Comments on: Teech the Childrun Goodly

By: Terrance

Terrance — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:38:30 +0000

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".

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.

By: Terrance

Terrance — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:49:21 +0000

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.

By: jenl1625

jenl1625 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:33:01 +0000

"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.

By: jenl1625

jenl1625 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:25:53 +0000

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 . . . . .

By: jenl1625

jenl1625 — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:53:32 +0000

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 . . .