Probably the Edumacrats had a cat fit about the heavy Christian emphasis.
Posted on 09/03/2003 8:29:31 AM PDT by Damocles
Home is no place for school
Wed Sep 3, 6:49 AM ET
By Dennis L. Evans
The popularity of home schooling, while not significant in terms of the number of children involved, is attracting growing attention from the media, which create the impression that a "movement" is underway. Movement or not, there are compelling reasons to oppose home teaching both for the sake of the children involved and for society.
Home schooling is an extension of the misguided notion that "anyone can teach." That notion is simply wrong. Recently, some of our best and brightest college graduates, responding to the altruistic call to "Teach for America," failed as teachers because they lacked training. Good teaching is a complex act that involves more than simply loving children. Research on student achievement overwhelmingly supports the "common-sense" logic that the most important factor affecting student learning is teacher competency. While some parents may be competent to teach very young children, that competence will wane in more advanced grades as the content and complexity increases.
But schools serve important functions far beyond academic learning. Attending school is an important element in the development of the "whole child." Schools, particularly public schools, are the one place where "all of the children of all of the people come together." Can there be anything more important to each child and thus to our democratic society than to develop virtues and values such as respect for others, the ability to communicate and collaborate and an openness to diversity and new ideas? Such virtues and values cannot be accessed on the Internet.
The isolation implicit in home teaching is anathema to socialization and citizenship. It is a rejection of community and makes the home-schooler the captive of the orthodoxies of the parents.
One of the strengths of our educational system is the wide range of legitimate forms of public, private or parochial schooling available for parental choice.
With that in mind, those contemplating home teaching might heed the words of the Roman educator, Quintilian (A.D. 95). In opposing home schooling, he wrote, "It is one thing to shun schools entirely, another to choose from them."
Dennis L. Evans directs doctoral programs in education leadership at the University of California, Irvine.
Qualified disagreement here. I haven't seen a decent public school in our area, and there are certainly private schools that don't measure up to our standards, but with careful selection (given opportunities) often a good school can be found. My daughter's school is Christian, very conservative and academically rigorous, and she is thriving there. My son's school is tailored to his learning disabilities, and his teachers have skills (and patience) that I do not have. There are only 7 kids in his class this year - and the principal is a genius who believes in "her kids". My daughter would, I think, learn in the middle of the Gobi desert, but my son needs a little extra boost.
Of course they are also educated at home! Reading, study, research on the Internet, word games at the dinner table, nature study in the woods and stream behind the house, etc. etc. Both study aikido and ride horses, sing in the church choir, daughter is an altar server, etc. We certainly don't turn our children's education over to the schools exclusively! That is where many go wrong, I fear.
out of the mouths of morons comes caca!
Sock it to 'em!
"It's all in Plato -- all in Plato! Bless me! What DO they teach them in these schools?"
- C.S. Lewis (who after an unhappy experience in school was privately tutored for Oxford. And he did all right . . . :-D )
Then why is PUBLIC SCHOOL failing?
Failing by what measure? (Yes, I agree that it is failing many kids and parents.)
WHY can't PUBLIC SCHOOL teachers speak ENGLISH as in the Boston situtaion (sic)?
My kid’s teachers speak English. Perfect? No. But then, who is? I’m not familiar with the Boston situation.
WHY are public school kids SOOO STUPID?
That’s a pretty broad brush. Do you really believe that public school kids are stupid? Do you have kids? Are they stupid? Mine aren’t. (They have gone to both public and private schools).
WHY is it that HOMESCHOOLED children ALWAYS test HIGHER than PUBLIC schooled children…
Homeschooled children ALWAYS test higher? You're going to have trouble proving that. One exception breaks your rule!
… and they ALSO win the MAJORITY of spelling bees?
Interesting. What spelling bees did you include in your sample to come up with this?
Probably the Edumacrats had a cat fit about the heavy Christian emphasis.
When the law firm I was working for imploded at the end of '92, while I was waiting for my dream job to open up I looked into teaching as a substitute or part time. The City of Atlanta had no interest in me - with an honors degree in history from an Ivy League school with minors in English Lit and Classics, and a law degree from a major Southeastern school, and an adjunct professorship at that same law school - 'cause I didn't have the necessary courses in "ejukashun". Never mind that I've taught swimming and horseback riding to little kids from age 8 up for 25 years . . . I can teach anybody who wants to learn. (It's the ones that don't want to learn that catch some serious flak from yours truly.)
;O)
Case 1 that public schools are working just fine.
??? You blame problems of public schools on desegregation?
using violence, violation of property rights, and war on civilians to achieve an alleged moral good is a liberal concept from the French Revolution, not a conservative concept.
Doing nothing while rights are trampled, your women are raped, and your children are taken away is not a conservative concept, for it does not conserve your G-d given rights or much anything.
There was a higher rate of two-parent black families during slavery than there is today; that can only be considered an achievement through liberal glasses.
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. You blame Lincoln for that? You are saying that end of slavery is somehow responsible for immorality? You ignore that slaves were forced to marry and copulate? You forget that women slaves often advertised in America as "good breeding stock?" Sorry, no less moral time in American history than when slavery exists.
King used violence to achieve his alleged positive end which has resulted in an even more segregated community
The last time I was in America I see black in schools, hospitals, movie theaters, restaurants. First time in America, in 1959, I see opposite. More segregated? Nonsense. And how did King use violence? You seem you have agenda my friend.
George Washington was not a man of peace and he wanted war (against England). In that sense, Washington was like Hitler. My apologies, friend, but analogy stinks.
It is said Ho Chi Minh express admiration for George Washington. According to Galt-logick, Washington would therefore be Viet Minh general.
Depends on what she likes to read. Does she like fantasy, adventure, stories from other lands and times, "true to life" children's stories? Also, is she tender-hearted, or can she endure a certain amount of violence if it's necessary for the story? (I'm thinking here specifically of Rosemary Sutcliffe's Roman stories, which were written for kids but are on the gritty and violent side. Of course, Rome was gritty and violent. They are great books, and I would recommend them highly so long as a child is not unduly sensitive.)
C.S. Lewis is wonderful. The Narnia books stand alone in his output as true children's books. His science fiction is probably too adult in theme for a 7 year old (especially the last in the trilogy, which scared ME), but my daughter read The Great Divorce at age 8 or so and loves it dearly. She said The Screwtape Letters gave her the creeps though.
If she likes C.S. Lewis, I highly recommend George MacDonald (Lewis admired him greatly and he makes a cameo appearance in The Great Divorce). His adult novels are too thick for kids, but The Princess and the Goblin and The Princess and Curdie are wonderful stories that teach without preaching. His first class short stories are collected in a book called The Golden Key
Other fantasy writers - Madeline L'Engle is generally good although she's written some clunkers (The Young Unicorns is probably her worst, A Wrinkle in Time and Many Waters her best.) Ursula le Guin is too controversial for a younger child. Anne McCaffrey's children's books (Dragonsinger et al.) are good but her other books are too adult in theme for a child. Philippa Pearce (Tom's Midnight Garden) is worth looking into.
Noel Streatfeild's Shoes series are charming insider accounts of the British dance and theater world of the 1930s, good girls' books. They are period pieces now but still fun to read. An unsung writer of more adventurous stories (ostensibly for boys but readable by all) is Philip Turner, Colonel Sheperton's Clock, The Grange at High Force, War on the Darnel and other titles, he was ex-SAS and C of E priest (talk about muscular Christianity!).
that's just off the top of my head. Tell me what she likes to read, and I can give you more specific reccys . . . I tend towards British books as you can see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.