Teech the Childrun Goodly
Posted on February 11th, 2008 by Kip
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?
Similar Posts:
- Homeschooling is a Double-Edged Sword
- Why Does Mitt Romney Hate Utah?
- What Kind of People Support Mike Huckabee?
- Homeschooling and Pierce as Sword Rather than Shield
- “Only 18%”
Filed under: Uncategorized
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 . . .
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 . . . . .
"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.
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.
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.