More than ever - SCHOOL CHOICE

[Cow Poke]

From what I've read of her (and interviews with her), it sounds like she is for parental choice--which implies that she doesn't want the government to decide how parents educate their children. Which implies that she doesn't want to force children to be taught unscientific things.

It is those who prefer a government monopoly on education (and top-down standards) who want to force children to be taught (or not taught) certain things and in a certain way (and only from the hand of the state).

Like so many other things, it's a two-edged sword -- freedom to educate your children as you see fit can be abused by lazy parents not to educate their children at all.....

Personally, I'm not opposed to some kind of minimum testing or evaluation or something.

When we taught our kids at home, we had the "teaching college" of the local university test our children every year. It was kinda neat - since they were teaching teachers how to evaluate, they need "subjects", so we got extensive evaluations for FREE, and they thanked us for allowing them to use our kids in their teaching college.

Both of our kids consistently tested "above grade" in all subjects, except my oldest always struggled with math. Just seemed not to have a head for it or something, even with tutoring. Like some kind of mental block.

What was really neat was that when I was arrested and was facing trial for homeschooling, I had the Dean of the local teacher college volunteer to testify on my behalf!

[Joel]

Like so many other things, it's a two-edged sword -- freedom to educate your children as you see fit can be abused by lazy parents not to educate their children at all.....

Personally, I'm not opposed to some kind of minimum testing or evaluation or something.

You mean requiring evaluation by law? And then some kind of government force if the child is not at a certain level?
That still raises lots of questions about what should be required by force for everyone. And would it require tying it to age? Some people are opposed to tying academic performance to age, since everyone is different, some are faster, some are slower, and even children of the same pace won't naturally be at the same level at the same age. And and individual child will vary on these things across different subject matters. Thus some people argue that the modern notion of schooling proceeding lock-step with age is a bad one. And if not tied to age, then what would be the benchmark?

One possibility would be some kind of voluntary certification. Like the GED, where a 14 year old or a 40 year old could take an exam if they want to receive a certification that they have reached a certain level of proficiency in something. It would be only about proficiency, and not about age. And there could be certification at any level of proficiency. And this could be private certification agencies (which is already true in the case of private schools conferring high school diplomas). It wouldn't have to involve the state.

And if lazy parents ever want their children to stop being a net consumer of the parents' substance (which is probably true if the parents are lazy), and if employers required a certain level of education (perhaps even just a basic 3 R's certification), the parents would have an incentive.

[Cow Poke]

You mean requiring evaluation by law? And then some kind of government force if the child is not at a certain level?

I think that's why I said "some kind" - not sure what it would look like.

That still raises lots of questions about what should be required by force for everyone. And would it require tying it to age? Some people are opposed to tying academic performance to age, since everyone is different, some are faster, some are slower, and even children of the same pace won't naturally be at the same level at the same age. And and individual child will vary on these things across different subject matters. Thus some people argue that the modern notion of schooling proceeding lock-step with age is a bad one. And if not tied to age, then what would be the benchmark?

As I recall (it's been a long time ago) the testing that my kids were in was tied to "childhood development", and took into consideration that age is not necessarily the main factor.

One possibility would be some kind of voluntary certification. Like the GED, where a 14 year old or a 40 year old could take an exam if they want to receive a certification that they have reached a certain level of proficiency in something. It would be only about proficiency, and not about age. And there could be certification at any level of proficiency. And this could be private certification agencies (which is already true in the case of private schools conferring high school diplomas). It wouldn't have to involve the state.

You're making a lot of sense. We chose to voluntarily submit to testing for our own benefit, and because we really cared that our kids were actually getting an education, not just "doing school work".

And if lazy parents ever want their children to stop being a net consumer of the parents' substance (which is probably true if the parents are lazy), and if employers required a certain level of education (perhaps even just a basic 3 R's certification), the parents would have an incentive.

The public education system is so screwed up now, there are lots of kids who are "promoted" to the next grade level who are not nearly qualified to be promoted. And the kids who actually graduate high school - I'm appalled at some their spelling, grammar, geography knowledge..... At one point, I was hiring about 7-8 mechanics a WEEK, and was astounded at the job applications they filled out. They would be required to write reports on gas compression equipment, and somebody had to be able to READ those reports.

[Sparko]

We don't need no education.

[Zymologist]

we don't need no edumacation.

fify

[Sparko]

fify

fluffy to you too.

[Joel]

The public education system is so screwed up now, there are lots of kids who are "promoted" to the next grade level who are not nearly qualified to be promoted. And the kids who actually graduate high school - I'm appalled at some their spelling, grammar, geography knowledge..... At one point, I was hiring about 7-8 mechanics a WEEK, and was astounded at the job applications they filled out. They would be required to write reports on gas compression equipment, and somebody had to be able to READ those reports.

Sounds like a basic 3 R's certification would be more valuable to you than a modern high school diploma. :-)

My understanding is that in late colonial America, elementary school was a separate school that only taught the 3 R's (and would typically take 2-3 years, however long it took you to become proficient), and you had to master it and graduate from it before proceeding on to a grammar school. (if you wanted to continue your education, that is. For most people, elementary school was sufficient. Most people would go from elementary to apprentice in some trade around 8-10 years old.)

[Cow Poke]

Sounds like a basic 3 R's certification would be more valuable to you than a modern high school diploma. :-)

My understanding is that in late colonial America, elementary school was a separate school that only taught the 3 R's (and would typically take 2-3 years, however long it took you to become proficient), and you had to master it and graduate from it before proceeding on to a grammar school. (if you wanted to continue your education, that is. For most people, elementary school was sufficient. Most people would go from elementary to apprentice in some trade around 8-10 years old.)

I'll have to find the cite, but it was not uncommon for young students to learn Hebrew or Latin or Greek as part of their education, as many of the schools were taught by clergymen who believed they needed to be equipped to understand the Bible.

[Joel]

I'll have to find the cite, but it was not uncommon for young students to learn Hebrew or Latin or Greek as part of their education, as many of the schools were taught by clergymen who believed they needed to be equipped to understand the Bible.

"Grammar school" (distinguished from elementary) meant learning Latin grammar. And often Greek. The idea was to be able to read classical Latin and Greek literature (including the Bible). Also college (often entered around age 15) lectures were taught in Latin, so you needed to be fluent to be able to go to college.

[hansgeorg]

2. Insulation of the kids from controversy and "the real world" - then when they go to college, they get swamped with atheist and liberal students and teachers and authority figures that convince them that all that religion stuff is wrong and if they want to really be sophisticated college students they need to stop believing in fairy tales.

Well, I was confronted with atheist and liberal students and teachers and house parents from age a few months going on fifteen ... at least taught me I ought to convert to the Catholic Church, but oh what a price!

[hansgeorg]

My main point, which I should have expressed better, is that the social pressure to be religious is in religious schools, is likely as strong or stronger than the social pressure to be nonreligious in secular schools.

But which pressure makes one suffer depends on which home one comes from.

Forcing Christian children to go to secular schools ... how would you feel if secular children were forced to attend Catholic confessional schools?

[hansgeorg]

It was one of the dumbest things I ever saw - the kids knew EXACTLY what they could get away with before the next step of discipline, and they played it up big time. It was nearly impossible to administer any kind of effective discipline. In fact, they banded together and accused me of calling that one troublemaker a name, which I did not do. I actually had to go to the principal's office after class, and sit in on an "evaluation". Fortunately, there was a video monitor of that class, and it was clear that I did not call him the repulsive name they all claimed I used.

But it really made me mad - I can't discipline them, but I got yanked into an "evaluation" meeting because they complained.

Get it why I am not going back to teaching ...?

[hansgeorg]

You're quoting the voices in your head?

No, he was quoting an article linked to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us...licy.html?_r=1

Second half of paragraph seven.

[hansgeorg]

Trump isn't the Pope, I'm not sure US Citizens are morally bound to submit their wills and not to ask questions of his decisions, provided that they respect that in fact the decisions were made.

How do you consider the prerogatives of the Pope in the Catholic Church?

Submitting one's reason, once a decision is given, is one thing, but submitting one's will?

[Roy]

Get it why I am not going back to teaching ...?

Perhaps because the school won't let you teach the pupils that the stars are carried by angels.