Public vs. private vs. homeschooling

[Bridget_Burke]

@Sarahfeena

I have an acquaintance who homeschools because they live on a working farm and grow their own food. The believe that learning how to do this should absolutely be an integral part of their children’s education. How else are they going to teach this, if not at home, on the farm?

What if the all the kids don’t want to be farmers? Will one kid inherit the farm, or are all expected to spend the rest of their lives there?

This sort of homeschooling sounds fine for the elementary years. But–what if a kid has interests or talents that might be better served in a larger setting?

[Sarahfeena]

@Voyager

No, teaching kids any religious doctrine in a public school would be violating religious freedom. Exposing kids to any secular ideas that might contradict a religious doctrine is not. We can tell secular things by the evidence for them and the fact that faith is not required to believe in them.

In my opinion, it can violate religious freedom to expose kids to secular ideas that contradict religious doctrine. There isn’t always evidence to support secular ideas, for one thing, so teaching it is just teaching philosophy and theory. To me, this is no different from teaching a religious philosophy or theory that contradicts one’s own.

[Sarahfeena]

@Bridget Burke

What if the all the kids don’t want to be farmers? Will one kid inherit the farm, or are all expected to spend the rest of their lives there?

I think you may misunderstand the concept of their family farm. They are environmentalists who believe that sustaining oneself off the land is environmentally and sociologically correct. They don’t buy anything that is mass produced. I can’t call it a religion, but it is a political and sociological philosophy that they choose to live by. Their children may choose to reject it, but I think the parents have every right to teach it, even if it doesn’t jibe with what most of us consider modern living.

This sort of homeschooling sounds fine for the elementary years. But–what if a kid has interests or talents that might be better served in a larger setting?

Their oldest one is in a mainstream university. Don’t know what she is majoring in, but I have no reason to think she didn’t get to choose her area of study herself. They don’t farm all day long…the family is academically-oriented…the parents have graduate degrees. Learning about ecology and sustaining oneself off the land is just part of the curriculum, which they could never get at a public school. So, the parents can provide academically what the public school can, but the public school cannot provide the practical knowledge or the philosophical POV that the parents can, so why should the parents send the kids to public school?

[burundi]

I attended North Carolina public schools from kindergarten through graduate school. My local public schools do a good job from what I can tell, and I firmly expect that my children will attend them. (Aside from philosophical reasons, we couldn’t afford private school or to have one parent remain out of the workforce for years on end.)

I recognize that different options work better for different families. I do think it’s important for families who choose private or home schools not to remain supportive of public education in general. Not all children have the option of homeschooling or private schools, and those kids deserve no less of an education.

[Antinor01]

@burundi

I attended North Carolina public schools from kindergarten through graduate school. My local public schools do a good job from what I can tell, and I firmly expect that my children will attend them. (Aside from philosophical reasons, we couldn’t afford private school or to have one parent remain out of the workforce for years on end.)

I recognize that different options work better for different families. I do think it’s important for families who choose private or home schools not to remain supportive of public education in general. Not all children have the option of homeschooling or private schools, and those kids deserve no less of an education.

From the context I’m wondering if you meant that its important for families who choose private or home schools to remain supportive of public education. Without the not. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

[burundi]

Oh! You’re correct, Antinor01. Sorry I didn’t catch the typo.

[Antinor01]

@burundi

Oh! You’re correct, Antinor01. Sorry I didn’t catch the typo.

Cool. Just wanted to make sure I was interpreting you correctly.

[furt]

@GLWasteful

Wow! You must have been an absolute hoot around the teachers lounge.

I’ve never had a problem. I’m not sure what relevence it would if I did; does popularity mean something in this context?

Horseshit, Sparky.

Horseshit? You yourself say

Do I share your values? It appears I don’t.

Why is it horseshit to point that out? I don’t hold it against you. To repeat: if public schools work for you and your kids, nobody is trying to stop you.

Well, save your unworkable ideas of what schooling should consist of.

Yes. Many of my ideas are unworkable in a public (and especially a mandatory public) school. Hence the term “homeschooling”

I’m certainly not interested in, say, using force to compel someone else’s kids to go to my school and learn the curriculum I assign them.

And on that particular point, we agree in totality.

Then why the grief for people who choose to homeschool?

Again, an absolute joy at faculty meetings and suchlike.

Again, I’m not seeing what good the ad hominem does here.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Agreed. But that is a matter of policy, not freedom. If any state of the Union decided all children must attend public schools and nothing else could substitute – no private schools, no homeschooling, except as supplements to public education rather than alternatives to it – that would probably be a bad idea, but it would be neither unconstitutional nor unjust.

Nope, it has already been tried and found to be unconstitional:

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was an important early 20th century United States Supreme Court decision which significantly expanded legal understanding of the sorts of “liberty” and “property” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case has been cited as a precedent in over 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), as well as in more than 70 cases in the United States courts of appeals.

<snip>

On 7 November 1922, under the influence of the Ku Klux Klan, the voters of Oregon passed a referendum amending Oregon Law Section 5259, the Compulsory Education Act. The Act, prior to amendment, had required all Oregon children between eight and sixteen years of age to attend public school.

<snip>

Associate Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the opinion of the Court. He stated that children were not “the mere creature[s] of the state” (268 U.S. 510, 535), and that, by its very nature, the traditional American understanding of the term liberty prevented the state from forcing students to accept instruction only from public schools. He stated that this responsibility belonged to the child’s parents or guardians, and that the ability to make such a choice was a “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

It’s almost a certainty that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of homeschooling, too, even they they haven’t considered that issue yet.

You gotta quite snoozing in those ConLaw classes, BG.

[John_Mace]

Oops. That quote was incomplete. The middle section should have been:

On 7 November 1922, under the influence of the Ku Klux Klan, the voters of Oregon passed a referendum amending Oregon Law Section 5259, the Compulsory Education Act. The Act, prior to amendment, had required all Oregon children between eight and sixteen years of age to attend public school… The Act as amended by the 1922 referendum[1], which would have taken effect on September 1 1926, eliminated the exception for attendees of private schools.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

You gotta quite snoozing in those ConLaw classes, BG.

:o I never did, but that one was never covered. They can’t cover 'em all.

But one thing I did learn in law school is that any decision, even a SCOTUS decision, that old is, shall we say, just possibly old and sickly enough to be cut out of the herd . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Especially if it dates from before the New Deal . . .

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

:o I never did, but that one was never covered. They can’t cover 'em all.

But one thing I did learn in law school is that any decision, even a SCOTUS decision, that old is, shall we say, just possibly old and sickly enough to be cut out of the herd . . .

OK. But be careful what you wish for!

The case has been cited as a precedent in over 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), as well as in more than 70 cases in the United States courts of appeals.

<snip>

This decision marked the beginning of a period of more liberal interpretation of due process; specifically, the Court recognized consciously that it had allowed the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to entities other than individuals, and had broadened the list of liberties or rights which it protected. Over the course of the next half century, that list would be extended to include the right to marry, to have children, to marital privacy, to have an abortion, and others.

Take a critical part of the foundation out, and the whole house might come down.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Take a critical part of the foundation out, and the whole house might come down.

Believe it or not, the law rarely works that way.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Believe it or not, the law rarely works that way.

Eh. If you want to advocate the undermining of long standing judicial precedent, that’s fine with me. Just don’t complain when Thomas or Scalia does the same.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Eh. If you want to advocate the undermining of long standing judicial precedent, that’s fine with me. Just don’t complain when Thomas or Scalia does the same.

Of course I’ll complain! But not because it’s long-standing judicial precedent.

[GLWasteful]

@furt

Why is it horseshit to point that out?

'Tisn’t. As you well know. What’s horseshit is when you spew absolute nonsense such as:

@furt

Actually, I think schools do a piss-poor job of teaching diversity. They stick a kid in a room full of people the exact same age as he is, who all come from the same neighborhood, who are all reading the same books (“Special” children are removed). Save for the occasional guest speaker, all of the adults they come in contact with are professional educators, who (by mandate) themselves have very similar educational backgrounds, accept a whole host of mandated pedagogical preactices and philosophies, and teach a heavily-mandated curriculum.

Then subsequently have your points rebutted, and claim that it simply comes down to a difference of values.

You are, quite simply, wrong. Has nothing to do with values.

Then why the grief for people who choose to homeschool?

I’ve no earthly idea what in hell you’re on about here. I in no way expressed grief for homeschoolers. As a matter of fact, the most cursory reading of every post I’ve made would demonstrate that. You have been paying attention, haven’t you?

And since we’re here, and I’ve already asked you for a cite, as has someone else. Where did

Literacy rates in the US today are lower than they were before we had mandatory schooling.

come from? I figure what the hell, third time’s the charm.

Again, I’m not seeing what good the ad hominem does here.

Precious little, truth be told. Simply makes me feel better. Kinda like your empty boasting about slinging quotes no doubt made you feel much the same way.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Of course I’ll complain! But not because it’s long-standing judicial precedent.

Well, we needn’t hijack this thread any further. I only wanted to point out that the post I responded to of yours originally was factually incorrect.

[furt]

@GLWasteful

Then subsequently have your points rebutted, and claim that it simply comes down to a difference of values.

Since when does disagreement constitute rebuttal?

I don’t like the environment that a school fosters. I don’t like the lessons (the implict more than the explicit) I think it teaches. The very idea of handing over my six-year old to any government for seven hours a day is something I’m uncomfortable with. Those are my values. You can attempt to change my mind if you like, but I don’t see any indication you’re trying to do so; you’re just saying I’m wrong to believe those things.

I gave a description of what I disliked about schools; instead of making a case as to why my description was inaccurate (Are schools not age-segregated? Are curriculums not mostly dictated by the state?), you simply dismissed it as “ridiculously hyperbolic” and without “any semblance of truth.” Forgive me if I do not find this persuasive.

And since we’re here, and I’ve already asked you for a cite, as has someone else. Where did come from? I figure what the hell, third time’s the charm.

I missed it the first time as I was intending to respond to BG today; I apologize for not being as prompt as you might like, but I had other things to take care of.

I’ll back off that specific claim, as literacy is famously hard to quantify (depending on the test, literacy rates vary widely; at times, Census data has even just used completion of a certain grade as an assumption of literacy or illiteracy) and simply say that literacy was nearly universal well before mandatory public schooling.

Literacy in the late 1800s America ranged from 80-97 % (I suspect that does not include slaves or ex-slaves, who had been actively prevented from learning to read) Cite. (scroll down to just above the Conclusions)

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy found a 14% of the population was “below basic” in prose literacy. Cite.

Given that there are a whole host of other social factors over the last century that would have spurred increased literacy rates, I don’t think that’s a very impressive record.

If you really want more, I recommend Literacy in America by Gordon or Literacy in the Unites States by Kaestle

Precious little, truth be told. Simply makes me feel better. Kinda like your empty boasting about slinging quotes no doubt made you feel much the same way.

I was not “boasting;” I was just pointing out that I am far from the first person to think mandatory public schooling fosters a number of (IMO) negative traits. I harbored no illusions that any such quotes would persuade you, which is why I did not give them. I only mentioned it only to counter your suggestion that I was obviously wrong to even consider such a possibility.

I have no doubt that your beliefs and opinions about schooling are similarly held by many well-informed people, which is part of why I would not angrily express the idea that they are “quite simply wrong.” I certainly would not just dismiss your argument as “pissing and moaning” as if that settled the matter.
If you have a personal gripe with me, take it to the Pit.

[furt]

@BrainGlutton

Then you should be aware that the National Education Association is mostly opposed to homeschooling, and not only because it is a trade union concerned with protecting its members’ jobs.

Even if I shared your faith, I don’t find the NEA persuasive.

Cite?

The fact that homeschool students entering college are better prepared is well-documented

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

This has the last ten year’s ACT scores under Reports: http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/olderkids/CollegeTests.htm
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000017.asp

I don’t see anything specific on remedial classes, but it’d be quite surprising for them to do better on standardized entrance exams tests and yet be worse in need for remedial education.