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.
I agree with you here. The vast-majority of homeschoolers are from two-parent families, and usually the mother is the teacher(often being well-educated herself).
If there were more two parent families I suppose there would be far fewer problems with education.
In any case homeschooling is unrealistic for all but a small number of people. Hence that's why charters are important, and school vouchers. There are ways of improving public schools but they are even more politically controversial than vouchers....
I agree with you here. The vast-majority of homeschoolers are from two-parent families, and usually the mother is the teacher(often being well-educated herself).
Let's make sure we put this in context.
The National Merit Scholarship program is based on scores from the PSAT.
Taking the PSAT/SAT, is generally not required, especially for homeschooled students. In many states only a tiny fraction of the population will take the PSAT. And in many cases, it actually costs money to take the test, which is why many would rather opt-out.
So while homeschoolers are 3-4% of the population, do they take the test in equal proportion? Also, remember, you can bump your SAT's by a significant amount by studying specifically for the test. The most-competitive families often hire SAT tutors for thousands of dollars for this purpose.
I would assume that many private-schools, with their greater organization and resources, as well as magnet schools, probably do a better job of preparing kids to take these tests.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that the kids are better educated.
That is actually why you cannot judge home schools by psat or ACT scores. Because only those expecting to do well take them.
But that does not really read on this discussion. Any bright kid who is home schooled is going to take the psat...national merit scholarships are pretty valuable.
The quality of the education at Meadows is also indicated by the colleges they attend and the 100% placement. The Clark magnet does similarly. The reason in both cases is simple...the kids involved are very bright. In fact it looks to me like Clark is robbing all the high schools of many of their best and brightest. I think that very good for the kids who go to Clark but not so good for the first tier high schools.
So we have a conundrum. Are the home school kids not as good as the rest of the mid/upper class kids? Or is the home school less effective when it gets to bright children? I actually suspect the latter. Having always been in STEM oriented classes you do a lot of learning from classmates. In higher math we had an instructor that was fast and brilliant. I don't think most of us would have gotten any where near the real value of that course if not for the hours spent after going through his stuff. Kind of nice as we did part of it in an Irish pub. Even had a booth in the back rigged with additional lighting so we could read our notes.
A teacher could meet with the parents of every student entering their classroom in September and could then tell you the students that will be a problem with out ever meeting them.
all the money in the world won't fix that problem.
A teacher could meet with the parents of every student entering their classroom in September and could then tell you the students that will be a problem with out ever meeting them.
all the money in the world won't fix that problem.
Certainly some truth to that. But here we would not ever have that problem. The teachers in the poor performing school have pretty much retired in place or don't exist. We run those schools with legions of substitute teachers.
All the good teachers have bailed to better schools within a few years of hiring...so the bad schools don't have capable teachers.
And yes money would help. 25% to stay if you are good? Cut the class size in half? That would all make it better.
My children are products of public schools and productive citizens. My oldest daughter went to college. She only remembers one professor that was overly liberal. This professor was sorta of a hippie. She's always been liberal. My son didn't finish HS, works as an office worker in a contruction company. Him and his longterm gf are good financially and Democrats. My other daughter didn't HS, works as a lunch lady. Her and my SIL, a mechanic, are doing great financilly. Both Democrats. My late son was a plumber, he didn't vote but supported Democrat. My step-son is a electrician, he has very expensive toys. He is Democrat, but didn't vote Clinton.
But that does not really read on this discussion. Any bright kid who is home schooled is going to take the psat...national merit scholarships are pretty valuable.
Do you think intelligent homeschool kids would be more likely to take a PSAT than intelligent public school kids?
I would guess the odds would be lower for homeschool than public school, only because the public school kid would constantly be "aware" of where he places relative to his counterparts. Whereas a homeschooled kid basically has no counterparts to compare to.
I also think the values of parents who homeschool are different than the culture that surrounds a public or private school. I think in the schools, there is a lot of competition. The school looks good if its kids do well on tests, and especially if a number of them qualify for national honors. So they have an incentive to push the kids to score as high as possible. And tend to only teach in the classrooms what is on the test.
I think with homeschool there is far less of a drive to be the best, and the parents look at education for what it is supposed to be, knowledge and skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
The quality of the education at Meadows is also indicated by the colleges they attend and the 100% placement. The Clark magnet does similarly. The reason in both cases is simple...the kids involved are very bright. In fact it looks to me like Clark is robbing all the high schools of many of their best and brightest. I think that very good for the kids who go to Clark but not so good for the first tier high schools.
And the above explains the private and magnet schools you referenced. These schools have a huge incentive to push these kids to do well on tests, so they can send them off to college, as to add to their resumes, as selling points for the schools.
Though I would like to make this statement about homeschooled kids. They are capable, well-behaved, respectful, and hard-working. But I do not believe a child educated at home could ever become a "future leader" of this country. I would say that very few CEO's, presidents, politicians, etc, could have ever been schooled at home.
The environment is simply not conducive to the cutthroat nature of those high-ranking positions. Also, the kids don't necessarily make a lot of connections. A homeschooled child tends to be more focused on his family/community, and since he wasn't raised around a lot of other kids, he is practically "culturally-foreign".
Basically, the Amish are more culturally-foreign from other Americans, than Americans are from Canadians and Western Europeans. This is obviously a huge obstacle which prevents them from reaching the highest levels of society.
In any case homeschooling is unrealistic for all but a small number of people. Hence that's why charters are important, and school vouchers. There are ways of improving public schools but they are even more politically controversial than vouchers....
I would agree that is impractical for most people because of the nature of society as it is now.
Obviously if there were more two-parent families(as there were in the past), then it wouldn't be limited to such a small number.
The question then has to be asked, does the public school system increase, decrease, or have no effect on the rate of two-parent families?
It is my position that the public school system separates the children from the parents, throws the children into an unnatural environment where they lack security, and then because of its highly-competitive nature, where they are forced to compete with hundreds or thousands of others kids, it drags down their self-esteem and self-image, and all of this disrupts their ability to have strong, close, and healthy relationships, and tends to promote bad/disrespectful behavior. Especially since in an environment which is "age-segregated", what kids learn as their "social-norms" come only from other kids their age. Which is why the "tough guy" or the "rebellious" or the "uncooperative" child is so admired in the schools. The kid who argues with the teacher becomes a kind of hero to the other kids.
The severing of the children from the parents, also has an effect on the parents. The parent assumes the school is going to do all the work of educating, and even raising, so the parent often takes little interest, and neglects his responsibilities, partly because he is unaware of what his responsibilities even are, since he assumes it is all basically taken care of.
I think, as a society, public schools have an extremely deleterious effect. And while you could argue that they make us richer, they don't make us better.
I would agree that is impractical for most people because of the nature of society as it is now.
Obviously if there were more two-parent families(as there were in the past), then it wouldn't be limited to such a small number.
The question then has to be asked, does the public school system increase, decrease, or have no effect on the rate of two-parent families?
It is my position that the public school system separates the children from the parents, throws the children into an unnatural environment where they lack security, and then because of its highly-competitive nature, where they are forced to compete with hundreds or thousands of others kids, it drags down their self-esteem and self-image, and all of this disrupts their ability to have strong, close, and healthy relationships, and tends to promote bad/disrespectful behavior. Especially since in an environment which is "age-segregated", what kids learn as their "social-norms" come only from other kids their age. Which is why the "tough guy" or the "rebellious" or the "uncooperative" child is so admired in the schools. The kid who argues with the teacher becomes a kind of hero to the other kids.
That's because discipline has been finally eliminated, after half a century of being watered down beginning in the hippie era.
Certainly some truth to that. But here we would not ever have that problem. The teachers in the poor performing school have pretty much retired in place or don't exist. We run those schools with legions of substitute teachers.
All the good teachers have bailed to better schools within a few years of hiring...so the bad schools don't have capable teachers.
And yes money would help. 25% to stay if you are good? Cut the class size in half? That would all make it better.
The point is, the best predictor for the students, are the parents. If the parents take no interest in the child's education, neither will the child.
All the money in the world won't overcome this deficit in the vast-majority of cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJW50
My children are products of public schools and productive citizens.
I hate this anecdotal strawman crap that everyone wants to bring up.
No one is claiming that public schools can't create productive citizens. People raised in the ghetto and who go to "bad schools" will often become "productive citizens". That doesn't mean being raised in the ghetto is "just as good" as being raised somewhere else.
You could make an argument that sending kids to these "bad schools" is tantamount to child abuse. And I think a lot of people would even agree.
Of course you could then reply, "What is the alternative? No education at all? Wouldn't that be an even greater form of child abuse?"
Basically, this debate is really about what qualifies as a "good" or "productive" citizen. What qualifies as a "good school" or a "bad school". And what qualifies as child-abuse.
For instance, I do not believe that "productive citizen" is the same as "good citizen". You can be productive without being good. But what is good anyway?
We talk of "good schools" and "bad schools", but we obviously don't mean "good" means "perfect". Good only means "better". But it is only better in relation to the other. Everyone knows that even the so-called "good schools" have significant problems, and are only getting worse.
If you're not comfortable with calling this system a form of child-abuse, fine. But it certainly goes far more in that direction than most people would like. And yet, you people get on here and pretend that everything is fine, because you went to public school and you did alright.
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.
