or, snowdoggie forbid, maybe even a friend of the family in the comfort of their own living room.

Snowdoggie said: It is also my 'opinion' that if I need heart surgery I would rather get it from a doctor with a University Degree in Medicine that from a homeschooled guy whose dad 'got him trained' by a buddy who was a medic in the Army.

AC replies to flame bait: While technically a preference rather than an opinion, let's run with it anyway. Are you going to ask that UDM holder whether or not he was home-schooled until he got to University?

Snowdoggie said: If I want a car to drive cross country at high speed in, I would rather have one designed by a team of engineers with University Degrees than one put together in the backyard by a guy whose father was a shade tree mechanic and whose uncle taught him to arc weld with a $100 welder from Harbor Freight.

again, AC replies to flame bait: How many engineers do you know who didn't learn anything from the male role models in their lives? Do you have an engineering degree? Do you work on your own cars? Do you drive them after you're done working on them?

Snowdoggie said: Do we really want to go back to some kind of medieval apprenticeship system where you learn from your parents or your parents friends under the banner of home schooling? I think that would be going backwards.

AC refuses to respond to that. it is AC's opinion that you're perhaps uniquely misguided in your concept of home schooling, especially when it comes to where home schooling ends and university begins.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: If I want a car to drive cross country at high speed in, I would rather have one designed by a team of engineers with University Degrees than one put together in the backyard by a guy whose father was a shade tree mechanic and whose uncle taught him to arc weld with a $100 welder from Harbor Freight.

University Engineers designed the Swing axle Corvair and the exploding Pinto. Shadetree mechanics built the first airplane. I say this as a degreed engineer.

The first airplane was designed before there was a degree in Aerospace engineering. That doesn't count. There was a degreed engineer who had a solution to the fuel tank problem for the Pinto. He was overrulled by trained accountants.

AngryCorvair wrote: Snowdoggie said: So is it also your 'opinion' that Marjorie should go out and find somebody she knows to teach her children Advanced Physics since her school district can no longer provide that service? AC replies: two things here: 1. margie's school system is berkeleyed. she will fight to unberkeley it. she will either win or lose. 2. whether win or lose, it is my opinion that someone somewhere is going to teach margie's kids the subjects that margie wants them to take. if she wins, it will probably (speculation on my part because i don't have a crystal ball) be someone from volusia county public schools. if she loses, it will be someone else, whether that's in a different public school system, or at the local community college, or, snowdoggie forbid, maybe even a friend of the family in the comfort of their own living room.

Snowdoggie said: It is also my 'opinion' that if I need heart surgery I would rather get it from a doctor with a University Degree in Medicine that from a homeschooled guy whose dad 'got him trained' by a buddy who was a medic in the Army.

AC replies to flame bait: While technically a preference rather than an opinion, let's run with it anyway. Are you going to ask that UDM holder whether or not he was home-schooled until he got to University?

Snowdoggie said: If I want a car to drive cross country at high speed in, I would rather have one designed by a team of engineers with University Degrees than one put together in the backyard by a guy whose father was a shade tree mechanic and whose uncle taught him to arc weld with a $100 welder from Harbor Freight.

again, AC replies to flame bait: How many engineers do you know who didn't learn anything from the male role models in their lives? Do you have an engineering degree? Do you work on your own cars? Do you drive them after you're done working on them?

Snowdoggie said: Do we really want to go back to some kind of medieval apprenticeship system where you learn from your parents or your parents friends under the banner of home schooling? I think that would be going backwards.

AC refuses to respond to that. it is AC's opinion that you're perhaps uniquely misguided in your concept of home schooling, especially when it comes to where home schooling ends and university begins.

This is more of a personal attack on me than a discussion. I have said before that I do not have a problem with home schooling up to a certain point. There is a point where you have to hand your kids up to a higher level. Maybe that is the University level. Maybe that is higher Physics or Math Classes during the senior year. I think this is where you are misunderstanding me. I don't see how this is troll bait, nor do I understand why you are showing so much hostility.

Maybe you need to walk it off.

Snowdoggie wrote: You can't have it both ways. Either you have government subsidizing education or you do not. If the government sets the standards and writes the test and gives it to the homeschoolers to take, you are still depending on the government to provide materials for you and to set the standard that you must abide by. This is just government subsidized home schooling. If you are going to homeschool, then make up your own tests and decide for yourself when your child is educated, or go out into the marketplace and buy materials in the marketplace that you can use to test your children WITHOUT the assistance of a professional educator provided to you by the government. Is there a problem with the fact that some parents might not be qualified to do this? That is my point.

LOL.

Home school kids take these tests under threat of removal from their homes, under the guise of "child protective services". Sure, the government sets the standards and writes the tests, and the four thousand dollars they get from me every year in property tax which is used to support the public school system makes my copy of the test the most.expensive.xerox.copies.ever.

home schoolers don't get free textbooks. they get a list of things that the public school would try to teach them in each grade. it is then the responsibility of the home school family to provide, at their own cost, whatever text they believe is appropriate to use in the education of their student on that subject.

i've got a deal for you, snowdoggie. i'll do some research on dog rescue before i tell you how berkeleyed up dog rescue is. in exchange, you do some research on home school before you tell me how berkeleyed up home school is.

Snowdoggie:

The incorrect pre-suppostion you are working with is that home schoolers do all the education of their children by themselves. The vast majority do not.

Both AC and I are trying to enlighten you, not attack you.

If you'd like to learn about home schooling, I'd be thrilled to answer any questions you may have. But many of the pre-suppostions you are presenting here are factually incorrect.

I'm sorry I offended you. It was not my intent.

AngryCorvair wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: You can't have it both ways. Either you have government subsidizing education or you do not. If the government sets the standards and writes the test and gives it to the homeschoolers to take, you are still depending on the government to provide materials for you and to set the standard that you must abide by. This is just government subsidized home schooling. If you are going to homeschool, then make up your own tests and decide for yourself when your child is educated, or go out into the marketplace and buy materials in the marketplace that you can use to test your children WITHOUT the assistance of a professional educator provided to you by the government. Is there a problem with the fact that some parents might not be qualified to do this? That is my point.

LOL. At you, not With you. Home school kids take these tests under threat of removal from their homes, under the guise of "child protective services". Sure, the government sets the standards and writes the tests, and the four thousand dollars they get from me every year in property tax which is used to support the public school system makes my copy of the test the most.expensive.xerox.copies.ever. home schoolers don't get free textbooks. they get a list of things that the public school would try to teach them in each grade. it is then the responsibility of the home school family to provide, at their own cost, whatever text they believe is appropriate to use in the education of their student on that subject. i've got a deal for you, snowdoggie. i'll do some research on dog rescue before i tell you how berkeleyed up dog rescue is. in exchange, you do some research on home school before you tell me how berkeleyed up home school is.

You really don't know much about me or what my experiences are.

I have relatives who are home schooled. One of them went through vet school and has a successful practice. The other one has trouble holding down a job, has gone through bankrupcy and forclosure and has trouble socializing with anybody outside of her church. I have another relative who was home schooled and got into the engineering program at CU Boulder. After she got there, she flunked out, despite having very high SATs.

As I said before, success in home schooling depends on the parents. Why does this concept threaten you so much?