FYI - You might find this one interesting.
“Expert”
“Harvard”
Harvard homeschool expert?? Bwahahaha...now Ive heard of everything.
Im not sure how nessarcy schools are in the digital age.
Even prior to the pandemic, two Harvard Law School professors expressed their concerns about homeschooling due to the risks for child abuse and low-quality education.
You mean like the Chicago Public School system?
L
If nothing else, the COVID panic has exposed for parents how many public schools are doing nothing more than babysitting services, once they look at their kids’ “homework” which takes 20 minutes a day.
Another “unexpected consequence” to their “Plan B” DemoVirus release. Libs are dumber than a box of rocks....no insult to rocks intended.
They are very scared. Not only that. I suppose that a majority of the abuse cases did not start when schools shut down but were happening all along and the teachers and other school personnel did not have a clue.
In the case of remote teaching, there is little proof that the kids are doing their own homework. Today’s students probably know how to game the system with fake data if they want to. When I was a teacher’s aide for problem students, I learned to resist the temptation of completing the assignment for them, just so they wouldn’t fall further behind. Sometimes, you have to let them fail due to their own lack of effort.
Evil scum Democrats are getting worried.
“A 2014 study found that 47% of school-age victims had been homeschooled”
What utter garbage. Slander, disguised as “academic research.”
It is like Nazis saying we will walk you to the showers.
The lying war against homeschooling continues.
Parents are demonized as dangers.
Government indoctrination camps are portrayed as sanctuaries of enlightenment.
In other words: what they got from their mediocre and expensive public school was illiterate, innumerate children who don't know up from down, right from wrong or boys from girls.
But the parents are onto it now.
We've seen plenty of Harvard anti-HSers yammer on during the lockdown. This was, in part, because a massive anti-homeschooling conference was scheduled to be held at Harvard in March but that got postponed. Their rounds were locked and loaded but they went off while the nation was plunged into forced homeschooling.
Then a funny thing happened on the way...many parents realized their kids were being taught crap at school. Then the frazzled newbie HSing parents got help from - yep - homeschoolers. You know...those freaks according to the NEA and MSM.
Now, a yuge portion of the nation no longer thinks homeschoolers are a bunch of religious cultists who teach their kids nonsense. To be sure, many parents will happily surrender their kids to public school but a bigly number of parents won't be swayed by the anti-homeschooling propaganda.
However....witness Sweden, the non-thinking conservative's Coronavirus poster child country. "they didn't lock down...they didn't destroy their economy and kids stayed in school...we shoulda done what THEY did."
And, to be sure, Sweden kept kids through the age of 16 in school, which was a smart move. Indeed, this is the crux of Mr Dwyer's thesis:"I am not convinced schools should ever have closed," Dwyer told Insider. "Given what we know about relative vulnerability to the coronavirus, the shutdown decision arguably amounted to a prioritizing of the welfare of certain adults over the welfare of children."
And there it is...keep the schools open. But does anyone think it'll be business as usual? Witness France...
...and South Korea...
Perhaps the state will mandate that the kids must get immunized and have a special contact tracing app installed.
The non-thinking conservative who didn't research what's really the backstory on Sweden is mentally locked in on opening up the economy and letting the kids become Stasi.
Hit piece notwithstanding, shutting down the schools and sending the kids home was pure idiocy. Almost no children and very few teachers would be considered high-risk.
Dwyer is the same lunatic who recently claimed that the reason parent-child relationships exist is because the state confers legal parenthood. If you skim his other writing, you can see more about his views on family law. Like the idea that parental rights should be entirely disregarded and that there should be no legal preference for biological parents to raise their own children. Basically, that the state should be able to take children from their parents and assign them to others based on a courts determination of the childs best interest without regard to the rights of the parents.
Fortunately, Harvard Law grads rarely go on to practice family law, so hopefully the damage done by this clown will be limited.