So no sooner do I post this comment at another blog…
There are two categories of parents who homeschool: those who want their kids to learn more than what they could learn in public school, and those who want their kids to learn less (i.e., no evolution, no reproductive anatomy, no teh gheys).The question therefore becomes: which groups are growing or shrinking, both in absolute terms and relative to the other group?
In the U.S. those trends are depressing, approaching terrifying.
…Than this appears via yet another blog:
If you can read at a fifth-grade level, you can homeschool.
Care to guess which group is making such a claim, and why?
5 responses so far ↓
Link jenl1625 // Feb 12, 2008 at 10:53 am
Actually, I thougth the answer was pretty obvious, because anyone who wants the kids to learn *more* than public school teaches would want the home-teacher to be better educated. . . .
Now, why the state involved (from the "why" link, I'm assuming California) doesn't require more stringent qualifications for home teachers, I don't know. Seems ridiculous to think that someone who can't even read on a high school level can teach all that even a 2nd or 3rd grader should be learning . . .
Link jenl1625 // Feb 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Tom, if you like to play the "what's wrong with this paragraph" game, there's plenty of places to play it. (Unfortunately, my local newspaper and news station website are quite reliable sources.) Somehow, people think that spell-check is good enough. Doesn't necessarily reflect on the actual teachers, though, who are hopefully better educated than the school secretary. Then again, maybe I'm just incredibly optimistic . . . . .
Link jenl1625 // Feb 13, 2008 at 8:33 am
"Don't really need to know about evolution" is one thing if you mean that we don't have to have a detailed understanding of the intracacies. But a basic understanding of the idea is important to having a rational understanding of the world around us. It's an underpinning to all kinds of other sciences.
And a willingness to ignore realities that you aren't comfortable with (because you "don't really need to know") leads to notions like "the fact that there's no evidence to support my opinion is less important than the fact that I haven't changed my opinion – I'm no wishy-washy flip-flopper".
As for bringing down the public education system, what do you plan to replace it with? Nothing but home schooling? It's not like evolution is the only thing kids won't learn if you close all the schools . . . If you're planning on kids mostly going to private schools, do you have any reason to think they won't "to worship the state and fights its wars"? Advocating shutting down public education is one thing. Advocating shutting down public education without thinking through what comes next is another.
Link Terrance // Feb 19, 2008 at 7:49 pm
That's precisely why I would never homeschool. There are some subject I might be able to handle. I could probably take the kid all the way through high school English. Maybe history. Maybe. But I'd be quickly out of my depth in the fields of math and science. And I want my kids to learn as much as they can in all the academic subjects.
Link Terrance // Feb 19, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Actually, it's an unwillingness to admit new information or evidence if it contradicts what one believe. It is the death of learning. It is the antithesis of intelligence.