Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well maybe you should tell them that. That could be the key to preventing stupid people from having kids they can't afford. We'll just simply tell them not to have sex......................bam! no kids, aids, welfare...etc
The test required for home schoolers is the same one that the public schools administer. It doesn't matter. Home school students out score the public school students by a mile. The highest performing public school student is still way behind any home schooled student (on average). I'm sure one could find a few cases of home schooled students that don't exceed the standard of public school kids; but, they would be an exception.
States differ in their requirements regarding homeschooling and testing and assessment. Following the general trend toward easing home schooling requirements, fewer than half the states now require any testing or assessment. For example, neither California or Texas ( states with the most homeschooled children) requires testing or assessment. Independent homeschoolers in Florida cannot claim to have graduated, even after completing twelve years of homeschooling. Some states require homeschoolers to comply with curriculum, while others give parents the right to decide what their children learn or not.
Home schooling is not new. It has been around for at least 30 years (probably more) to a very high degree. We started home schooling ours in .... hmmmm ... 1988 maybe? I can't remember now. But they were very young.
But, I agree with you about the previous post. I'm not sure what she missed. The test required for home schoolers is the same one that the public schools administer. It doesn't matter. Home school students out score the public school students by a mile. The highest performing public school student is still way behind any home schooled student (on average). I'm sure one could find a few cases of home schooled students that don't exceed the standard of public school kids; but, they would be an exception.
LOL, that you think 30 years ago was a long time ago! While home-schooling seemingly became popular in the 90s, it's been around for forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak
The public schools administer the same standardized test. The home schooled students out score even the highest achieving public schools students. Isn't that what I said? I thought I was pretty clear.
Post some stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak
Two working parents is not new.
I'm saying that "income inequality" is irrelevant. I don't believe in the "income inequality" meme as a societal problem. It is a problem that has been caused by poor economic policies, those of Barack Obama.
But, there will always been income inequality to some degree, simply because some people have more drive, and strive for excellence. They are entrepreneurs, and they have the passion to succeed (success to them is more than just earning a decent living). Others may not be entrepreneurs, but they manage their money (put their money to work) and they create wealth for themselves and their families.
Income inequality is not a sign that there is something wrong with a society, at least not where you have a free market system. It is a natural occurrence, because some will always be more productive than others.
Where people are allowed to pursue their own destiny (free will), which can only happen in a free country with minimum government interference, there will be income inequality. But as long as a people are fed, have a roof over their head and clothes on their backs, the TV, an automobile, the cell phones, computers... etc, etc. What's the problem? We don't really have "poor" in this country, by the rest of the World's standard. We don't have kids starving in the streets, rampant deceases afflicting the population, and people living in sewer pipes (India) for homes.
If you really put "minimum government interference" into effect, there would be NO safety net at all, and the statement in bold would not be true. In fact, the red would be very true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
We dismiss PISA with a boatload of excuses and move on to CC which blames the teachers for student failures.
As an educator, you are surely aware that other countries "juke" their PISA stats.
LOL, that you think 30 years ago was a long time ago! While home-schooling seemingly became popular in the 90s, it's been around for forever.
Post some stats.
If you really put "minimum government interference" into effect, there would be NO safety net at all, and the statement in bold would not be true. In fact, the red would be very true.
As an educator, you are surely aware that other countries "juke" their PISA stats.
Are you insinuating that all the countries ahead of us "juked" their stats and we're totally above board here ?
(don't even know what that means..juked)
The countries are given the list of schools.
It's the schools that get to pick the students participating.
PISA and it's contractors do not hand pick the students.
Are you insinuating that all the countries ahead of us "juked" their stats and we're totally above board here ?
(don't even know what that means..juked)
The countries are given the list of schools.
It's the schools that get to pick the students participating.
PISA and it's contractors do not hand pick the students.
"Juked" is a word some guy on the Denver forum used to mean, in essence, screw around with.
I confess to not knowing exactly how the PISA test works.
So the schools pick their best students. Why doesn't China test students in more cities? How do we know that these students, in all these countries, are a representative example? We don't.
Considering how some countries mess around with their infant mortality stats, I tend to take PISA with a grain of salt, too.
As to your final comment, I think you're wrong. I think there was a time when our schools were top notch. When the decline began, I don't know; but, our schools haven't always been this bad.
Top notch compared to what/when and for whom?
Historically, the masses were lucky to finish 8th grade before leaving school to work. Newspapers have intentionally been written at the 5th grade level for a reason.
I don't track "bad school" rhetoric. A school is a reflection of the cultural values of the community, families and students it serves. If the community, majority of families and students do not value education, there is not much a school, any school, can do about it. If the community, majority of families and students put a high value on education, there is nothing the school can do to hold them back.
Most highly selective public magnate schools have better outcomes than most public schools.
Some private schools, especially those that are highly selective and costly, have better outcomes than most public schools. Some homeschooling situations have better outcomes than some public schools.
While I appreciate your political statement repeating the conservative litany, and how egalitarian you are, the fact is that income inequality leads to a disparity in access. Access to the people who make policies and decisions that affect all of us, access to opportunities for people to advance socially and economically. Income inequality is about access. Politics is about power. They are two different things, and they divide the people in two different ways. The fact that power and access are sometimes related does not diminish the fact that they are two different things.
And your last paragraph directly contradicts your first. You can't assert that income inequality doesn't divide us, and then subsequently complain about foodstuffs become less affordable. The two conditions are related. Income inequality divides American society at a core level.
First, I would just like to point out that there are a huge number of students who do not live in depressed inner cities with irresponsible parents and failing schools. The middle and upper income neighborhoods shouldn't be forgotten in this discussion, either. Obviously privatizing schools wouldn't have quite as drastic of an effect on these demographics, but it might help them as well. Even if the contention that public schools are necessary in poor areas was valid, that information would be of very little use to, say, an affluent suburban community that was weighing* whether or not to get rid of their public schools.
*Such a course would be illegal now, but it's not inconceivable for communities to have that option at a later date; for instance a bold state deciding to devolve every aspect of education to local communities. That general idea is rather mainstream among conservatives currently, so the first state that did something like that would probably be a conservative state.
Gee, sounds like the situation we have today in depressed neighborhoods with public schools. It's quite amusing to see you seize on any disadvantage of the private sector to prove that the private sector doesn't work, yet when identical (if not more severe) disadvantages exist in the public sector it is not considered proof that the public sector doesn't work, but rather a call for expanding that sector. If those people did have to foot the bill for their children's education rather than counting on the government to provide it for them for free, there would be a greater incentive for responsible behavior. However, I agree that in whatever numbers irresponsible people will be present in any system.
Perhaps your approach is the one that is unrealistic, considering the results it has yielded for these same people. Even today there are education options including certain forms of homeschooling that are very low cost and doable on almost any income, and that are effective approaches; private-sector education is not necessarily costly. Charity and other forms of aid would bring down the cost of these options further in the very low income end of the education market, which public schools have sewn up under today's system. Education is seen as something of a basic commodity in our society; thus, if cracks should appear you would quickly see regular and charitable educational entrepreneurs fill that crack. The pressing need of these people for education would be much more obvious if there were no public schools to cover it up.
In short, where there is a will there is a way, and where there is no will there are no results. The latter will occur under any system, so the question is which sort of system is likelier to yield better outcomes? I contend that a fully privatized system would, in large part because competition and the absence of a one-size-fits-all government monster will lead to an explosion in the number and diversity of choices available to students, which will make it much more likely for a student to find a school suited to his/her own needs and interests. The very structure of the public school system is inimical to that beneficial process, whereas private-sector schools are already structured for it.
you have an argument if once you privatize the schools you then give subsidies(vouchers) to the poor to send their kids to schools. But if you're argument is that only those who can afford schools will be allowed to attend them and that the poor just need to be more responsible and a)not have kids or b)once they do have kids just find a way to pay for schooling. If that's your argument (and you've said it is) then you are a very silly person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
