Mr. Gomes

Alan Gomes wrote:
And to those whining about a tax rebate for home schooling, how about for
those who have no children? Shall I get a rebate for the 30 years I've
been paying property taxes for schools I'm not using? Or the roads *I*
don't personally drive on, or the Fire Department *I've* never personally
used, or...get the point? Public education, as with all social services,
benefits *society as a whole* when done properly. We all reap the
benefits, we all pay the costs. We all have a responsibility to get out
and do something when it's not done properly. Look at voter turnout and
tell me how involved people are in society.

Keith Hughes


Ummmm...in the context of the thread, the silly point was offered that home
schoolers should be "consistent" in their philosophy and not seek any
services from the public school system.

'Silly' how exactly?

Some of us pointed out that there is
no inconsistency in this at all, since those who home school pay into the
system through taxes and are entitled to get something out of it.

Therein lies the fallacy. You are not entitled to "get something out of
it", you are entitled to *participate in* it. My wife and I, by virtue
of being childless, *cannot* get anything out of it, yet we support the
system equally along with the 'users'. You seem to be misconstruing the
purpose of a social program. The sufficiently affluent have always opted
out of social programs, yet they have always been required to support
them. The point is, *Society* has determined the structure and number of
the social systems it supports (nearly a truism), the purpose being to
advance the needs and goals of society as a whole, not to address
individual needs. By virtue of being part of society, we are all
required to support society.

Indeed,
whatever services a home schooling parent would receive is far less than
what has been paid in.

Again, your taxes support societal needs and desires. Save for sales
tax, there is no quid pro quo relative to taxation.

Now, even if there were a "rebate" for home schooling, that money would be
used to eduate the children in question, though outside of the public
system. This would still provide the alleged societal benefit you are
touting above.

To an extent. Also, to the extent that money is withdrawn from the
public system by those who, with voucher money, can afford high cost
private schools, the public system is further impoverished, and the
education of those left behind suffers accordingly. Even in a well run
system, there will be a large fixed overhead that is not proportional to
the number of students (e.g. facilities, maintenance, utilities,
administration, etc.). As dollars are withdrawn from the system, a
higher proportion of the available dollars goes to support this
overhead, and the dollars/student drops accordingly. A net loss for
society IMO.

Unless, of course, the real issue isn't whether children
receive an education but whether it is the government doing it?

It appears that your wife is 'doing it'. Is she the government? "The
Government" is merely a mental construct we use for convenience. It does
not exist as an entity. It is 'us', and as we nurture it, it is healthy
and productive, but as we neglect it, it grows weeds or lies fallow.

BTW: My wife is a public school teacher in So. California. She's a great
teacher but it's a really crappy system--massively top heavy bureaucracy,
wasteful, poorly run, etc.

There are a great many wonderful teachers out there. I'm glad your wife
is one of them. But the system will remain "massively top heavy
bureaucracy, wasteful, poorly run, etc." as long as people continue to
be mentally lazy and talk in terms of "they", or "them", or "the
guvumint", to conveniently divorce themselves from any personal
responsibility for either creating, or solving, the problem. Again, look
at the voter turnout in this country. Can we really expect parents that
are too lazy to even vote, to put adequate effort into rearing and
educating their children?

Granting that we cannot abolish the public
education system entirely (my personal preference), we support vouchers as a
good compromise.

Well, this is a basic matter of philosophy. Abolish the public system,
and only the affluent will be able to afford decent education. And I'm
not defending the performance of the extant public school system. It
*will* however, work well with parental participation. It happens in
*MANY* places.

As for vouchers, again, they benefit the affluent, but at the cost of
impoverishing the public system. AND it's another bureaucracy, AND it
will still require tax money, AND it will still disproportionately
disadvantage poor states/counties/municipalities unless federally
administered, etc. Hardly a panacea to my mind.

And I'm sure you'll easily find a great school that you can afford with
*only* the voucher money. One at which your wife would be happy
teaching...with the concomitant salary and benefits package of course.

And as for the teacher's union, we got her out of that
years ago (though we are obligated to pay a relatively small amount of dues
that goes to the collective bargaining portion, but nothing that goes to
support their political agenda).

Historically, labor unions have played an invaluable role in forming our
society, and establishing basic human rights (i.e. labor vs. servitude).
Laudable accomplishments. They have also been a source of graft and
corruption, often on a grand scale, and thus need policed just as does
the government. Given the history of union accomplishments, the right to
unionize should clearly be protected, IMO. The 'right to work' should
also be protected, IMO. Personally, I've never been in a union, and
detest the "union mentality", at least as stereo-typified (i.e. 'it aint
*my* job, call a ______[insert trade]'), it's stupid, wasteful, and
counterproductive.

Bottom line, if you don't want "the government" involved in education,
then stay away from *MY* tax dollars - they, like yours, support society
at large, and you don't get "line-item abdication" for societal
responsibilities. You want to use private schools, great. You want to
home school, great. I have no problem with either. But *IF* tax dollars
are used for education, they should be used for the maximum benefit to
the maximum number of students, irrespective of socioeconomic status.
Vouchers don't do that. A reorganization of how public education is
funded, administered, and evaluated could. But it would be a lot more
work, and lacking sufficient motivation (i.e. angry voters), congress,
legislatures, and school boards aren't going to do it.

Keith Hughes

Ok, Keith. You win. I'm convinced. The public school system produces such a
massive societal benefit that no amount of taxation to support it is
excessive. Without it we'd have a society of kids who could not read or
write and who are in general functionally illiterate, who could not do
simple math, and who had no knowledge of world history or even of the great
books of western civilization.

Oh, wait! That's what we presently have *with* the public school system.
Quick! Someone raise my property taxes so we can throw some more money at
it!

Well, it's been fun playing. Gotta get back to life beyond usenet. So go
ahead and have the last word and I'll see you around sometime--maybe on the
water. (A feeble attempt at getting back to something sailing related
here....)

--Alan

"Skip Gundlach" skipgundlach sez use my name at earthlink dot
fishcatcher (net) - with apologies for the spamtrap wrote:

Just a snippet from GMBs post here (BTW, Tom sends his regards):

There was a couple with a boat like ours (Jean Marie) that did a
circumnavigation with girls that were 10 and 14 and both of them
seemed to have turned out well.

The girls from Jean Marie have done radically more than "all right." I
can't begin to recite the accomplishments and differences between them and
the usual student - but I'm sure their dad and mom would happily expound.

I don't see or hear from Tom much anymore (I've only been to the
Florida west coast once recently and that was in 2001, and I met Tom
and Jean in person once at an SSCA meeting in 1999) and I didn't
remember off the top of my head exactly what the girls had done
academically or even what their ages were or whether they were 10 and
14 when they finished or when they started out. Glad to hear they are
all well.

They're a few boats down from us as they do a complete refit in Salt Creek
Marina, and I've had several opportunities to chat them up in the course of
going by.

Suffice it to say, if you're involved, caring and willing to put in the
work, kids who are home schooled - let alone in an international environment
where they have to create their own entertainment as well as learn by
osmosis - should easily outdistance conventionally schooled kids, and do it
on less than half the time, to boot (no waiting for the slowest, no
bureaucracy, no reviewing for the first 3 months to re-implant what was lost
over the summer, etc.).

L8R

Skip and Lydia, trying desperately to get the boat finished before money
and/or time runs out

We're in Miami Florida now by car. We aren't sailing down the ICW for
awhile - Bob feels it is too stressful and there isn't enough chance
for actually sailing down here.

grandma Rosalie

Tamaroak wrote:
My bride and I are considering taking a year off and doing the Great
Circle Route/Loop, a mere 5000 miles around the east coast, the Erie
Canal and the Tenn-Tom. We would take our boys who will be 14 and 15
and
home schooling them on the boat, using a prepared curriculum and a
satellite Internet connection.

Does anyone out there have any experience in this type of adventure?

Capt. Jeff

Without getting bogged down in the school-vs.-homeschool argument, I'll
just add my $.02. We started homeschooling our kids a couple of years
ago. We haven't set sail yet; but we've been doing a lot of
RV-around-the-US road travelling. It's wonderful. Our kids are
currently 12 and 10.

Rather than recommend a curriculum, I'm gonna recommend that you look
into unschooling. Check unschooling.com and/or just google the term.
Especially in the context of travelling, where each day brings its own
knowledge to you, why be limited to a curriculum? School-at-home is
only slightly more freeing and educational than heading to P.S. 101
every day. Look into unschooling. You'll love it and your kids will
thank you every day of the future with their interesting, self-directed
lives.

Frank

Keith Hughes wrote:
snip



No, it is lack of adequate parenting that causes the majority of the
problem, IMO. You apparently think the existence of the public school
system is a valid basis on which parents can abdicate responsibility for
child rearing.

Nobody said that!!! Indeed this thread is all about the parents wanting
to take responsibility?? You can read?? or did you get a union organised
education??

Home education *in addition to* that provided by the
public, or private, education system, has *always* been a prerequiste
for first rate education. West or East.

This is nonsense, you seem to want to take away from the fact western
education standards are dropping & blame parents, that's your right just
as most every parents these days blame unionised dead beat lefty
teachers, the difference is the parents are putting their money where
their mouth is & sending their kids to private "proper" schools instead
of lefty union indoctrination camps.

snip


Yes, and parent should get involved (as in PARTICIPATE, not spectate) in
their kids education!

So again you agree?? this planned boat trip is a good idea
educationally??? Apart from your mantra about not having access to any
govt funded programs because what?? it competes with the unions draining
the system dry??

Few parents I encounter even know the names of
their children's teachers. Schools, and school boards, respond to the
demands of the community (read 'parents'), and unfortunately, those
demands are too often for a baby-sitting service that passes children
from grade to grade irrespective of their level of attainment. Let me
ask you a couple of questions:

You are in fairyland!! The majority of union teachers are not
interested in anything nor anyone but themselves & how much they can
bludge from the system. Krause claims to have been a teacher, probably a
lie like everything else he claims, but can you imagine letting your
kids anywhere near him??? By all means teachers can hold views on all
sorts of things, other than the curriculum just don't teach them to
other peoples' kids.


1. Do you think teachers (or professors for that matter) *like* to
reward students for substandard performance?

Of course not, indeed they even help students cheat to avoid it, so
their institutions don't look bad, the parents don't ask how come?? &
the general public don't get wise to the lousy teaching job they're
doing!!! The jig is up, the public have figured it out & don't just take
my word for it; look at how many people are prepared to forgo life's
little luxuries so they can "pay extra" to have their children properly
educated, without the lefty union bias attached.

2. Do you think teachers (or professors for that matter) *like* to to
have students so disruptive that the learning environment for other
students is degraded, without having the disciplinary tools available to
address, or even ameliorate, the situation (small clue here...parents
don't *like* other people to discipline their unruly progeny)?

So first you blame the parents now it's the kids?? give it up it's the
unionised public teachers. But again have a look at the stats public
lefty union teachered schools are avoided like the plague by any parent
who can afford to save their children from them.


3. Do you think the responsibility for teaching respect, courtesy, and
discipline lies with the public school teacher (i.e. instead of with the
parents, as it has been since time immemorial)?

Again so you agree then that these people will do a better job of
educating their boys than your union teachers??? Great ... we agree.

As for the money thing well we can just disagree:-)


If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, I'll be happy to mail
you a quarter should you like to purchase a clue.

Purchase a clue!!!... ahhhh the true socialist:-) They demand
everything be given to "them" free, but have a different view about
themselves

you miss the point. Parents have the responsibility for
preparing their children *for* school, monitoring their performance *at*
school (P.T.A., parent-teacher conferences, etc.), and changing the
educational system when it isn't functioning properly.

Parents have a responsibility to protect their kids from lefty union
teachers who don't educate (have a look at the stats) but do try to
spread the lefty socialist mantra in the classroom.

We live in a
democracy in the US, and inherent in the democratic process is both
personal and social responsibility. Vote out the school board, the
system *will* change. Sit back and carp on newsgroups on the other hand,
and...oh, that's right, nothing happens. Get it?

Get it ?? Hmmmmm the socialist control freak, you're wrong & wrong
because you're an uneducated simpleton, pretty much it seems another
wasted life, we measure them in Krause lives:-). I hate to mention this
here, but do you think we may have our oxygen back???


Ever heard of greed? We (in the US) live in the short term. We
artifically elevate our standard of living (on the cheap labor of third
world countries, to a large extent) without thought to long term
consequences. That is a serious social/cultural issue we certainly need
to address.

You are another Krause type socialist, who's totally uneducated & has
no understanding of anything. World trade is the best thing going for
the US & the rest of the west & wait for it....... also the countries
you pretend to be worried about. You've never looked into it but don't
bother, for you don't have the wherewithal to understand.


Your postulate, however, that (and I'm paraphrasing of course) if our
children were better educated, *we* would be making the clothes, shoes,
toys, TV's, VCR's, DVD players, etc. that comprise the bulk of that
"95%", is ludicrous on its face. These are produced by unskilled, or
semi-skilled workers (as commonly defined), where the cost per unit
rules the day (almost entirely a function of living standard), NOT the
education level of the workforce.

It's the desire for those things from the west that makes the market,
but it's also the design inventive skills & much more importantly the
capital from the west that creates all those jobs, & those jobs are the
driver of a better world for all.

Now if the funds saved assembling cheap widgets & helping the 3rd world
at the same time, could have created a better education system in the
west then we would invent ever better things, which we would demand be
manufactured etc etc. The flies on the dung heap are the western unions,
particularly the teachers, who are living in the past & can't see past
the comfort of their union organised thug campaigns.


Sorry to snatch the easy bone from your jaws

It's easy to see which bone you hang onto.

, but no, I'm not a teacher
(never have been, not married to one). I was, however, lucky enough to
have been raised by parents and grandparents who believed in education,
and their rearing techniques reflected it. So I know adequate parenting
when I see it, even seeing so rarely.

You're not a teacher, you can't understand anything the socialist
mantra hasn't fed you, which end did they feed it???


And to those whining about a tax rebate for home schooling,

Nobody asked for a rebate!!! you brought up that you didn't want these
boat boys to have access to the system their parents have helped pay
for. Yes education is a social good but let parents decide how they
achieve it for their own kids, subject to mandated standards of academic
achievement. Hey lefty parents can support the lefty teachers?? oops no
no no:-) guess what?? it's the lefty parents leading the charge of
sending their kids to proper schools.

Damn the union teachers won't even allow us to test to confirm what we
all know, which is they're hopeless at what we pay them for; to teach.

how about
for those who have no children? Shall I get a rebate for the 30 years
I've been paying property taxes for schools I'm not using? Or the roads
*I* don't personally drive on, or the Fire Department *I've* never
personally used, or...get the point? Public education, as with all
social services, benefits *society as a whole* when done properly. We
all reap the benefits, we all pay the costs. We all have a
responsibility to get out and do something when it's not done properly.
Look at voter turnout and tell me how involved people are in society.

Well at least it's good to know Darwinism is at work as regards you.
Now how about that oxygen, any chance we may have it back???

K

Keith Hughes

Harry Krause wrote:
Alan Gomes wrote:

Ok, Keith. You win. I'm convinced. The public school system produces
such a massive societal benefit that no amount of taxation to support
it is excessive. Without it we'd have a society of kids who could not
read or write and who are in general functionally illiterate, who
could not do simple math, and who had no knowledge of world history or
even of the great books of western civilization.

Oh, wait! That's what we presently have *with* the public school
system. Quick! Someone raise my property taxes so we can throw some
more money at it!

Well, it's been fun playing. Gotta get back to life beyond usenet. So
go ahead and have the last word and I'll see you around
sometime--maybe on the water. (A feeble attempt at getting back to
something sailing related here....)

--Alan


You might have a bit of credibility on this issue if your wife were not
teaching in the public schools and drawing benefits from doing so.

Last week, a "Beltway Bandit" contractor I know offered me a subcontract
in connection with a government agency involved in aspects of "Homeland
Security." The project involved researching and writing a number of
manuals and other instructional materials. I have the proper clearance.
I turned him down. The work was "political" in terms of inclusion of
materials and levels of approval.

I turned the work down. There is nothing I would do to help the Bush
administration, directly or indirectly.

Sorry sorry again with his x-no-archive I need this Krause lie on my
own system:-) The future you understand:-)

K

"K. Smith" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
You might have a bit of credibility on this issue if your wife were not
teaching in the public schools and drawing benefits from doing so.

Last week, a "Beltway Bandit" contractor I know offered me a subcontract
in connection with a government agency involved in aspects of "Homeland
Security." The project involved researching and writing a number of
manuals and other instructional materials. I have the proper clearance.
I turned him down. The work was "political" in terms of inclusion of
materials and levels of approval.

I turned the work down. There is nothing I would do to help the Bush
administration, directly or indirectly.

Sorry sorry again with his x-no-archive I need this Krause lie on my
own system:-) The future you understand:-)

K

K. Smith,

Why worry about the Klass Klown Krause? It is obvious that you have more
boat smarts in your little finger, than the boatless Krause will ever have.

It has been *proven* he doesn't even have a boat...and, it has been *proven*
he is a liar.

Let the sleeping sub-intelligent trolls lie...there is no need to feed the
obviously challenged...that is what net-idiots thrive on.


--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

K. Smith wrote:
snipped because for the 4th or 5th time he hasn't had a damn thing to
say about the OP's question

I'll be brief. Normally I don't respond to this type of polemic but
after having read your posts in this thread, and getting my giggling
under control, I've decided that your ignorance is so overwhelming as to
demand informing. I'm not confident that it will be more than a pearl
to you.

You sir are the poster boy for right-wing boneheads everywhere. There
is no discussing anything with people like you because a) your writing
makes you appear to be as dumb as a post and (this is the scary part) b)
you think *You're right* and everybody else who doesn't think like you
is not only wrong, but somehow a threat to your narrow little world
view. The anti-teacher, anti-union vitriol you're spewing in here
verges on the pathological. Were you found to be incompetent and fired
from a teaching job? The grapes seem _really_ sour.

In the meantime, pull your gaze away from your self-satisfied little
American navel and read a book or two -or better still- take your boat
somewhere foreign, keep your big mouth shut and just watch and learn.
You're in desperate need.

LOL,,

harry,, you are a psycho liar, you are a senile old man harry. Is this why
your children have left you for their mother? Promising never to associate
again? I mean this is what YOU said, I am simply repeating what you said.
But who knows, you are a disgusting liar.

So you put down someone here today, yesterday you were putting down the
people of Thailand who suffered this disaster. A union slob yourself,
probably living in an apartment in low income neighborhood, now bragging you
have vast lands, left untouched to help the critters. Lol,, harry you are an
ignorant psycho liar. No wonder your children spit on you and left you. You
are sick old man harry, union slob or not, mean sick old fool.

Lets talk about your working career, union slob, not a market driven job,
union, you were protected from being fired and now you criticize others who
worked in a market environment. lol,,, harry you are such a liar,,, you a
union slob who probably put 6 nuts on an engine block on the line your
entire career, then when you reached 20 years seniority, you were given the
broom and you kept warehouse B clean. lol,,,

Don't you ever give anyone advice on a boat topic, you could cost them their
lives, you are no where near qualified so you shut your toothless hole and
just keep drinking.


I hope someone emails me, maybe you can email me harry,, you claim to be a
man, your a coward, you keep hiding under your bedsheets you coward.















"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
prodigal1 wrote:
K. Smith wrote:
snipped because for the 4th or 5th time he hasn't had a damn thing to
say about the OP's question

I'll be brief. Normally I don't respond to this type of polemic but after
having read your posts in this thread, and getting my giggling under
control, I've decided that your ignorance is so overwhelming as to demand
informing. I'm not confident that it will be more than a pearl to you.

You sir are the poster boy for right-wing boneheads everywhere. There is
no discussing anything with people like you because a) your writing makes
you appear to be as dumb as a post and (this is the scary part) b) you
think *You're right* and everybody else who doesn't think like you is not
only wrong, but somehow a threat to your narrow little world view. The
anti-teacher, anti-union vitriol you're spewing in here verges on the
pathological. Were you found to be incompetent and fired from a teaching
job? The grapes seem _really_ sour.

In the meantime, pull your gaze away from your self-satisfied little
American navel and read a book or two -or better still- take your boat
somewhere foreign, keep your big mouth shut and just watch and learn.
You're in desperate need.


Actually, K. Smith is female, and presents as an early parolee from an
Australian asylum for the mentally challenged. She's a general failure in
life who tries to compensate by being an attack dog, and lives in a
fantasy world of right-wing extremism. She's best ignored, and her
9000-word posts dismissed with throwaway lines.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:28:38 UTC, "Tuuk" wrote:


No, not at all, I am talking the east such as the Asian countries, the ones
that are economically exploding. Of couse there are poor countries
everywhere, and middle east and the islamic or muslims teach the wrong
things. That is why they attacked on 911. Those schools focus so much on the
koran, teaching to hate non muslims, hating non islam and they do not spend
enough time on the maths and sciences etc. When they become 20 years old and
ready to compete in the workplace, they fail and see others so wealthy then
the jealousy, rage, anger, and they rebel against the apex.

I know you are generalising, but let's look at a fact or two, shall we
....
At least one of the 911 hijacker pilots was apparently very well
educated at an expensive Lebanese private school which has a mixed
intake of various Christian and Muslim denominations, they promote
racial and religious harmony - not hate - and he came from a rich,
protective, family where he was the only son. So I don't think you can
specifically say ' That is why they attacked on 911'.

But to better answer the caller's question, yes with proper resources,
motivation and training a student could learn more in that environment. What
they might miss would be the public speaking opportunities, team work,
friendships, but at their age, they could easily go one on one with the
computer and yes learn more than at a public school.

A large number of studies have found that the major factor in the
average success (ie some fail dismally, some excel) of home educated
students is the fact that their parents care about their education and
show it. The same child, with the same parent showing the same amount
of interest might very well do better in a public school. On the other
hand public schools have their average dragged down by all the kids
whose parents don't give a damn and only send their kids because they
are made to.

Chris

From one of my favorite writers, only a bit OT, but certainly no further
afield than the subject has wandered. The writer can be found at
fredoneverything.com

Down With Education

Sort Of



December 29, 2004

Some years back, while laboring in the grim vineyards of police
correspondence for a metropolitan daily, I appeared as a guest lecturer
before a class of undergraduates in criminology at the University of
Maryland. The idea of a major in criminology struck me as peculiar, but
apparently there was one. I was to explain to the students the realities of
police work.

The adventure was a revelation. The kids, a scruffy bunch dressed in student
tatterdemalion, heavy on minorities, were as lacking in polish as in
grammar. Their intelligence seemed low. They had strong, simple prejudices
instead of ideas, and no inclination to examine them. The intellectual level
was that of a rural high school. They appeared to be bored. They had no
business in a university.

Why, I wondered, were we forcing these bedraggled beings to feign a
scholarship which appealed to them not at all, which they at once endured
and degraded-and that at great expense to the public? Why do we make this
burdensome imposition on people who do not want schooling, do not need it,
and do not understand what it is? It is wrongheaded.

I submit that it makes no sense to inflict on the unprepared and incapable a
pretense of a university education for no other reason that to further a
pretense of equality. What real purpose is served? And yet this forcing of
the unneeded on the undesirous runs through all schooling in America.

It makes little more sense to require that the intelligent but uninterested
study what they do not like-usually, the liberal arts. Doing so accomplishes
nothing. An engineer forced to read Blake is merely an annoyed engineer. He
will never touch a book of poetry in his academic afterlife. There is no
reason why he should.

I think that we ought to abandon utterly any requirement that vocational
students waste time on the liberal arts. Schools of engineering,
criminology, and business management are just that, vocational schools,
nothing more. They may be of a high order. Graduating in electrical
engineering from a school of the first rank is not easy. Yet the document
awarded is not a diploma but a trade-school certificate. So is a degree
chemistry or ophthalmology. All are evidence of training, not education. If
a student of chemistry wants to study history, and many might, he should
certainly be enabled to do so. But it should not be required.

Universities usually defend requirements in the liberal arts on many grounds
in which few believe. I suggest that we cease to defend them at all. A
liberal schooling should be a luxury, like a yacht, and should be regarded
as such. The arts are not for many and should be forced on none. They
require much and exact a price. Only the intelligent can profit by them, and
of the intelligent, few want them. Why not make them voluntary?

I now hear of departments of English literature which award degrees to
students who have never read Shakespeare or Chaucer. The students of course
say that such authors are "irrelevant." The literate respond with horror,
leaping to such barricades as may be found in publications on coated paper.

But the students are right. Shakespeare is irrelevant. More accurately,
Shakespeare is irrelevant to anyone who believes that he is irrelevant. You
do not get a federal job by knowing Chaucer, or having heard of Chaucer.
Those forced to study writers, or philosophy, or history they don't want to
study will gain nothing. Those who do want to study them lose much, because
the courses will often be of sufficiently little rigor as not to oppress the
bored.

Yet there are intelligent young of inquiring nature and breadth of mind to
whom liberal studies appeal-students actually attracted to reading Aeschylus
in the original , and Asian history and the Elder Edda, who want to study
Fragonard and Watteau. Let them. By so doing they harm no one. Being
turbulent adolescents under the influence of evil hormones, they will need
direction. Nonetheless if a student chooses such schooling, knowing what he
is choosing, it is his business.

It is not just in the universities that we force the young to study things
that mean nothing to them and will have no influence on their lives. As
soundings of the public monotonously reveal, a minority of the population is
in possession of such arcane information as the century in which the Civil
War occurred, or who fought in World War I, or where Italy might be found on
a map. Things are yet worse: Far more people than we admit can barely read.
Most who can, don't. The United States is not the well-schooled nation that
it seems to believe that it is.

The public schools, say some, have failed to such a degree as to make their
continuance rationally unjustifiable. Yes, they fail, but why? To some
extent it is because they are expected to do what cannot be done-to educate
the uneducable. For reasons of dizzy idealism, we pretend that all students
have the wit to learn. Thus we suffer high-sounding programs like No Child
Left Behind. You cannot ensure that no child will be left behind. You can
try to ensure that no child will get ahead. To this we incline.

As in the universities, the difficulty is that we refuse to separate the
able from the rest, yet insist on attempting to teach to the uninterested
things that they do not want to know. If this effort bore fruit, it might be
justified: A disputable case can be made that the historically literate are
better equipped to vote, etc. But it is easily demonstrated that the
majority do not learn much. Why bother?

A wise course, and therefore one impossible of realization, might be to
recognize that schooling is inherently hierarchical and not susceptible to
populist leveling. A beginning would be to make all study voluntary beyond,
say, the sixth or eighth grade. By then all would have learned to read who
were ever going to learn. Below the university level, private schools unregu
lated by government are the only way to let people study the subjects they
choose at the level of rigor that they want. Freedom from federal intrusion
is crucial. Nothing else can prevent resentful minorities from imposing
invertebrate standards on all.

Fat chance.

I didn't write this - but I like what he sez...

L8R

Skip

--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:05:23 UTC, Keith Hughes
wrote:

YES!
Finally, a sensible entry into this 'debate' .

I AM a teacher - and in the 'east' - the kids that do well TEND to be
the ones who have parents that give a damn. About them and about
their education. The kids that don't get that TEND to not do as well
as they could.

Chris

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:12:02 UTC, "Alan Gomes" wrote:

Now, even if there were a "rebate" for home schooling, that money would be
used to eduate the children in question, though outside of the public
system. This would still provide the alleged societal benefit you are
touting above. Unless, of course, the real issue isn't whether children
receive an education but whether it is the government doing it?

Yes, but we all benefit from OTHER people's children getting an
education too...

Chris-

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:17:40 UTC, "Alan Gomes" wrote:

Ok, Keith. You win. I'm convinced. The public school system produces such a
massive societal benefit that no amount of taxation to support it is
excessive. Without it we'd have a society of kids who could not read or
write and who are in general functionally illiterate, who could not do
simple math, and who had no knowledge of world history or even of the great
books of western civilization.

Oh, wait! That's what we presently have *with* the public school system.
Quick! Someone raise my property taxes so we can throw some more money at
it!

A pathetic strawman setup - that's not what he said, as you well know,
but you don't know how to address what he did say.

Just to summarise/simplify it for you and the other 'public bad,
private good' folks, he did say:
the system has flaws;
it won't be fixed by opting out with your money;
it is the result of people (parents in this case) opting out with
their other resources, like participation.


Well, it's been fun playing. Gotta get back to life beyond usenet. So go
ahead and have the last word and I'll see you around sometime--maybe on the
water. (A feeble attempt at getting back to something sailing related
here....)

--Alan

Chris
--

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:24:32 UTC, "Steve" wrote:

I have met (US and other) families in the Philippines and the Pacific
Islands who have home schooled out of necessity (lack of comprehensive
western education). We considered it while living in the Philippines for 8
years with 3 school age children but opted for an international school
(another story).

Do tell... :)
Chris

--

On 29 Dec 2004 19:31:02 +0700, "Chris Lasdauskas"
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:28:38 UTC, "Tuuk" wrote:


No, not at all, I am talking the east such as the Asian countries, the ones
that are economically exploding. Of couse there are poor countries
everywhere, and middle east and the islamic or muslims teach the wrong
things. That is why they attacked on 911. Those schools focus so much on the
koran, teaching to hate non muslims, hating non islam and they do not spend
enough time on the maths and sciences etc. When they become 20 years old and
ready to compete in the workplace, they fail and see others so wealthy then
the jealousy, rage, anger, and they rebel against the apex.

I know you are generalising, but let's look at a fact or two, shall we
...
At least one of the 911 hijacker pilots was apparently very well
educated at an expensive Lebanese private school which has a mixed
intake of various Christian and Muslim denominations, they promote
racial and religious harmony - not hate - and he came from a rich,
protective, family where he was the only son. So I don't think you can
specifically say ' That is why they attacked on 911'.

But to better answer the caller's question, yes with proper resources,
motivation and training a student could learn more in that environment. What
they might miss would be the public speaking opportunities, team work,
friendships, but at their age, they could easily go one on one with the
computer and yes learn more than at a public school.

A large number of studies have found that the major factor in the
average success (ie some fail dismally, some excel) of home educated
students is the fact that their parents care about their education and
show it. The same child, with the same parent showing the same amount
of interest might very well do better in a public school. On the other
hand public schools have their average dragged down by all the kids
whose parents don't give a damn and only send their kids because they
are made to.

Chris

Your last paragraph was well said. As a retired public school teacher
(8th grade math), I can attest to the truth of that last sentence!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Chris Lasdauskas" wrote in message
news:mPcurcJnILSl-pn2-WRHg7dJwntVU@localhost...
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:24:32 UTC, "Steve" wrote:

I have met (US and other) families in the Philippines and the Pacific
Islands who have home schooled out of necessity (lack of comprehensive
western education). We considered it while living in the Philippines for
8
years with 3 school age children but opted for an international school
(another story).

Do tell... :)
Chris


Chris, if your referring to my last comment in this thread, here goes::

We enrolled 2 of our 3 sons in one of the international schools. The name
was Magellan's (unsure of spelling) International School. This would have
been in 1979, during Marshal Law, under Marcos..

The school bus picked up our children in the BF Homes sub-div. outside of
Makita. The first thing I noticed was an armed guard on the bus and was
somewhat surprised but not impressed.

Given sometime to consider the political situation, I realized that by
enrolling my children in an international school, with the children of
international public official and wealthy business people.. The guard was to
prevent possible hijacking of the bus and kidnapping of these children..
With only a single guard, I felt at most he might only start a gun battle
(with his one or two bullets) or at least, surrender the children to the
hijackers.

Although there were never any kidnapping attempts at this school I heard of
attempts at other schools where the children of wealthy family attended.

We moved out of Manila, to the rural province and enrolled them in a
Catholic school. Not the best quality education but a lot safer. When our
oldest son reached the age of 12 we moved him back to the states for
traditional schooling and the following year we all moved back.

Overall, the Philippines is a nice place and the people are wonderful but
life is too short and children need to be exposed to "both the East and
West", but not under the barrel of a gun.

How did my children do after a mixture of education and culture?? All were
high achievers in their high school years with various honors and awards.
One graduated from UCSD with a dual degrees (if that is the proper term),
another from San Fran. State followed by a Masters from Samuel Merritt and
the third from UC Berkley and a MMA from Syracuse U..

My experience and opinion, FWIW.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:03:41 UTC, "Steve" wrote:


but opted for an international school
(another story).

Do tell... :)
Chris


Chris, if your referring to my last comment in this thread, here goes::

We enrolled 2 of our 3 sons in one of the international schools. The name
was Magellan's (unsure of spelling) International School. This would have
been in 1979, during Marshal Law, under Marcos..

The school bus picked up our children in the BF Homes sub-div. outside of
Makita. The first thing I noticed was an armed guard on the bus and was
somewhat surprised but not impressed.

Who would be?

I teach in Jakarta, as you may be aware there have been some bombings
here over the last few years, including a grenade thrown in to the
Australian International School compound. Folowing this several of the
larger schools set up full security fences and paid the armed forces
to provide protection. Several of the parents moved their children
from those schools to ours because they didn't want their kids
educated surrounded by machine guns (and I mean machine guns, in
sand-bagged nests, not just automatic rifles). That aside, all schools
here have security guards to protect the kids from the perceived
threat of abduction - which does happen, but not as often as people
think. Any kid at a private school, not just international schools, is
a target as the parents are udoubtedly much richer than the general
populace. To give you an idea the 'minimum wage' in Jakarta is about
US$ 75 per month or US$900 per year (and many people earn way less
than that), this is supposed to support a husband wife and several
kids. Kids in our secondary school cost around 10 x that per year in
school fees (and that would be a pretty typical fee for the other
better 'internationally-foccused' private schools too, while the big
international schools are about US$ 13-15,000 per year), so the
kidnappers deduce that kids at these schools come from wealthy
families and they are an attractive target - one ransom could be 10 or
more years work....

My experience and opinion, FWIW.

Thanks, it was interesting and I'm glad your kids turned out well, and
hopefully happy!

Steve
s/v Good Intentions


Chris




--

Frank wrote:
....snip...
Rather than recommend a curriculum, I'm gonna recommend that you look
into unschooling. Check unschooling.com and/or just google the term.
....snip...

Self-followup:

If the unschooling.com website is too radical for you, or even if
you're uninterested in the concept, you might wanna try a little book
called _The Teenage Liberation Handbook_.

Good luck,

Frank