Jump to content

Menu

Public school is never an option-- is that true for anyone else?


Recommended Posts

I used to be the "never say never" type of person but that was four kids ago.

 

My oldest was public schooled for his entire education. Back then homeschooling wasn't even on my radar. I had no issue with the public schools, we lived in a very nice area with extremely good schools.

 

My second has autism and went to a private school (paid for by the public school) from 3rd grade on. Again, homeschooling was never on my radar. Still living in an excellent school district, but wasn't doing well in public school.

 

My third was public schooled through 8th and homeschooled through graduation. She had so many emotional and social issues that we pulled her to homeschool. This was in the same excellent school district. We gave her the option of going back for senior year and she wanted no part of it.

 

We have since moved to an area with awful schools. Awful as in the entire state ranks between 45th-48th place nationally. My fourth (and last :(  ) was homeschooled until last year. She spent one year (2nd grade) in public school and that was enough. We put her in PS because financially I needed to work. We let her finish the year out and then I quit my job to resume homeschooling her. I can honestly say that NEVER is now part of our vocabulary. Going back to PS is just not an option. We don't have a savings account, we can't afford private schooling. Between us and our extended family there will be someone that can assist with homeschooling her if for some reason I am no longer here or can't. She loved being in school, she is my little social butterfly. But if you ask her if she wants to go back, she will be the first to say no way. Throw in all this common core garbage and no way, never, will she darken the door of PS again.

 

PS worked for my oldest child so please don't bash me for being saying NEVER again with my youngest. For our family, and our youngest, public school is not an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the OP had simply framed his/her original post as a gripe about people pushing PS on him/her, there would've been a ton of sympathy for him/her. But no, he/she had to get all smug and "holier than thou" about being in a fortunate financial position that he/she attributed 100% to his/her moral superiority rather than a combination of good decisions and pure luck. THAT is what got people upset.

 

She merely stated that public school is not an option for her family.  At no point did she say she is going to bash you for sending your children to public school.  You, however, have been bashing her ever since you started posting on this thread.  The kind thing would be for you to just not comment on threads you are against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well good grief.  I see nothing wrong with the things the OP posted.  Why all the insecurity and bitterness?  So he/she didn't say things just right.  So he/she is a little over confident.  So what??  I don't share his/her beliefs/financial situation/job options and abilities, I'm not sure how I'd answer the question in the original post.  But why not live and let live and be happy for somebody who is doing ok...as of today anyway?  You can tell he/she realizes things could change, or he/she wouldn't have started an education fund in the event of such change.  I keep wanting to understand what is wrong about he/she has said and I don't get it.  Makes me much less likely to reach out here, too.  If these expressions are so wrong, I should probably only EVER read here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the OP had simply framed his/her original post as a gripe about people pushing PS on him/her, there would've been a ton of sympathy for him/her. But no, he/she had to get all smug and "holier than thou" about being in a fortunate financial position that he/she attributed 100% to his/her moral superiority rather than a combination of good decisions and pure luck. THAT is what got people upset.


You should reread the original post. She didn't mention finances in that post at all. She didn't mention that the worked their asses off to be able to say never in that post. She started adding with an explanation as to why she can say never when a bunch of people smugly told her she shouldn't say never, as if they know anything about her ability to do so.

She got defensive of course but she was never rude to anyone until you and her started going at it because of how incredibly rude you were to her. She never insinuated that everyone else is inferior to her. You read a lot into her words that simply weren't there. And if your so offended by this thread/OP why continue to waste your time on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ.


I don't understand what the point of the thread is, then. "Eating meat is never an option -- is that true for anyone else?" does not seem like a neutral opener to discuss dietary preferences.


OP wasn't starting a thread to discuss education preferences. she opened a thread discussing a specific education preference in which anyone who didnt have that preference could have easily stated so rather than harping on OP for having her own preference and trying to tell her why that preference was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP wasn't starting a thread to discuss education preferences. she opened a thread discussing a specific education preference in which anyone who didnt have that preference could have easily stated so rather than harping on OP for having her own preference and trying to tell her why that preference was wrong.

Well, as I've stated before, I've seen this flavor of thread in any number of online forums before, about every topic under the sun. I think it's not a very inviting opener for any sort of conversation except people patting each other on the back for being a hard-core believer. (Or having "planned ahead" sufficiently, unlike the rest of us losers who would settle for a second-rated education for our poor kids or use (gasp!) disposable diapers immediately after birth or whatever else.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back early in my hsing journey I would have likely said (and probably did say) never.  But times change.  Even a year ago ps was not an option for oldest, now he is going to attend in the fall.  There is no private schools around here, come to think of it there was none in the city either, there was charters but not private the way one thinks of it.  At any rate, I can say without a doubt they will never attend the local public school but I am okay with my teens attending the high school int he next town over. They are asking to attend based on their current and future needs, post secondary goals etc.  I won't lie, I am burned out, with 4 kids with ADHD, 1 of which  with even more profound learning issues and 1 of them with substantial mental health issues I am done.  So them asking to attend the ps feels like a huge relief.  That said if I felt at any point in the next 3 years they would do better at home I would have no problem hsing them again.  In the end the educational choices I make for my family is based on what I feel is in the best interests of the child.  To say it will never ever be an option is merely prideful imo and is putting my beliefs ahead of my child's needs and that is not something I could ever do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, when talking to someone whose kids are munching on happy meals, I say "I would never feed my kids McDonalds" it is by definition smug regardless of the veracity of my intentions.


I have read this whole thread and agreed with posts on both sides, but this is the first one I could "like" because it perfectly summarizes my feelings about the first post from the OP.

She came looking for solidarity, but she unwittingly insulted many people who could and would have otherwise rallied to her side. In her shoes, I would have been peeved as well, but I sincerely hope I could have risen above my friends' rudeness (if I valued their friendship anyway). There was no diplomacy in her response and no humility in the OP or follow-up posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get why tempers flare on both sides. These are our kids, their educations. We take it seriously. And sometimes personally. But the OP is not new. There are repercussions for our words here. We cannot insulate ourselves from a harsh response, save not posting at all. Maybe she will see where offense was taken even if not intended. We all learn from these boards. We all come with different experiences, baggage, whatever.

I don't think the OP is wrong to hold this strong opinion. But I also don't think it is wrong that some were offended by her phrasing. Or to express that offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get why tempers flare on both sides. These are our kids, their educations. We take it seriously. And sometimes personally. 

Fine and dandy. But this holds for people whose children are in public school, too, as well as private, as well as homeschoolers. Not every homeschooled kid is home in order to have a great education. Some are there because they have a non-academic objection to schools, including all those celebrities who travel a lot. I find this attitude that "we" are superior, utterly ridiculous.

 

What is the point of saying one will, say, never have another child, or ever divorce one's husband? I have heard plenty of people advertise that this is their last, blah blah, and then there comes another one. What purpose does that serve? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our family is 100% opposed to public school for our children.  Many of our local homeschooling friends have been putting their kids into public schools because mom is burned out/tired.  (which I get!)  They always try to convince that I should do the same and are offended when I tell them that public school is not an option for us.  Ever.   If it became necessary, we have a local private school we would use.   Anyone else feel the same?  I kinda feel like the lone homeschool hold out here.

 

Read the bolded. She specifically states that friends were always pressuring her and that "for our children" it's not an option "for us." Is she not allowed to make statements about what she's decided for her own children? We all have a different set of circumstances. It was reasonable for her to ask on a homeschool board if anyone else feels this way.

 

If, when talking to someone whose kids are munching on happy meals, I say "I would never feed my kids McDonalds" it is by definition smug regardless of the veracity of my intentions.

 

"By definition smug"? No, I disagree. Like I said -- we all have a different set of circumstances and know what best suits our own families and situations. My family has severe allergic reactions to certain foods and food additives. Because of this, we won't feed our kids at McDonalds. We generally have to plan to pay more somewhere else to meet the needs of our own children. Would it be smug to say that we would never feed our kids at McDonalds to friends who were trying to convince me to do what I know would not be in the best interest of my own children?

 

eta: One could even make an argument that the friends who were trying to convince me to do what they were doing could be considered smug.

 

What if I have philosophical objections to McDonalds? I don't, but I know people who do. Would I be allowed to state and stand on my philosophical objections? Is making and stating decisions based on conviction for our own families smug? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, I haven't read the entire thread.   I gave up after the first few responses.   :p   But, if you want to know if there are people who hold the same POV, yes, there are.     PS is not an option I would ever want to consider for our kids.   Could there be some unforeseen tragedy that might FORCE us to accept it as the only viable alternative?   Always a possibility.   But, WILLINGLY, nope, never.  :)

 

I have been homeschooling for 20 yrs.  So, educationally, I know what it is to face educational hurdles and enable my kids to be successful in overcoming them. 

 

I still have a long way to go before I finish.   With God's will for life and good health, I hope to keep on homeschooling until my fairly new 4 yr old graduates from high school (so there are at least 14 more yrs to go).  

 

When people push us toward ps (and yes, we have heard all the comments),  I am simply factual.   Public schools do not offer the education we want for our children.   We have very specific educational objectives for our kids and we know how to help them achieve their goals.   I make no apologies for my position.   I discuss it politely.   I never make comments to people about their educational choices.   But, if they want to wander into that territory with me and tell me that I need to reconsider ps, they are the ones that opened the door to the conversation.   I don't ask them to validate their choice of ps to me.   But I will most definitely validate my choice to homeschool with polite but firm conviction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the bolded. She specifically states that friends were always pressuring her and that "for our children" it's not an option "for us." Is she not allowed to make statements about what she's decided for her own children? We all have a different set of circumstances. It was reasonable for her to ask on a homeschool board if anyone else feels this way.


"By definition smug"? No, I disagree. Like I said -- we all have a different set of circumstances and know what best suits our own families and situations. My family has severe allergic reactions to certain foods and food additives. Because of this, we won't feed our kids at McDonalds. We generally have to plan to pay more somewhere else to meet the needs of our own children. Would it be smug to say that we would never feed our kids at McDonalds to friends who were trying to convince me to do what I know would not be in the best interest of my own children?

eta: One could even make an argument that the friends who were trying to convince me to do what they were doing could be considered smug.

What if I have philosophical objections to McDonalds? I don't, but I know people who do. Would I be allowed to state and stand on my philosophical objections? Is making and stating decisions based on conviction for our own families smug? I don't think so.

I don't disagree that it is rude for others to try and convince the OP to use school since they use school.

There is a large difference between "will not" and "can not". Being able to see when our "will nots" may change is part of not being an ideologue.

I used to say I would never homeschool. I used to say I would never be a SAHP. Mind you I never said those things to people IRL who were homeschooling and staying home. Thank goodness for my family that I care more about works when it works than I do about sticking to a set of ideological values. What if her child is accepted to and desperately wishes to attend a magnet school? here we have something called Aviation High School that is an amazing opportunity. It's not a virtue to put ideology ahead of people, more so when those people are our children.

My honest opinion is that when people have to say something inflexibly and loudly, they are mostly talking to themselves and their own set of insecurities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine and dandy. But this holds for people whose children are in public school, too, as well as private, as well as homeschoolers. Not every homeschooled kid is home in order to have a great education. Some are there because they have a non-academic objection to schools, including all those celebrities who travel a lot. I find this attitude that "we" are superior, utterly ridiculous.

What is the point of saying one will, say, never have another child, or ever divorce one's husband? I have heard plenty of people advertise that this is their last, blah blah, and then there comes another one. What purpose does that serve?


Exactly. I don't need to say "I will never divorce". It goes without saying that my marriage is rock solid but what if my husband changed and did something unforgivable (like abuse our children?) I seriously doubt that would happen but if it did, it also goes without saying that my children's safety trumps my marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that it is rude for others to try and convince the OP to use school since they use school.

There is a large difference between "will not" and "can not". Being able to see when our "will nots" may change is part of not being an ideologue.

I used to say I would never homeschool. I used to say I would never be a SAHP. Mind you I never said those things to people IRL who were homeschooling and staying home. Thank goodness for my family that I care more about works when it works than I do about sticking to a set of ideological values. What if her child is accepted to and desperately wishes to attend a magnet school? here we have something called Aviation High School that is an amazing opportunity. It's not a virtue to put ideology ahead of people, more so when those people are our children.

My honest opinion is that when people have to say something inflexibly and loudly, they are mostly talking to themselves and their own set of insecurities.

 

Or perhaps that opinion reflects your own insecurities?   I have zero insecurities about staying PS is not an option I would ever willingly consider.     Would I have said it 20 yrs ago?   Yes.   At that point homeschooling was not what we were considering.   After my student teaching semester, we made the decision that ps was not an option for our kids.   We had decided that we would send our kids to private school.   We started homeschooling completely accidently.

 

But, I have lots of things that I am firmly convicted about and am 100% inflexible on my position.   I am 100% Christian.   I am 100% devoted to marriage regardless of circumstances.   If my dh made the decision to divorce me, I would remain single.   Those are convictions based upon principles that I am inflexible on my position.    It isn't insecurity.   It is core values.  

 

I have a strong enough opinion about ps education to definitively state I would never use it willingly.   And trust me, insecurity is not a problem I have.  ;)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being flexible and open to growth is not lacking in core principles.

 

Excuse me, but I never said that it was.   Your implication was that people that stated that they were unwilling to be flexible meant that they had insecurities over their positions.   That is absolutely bogus.    There are things that people have deep convictions about that they should have zero qualms about being inflexible over their beliefs.   It would be like suggesting perhaps Jews and Muslims should consider eating pork.   The person making that suggestion is the one with problem, not the ones holding firm to deeply held beliefs.   They not need to "be flexible and open to growth."   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we started homeschooling, I knew nothing about homeschooling. We specifically moved into an area considered the holy grail of schools to send our son to the public school. Then, he went there for two years and it was a soul crushing, life sucking experience. My son and I came out of the experience burned out, scarred even. We started homeschooling and never looked back. I would never send my son to the public school, ever. Seriously, I would not even consider a private school anymore. There are tons of options out there for study at home, that I know I can make it work, even if I got ill or there was a loss of work. 

And pardon me, but I do not particularly care if I offend public school parents when I say never. Because, if I had a penny, every time a public school parent in the diversity rich, open minded part of the world where I live, told me that they would NEVER homeschool, I would now be living in the Caribbean and have private tutors to teach my child. 

 

And to reply to the original post. I do feel very lonely sometimes and against the tides. As my son grows older, more and more parents choose to send their kids to private school mostly but also public school. There are less live classes, less opportunities for him for social interaction. And I do live in a neighborhood that people are really discriminating against us, because we homeschool. I do not go around telling public school parents to start homeschooling. I get it that some kids thrive in school. But my son thrives in the homeschool setting and I wish people respected our choices, like we respect theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that people have strongly held beliefs.  I get that; I use to be a very staunch believer that homeschooling was the only way our family would ever educate our children.  Boy did I make God laugh!   But to say things like public schools are cesspools or things like burnout are an excuse to use schools is hurtful to others even if that wasn't the intention.  We all are different and different things work for different people.  If public school is never an option for you, great.  Same thing for those open to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true in some cases, but not in others. Having core principles one is not willing to give up is not inflexible or closed to growth either. It is being convinced you have found the right path so much that you don't need to make any changes.

Would you feel the same way if this was not about homeschooling, but about something else? Let's take 8's comments about being committed to marriage. Is it smug to say you would never consider divorce or would never consider marrying someone else? I don't think so — it is being committed.

It can be smug depending on when and how it is said and to who. To someone who just filed for divorce for example.


And horrible things do happen. While a very remote possibility, I can see a theoretical situation in which I would do just about anything, including divorce. I'm not one to stand by a child abuser, for example.

It is fine to say never. But don't get your feelings hurt when people say otherwise for themselves. And at least attempt to be self aware about how others may view or hear your words. People don't need to say these things in just about any context unless they are trying to make themselves feel better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again...

 

Why are people resentful if someone has enough money to say they would never send their kids to public school, regardless of whether they had to save/scrape) or of they came into it some other way? The "never say never" crowd seems to focus on aspects such as death, job loss, divorce, etc. OP is not saying she would always homeschool, just that if she couldn't homeschool she would use private school. If her family is in a position to afford that financially, so what?

 

I mentioned upthread my very wealthy friend who homeschools. Is he allowed to say he would never use public school? If he could not homeschool he would send his kids to private school. He has multiple billion of dollars, and his children's ability to attend a private school would never be affected by divorce, job loss, or death.

 

I ask again, since nobody answered my question the first time, how much money/insurance does someone have to have before they are "allowed" to hold this opinion of never using public school?  If you really want to be specific, please use your intimate knowledge of OP's cost of living, savings, retirement plans, college funds, taxes and incomes. Oh and any assets she or other family members may be in line to inherit. But that might be...smug.

 

So, seriously, how much? That's what it really boils down to, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again...

Why are people resentful if someone has enough money to say they would never send their kids to public school, regardless of whether they had to save/scrape) or of they came into it some other way? The "never say never" crowd seems to focus on aspects such as death, job loss, divorce, etc. OP is not saying she would always homeschool, just that if she couldn't homeschool she would use private school. If her family is in a position to afford that financially, so what?

I mentioned upthread my very wealthy friend who homeschools. Is he allowed to say he would never use public school? If he could not homeschool he would send his kids to private school. He has multiple billion of dollars, and his children's ability to attend a private school would never be affected by divorce, job loss, or death.

I ask again, since nobody answered my question the first time, how much money/insurance does someone have to have before they are "allowed" to hold this opinion of never using public school? If you really want to be specific, please use your intimate knowledge of OP's cost of living, savings, retirement plans, college funds, taxes and incomes. Oh and any assets she or other family members may be in line to inherit. But that might be...smug.

So, seriously, how much? That's what it really boils down to, isn't it?


for me, it's not about money. It's about not making my kids reflections of my political and ideological beliefs. If my older child wanted to attend a school we could afford (public or private), I would hear him out before deciding and would heavily lean towards letting him choose.

Perhaps because I've already BTDT about radically adjusting my educational choices to best serve my son I just don't see this as what I like or want best. I see it as being open to whatever is best for my individual children and family. I have first hand experience with needing to make a radical adjustment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many things I am very firm in saying that I will never do. I stand by them. It is ridiculous to say I am unopen to growth because of them.  

Welcome to the relativistic society where everything's equal and if you can't entertain the thought of doing anything, you're an individual who is unwilling to grow. 


It's funny how a staunchly held belief -which isn't even imposed on any other family- is attacked, as if just HOLDING a  core belief in itself is wrong. Go figure. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having core principles is not being smug. 

Saying you'll never get divorced may, in some cases, be more about self-delusion than devotion to a marriage or religious beliefs. Fine to want to stay married. I personally vote against staying with a man who is abusive, has declared he is gay or likes prostitutes or wants to be with a younger woman or wants to be identified as female, or has molested one's daughter -- these are all reasons that are not really about the wife's "failures," but are darned good reasons to get divorced, in my opinion. And to suggest this firm belief against divorce alone makes one superior to someone else who wants or had or might be willing to get a divorce is also showing some unpleasant behaviors, in my opinion. I have a close relative whose friend's supposed beliefs about maintaining Christian marriage meant that she refused to provide assistance / rescue from spousal abuse. So I'm not always impressed by how some people choose to apply their principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but I never said that it was. Your implication was that people that stated that they were unwilling to be flexible meant that they had insecurities over their positions. That is absolutely bogus. There are things that people have deep convictions about that they should have zero qualms about being inflexible over their beliefs. It would be like suggesting perhaps Jews and Muslims should consider eating pork. The person making that suggestion is the one with problem, not the ones holding firm to deeply held beliefs. They not need to "be flexible and open to growth."

To be precise I said when people need to say something loudly and inflexibly I think it says more about their insecurities than anything else. Thou dost protest too much and all that. I may be totally wrong but that is the pattern I see with a lot of parents. I would rather focus on what I will do than dwell on things I oppose or am against. That's just me.

We all have some level of insecurities about something somewhere. But I can truthfully say that mine have nothing to do with things as mundane as homeschooling. For me homeschooling is means to an end, not the means themselves or something I hold closely to my identity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be smug depending on when and how it is said and to who. To someone who just filed for divorce for example.


And horrible things do happen. While a very remote possibility, I can see a theoretical situation in which I would do just about anything, including divorce. I'm not one to stand by a child abuser, for example.

It is fine to say never. But don't get your feelings hurt when people say otherwise for themselves. And at least attempt to be self aware about how others may view or hear your words. People don't need to say these things in just about any context unless they are trying to make themselves feel better.

 

The OP stated that people were confronting her about not sending her kids to ps and forcing her to justify her position on homeschooling.   If someone makes comments about someone else's choices, they have opened the door to the person defending their position.

 

Either way, the main distinction is between who is confronting whom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying you'll never get divorced may, in some cases, be more about self-delusion than devotion to a marriage or religious beliefs. Fine to want to stay married. But to insist on wanting to staying married to a man who is abusive, has declared he is gay or likes prostitutes or wants to be with a younger women or wants to be identified as female, or has molested one's daughter, are a host of other reasons that are not about the wife, but are darned good reasons to get divorced, in my opinion. And to suggest this alone makes one superior to someone else who wants or had a divorce is also showing some unpleasant behaviors, in my opinion. I have a close relative whose friend's supposed beliefs about maintaining Christian marriage meant that she refused to provide assistance / rescue from spousal abuse. So I'm not always impressed by how some people choose to apply their principles.

 

I think you're interpreting that wrong (not that they are communicating it well, either). 

I think, what people who are saying they will not divorce are trying to communicate is that They, themselves in charge of their own person, would not be willing to be divorced. I don't think they are speaking for actions like you stated. 

 

I also think that having these disqualifiers about your mate isn't a good practice, either. Even in the realm of hypothetical instances on internet discussions. To presuppose your mate is going to sin against you ... like I said, even in the hypothetical, not a good place to go. For discussions like this I think another analogy would be better suited. 





 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying you'll never get divorced may, in some cases, be more about self-delusion than devotion to a marriage or religious beliefs. Fine to want to stay married. I personally vote against staying with a man who is abusive, has declared he is gay or likes prostitutes or wants to be with a younger woman or wants to be identified as female, or has molested one's daughter -- these are all reasons that are not really about the wife's "failures," but are darned good reasons to get divorced, in my opinion. And to suggest this firm belief against divorce alone makes one superior to someone else who wants or had or might be willing to get a divorce is also showing some unpleasant behaviors, in my opinion. I have a close relative whose friend's supposed beliefs about maintaining Christian marriage meant that she refused to provide assistance / rescue from spousal abuse. So I'm not always impressed by how some people choose to apply their principles.

 

It is beyond the scope of this conversation to get into theological discussions.   But I sincerely do not believe I could ever not be sacramentally married to my husband.   I can be "not legally" married to him which in today's terms is simply a legal divorce.   But I would still consider myself married in the sense that I am not free to remarry.   It is why I specifically stated that if my dh divorced me that I would remain single.   It was an attempt to acknowledge that there are times when divorce occurs, but  that does not mean it changes my convictions about what marriage actually means.

 

It is not self-delusion.   It is a deeply held religious belief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is beyond the scope of this conversation to get into theological discussions.   But I sincerely do not believe I could ever not be sacramentally married to my husband.   I can be "not legally" married to him which in today's terms is simply a legal divorce.   But I would still consider myself married in the sense that I am not free to remarry.   It is why I specifically stated that if my dh divorced me that I would remain single.   It was an attempt to acknowledge that there are times when divorce occurs, but  that does not mean it changes my convictions about what marriage actually means.

 

It is not self-delusion.   It is a deeply held religious belief. 

 

Precisely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me, it's not about money. It's about not making my kids reflections of my political and ideological beliefs. If my older child wanted to attend a school we could afford (public or private), I would hear him out before deciding and would heavily lean towards letting him choose.

Perhaps because I've already BTDT about radically adjusting my educational choices to best serve my son I just don't see this as what I like or want best. I see it as being open to whatever is best for my individual children and family. I have first hand experience with needing to make a radical adjustment.

 

 

Ok, you're exempt.  :lol:  And I actually agree with you more than I agree with the OP's point of view.

 

But I stand by my assertion that most of the reasoning on this thread has to do with life changes that impact financial abilities, and that if someone explains they've sacrificed to insulate themselves financially, that's considered smug. Or worse, that it  translates into literally telling other people they don't care about their children enough.

 

That's what's happened in this thread. Sheldon was told she wasn't considering the things that could go wrong and she then explained she could afford private school regardless. Then she was told she was lucky she could afford it. When she explained her family had sacrificed to make it happen, she was accused of literally telling other people that they didn't care enough about their kids.

 

And my question still stands in general to those (not you) who say Sheldon should "never say never" because unexpected problems happen in life. What should someone's net worth be before they are allowed to confidently state they will never use public school? And if someone's up for it, Sheldon's net worth specifically. US dollars or local currency is fine.

 

:toetap05:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, I'm just so happy that this cheerful and lighthearted thread got bumped back up to the top again. :rolleyes:

I'm still reading the responses, but it looks like things are still pretty much exactly as they were when we left off.

Sheldon is probably wishing she'd never started the thread at all. I'm sure she had no idea that it was going to turn into a huge debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I checked idnib no one is exempt from losing money or having a change of circumstances. I know more than a few Microsoft or other tech millionaires who thought they would never need to work again who came out of retirement to make up for the recession or because the recession and another calamity (family illness, divorce) hit them. Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, I'm just so happy that this cheerful and lighthearted thread got bumped back up to the top again. :rolleyes:

I'm still reading the responses, but it looks like things are still pretty much exactly as they were when we left off.

Sheldon is probably wishing she'd never started the thread at all. I'm sure she had no idea that it was going to turn into a huge debate.

I am unware that all discussions need to be approved by the cheerful and lighthearted police. Is there a sunshine and roses committee that one needs to submit their posts to for preapproval?

No one that I have seen, including the OP, has said anything against the board rules. Not even posts I totally disagree with, lol. I find the discussion interesting and illuminating because of the discourse and disagreement. If someone wants an echo chamber I don't think they can find it on an open internet forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised. I can send you links if you like :).

Thanks, but I have to uh, wash my hair.

oh wait, I actually do need to wash my hair. Darnit. I now need a better hollow comedic excuse.

-signed, the woman who has hair quite a bit past her shoulders for the first time in her adult life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel torn on this topic because I do respect everyone's right to choose and I have great respect for 8 and justamouse. However, I feel great sympathy for those that although fully dedicated to hs'ing will not or cannot continue long term due to the finances or other reasons. I would find some of the comments very hurtful if I was in that position, sometimes you just cannot make it work and that doesn't mean that you are any less committed.

 

Also, I personally know more than a couple of families right now of the only hs mindset that are just not schooling their kids. We can dress it up and call it unschooling but the reality is the kids are getting no schooling and the parents think this is perfectly ok, college educated parents mind you. Of course they believe their education is still yet better than that from the ps. No matter if they are suited to hs or really wish to actually school them they are so mired in the hs philosophy that they refuse to consider any other option. There are educational choices far, far worse than ps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel torn on this topic because I do respect everyone's right to choose and I have great respect for 8 and justamouse. However, I feel great sympathy for those that although fully dedicated to hs'ing will not or cannot continue long term due to the finances or other reasons. I would find some of the comments very hurtful if I was in that position, sometimes you just cannot make it work and that doesn't mean that you are any less committed.

 

 

I think that's the thing, though, no one was saying they weren't committed to their kids. Those people who would decide to put their kids back in school judged THEMSELVES and then get angry at Sheldon. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel torn on this topic because I do respect everyone's right to choose and I have great respect for 8 and justamouse. However, I feel great sympathy for those that although fully dedicated to hs'ing will not or cannot continue long term due to the finances or other reasons. I would find some of the comments very hurtful if I was in that position, sometimes you just cannot make it work and that doesn't mean that you are any less committed.

 

Also, I personally know more than a couple of families right now of the only hs mindset that are just not schooling their kids. We can dress it up and call it unschooling but the reality is the kids are getting no schooling and the parents think this is perfectly ok, college educated parents mind you. Of course they believe their education is still yet better than that from the ps. No matter if they are suited to hs or really wish to actually school them they are so mired in the hs philosophy that they refuse to consider any other option. There are educational choices far, far worse than ps. 

I'm sorry you feel that way Soror b/c my statements have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.   They are decisions we hold for our family.   What I choose to do or believe is best for my family has absolutely no bearing on anyone else's choices.   If I state that I will not willingly send my children to ps, it is not a commentary on anyone else's choices.  

 

FWIW, I absolutely do not believe that homeschooling is the right choice for everyone.   Far from it.   But, what is right for others has zero influence on what I believe is best for my own family and that is what the OP was posting about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I checked idnib no one is exempt from losing money or having a change of circumstances. I know more than a few Microsoft or other tech millionaires who thought they would never need to work again who came out of retirement to make up for the recession or because the recession and another calamity (family illness, divorce) hit them. Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans.

 

 

Okay, so a person needs more than a few million to be allowed to make a statement, then? Anyone for higher? Do I hear $10 million? Going once, going twice...  ;)

 

It may seem I'm making a specious argument, but it's legitimate to ask who is insulated enough to make a definite statement about their convictions without being harangued.

 

If Bill Gates appeared on WTM and said his children would never go to public school, nobody would question him. Who seriously would tell him everyone has changes in life and circumstances and that he can't possibly predict the future of his marriage, the value of MSFT, illness, death, etc. And if they did, at least they would have access to some information about him such as his net worth, value of his house, the schools his kids go to and how much they cost, etc. It can all be found via Google. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has that info about Sheldon.

 

If people agree that a few million is not enough to hold this view, and Bill Gates is rich enough, at least we have boxed in a range.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am unware that all discussions need to be approved by the cheerful and lighthearted police. Is there a sunshine and roses committee that one needs to submit their posts to for preapproval?
No one that I have seen, including the OP, has said anything against the board rules. Not even posts I totally disagree with, lol. I find the discussion interesting and illuminating because of the discourse and disagreement. If someone wants an echo chamber I don't think they can find it on an open internet forum.


Maybe it's just me -- and quite possibly it's just me -- but I'm not seeing anything new or illuminating about it. We're just rehashing the same things that have already been said over and over again.

I didn't say anything about it being against board rules, either. I just think it's kind of unfortunate that a few people seem determined to prove that Sheldon had some sort of ill intent when she started this thread. Even if they are absolutely right about it, I should think at some point it would be time to let it go.

We have already had a few threads get locked within the past few days because people started getting nasty and calling names. I'm hoping this thread doesn't end up the same way. I don't care about "sunshine and roses," but if someone is accused of having an ulterior motive and that person says that wasn't the case at all, it seems a bit unfair when people keep harping on it. I can absolutely understand why they would want to clarify and explain why they interpreted a particular post in a certain way, but to keep arguing with the OP about what she really meant or what she was really implying seems futile at best.

Some of the posters here are having a civil discussion about the actual topic, and it would be nice if everyone else would do the same.

But again, I'm not the forum police, just someone who is getting tired of seeing threads go south for no good reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so a person needs more than a few million to be allowed to make a statement, then? Anyone for higher? Do I hear $10 million? Going once, going twice... ;)

It may seem I'm making a specious argument, but it's legitimate to ask who is insulated enough to make a definite statement about their convictions without being harangued.

If Bill Gates appeared on WTM and said his children would never go to public school, nobody would question him. Who seriously would tell him everyone has changes in life and circumstances and that he can't possibly predict the future of his marriage, the value of MSFT, illness, death, etc. And if they did, at least they would have access to some information about him such as his net worth, value of his house, the schools his kids go to and how much they cost, etc. It can all be found via Google. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has that info about Sheldon.

If people agree that a few million is not enough to hold this view, and Bill Gates is rich enough, at least we have boxed in a range. :)


I guess I don't see why it matters to say that for most of us, at some time or the other, life comes with some uncertainity.

I just came home from sorting through the rummage sale of Bill Gate's kids' school. hey, it was fill a garbage bag for $20 day! Sweet. It's $30k a year for 6 years. For most anyone, college or not; hardworking or not; dedicated or not, that is not a sticker price in reach. I deal in my reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about money either — it's about reasons for being opposed to public school. Those are very personal, and someone's statement that they would never consider public school to be an option has nothing to do with other people. There doesn't have to be any judgement of others. 

 

Take this very personal statement I'll probably be attacked for now. I started homeschooling for a great many reasons. Now that we've been at it a few years, I see the positives of homeschooling more than the negatives of public school and I can say I homeschool mainly for academic reasons. However, one important reason I would not consider public school is that I know my kids would be discriminated against there.

 

We live in a country that saw ethnically-motivated wars over the last several decades. These things are still very fresh in people's minds. And my husband belonged to the "wrong" ethnicity. People of that ethnicity "stole" (the view of the majority ethnicity) part of this country within the last decade and declared it to be a sovereign state. I don't want my kids to be accused of being "filthy [insert ethnicity]" who are partly responsible for "stealing" that territory on a daily basis. I don't want classmates' parents forbidding their kids to play with my kids. I don't want teachers giving them bad grades just for being of the wrong ethnicity, This is happening to kids of the same ethnicity, and I don't want that happening to mine. 

 

This has little to do with being smug. Maybe it is even cowardly. But it is one powerful reason I don't want my kids in public school, and why a whole lot would need to happen before I would even remotely consider it to be an option.

 

I absolutely understand and respect that (the bolded).  I will confidently say that I'll never send my son to public school.  It has nothing to do with anyone else's circumstances or reasons than my own.  In a nutshell, the viable public school options available simply do not live up to MY standards for the most basic education.  Even if I lowered my standards considerably, the public school options still wouldn't meet those lowered standards.  So, even though it has been difficult, in many ways, to continue homeschooling, we continue nonetheless and will continue until ds has completed high school. 

 

Decisions that others make regarding their own children's education are none of my business and do not configure into my decisions for my child.  I fully respect those who choose to keep public school an option for their children.  I give them the benefit of the doubt that they know what is best for their children and their circumstances.  I only ask that they give me the same consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me -- and quite possibly it's just me -- but I'm not seeing anything new or illuminating about it. We're just rehashing the same things that have already been said over and over again.

I didn't say anything about it being against board rules, either. I just think it's kind of unfortunate that a few people seem determined to prove that Sheldon had some sort of ill intent when she started this thread. Even if they are absolutely right about it, I should think at some point it would be time to let it go.

We have already had a few threads get locked within the past few days because people started getting nasty and calling names. I'm hoping this thread doesn't end up the same way. I don't care about "sunshine and roses," but if someone is accused of having an ulterior motive and that person says that wasn't the case at all, it seems a bit unfair when people keep harping on it. I can absolutely understand why they would want to clarify and explain why they interpreted a particular post in a certain way, but to keep arguing with the OP about what she really meant or what she was really implying seems futile at best.

Some of the posters here are having a civil discussion about the actual topic, and it would be nice if everyone else would do the same.

But again, I'm not the forum police, just someone who is getting tired of seeing threads go south for no good reason.

 

I think it is just you.  I don't see any reason for pre-emptive "hand-slapping" in threads that are not going south.  This is not the only thread you've done it to in the past few days either (there is a JAWM thread, e.g.).  While I dislike cyber-fighting, too, I think it's worth taking a step back and not jumping the gun, so to speak, so others have a chance to talk before being shushed.

 

As for rehashing... remember that while you and I have seen many of these discussions a dozen times over the years, there are always new members who haven't.  They are entitled to engage in discussion without pre-emptive censorship, even if it's an old-hat topic to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me -- and quite possibly it's just me -- but I'm not seeing anything new or illuminating about it. We're just rehashing the same things that have already been said over and over again.

I didn't say anything about it being against board rules, either. I just think it's kind of unfortunate that a few people seem determined to prove that Sheldon had some sort of ill intent when she started this thread. Even if they are absolutely right about it, I should think at some point it would be time to let it go.

We have already had a few threads get locked within the past few days because people started getting nasty and calling names. I'm hoping this thread doesn't end up the same way. I don't care about "sunshine and roses," but if someone is accused of having an ulterior motive and that person says that wasn't the case at all, it seems a bit unfair when people keep harping on it. I can absolutely understand why they would want to clarify and explain why they interpreted a particular post in a certain way, but to keep arguing with the OP about what she really meant or what she was really implying seems futile at best.

Some of the posters here are having a civil discussion about the actual topic, and it would be nice if everyone else would do the same.

But again, I'm not the forum police, just someone who is getting tired of seeing threads go south for no good reason.

Look Cat, I have no problem with you. But you make these type of posts a lot, on a lot of different threads. It really does come across as you being the self appointed board police sometimes. I am sure that isn't your intent. It used to be you'd do it when a thread went south. Now it seems to be preemptive at times. I don't know if it helps make a thread better honestly. I don't see where people are being uncivil on this thread though I can't claim to have read every single post either, so maybe I am just missing something. Personally, I am not out to prove anything about Sheldon or her intent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...