Homeschooling On The Rise??

[Samson]

Someone is missing the fact that school-aged people are declining, and that obamanomics has pushed more people further away from the upper end of middle class.

Someone is also missing the enormous number of international students flocking to America to enroll in our schools.


Fast Facts


More Chinese Students Attend K-12 Schools in the United States Study in the States

Someone is failing to make their post relevant.

But what else is new?

 

[ogibillm]

We are homeschooling our kids.

I went to public school, there was more fighting, sex and dope than learning.

I was lucky, I did my homework while listening to the next class lecture, looking out the window, and playing my favorite music in the back of my mind.

The best part of Homeschooling is all the history stuff I learn by playing history memory lessons in the car and reading historical stuff to my kids in the evenings. Essentially, I am being homeschooled too.

I had a similar experience. I learned more about which girls were easy to screw, who the drug dealers were, and when and where was the best time to get a hit, and while I didn't get in many fights, being 6 foot 2, and 200 lbs, I was always on guard.

I've learned far more than I ever did in school, by reading biographies, and history, and of course my favorite topic, economics.

sounds like you were a poor student.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I think some kids would definitely benefit and learn more efficiently in a home environment, but that certainly isn't the case for all kids. Plenty of them do just fine in the public school environment. Of course, the quality of your public school system depends on where you live and how much funding your schools are receiving.

Now, here is where the conservatives get a little cranky. Lol. I would like to see all the funds allocated towards schools pooled together and distributed equally amongst the schools so that all the children are getting equal quality of education from their public school systems.

Throwing more money at a system that is failing to do a basic job of educating and way to much indoctrinating is not the solution. And the one-size-fits-all concept, like No Child Left Behind, is not a solution, either. One thing that needs to be done is to reestablish the goals of basic education, then the current curricula should be vetted to ensure that each class offered clearly supports the stated educational goals. Many subjects addressed in public school systems should not be, but should be left for the parents to address. We need to rip all the PC bullshit out of the public schools and concentrate on teaching children to read, write properly, to become competent in basic mathematics and scientific concepts. After those basics have been established, then offer more variety to older children in the form of electives. We need to stop using public schools as laboratories for social engineering experiments.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think some kids would definitely benefit and learn more efficiently in a home environment, but that certainly isn't the case for all kids. Plenty of them do just fine in the public school environment. Of course, the quality of your public school system depends on where you live and how much funding your schools are receiving.

Now, here is where the conservatives get a little cranky. Lol. I would like to see all the funds allocated towards schools pooled together and distributed equally amongst the schools so that all the children are getting equal quality of education from their public school systems.

Throwing more money at a system that is failing to do a basic job of educating and way to much indoctrinating is not the solution. And the one-size-fits-all concept, like No Child Left Behind, is not a solution, either. One thing that needs to be done is to reestablish the goals of basic education, then the current curricula should be vetted to ensure that each class offered clearly supports the stated educational goals. Many subjects addressed in public school systems should not be, but should be left for the parents to address. We need to rip all the PC bullshit out of the public schools and concentrate on teaching children to read, write properly, to become competent in basic mathematics and scientific concepts. After those basics have been established, then offer more variety to older children in the form of electives. We need to stop using public schools as laboratories for social engineering experiments.

-Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix the problem. You're correct.

-NCLB was a solution intended to fix the problem of the Achievement Gap. It would never work because it presumed that the Achievement Gap was caused by teaching methods and not by genetics.

-The goals of American education are to close the Achievement Gap. That's mission #1. Before liberals adopted this mission the old goal was "To raise each child to the highest level that their ability will permit." If we readopted the old mission then this wold explode the achievement gap wider than it is today.

 

[ChrisL]

I think some kids would definitely benefit and learn more efficiently in a home environment, but that certainly isn't the case for all kids. Plenty of them do just fine in the public school environment. Of course, the quality of your public school system depends on where you live and how much funding your schools are receiving.

Now, here is where the conservatives get a little cranky. Lol. I would like to see all the funds allocated towards schools pooled together and distributed equally amongst the schools so that all the children are getting equal quality of education from their public school systems.

Throwing more money at a system that is failing to do a basic job of educating and way to much indoctrinating is not the solution. And the one-size-fits-all concept, like No Child Left Behind, is not a solution, either. One thing that needs to be done is to reestablish the goals of basic education, then the current curricula should be vetted to ensure that each class offered clearly supports the stated educational goals. Many subjects addressed in public school systems should not be, but should be left for the parents to address. We need to rip all the PC bullshit out of the public schools and concentrate on teaching children to read, write properly, to become competent in basic mathematics and scientific concepts. After those basics have been established, then offer more variety to older children in the form of electives. We need to stop using public schools as laboratories for social engineering experiments.

-Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix the problem. You're correct.

-NCLB was a solution intended to fix the problem of the Achievement Gap. It would never work because it presumed that the Achievement Gap was caused by teaching methods and not by genetics.

-The goals of American education are to close the Achievement Gap. That's mission #1. Before liberals adopted this mission the old goal was "To raise each child to the highest level that their ability will permit." If we readopted the old mission then this wold explode the achievement gap wider than it is today.

That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I still stand by my belief that money should be distributed equally among the schools. Otherwise, we are just perpetuating more of the same results, and it's really the inner city poor schools that bring down the averages. They get the least funding and are the worst learning environments with lack of basic needs and good teachers because they cannot afford to bring on good teachers. You are going to get what you put into it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think some kids would definitely benefit and learn more efficiently in a home environment, but that certainly isn't the case for all kids. Plenty of them do just fine in the public school environment. Of course, the quality of your public school system depends on where you live and how much funding your schools are receiving.

Now, here is where the conservatives get a little cranky. Lol. I would like to see all the funds allocated towards schools pooled together and distributed equally amongst the schools so that all the children are getting equal quality of education from their public school systems.

Throwing more money at a system that is failing to do a basic job of educating and way to much indoctrinating is not the solution. And the one-size-fits-all concept, like No Child Left Behind, is not a solution, either. One thing that needs to be done is to reestablish the goals of basic education, then the current curricula should be vetted to ensure that each class offered clearly supports the stated educational goals. Many subjects addressed in public school systems should not be, but should be left for the parents to address. We need to rip all the PC bullshit out of the public schools and concentrate on teaching children to read, write properly, to become competent in basic mathematics and scientific concepts. After those basics have been established, then offer more variety to older children in the form of electives. We need to stop using public schools as laboratories for social engineering experiments.

-Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix the problem. You're correct.

-NCLB was a solution intended to fix the problem of the Achievement Gap. It would never work because it presumed that the Achievement Gap was caused by teaching methods and not by genetics.

-The goals of American education are to close the Achievement Gap. That's mission #1. Before liberals adopted this mission the old goal was "To raise each child to the highest level that their ability will permit." If we readopted the old mission then this wold explode the achievement gap wider than it is today.

That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I still stand by my belief that money should be distributed equally among the schools. Otherwise, we are just perpetuating more of the same results, and it's really the inner city poor schools that bring down the averages. They get the least funding and are the worst learning environments with lack of basic needs and good teachers because they cannot afford to bring on good teachers. You are going to get what you put into it.

Inner city schools don't fail because they have low funding levels, they fail because they're filled with blacks who are intellectually below the black mean of IQ. The better performing blacks aren't living in high black concentrations.

New Jersey tackled your problem with their Abbott court decision. More here:

Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey that are provided remedies to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with New Jersey’s state constitution. They were created in 1985 as a result of the first ruling of Abbott v. Burke, a case filed by the Education Law Center. The ruling asserted that public primary and secondary education in poor communities throughout the state was unconstitutionally substandard.[1] There are 31 "Abbott districts" in the state, which are now referred to as "SDA Districts" based on the requirement for the state to cover all costs for school building and renovation projects in these districts under the supervision of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.[2]

Prior to 2011, the State of NJ did not release the total amount spent per pupil on schooling. Since the Abbott original ruling in 1985, New Jersey increased spending such that Abbott district students received 22% more per pupil (at $20,859) vs. non-Abbott districts (at $17,051) in 2011. [3]

Although key proponents of the measures express optimism that continued spending will eventually help advance students performance, middle and high school students have not improved. For them, the program has been characterized as "a huge failure"
​

There are no magic solutions. NONE. The problem of student underperformance, especially when it intersects race, is not one of environmental variables, it's almost all attributable to the human capital of the student.

 

[ChrisL]

I think some kids would definitely benefit and learn more efficiently in a home environment, but that certainly isn't the case for all kids. Plenty of them do just fine in the public school environment. Of course, the quality of your public school system depends on where you live and how much funding your schools are receiving.

Now, here is where the conservatives get a little cranky. Lol. I would like to see all the funds allocated towards schools pooled together and distributed equally amongst the schools so that all the children are getting equal quality of education from their public school systems.

Throwing more money at a system that is failing to do a basic job of educating and way to much indoctrinating is not the solution. And the one-size-fits-all concept, like No Child Left Behind, is not a solution, either. One thing that needs to be done is to reestablish the goals of basic education, then the current curricula should be vetted to ensure that each class offered clearly supports the stated educational goals. Many subjects addressed in public school systems should not be, but should be left for the parents to address. We need to rip all the PC bullshit out of the public schools and concentrate on teaching children to read, write properly, to become competent in basic mathematics and scientific concepts. After those basics have been established, then offer more variety to older children in the form of electives. We need to stop using public schools as laboratories for social engineering experiments.

-Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix the problem. You're correct.

-NCLB was a solution intended to fix the problem of the Achievement Gap. It would never work because it presumed that the Achievement Gap was caused by teaching methods and not by genetics.

-The goals of American education are to close the Achievement Gap. That's mission #1. Before liberals adopted this mission the old goal was "To raise each child to the highest level that their ability will permit." If we readopted the old mission then this wold explode the achievement gap wider than it is today.

That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I still stand by my belief that money should be distributed equally among the schools. Otherwise, we are just perpetuating more of the same results, and it's really the inner city poor schools that bring down the averages. They get the least funding and are the worst learning environments with lack of basic needs and good teachers because they cannot afford to bring on good teachers. You are going to get what you put into it.

Inner city schools don't fail because they have low funding levels, they fail because they're filled with blacks who are intellectually below the black mean of IQ. The better performing blacks aren't living in high black concentrations.

New Jersey tackled your problem with their Abbott court decision. More here:

Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey that are provided remedies to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with New Jersey’s state constitution. They were created in 1985 as a result of the first ruling of Abbott v. Burke, a case filed by the Education Law Center. The ruling asserted that public primary and secondary education in poor communities throughout the state was unconstitutionally substandard.[1] There are 31 "Abbott districts" in the state, which are now referred to as "SDA Districts" based on the requirement for the state to cover all costs for school building and renovation projects in these districts under the supervision of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.[2]

Prior to 2011, the State of NJ did not release the total amount spent per pupil on schooling. Since the Abbott original ruling in 1985, New Jersey increased spending such that Abbott district students received 22% more per pupil (at $20,859) vs. non-Abbott districts (at $17,051) in 2011. [3]

Although key proponents of the measures express optimism that continued spending will eventually help advance students performance, middle and high school students have not improved. For them, the program has been characterized as "a huge failure"
​

There are no magic solutions. NONE. The problem of student underperformance, especially when it intersects race, is not one of environmental variables, it's almost all attributable to the human capital of the student.

This is just going by the national averages and spending in general. There are CERTAIN schools in inner cities that UNDER funded because they are in more poor sections with less tax money collected. Therefore, the kids are NOT getting a decent education.

If you care about America as a whole country, you would realize how detrimental this is to our country's future.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This is just going by the national averages and spending in general. There are CERTAIN schools in inner cities that UNDER funded because they are in more poor sections with less tax money collected. Therefore, the kids are NOT getting a decent education.

If you care about America as a whole country, you would realize how detrimental this is to our country's future.

As I noted upthread, I have no problem with a symbolic solution which entails a state providing each student with a fixed stipend which can buy a minimum level of education and thereafter each parent contributes their own funds to make up for a more-than-minimum schooling cost.

Look at my post #206 again. Those troubled school districts that you're talking about are the ones, in NJ, which received $20,859 per student versus the $17,051 received by non-troubled schools, like those attended by the residents of Princeton. This is EXACTLY what you're advocating, if not more, and it had NO EFFECT.

Look at that graph. Spending has increased significantly over the years and performance has not.

Spending can't cure racial differences in student performance anymore than spending can allow men to bear children.

 

[ChrisL]

This is just going by the national averages and spending in general. There are CERTAIN schools in inner cities that UNDER funded because they are in more poor sections with less tax money collected. Therefore, the kids are NOT getting a decent education.

If you care about America as a whole country, you would realize how detrimental this is to our country's future.

As I noted upthread, I have no problem with a symbolic solution which entails a state providing each student with a fixed stipend which can buy a minimum level of education and thereafter each parent contributes their own funds to make up for a more-than-minimum schooling cost.

Look at my post #206 again. Those troubled school districts that you're talking about are the ones, in NJ, which received $20,859 per student versus the $17,051 received by non-troubled schools, like those attended by the residents of Princeton. This is EXACTLY what you're advocating, if not more, and it had NO EFFECT.

Look at that graph. Spending has increased significantly over the years and performance has not.

Spending can't cure racial differences in student performance anymore than spending can allow men to bear children.

The chart does not break down spending, and it is a fact that many schools in inner cities are underfunded, cannot afford decent teachers, and are overcrowded. In a neighboring state to mine, a lot of schools have had to close down because they can no longer afford to stay open, and then they just ship the kids off to another school in a neighboring district.

I disagree that it would have no effect if all schools received equal funding.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I disagree that it would have no effect if all schools received equal funding.

Did you not read what I wrote to you? Comment #206 directly refutes your belief with a state-wide experiment which has no been running for 29 years in NJ where those inner city schools actually get MORE FUNDING than suburban schools.

 

[ChrisL]

I disagree that it would have no effect if all schools received equal funding.

Did you not read what I wrote to you? Comment #206 directly refutes your belief with a state-wide experiment which has no been running for 29 years in NJ where those inner city schools actually get MORE FUNDING than suburban schools.

I didn't see the chart you posted in your link about New Jersey.

Also, these things take time, and your wiki article seems to be mistaken, according to my link below. We also still have the teachers' union to contend with. New Jersey's teachers' union is pretty infamous after the Chris Christy incident. Lol!

New Jersey s Decades-Long School Finance Case So What s the Payoff TC Media Center

Sciarra, whose organization serves as a legal watchdog for the Abbott districts, said the gap in state math test scores between fourth graders in Abbott districts and non-Abbott districts narrowed from 31 points in 1999 to 19 points in 2007, and on state reading tests from 22 points in 2001 to 15 points in 2007. Success in eighth grade was more modest, narrowing from 30 points in 2000 for math in 2000 to 26 points in 2007, and staying at 20 points for reading during the same years. The achievement gap has not narrowed in high schools, but New Jersey has the highest high school graduation rates in the nation for African American males, Sciarra said.

“The truth is, we have started to make some real progress,” Sciarra said. “When people ask, ‘what did Abbott do,’ I say, we still have a long way to go, but the answer is, a heck of a lot.”

 

[Rikurzhen]

I disagree that it would have no effect if all schools received equal funding.

Did you not read what I wrote to you? Comment #206 directly refutes your belief with a state-wide experiment which has no been running for 29 years in NJ where those inner city schools actually get MORE FUNDING than suburban schools.

I didn't see the chart you posted in your link about New Jersey.

Also, these things take time, and your wiki article seems to be mistaken, according to my link below. We also still have the teachers' union to contend with. New Jersey's teachers' union is pretty infamous after the Chris Christy incident. Lol!

New Jersey s Decades-Long School Finance Case So What s the Payoff TC Media Center

Sciarra, whose organization serves as a legal watchdog for the Abbott districts, said the gap in state math test scores between fourth graders in Abbott districts and non-Abbott districts narrowed from 31 points in 1999 to 19 points in 2007, and on state reading tests from 22 points in 2001 to 15 points in 2007. Success in eighth grade was more modest, narrowing from 30 points in 2000 for math in 2000 to 26 points in 2007, and staying at 20 points for reading during the same years. The achievement gap has not narrowed in high schools, but New Jersey has the highest high school graduation rates in the nation for African American males, Sciarra said.

“The truth is, we have started to make some real progress,” Sciarra said. “When people ask, ‘what did Abbott do,’ I say, we still have a long way to go, but the answer is, a heck of a lot.”

I won't get into the biology of what is happening but I can explain it by appealing to parenting. Any parent can tell you that they have more control over the minutia of their 3 year old child's life than they do over the minutia of their 16 year old child's life. The same dynamic works in schools. With young kids, we adults can SWAMP their environment but as kids get older they begin to exert THEMSELVES and resist having their environments controlled by adults. A kindergarten teacher can tell her kids to take a nap and the kids will comply, but a 12th grade teacher has nothing close to that level of control over students.

As we all get older we come into ourselves, we're no longer the little puppets we were when we were kids. So those gains we see in the 4th grade DON'T STICK. They diminish by the 8th grade and they're totally absent by the 12th grade. The student is no better prepared for college than their counterpart in a school that didn't have the intervention program.

This is first year genetics material but education professionals are totally damn clueless about biology and genetics.

What counts are the outcomes, getting those kids across the 12th grade finish line and having them prepared for life. These programs don't work and they can't work, not without draconian levels of control - taking kids away from their parents, standardizing their social interactions and friendships, controlling their activities down to the minute, etc. something that 16 and 18 year olds will not stand for.

The teachers unions are not having any effect here. They're bad for different reasons but they're not the roadblock here because we see the same outcomes all over the place regardless of whether teacher unions are present or not.

 

[ChrisL]

I disagree that it would have no effect if all schools received equal funding.

Did you not read what I wrote to you? Comment #206 directly refutes your belief with a state-wide experiment which has no been running for 29 years in NJ where those inner city schools actually get MORE FUNDING than suburban schools.

I didn't see the chart you posted in your link about New Jersey.

Also, these things take time, and your wiki article seems to be mistaken, according to my link below. We also still have the teachers' union to contend with. New Jersey's teachers' union is pretty infamous after the Chris Christy incident. Lol!

New Jersey s Decades-Long School Finance Case So What s the Payoff TC Media Center

Sciarra, whose organization serves as a legal watchdog for the Abbott districts, said the gap in state math test scores between fourth graders in Abbott districts and non-Abbott districts narrowed from 31 points in 1999 to 19 points in 2007, and on state reading tests from 22 points in 2001 to 15 points in 2007. Success in eighth grade was more modest, narrowing from 30 points in 2000 for math in 2000 to 26 points in 2007, and staying at 20 points for reading during the same years. The achievement gap has not narrowed in high schools, but New Jersey has the highest high school graduation rates in the nation for African American males, Sciarra said.

“The truth is, we have started to make some real progress,” Sciarra said. “When people ask, ‘what did Abbott do,’ I say, we still have a long way to go, but the answer is, a heck of a lot.”

I won't get into the biology of what is happening but I can explain it by appealing to parenting. Any parent can tell you that they have more control over the minutia of their 3 year old child's life than they do over the minutia of their 16 year old child's life. The same dynamic works in schools. With young kids, we adults can SWAMP their environment but as kids get older they begin to exert THEMSELVES and resist having their environments controlled by adults. A kindergarten teacher can tell her kids to take a nap and the kids will comply, but a 12th grade teacher has nothing close to that level of control over students.

As we all get older we come into ourselves, we're no longer the little puppets we were when we were kids. So those gains we see in the 4th grade DON'T STICK. They diminish by the 8th grade and they're totally absent by the 12th grade. The student is no better prepared for college than their counterpart in a school that didn't have the intervention program.

This is first year genetics material but education professionals are totally damn clueless about biology and genetics.

What counts are the outcomes, getting those kids across the 12th grade finish line and having them prepared for life. These programs don't work and they can't work, not without draconian levels of control - taking kids away from their parents, standardizing their social interactions and friendships, controlling their activities down to the minute, etc. something that 16 and 18 year olds will not stand for.

The teachers unions are not having any effect here. They're bad for different reasons but they're not the roadblock here because we see the same outcomes all over the place regardless of whether teacher unions are present or not.

Yes, teachers unions are part of the problem because they are all about tenure instead of merit. They protect bad teachers from being fired when they SHOULD be fired. There are other things too.

I don't know what it is you are suggesting here? Doing away with public schools? That is silly if that's the case.

 

[Unkotare]

Someone is failing to make their post relevant.

Don't beat yourself up about it, just try harder from now on.

 

[NoNukes]

I am probably the most experienced person on the thread as far as education is concerned.

Why do you say that?[/QUOTE

I am probably the most experienced person on the thread as far as education is concerned.

Why do you say that?

My post graduate work was in education.
I have taught in primary schools, secondary schools, and I have lectured in universities.

 

[House]

The problem with home schooling is that the student is limited to the abilities of the parent(s) providing the instruction.

Not a bad deal at all if the parents are fairly intelligent, but consider... would you just pull any adult off the street and ask them to teach your child, even if there was a fairy tale world where there was zero chance they would abuse that child?

I sure as hell wouldn't, people are idiots.

 

[Unkotare]

I am probably the most experienced person on the thread as far as education is concerned.

Why do you say that?[/QUOTE

I am probably the most experienced person on the thread as far as education is concerned.

Why do you say that?

My post graduate work was in education.
I have taught in primary schools, secondary schools, and I have lectured in universities.

Me too, and I think there are at least a few retired or current teachers on the board, so.......

 

[House]

(To clarify for the slow witted: I'm neither implying nor assuming parents get random third-party individuals to teach their children, but if you wouldn't trust your child to their educational skills do you really think such people should be allowed to teach their own children? It is still a disservice to society either way.)

 

[Unkotare]

(To clarify for the slow witted: I'm neither implying nor assuming parents get random third-party individuals to teach their children, but if you wouldn't trust your child to their educational skills do you really think such people should be allowed to teach their own children? It is still a disservice to society either way.)

"Allowed"? "Allowed"? Are you serious?

 

[House]

(To clarify for the slow witted: I'm neither implying nor assuming parents get random third-party individuals to teach their children, but if you wouldn't trust your child to their educational skills do you really think such people should be allowed to teach their own children? It is still a disservice to society either way.)

"Allowed"? "Allowed"? Are you serious?

As a fucking heart attack. Do you not interact with society at all? There are some grade A dumbasses that I wouldn't trust to train a dog not to shit on the floor.