Public Education vs. Ignorant Parents

This I think is the biggest danger of homeschooling. That a couple of parents, who may or may not be well informed or critical thinkers (some are obviously are more so than others), will end up being knowledge gate keepers for their kids, only provide a limited worldview, and end up replicating their beliefs in their kids. This is less likely when kids are forced to engage with a whole host of teachers, some of whom don't agree with their parents. When parents (or anybody) can decide that their kid will only have teachers and tutors that believe in the family world view, what does that do for exposure and critical thinking.

As some home schoolers said on here, they do try to increase expertise and exposure to other teachers through having co-ops or private tutors, perhaps people who are experts or proficient in teaching a certain subject. While that is a good thing, I think there can be a problem still with exposure and diversity of perspectives if those tutors are also of the same ilk as the parents. What if the fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers only hire tutors that profess "Jesus is lord."

I know that "government backed" studies is a way to cop out, but in reality we are talking countless environmental studies from myriad organizations across the world. The evidence is in. There is no dispute except by those who are either ignorant or have a special interest (energy companies, certain other corporations, bought politicians, etc). So, yes, it does come down to ignorance, one, or greed/selfishness, two.

The free market and industry has UTTERLY Failed to self-regulate on the environment. There definitely is a place for free market or economic incentives to solve certain issues with energy, environment, and so on.

But as someone who works partly in energy and environment issues, it is very naive to think that "if only we had a truly free market and the power of contract was enforced, the environment would be great and climate change would stop."

Seriously, not a good policy. It has failed. Go to China where there are no regulations. The most polluted place I have ever been in my life. Part of the reason that your free market will not solve it without regulations is that the real cost of all kinds of operations and businesses are not internalized into business structures. This is why it can't work. The cost of pollution or climate change, for example, is not internalized into corporations costs, EXCEPTING when the government has produced regulations that DO internalize. Nobody should have any problem with regulations that make people or companies pay the true cost of what they are doing.

Moreover, the science shows that we need to act NOW. We cannot wait 30 or 50 more years. Appropriate regulations and checks have to be in place. Real comprehensive policies and actions have to be taken.

We need the global community to act, and they are negotiating that now. What is not helpful is reactionaries denying science and the imminency of the threat. At some point, they don't get to keep stopping needed action out of fear or ignorance.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is what hyper self centered and people without sufficient scientific knowledge about the environmental issues say. This is nothing but your cynical, profit orientated, and exploitative way of denying any need for action.

They are not self-centered and they are not selfish. People are leary of government-backed, scientific studies and poor political rhetoric--and for good reason.

The climate change issue is important on many levels. If we are trashing thr environment, then something needs to be done, but I would make the argument that the opposite of what the authoritarians want needs to happen; namely, we need to do away with all government regulation and we need to allow a true free market to flourish.

You want cleaner technology? Then let the entrepreneurs do what they do. Did you see what the government has tried to do with regulations imposed upon Tesla Motors? Tesla Motors has the power to revolutionize clean transportation, but they are a threat to oil and automobile industries. Those same industries that are using government to write regulations that benefit them.

It is too easy for governments to be bought. More regulations and taxes are not going to solve our problems. More engineers and inventors in a free market are.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Globalist indoctrination conspiracy aside, we have some pretty fundamental disagreements about a lot of what is being debated here quetzacoatl. So simpy telling me your argument's are based on peer reviewed studies isnt enough to convince me... I need read them myself. If you could provide the source material that you're basing your arguments on that would be greatly appreicated, i think by us all.

At least then we can all be on the same page about what the modern education policy were debating actually is!

I think that generally speaking, your guys' view of what education means and what kids need for the 21st century is outdated.

No, I am not basing all of this just off of personal opinion. Much of it is evidence based AND it is what is being discussed generally for the future of education.

In short, in an increasingly globalized world, having just knowledge of your local community or culture is NOT enough. People who have not learned about, interacted with, and learned to engage effectively multiple cultures, languages, and other countries are at a distinct disadvantage. I know this not just from education research and application but also because I work in international affairs.

You said this perspective puts down people from rural or homogenous communities. No it does not. First, it recognizes that they DO have less access and leverage in this globalized world. This is well recognized and factual. Second, it only supports my point further that they absolutely need the best education possible locally about other cultures and places, as a the next best thing. They should be at the very least getting as much interaction with other people and cultures nearby as possible. Again, I believe that home schooling on average would only further disadvantage such people. They not only would not have the globalized access but less interaction than their friends at school. I may be wrong about the last point. Open to it.

To your next point my having a limited scope about education in different places, I've not only studied education systems around the world, I have also worked in education and other forms of development in the US (Washington, Arizona, NY) and the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Bangladesh, and China. I've also done numerous projects such as data analysis or development planning projects for such countries as Palestine, Angola, Nigeria, and India.

To your point about hypotheses, you are incorrect. THAT IS the philosophy about hypotheses. Fact. Obviously we will never have perfect data about any topic. However, for every single topic in science and social science the goal is to get as much data, studies, replication, peer review, congruence with other related studies, qualitative data, and so on. If any new information violates the accuracy of your hypothesis, then you have to upgrade it, expand it, or throw it out.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
This I think is the biggest danger of homeschooling. That a couple of parents, who may or may not be well informed or critical thinkers (some are obviously are more so than others), will end up being knowledge gate keepers for their kids, only provide a limited worldview, and end up replicating their beliefs in their kids. This is less likely when kids are forced to engage with a whole host of teachers, some of whom don't agree with their parents. When parents (or anybody) can decide that their kid will only have teachers and tutors that believe in the family world view, what does that do for exposure and critical thinking.

As some home schoolers said on here, they do try to increase expertise and exposure to other teachers through having co-ops or private tutors, perhaps people who are experts or proficient in teaching a certain subject. While that is a good thing, I think there can be a problem still with exposure and diversity of perspectives if those tutors are also of the same ilk as the parents. What if the fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers only hire tutors that profess "Jesus is lord."

Your posts are insulting. To be blunt, your posts reek of arrogance.

How dare you insinuate that any parent wouldn't want the best or broadest education for their child.

I, sir, am disgusted by your posting behaviour.

Your ivory tower elitism has painted a very telling picture of your own narrow-minded approach to teaching and education.

I seriously doubt that you are even an educator. Your disdain for anything beyond the pap that is served in public schools is very telling.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Cuervo
Of course educators do a better job educating than parents. And parents do a better job parenting. The problem is when people think those two things are the same.

We did both just fine. We homeschooled and parented. Our daughter turned out great ... safe, well educated, well socialized, well rounded, open minded and she is now in good university studying engineering in an honors program. The same can't be said for her most of public school counterparts here in the city.

Yeah... but it doesn't take reading very many of your posts to realize you are likely an exception to the rule. You aren't exactly the "average" person. I knew kids who are home"schooled" that couldn't read or write until they hit high school.

Besides, I thought we were all talking about curriculum. I think I joined a thread after the topic had drifted and people think I'm talking about something I'm not. When I say that educators do a better job educating and I hear the response that educators can't replace parents, it makes me think we are all having two different conversations but thinking it's only one.

a reply to: Cuervo

I definately agree there are some semantic issues here!

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
This I think is the biggest danger of homeschooling. That a couple of parents, who may or may not be well informed or critical thinkers (some are obviously are more so than others), will end up being knowledge gate keepers for their kids, only provide a limited worldview, and end up replicating their beliefs in their kids. This is less likely when kids are forced to engage with a whole host of teachers, some of whom don't agree with their parents. When parents (or anybody) can decide that their kid will only have teachers and tutors that believe in the family world view, what does that do for exposure and critical thinking.

As some home schoolers said on here, they do try to increase expertise and exposure to other teachers through having co-ops or private tutors, perhaps people who are experts or proficient in teaching a certain subject. While that is a good thing, I think there can be a problem still with exposure and diversity of perspectives if those tutors are also of the same ilk as the parents. What if the fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers only hire tutors that profess "Jesus is lord."

You don't seem to understand those Christians who are not out thumping everyone over the head with their beliefs. As a conservative Christian I believe Jesus is the Truth. I had no problem with my child questioning and exploring other world views, because if my belief was right it would stand separate from me.

In our coop I taught history and philosophy. I teach the two together because historical events that have greatly impacted our world germinated as a philosophical thought that spread through the masses and drove them into action.

An example of this is seeing the Spanish Civil War through the eyes of the French Agnostic Marxist Philosopher turned Anarchist Christian Simone Weil. (This required far more reading than what my child had to do in public school.) We discussed her thoughts on how often the oppressed have become the oppressor when finally given power. We discussed how it is OK to not know if God exists or not. Many of the insights that Simone Weil wrote about was long before her Spiritual conversion. We talked about how both those who know God and those who do not know God are both capable of seeing the world around them in an honest way. Our job in learning has to do with finding a workable solution to the problems we face. Resolution is finding a way to solve our greatest needs without creating new needs. Through studying Philosophy and history together we could examine ideas that worked and those that didn't. There is great value in the search for answers, and the type of respect needed when others arrive at a different conclusion than our own.

My child's Philosophy Professor was amazed at the depth of their knowledge. One of the girls I introduced to minor French philosophers went on to do advance studies in Paris. She said the French students loved that she cared to learn of those who impact French thought.

We are not as closed minded or as ignorant as you seem to believe. I know more like me than those whom you are describing. Publicly we are normally a pretty quiet group.

I have only responded because I was hoping to help you expand your narrow view. It seems like you are looking for an argument instead of understanding.

When I was in third grade (in a public school, mind you), I got in some hot water with my fundamentalist Christian (and obviously tenured) teacher. My crime? Saying the earth was four billion years old. She said the Bible teaches it was 13,000 years old. Maybe we had to start over after that (and creationists believe in a 6,000 year-old Earth anyway, right?) but that's not the point. I was glad to hear much later that Sister Nancy (as I came to know her) retired, and married! Her post was filled by someone who, if she identified as Christian, was Christian enough to tolerate science based on reason.



Seems Legit.

Where is Quetzalcoatl? Beezer I'm blaming you for this.

The history taught in the public schools in Germany regarding the events of WW2 and the history taught in public schools in the USA regarding those exact same events differentiate greatly one from the other.

How can a citizen know their "public schools" have the facts, and the other "public schools" are in error, unless they blindly accept what their government tells them is "fact"?

Why does a refusal to accept mankind driven climate change; automatically result in wasteful children? Children choose to be lazy/wasteful or not based on a far more complex list of variables then simply do you believe in mankind driven climate change.

I do not believe in mankind driven climate change, and I am neat, clean, efficient, recycler, who reuses and always leaves the area I am in better then when I arrived. Boy Scouts taught me that, so did religion, not belief in mankind driven climate change...

Your wild assumptions aside. Blind belief in ANY source as perfect (unless omnipotent) whether it is what I think is right, or the public schools think is right; limits the ability of the individual to think on their own. This is what SHOULD be the purpose of education; not scoring children on their ability to memorize "facts" carefully selected by superiors who have something to gain by parroting the governments official take on history.

If what the public school teaches are absolute facts.... then all public schools world wide would tell the same story.

God Bless,

originally posted by: johnsequitur1221
When I was in third grade (in a public school, mind you), I got in some hot water with my fundamentalist Christian (and obviously tenured) teacher. My crime? Saying the earth was four billion years old. She said the Bible teaches it was 13,000 years old. Maybe we had to start over after that (and creationists believe in a 6,000 year-old Earth anyway, right?) but that's not the point. I was glad to hear much later that Sister Nancy (as I came to know her) retired, and married! Her post was filled by someone who, if she identified as Christian, was Christian enough to tolerate science based on reason.


Seems Legit.

One who understands the original Hebrew in Genesis 1, understands God is recounting a "re-creation" of the Earth after it was rendered "life-less and full of chaos" (HEB; tohu va bohu) the re-creation week began 6000 years ago. The Original Creation of the Earth is millions if not billions of years old even according to scripture. Where there is a disconnect is that scripture indicates the life forms that inhabited the Earth before it was destroyed were all wiped out into extinction (lifeless); then afterwards in 6 days God re-created the Earth so it would be suitable for mankind to be created and thrive; new animals became smaller then their previous versions, vegetation changed (fruit trees, flowering plants); Evolution requires that never at any point was there "no" life on Earth after it was first established (bio-genesis). Scripture states All life was re-created 6000 years ago, but life existed prior; as did the Earth before it was destroyed the first time according to scripture in spirit and in truth.

God Bless,

originally posted by: skunkape23
The most valuable thing you can teach a child, in my opinion, is how to read and to love knowledge.
I went through the public school system and it was a hell hole. It is a prison for children to keep them tucked away while the parents work. I can't say I learned anything. I was more intelligent than most of the "teachers."
The most valuable advice I got from my father was "figure it out yourself."

I went to school during a different era of time and I was very lucky to have a father that pushed the importance of knowledge and education. Critical thinking was high on the list of the educational process along with activities of sustainable living. Even the boys had to take home economic classes. We were taught proper English, Geography, General Science, Physics, Social Science, Meal and Phone Etiquette. We were taught how to write introduction letters for employment, how to write checks and balance a check book. We had homework every night and my mother checked every bit of it, and she had 10 children.

My mother was tough. If you got something wrong, she never told you where the error was. You had to find it and correct it. The first thing you did after you got home was take off your school clothes and put on your play clothes. The second thing you did was your school homework and you had better have it ready for Mother to check and have the chores completed by the time my parents got home from work. My Mother was a nurse and my Dad was a government worker, so education was a very big thing in our home. We ate dinner as a family and everyone of us had to report a brief synopsis of our day. We even had to sit through the "and thens", from the little ones and the jibber jabber from my baby sister that had to have her turn even if she didn't have more than a 3o word vocabulary at the time. Trust me she has more than made up for it over the years.

I think what the youth of today are missing more than anything else, is a true sense of family. I had two hard working parents. They were far from perfect. We were poor in material things but love, joy, laughter and books were in abundance in my home. I don't think I missed out on anything growing up, and wouldn't trade it for any of the things that parents are substituting today.

a reply to: beezzer

Just because a parent wants whats best for their kid doesn't mean that the KNOW what's best for them. If all a parent knows is ignorance of reality, do you think that kid will learn any truth?

I'm not by any chance trying to advocate that the state knows better (frankly I can see pluses and minuses to both systems), just that you seem to be implying something with your post that isn't necessarily true.

Children should be taught good values and life skills, not just useless facts and widely debated theories. Parents should definitely have more of a say in what kids should learn than a government, and not all kids learn the same. Parents should teach their children. Theocratics would be in favor of more and better homeschooling, as was done in ancient times.