US Homeschoolers and abandoning the coomon good?

[stripe]

I am not sure what to make of the article or the reaction, since the author does say homeschooling itself isn't the issue, but I have to also say, my mother had little to do with the school when I was a kid. She didn't volunteer or join the PTA or anything aside from occasionally advocating for me with administration/teachers, and generally encouraging me at home. So I am not really sure what all is expected in terms of reasonable parental involvement.

[OneStepAtATime]

I am not sure what to make of the article or the reaction, since the author does say homeschooling itself isn't the issue, but I have to also say, my mother had little to do with the school when I was a kid. She didn't volunteer or join the PTA or anything aside from occasionally advocating for me with administration/teachers, and generally encouraging me at home. So I am not really sure what all is expected in terms of reasonable parental involvement.

This.  My parents valued education.  They truly cared.  But I don't recall them doing much of anything at the school.  In fact, except for the PTA meetings, I don't recall either one of them doing ANYTHING at the school.  Even when Mom had taken a hiatus from working full-time for a few years as a teacher and was staying home with us I don't think she ever came to the school.  And no other parents did, either.  I honestly don't remember any other parent there.  And Mom didn't talk directly to any of my teachers except at parent/teacher night one night a year or at choir performances or awards ceremonies.  I got dropped off, I attended my classes, I came home.  There was virtually no direct involvement that I ever saw between parents and teachers unless there were behavioral issues with a particular student.   If I had homework (which was not all the time) or a project, I did them without a lot of direct input either unless I was struggling or needed supplies or something.  And that was what the school expected.  The school handled my education and my parents handled the parenting.  I realize now that this is not necessarily the best way to educate a child but this was the norm, at least in our area, when I was a kid.

 

It puzzles me a bit.  I agree wholeheartedly that parents should be involved in their child's education.  I have worked hard for years, inside the system and then as a homeschooler, to help educate my children and I don't regret that involvement at all.  My ps teacher mother now agrees and is my staunchest support for homeschooling since ps was such a failure for my kids personally.  

 

But why are parents (who frequently now both work instead of having more SAHMs like when I was a kid) expected to be involved so much more in the ps system now than when I was a child?  Is it because the system is struggling so much the trend is that more and more parents feel they HAVE to get involved to give their kids a fighting chance so schools are just expecting this now?  I don't know.  Maybe my observations are way off.  

[momacacia]

I pay property taxes which primarily fund the public school system (and from what I hear aren't used terribly responsibly). If they can't manage my money any better, why would I send them my kids?

[Gil]

Well, we tried PS and HS and I can say that in both situations that I honestly don't care about the other kids. So now what?

[Luckymama]

What I love best about this classic argument against homeschooling is that not only am I hurting the common good of the public school system by "opting out," I am also - so I've been told - damaging the parochial schools, and thus undermining the Catholic community, by "opting out" of them. Two school systems at once!

Oh yeah. I'm sick and tired of that part of the argument.

[hjffkj]

What I love best about this classic argument against homeschooling is that not only am I hurting the common good of the public school system by "opting out," I am also - so I've been told - damaging the parochial schools, and thus undermining the Catholic community, by "opting out" of them. Two school systems at once!

I have not experienced that but I think it's because the majority of the other Catholics I associate with regularly are also planning on homeschooling because the Catholic schools around here have turned into glorified public schools. Even disciplinary issues don't get handled properly because they are too worried about losing someone's tuition. However, my friend who pulled her 4 kids out of catholic school last year to homeschool was basically shunned by that community. They were mad at her for choosing her children over what's best for the school. But after many years of the school not handling a bully situation that escalated he year she left she had no other option.

[wapiti]

What makes a school good involves many factors. I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it's a mistake to believe that parent involvement in school itself is such a significant contribution to making a school good. For example, I don't think parental involvement can make up for lame teachers or dumb administrators who choose bad curricula, etc.

 

I think what is most important for an individual student is the culture of valuing education that is cultivated in the home. It might not even be explicit.

 

I doubt that such culture is especially transferable to students who don't come from families who value education - just a gut guess, but for those students, a special teacher who takes them under his/her wing might be more effective, as a sort of family culture substitute.

 

Schools evaluated on the aggregation of test scores without an eye toward individual growth will always appear better if they contain lots of students who value education. But, that doesn't necessarily rub off on the kid sitting next to them, and doesn't necessarily mean that the other kid gets a substantially better education. Quieter classroom perhaps. Learning involves work within the self, a certain amount of effort, even if it is only in tiny bits one assignment at a time, and kids who do not put forth that effort cannot learn no matter how good the other factors are.

[PeachyDoodle]

What I love best about this classic argument against homeschooling is that not only am I hurting the common good of the public school system by "opting out," I am also - so I've been told - damaging the parochial schools, and thus undermining the Catholic community, by "opting out" of them. Two school systems at once!

 

Well, now you're just making the rest of us look like underachievers... ;)

[snowbeltmom]

For example, I don't think parental involvement can make up for lame teachers or dumb administrators who choose bad curricula, etc.

I agree. Bad curricula choices was the main motivation for me to begin homeschooling. As the kids got older, it became more difficult time-wise to teach them at home in the evening what they should have been learning during the day in school.

 

At least in my district, parents have zero input into the curricula choices that are made, and some of those choices have been horrid.

[brehon]

What I love best about this classic argument against homeschooling is that not only am I hurting the common good of the public school system by "opting out," I am also - so I've been told - damaging the parochial schools, and thus undermining the Catholic community, by "opting out" of them. Two school systems at once!

 

Erm, yes. No, Can I Have An AMEN, YES!  

 

(And I think you know of what I speak, mmm? My reply was when the school in question met my academic requirements and met my kids where they were currently at I'd consider enrolling them. Went over like a ton of bricks.)

[Lovingparent]

The schools don't actually WANT real parent involvement in the day-to-day operations. They SAY that they value parent involvement, but what that actually means is that they want parental money and free labor to use primarily for fundraising activities.

 

 

I cannot like this enough. That was my experience too. 

School : "Shut up, give us money and volunteer"

Me : "Bye"

[OneStepAtATime]

I cannot like this enough. That was my experience too. 

School : "Shut up, give us money and volunteer"

Me : "Bye"

Mindlessly volunteer.  Please don't bring your brain or opinions, however great your background knowledge.  

 

....unless you 100% agree with everything we are doing.  Then yes please feel free to express your opinion and leap in to do the bulk of the work.

[Crimson Wife]

An outsider could look at me and claim that I only started volunteering in the PS when I had a child enrolled in it.

 

Which is true on the face of it, but what's missing from the initial view is that prior to my youngest child being enrolled in PS special ed preschool I always had a toddler underfoot so volunteering would've required me to pay someone else to watch said toddler. Sorry, not going to happen.

 

Also missing from the initial view is that my motivations aren't purely altruistic. I'm currently in the process of putting together a grad school application and I didn't have anything remotely recent in terms of work experience or someone to write me a letter of recommendation. I suspect a LOT of SAHM's who start volunteering at their kids' schools are doing as much for themselves as for the school.

[mamabear2three]

We started homeschooling in a good school district - people looked at us like we had 3 heads because the schools are KNOWN to be REALLY good. My choice, I told them. For those who actually cared, I shared my reasons. 

 

Now we live in a neighborhood zoned for a really bad school - lowest test scores in the entire district... I figure homeschooling is my civic duty to the school - that way they have my money and not my crazy mama bear self in the school fighting for my kids to get a decent education. As a previous teacher I know what a drain parents are who fight the system. Teachers and administration alike dread them. nothing changes because of them, except maybe that the kid is labeled as the kid with "that parent" and still nothing changes.

 

So yeah, I'm contributing to the community through my taxes and my lack of added strain on the system! 

[mamabear2three]

oh yeah, and my husband is a public school teacher - underpaid (working 3 jobs to cover the bills), and is now sharing is classroom this year because of lack of space issues.... anyway, I contribute through him :)

[regentrude]

Of course not.  But any program runs better when more parents pitch in and that includes schools.  Even if the schools were well funded and run, parents volunteering and being involved would be a part of that picture.  The sort of charter and private schools that many on this board do consider "good" often have solid parent involvement and that's part of what makes them good schools.

 

That is not necessarily true.

I find that the huge amounts of parental involvement in the mediocre schools in this country still leaves them far behind schools elsewhere in the world where there is no culture of parent volunteering, but where classes are taught by well trained teachers with subject expertise.

No amount of moms milling around a classroom will make up for math teachers with insufficient grasp of their subject.

 

Other countries manage to educate their public school students without relying on untrained parent volunteers.

[skueppers]

I attended public school, even though I had the opportunity to attend private schools, because my parents believed that it was their duty to society to send their children to public school.

 

They believed that, as parents who cared about education, opting out would harm the community as a whole.

 

Obviously, I've made a different decision for my own family, but I do think there is truth to it.

 

It seems to me that there are philosophical issues at play here -- what kind of duties do we have to society? What are our responsibilities to serve others? And even, what is the purpose of having children?

[EmilyGF]

We live in a community that is wealthy but where only the poor send their kids to public school. Houses in our neighborhood run upwards of 400K (at the low end) but percentage of kids below the poverty line in our neighborhood schools is something like 95%.

 

However, the problems here are first and foremost private schools, not homeschoolers! Also, the big bureaucracy that is trying to make all schools the same, regardless of the community, is currently in the process of making sure all middle-class parents take their kids out of public school. Ugh. This has not been a good year for middle-class parents in our community. Sigh.

 

One reason I wanted to homeschool was that my mother spent all her time fighting the schools. Their goal? The same education for every child, regardless of whether it was appropriate. I didn't want my life to be spent fighting the schools (which hardly seems like a helpful thing...). 

[In The Great White North]

I don't think they really want parental help at all.  

 

What they really want is the kids of parents who value education to raise the average of their test scores so the school looks better.  Nothing changes in the classroom: the texts are the same, the teachers are the same, the rules are the same.  All that changes is the average test score.

 

You see a similar effect when a college starts using the Common App and their number of applicants goes up, resulting in the acceptance rate going down (ie. becoming more exclusive) and their ranking going up.  With no change in the education at all.

[LucyStoner]

My children are not sacrificial lambs. Enough said.

[SKL]

I thought taking challenging kids out of the school system was freeing up resources so teachers could help whoever was left.

 

I love the way they imply that people who do send their kids to school are doing it because they care more about other people's kids.

 

Riiiiiight.

 

And it seems to me that homeschoolers are no less concerned about the schools in their communities than anyone else.  Maybe some don't care, but some ps parents don't care much either.  And where does that leave parents with kids in private schools (like me)?

 

Also.  By this logic, nobody should feed their kids at home, because that means they don't care enough about whether other people's kids eat well.  Everyone should converge on a community dining hall and work together to demand nutritious food for all!  Right?

[Lucy the Valiant]

The author is forgetting the school had a part in that social contract. The school walked away from its end of the bargain at the beginning of nclb when enrichment was jettisoned, grouping by instructional need was abandoned, and violent children were put in the regular classroom, now taught at a slow pace and depth for the benefit of the abused.. Now we are so far down the road that seniors who arent remedial cant even fill their schedule.

 

Agree.

 

Where we live, the home schooled & private schooled kids are the ones being rescued FROM abandonment (by the school), hardly the ones doing the abandoning.

[jewellsmommy]

I think the author is naive. I could write an article about how every stable family in the US has a duty to adopt or foster a child who needs a home. On paper that looks great. Who could possibly argue with giving kids families? If you really care about society and children then you will do this. ...Except it just doesn't work that way. It is a superficial understanding of a very complex problem. Adopting or fostering in the wrong situation can do way more harm than good and can de-stabalize families. Anyone who fosters/adopts or knows families who have know that you solve some problems but create new ones. It depends on the family. It depends on the children.

 

The same is true for the education system. Some families add more than they take away and thus make the system stronger. A quick learner with a calm demeanor that tests well and is right on average, not ahead, not behind, with a mom who is available to volunteer is a plus for the system. The child who is ahead in math, but behind in reading who acts out because sometimes he's bored and sometimes he's lost who requires more everything is not a plus. BUT, that shouldn't matter because it is not this child's job in life to make school 'better' or 'stronger' or anything. It is the system's job to see that he is educated. So do you want a well attended public school OR do you want well educated children? One does not equal the other. I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, but they are not the same either.

 

The system is to benefit the child, not the child to benefit the system. There is no point in a strong system that does not serve a child. Why focus on making ps strong if it means that children have to go from a good system for them to a lesser functioning one. The educational system should be a tree that branches to include all forms of education: home school, private school, charter school, public at home via computer, public in a building, iep classes, gifted classes, dual enrollments etc. That is a multi-versed system able to meet the needs of many kinds of children. That is the definition of a strong education system that gets the job done and is able to produce educated citizens. The branches of the tree should not be fighting with each other or comparing how many leaves one has over the other. You cannot say that every child is best served in public school anymore than you can say that every child should be homeschooled.

 

Sure, if every home and private student suddenly showed up at ps, you would have a larger populous. Now what? The theory is that all these parents will now somehow make the system serve every child better. What you really get is moms that want to know why their child is always at the back of the line. And another mom who brings cupcakes every holiday (so that some women on an international forum have something to complain about.) Then there is a dad who cuts out all the bulletin board pieces. Meanwhile the class of 30 kids (which used to be 23 before the hs/private purge) now have cupcakes, prettier bulletin boards and rotating line leaders, but Little Johnny still can't read and little Suzie still distracts and Little Mark's dysgraphia goes unnoticed. Little Tom never does his homework and.....how can these extra parents 1. fix what goes on outside of school hours, 2. advocate in the personal/medical problems of other children (which should be protected under privacy laws), 3. Change a curriculum that works well for 75% of the class, but horribly for the other 25% (should it even be changed.) etc. The bottom line is that an involved parent makes their child's lives better, yes, but that doesn't change anything for anyone else.

 

And really this all about elementary, isn't it? I never once saw an adult volunteer in Middle or High. My mom showed up once in middle school and was not permitted beyond the office. Maybe this a local thing, but our highschools encourage complete autonomy of the highschooler from their parents. How exactly is the presence of a parent supposed to accomplish anything. I will say that as a teen I did volunteer to tutor through our keyclub. We did things that a made a difference. But my homeschooled children can do the exact same thing through our church daycare that services low income kids. Community activism and public education are not tied together. You can serve each child educationally as needed, AND strengthen your community, AND make the lives of others better all at the same time. You really can. It is not either/or.

[bethben]

I just heard about parental advocacy on public radio today.  A school was facing budget cuts and the classroom teachers for the 3rd (?) grade had to be cut from 4 to 3 making the class size much bigger.  The parents got together and raised enough funds to hire a teacher with benefits.  They presented the check to the principle and he had to turn them down because of some obscure law about fairness or some such nonsense.  Tell those parents their voices are heard and they can make a difference in the public school and you'll get a bunch of sarcastic comments in return.

 

 

[mamajag]

What I love best about this classic argument against homeschooling is that not only am I hurting the common good of the public school system by "opting out," I am also - so I've been told - damaging the parochial schools, and thus undermining the Catholic community, by "opting out" of them. Two school systems at once!

 

I'm a recently converted Catholic who homeschooled before my conversion. Some of the parents keep asking me when I'll be enrolling my kids in the parish school, and when I tell them I'm not, things get weird fast. First off, the school isn't teaching Catholic teaching. It's teaching watered down religion because of the huge number of Protestants attending. Secondly, the school isn't that much better than the public schools in our area.

 

When we were going through RCIA, my daughters sat in on the classes. They helped read scripture and such. After talking with them weekly for about 2 months (and quite obviously evaluating my homeschooled kids), my priest sits me down to tell me what a wonderful job I'm doing with their education and that there will be pressure to enroll in the parish school but not to worry and to keep doing what is obviously working for my family. He said the school couldn't keep up with my kids. When I spent the day observing classes, I saw what he meant. I am so thankful that at the very least our priest is fully behind our decision to homeschool. I have since met another family that moved to the area and homeschools, so I'm not the only one in my parish now. 

[jewellsmommy]

What I love best about this classic argument against homeschooling is that not only am I hurting the common good of the public school system by "opting out," I am also - so I've been told - damaging the parochial schools, and thus undermining the Catholic community, by "opting out" of them. Two school systems at once!

 

The protestant version of this guilt trip is "How can your kids be salt and light to theschool when they are stuck in your house all day?" I'm pretty sure that most parents are glad that they don't have to deal with my dc trying to harass their kids into heaven during lunch everyday. :lol:  Children aren't exactly known for that tact and diplomacy, iykwim.

[idnib]

The educational system should be a tree that branches to include all forms of education: home school, private school, charter school, public at home via computer, public in a building, iep classes, gifted classes, dual enrollments etc. That is a multi-versed system able to meet the needs of many kinds of children. That is the definition of a strong education system that gets the job done and is able to produce educated citizens. The branches of the tree should not be fighting with each other or comparing how many leaves one has over the other. You cannot say that every child is best served in public school anymore than you can say that every child should be homeschooled.

 

This reminds me of the Internet in general. One of the reasons DARPA invented it was to have redundancy so that if one network node failed or was attacked, another would be available. It's the idea of having multiple fallbacks and ways to route around failures. The idea of dropping the other nodes and making one strong "super node" is laughable and makes the system weaker and more prone to failure. Families need to be able to re-route around failed nodes, just as data packets need to find the most efficient and functional path to their destination. It's not even necessarily a judgment about the node or the child. It just is.

[stripe]

The schools don't actually WANT real parent involvement in the day-to-day operations. They SAY that they value parent involvement, but what that actually means is that they want parental money and free labor to use primarily for fundraising activities.

My mother gave money once or twice, but mostly it was my labor. For years, in different schools in different parts of the country, I was forced to sell magazines and candy. Every year, we were screamed at and threatened that we had to sell one magazine or one container of candy (30-50 boxes, I forgot what). I was told we wouldn't walk at graduation if we didn't sell one container full of candy. No one really wanted to test that one out. I also did things like attend dance performances or whatever, maybe I paid for those. I am certain my mother would never have paid to watch a child who was not hers (and probably not a child who was) perform on stage in some amateur production.

[DesertBlossom]

I attended public school, even though I had the opportunity to attend private schools, because my parents believed that it was their duty to society to send their children to public school.

 

They believed that, as parents who cared about education, opting out would harm the community as a whole.

 

Obviously, I've made a different decision for my own family, but I do think there is truth to it.

 

It seems to me that there are philosophical issues at play here -- what kind of duties do we have to society? What are our responsibilities to serve others? And even, what is the purpose of having children?

 

I believe in public schools in the sense that I think it's good for a community to have education citizens. However, public schools have changed over the years. They used be locally controlled. It was the parents and the community that decided what was taught, who the teachers and administrators were, etc.  Little by little we have lost control of the public schools. People in Washington are the ones making decisions-- people who don't know our children personally and who really don't give a rat's behind about them. At this point, parents have little to no say about what goes on in their public schools. They are lucky to even KNOW what is going on there.  

 

I certainly don't want public schools to fail. Those kids are going to grow up some day and I'd like them to be well-educated, responsible adults. But I personally think the public school system is broken. Homeschoolers aren't just abandoning ps because they don't like it, they are abandoning it because there's also nothing they can do to change it. Is volunteering in your local public school or providing your service really helping anyway?  IMO, no.

[IsabelC]

Why single out home schoolers as opting out and abandoning others' children to the system? What about parents who pay for a 'better' school? Should every parent purposely send their child to the 'worst' available school? In my state, I am saving the government approximately $15000 per year for each child I do not send to school, money which is therefore freed up to be used for other children. This in addition to the taxes I pay to support the school system. I refuse to feel any guilt over opting out.

[kiwik]

Well really everyone who opts out of the public school system is both abandoning it and undermining it. And I really think we should care about the other kids. BUT we have to do the best we can for our kids. I have always felt that I was sacrificed a bit for the common good and it doesn't appear to have helped anyone. Also school is short term so even if you are sucessful it is too late for your child - it is not like changing the political system of your country which may be worth the sacrifice. And of course it is too dependant of others meaning your work is likely to be undone next time some bureaucratic expert gets a bee in his bonnet.

[boscopup]

I think parental culture at home is more important than parental involvement at the school. Like others, when I was in school, my SAHM was not at the school. She'd come eat lunch with me a few times a year in early elementary, but she wasn't involved in the classroom at all. There were no parents in the classroom. We went to school and just saw students and teachers until time to go home. Then I went home and did my homework all by myself without my mom even nagging me to get it done. If I didn't do it, I'd get the consequences that the teacher gave out (a bad grade, etc.). So I learned to do it. If I had a question about my homework, my parents would help me, but that was the extent of their involvement, and I very rarely had questions for them. Frankly, I've been appalled at the level of parental involvement in kids' schoolwork these days. When you see a K project that has several paragraphs typed up with adult language (and it's not a gifted kid), you know the parent did that. Why? How does that help the kid at all? What are they learning?

 

My parents went to PTA meetings, but they weren't heavily involved. They just showed up at the meetings.

 

My schools were quite good, because they were located in a middle class area that had a culture of education. The schools in the part of town without that culture were failing. It had nothing to do with the parental involvement in the school, but the culture of the society surrounding the school. And here, we have no school choice. You go where you're zoned. I'm not interested in sending my own children to the rural elementary we're zoned for. It's been a failing school, despite there being parents there and involved. I've seen the parents there (one of my kids did speech therapy there for 2 years, until they decided that homeschoolers could no longer receive services). The teachers do the best they can, but when the culture at home is one where education doesn't matter, that spills over into behavior and work ethic at school. The culture has to change. I don't think the schools CAN do anything until that happens.

 

Another thing... how much money the school has doesn't matter that much either. My high school was way overcrowded (2300 students in a building designed to hold 1800). The schools in my city at that time got a certain amount per school, not per student (that may have changed now). So the failing schools actually had MORE money per student than my high achieving school had. It didn't matter. The fact that we had mostly good teachers (there were the occasional dud, but most were quite good... I had teachers with Master's and PhD's in some of my high school classes), and those teachers sometimes went into the basement and pulled out old textbooks that were better than the new fangled ones the school board had selected. My parents said they did that at least for science or math or something at some point when my brother and sister were in high school. Nowadays, that wouldn't be allowed. The district would want to use the latest and greatest version of some expensive textbook. Or worse yet, they're throwing everything on ipads and laptops. Ugh. And I don't know how that's supposed to help the poor kids, since their homework requires an internet connection! So the schools have enough money to furnish every student with useless technology, where reusing textbooks for a few years would be cheaper and frankly better for the children. They waste the money they have, then complain that they have no money.

 

Ok, I think I've randomly ranted enough for the morning. :lol:

[Violet Crown]

Well really everyone who opts out of the public school system is both abandoning it and undermining it.

But this only begs the question, by assuming that the choice to tutor one's own children is, in fact, "opting out" of the public school system. But I reject that characterization of public education as the default. This was the point of my post about the absurdity of undermining two school systems at once; how can there be two defaults?

 

We must see to the education of our children, and we examine various methods for accomplishing that goal; we choose tutoring at home. This choice constitutes neither abandoning nor undermining any of the educational systems that provide different choices. One might as well claim that enrolling a child in public or private school damages homeschooling.

[regentrude]

I believe in public schools in the sense that I think it's good for a community to have education citizens. However, public schools have changed over the years. They used be locally controlled. It was the parents and the community that decided what was taught, who the teachers and administrators were, etc.  Little by little we have lost control of the public schools. People in Washington are the ones making decisions-- people who don't know our children personally and who really don't give a rat's behind about them. At this point, parents have little to no say about what goes on in their public schools. They are lucky to even KNOW what is going on there.  

 

I do not consider local control a superior model, especially not if you live in a  community with a low educational level where the community is not willing to invest in education.

I do not believe that universal standards are responsible for the poor educational outcomes, and I would like children in a poorly educated community to be offered the same educational opportunities as children in communities with a  high average educational level - because the quality of education is THE most crucial factor in social mobility.

Coming from a different system, I find it unbelievable that school districts can get away with not offering certain science and math classes - in my home country, the curriculum is set centrally and every school in the state must offer the respective coursework. Period. The outcomes I see from that are far superior to what I see in the US.

I am sorry for the poor kids in rural communities with low levels of education, if their community gets to decided what schools can offer and what they are willing to pay for. Chances that these kids get a competetive education that enables them to do something different from their parents will be slim.

ETA: As a college instructor in a state university, I see first hand how wide the disparities are between different schools and how much the quality of the kid's education depends on the lucky draw of location. I find this shameful for such a rich country - and to some extent it is the local control that is responsible for the discrepancies.

Washington does not have to "know" your kids to decide that all children should have access to a college preparatory high school education that deserves the name. I am scratching my head how raising the abysmally low educational standards in this country can be considered a bad thing....(but further pursuing these avenues of thought will lead into politics which we are not allowed to discuss on these boards.)

[MomintheMountains]

This reminds me of the Internet in general. One of the reasons DARPA invented it was to have redundancy so that if one network node failed or was attacked, another would be available. It's the idea of having multiple fallbacks and ways to route around failures. The idea of dropping the other nodes and making one strong "super node" is laughable and makes the system weaker and more prone to failure. Families need to be able to re-route around failed nodes, just as data packets need to find the most efficient and functional path to their destination. It's not even necessarily a judgment about the node or the child. It just is.

I have nothing substantive to add to this conversation. But, keep talking like that and my engineer husband might decide that reading this board is worth his time!

[MarkT]

I wrote a response at the website.  I'm glad to see so many people thought the author was way off base.

 

I read your excellent response.

 

Considering we have many choices in AZ (versus some other states), I totally respect your decision to HS.  Due to family circumstances where both parents work, home-schooling would be impossible for us,  We have been doing the public charter school path since 7th grade. I after-school to fill in the gaps.

 

The biggest issue I see in AZ is the whole teacher certification crap thing which leads to educrats running the charters as well.  These people have no idea how to think outside the box. Especially at the middle to high school level,  a teacher should be an expert in their subject matter and know how to convey that information to the students.  After some discussion with them, it appears that getting part-time instructors is not really allowed. This limits folks, such as retired professionals, from teaching one HS class a day at a charter for example. 

 

 

[idnib]

My parents showed up once a year for back to school night to meet the teachers. They helped me out with getting materials when I was too young to drive and the materials were more specialized than what could be found in the local drugstore. (Anyone else build a California mission?)

 

The only time I remember any help during high school was one night when I had procrastinated and I had to type up my already hand-written paper. My mom read the paper to me while I typed, saving me lots of time as I couldn't touch type and had to look back and forth a lot. That's it. And I still have to look at the keyboard.  :o

 

I agree parental involvement can be overrated. I know in the US it somehow does effect the quality of the schools, but in SE Asia, where my family is from, no parent is involved with coming to the school, doing any work, or fundraising. This is true for both public and private, as far as I can tell.

[Crimson Wife]

Washington does not have to "know" your kids to decide that all children should have access to a college preparatory high school education that deserves the name.

 

Access to a college prep high school is something that I agree every child in the U.S. should have. But your home country, and almost every single developed nation does not attempt "4 year university for all" secondary education. Kids get tested at the end of elementary and tracked to different types of secondary schools. That is politically impossible here in the U.S. because we like to pretend that every child is equal ability and 100% of the differential outcomes are due to inequality of opportunity. Don't get me wrong- inequality of opportunity is a very serious problem. But even if we had totally equal access to excellent schools, some kids are cut out to be the neurosurgeons and some kids are going to be the orderlies and janitors. That is just reality, even if our educrats don't want to admit it.

 

So we get a very watered down "college for all" program, like Common Core State Standards. CCSS is not designed to prepare students to study anything beyond College Algebra. Whereas in many European and Asian countries, the kids on the highest track are studying College Algebra material by the end of 10th grade.

[AimeeM]

Just mentioning that I don't disagree with you - in theory.

In reality, though, our government and their version of control is nothing like that of your home country. In your home country, if I'm not mistaken (and as a previous poster mentioned), children are tracked and receive the education that is superior FOR THEM - as in, for that individual. This country believes that "equal education" means that all students, regardless of ability, should receive the EXACT same education, have the EXACT same set of standards, and that it's wholly "unfair" if little Susy is told that she may be better on a vocational track, than a university track... so they insist on setting standards that either educate every child as though they are the top 2% (which, of course, will never work successfully for children who AREN'T in that top 2%), and/or refusing to allow more gifted students a more accelerated track (because, hey, that isn't fair either).

America is far too obsessed with "fair" for a government centralized education to work successfully... when that idea of "fair" is to hold back the top students, and pull along the lower ability students, regardless of ACTUAL ability.

I do not consider local control a superior model, especially not if you live in a  community with a low educational level where the community is not willing to invest in education.

I do not believe that universal standards are responsible for the poor educational outcomes, and I would like children in a poorly educated community to be offered the same educational opportunities as children in communities with a  high average educational level - because the quality of education is THE most crucial factor in social mobility.

Coming from a different system, I find it unbelievable that school districts can get away with not offering certain science and math classes - in my home country, the curriculum is set centrally and every school in the state must offer the respective coursework. Period. The outcomes I see from that are far superior to what I see in the US.

I am sorry for the poor kids in rural communities with low levels of education, if their community gets to decided what schools can offer and what they are willing to pay for. Chances that these kids get a competetive education that enables them to do something different from their parents will be slim.

ETA: As a college instructor in a state university, I see first hand how wide the disparities are between different schools and how much the quality of the kid's education depends on the lucky draw of location. I find this shameful for such a rich country - and to some extent it is the local control that is responsible for the discrepancies.

Washington does not have to "know" your kids to decide that all children should have access to a college preparatory high school education that deserves the name. I am scratching my head how raising the abysmally low educational standards in this country can be considered a bad thing....(but further pursuing these avenues of thought will lead into politics which we are not allowed to discuss on these boards.)

 

[Dmmetler]

I have not experienced that but I think it's because the majority of the other Catholics I associate with regularly are also planning on homeschooling because the Catholic schools around here have turned into glorified public schools. Even disciplinary issues don't get handled properly because they are too worried about losing someone's tuition. However, my friend who pulled her 4 kids out of catholic school last year to homeschool was basically shunned by that community. They were mad at her for choosing her children over what's best for the school. But after many years of the school not handling a bully situation that escalated he year she left she had no other option.

 

I ran into a similar situation when I pulled DD out of an LCMS school. Apparently I was responsible for not only supporting the church and school via my tithes, but via "setting an example by sending my DD". The funny thing is that we have church families that send their DC to PS without the pressure I got. I guess it's only when you have a DC who scores well on tests that you're supposed to "Set an example for the community".

[ChrissySC]

These types of responses and arguments will only grow as the numbers homeschooling grows.  There has been a significant rise in SC even with the new charter schools.  Locally, our charter school cannot keep it together or keep administration.  We can't seem to keep a superintendent for our ps district either, let alone an iPad.  ;)

 

 

[EKS]

The problem with trying to change the public schools is that, in large institutions, change happens so slowly.  By the time your own children can benefit from the change, they've already moved on.

 

Even in a small private school that I am involved with, even though they are able to change more quickly--more like a year rather than several years--it's not fast enough for my own child to benefit. 

 

Homeschooling allows me to give my children the education they need when they need it.  I am not willing to compromise my children's education for some greater social good.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that *most* people aren't putting their kids in public school for the good of the group--they are doing it because it's cheap and it's easy and it's what everyone does.

[Violet Crown]

I ran into a similar situation when I pulled DD out of an LCMS school. Apparently I was responsible for not only supporting the church and school via my tithes, but via "setting an example by sending my DD". The funny thing is that we have church families that send their DC to PS without the pressure I got. I guess it's only when you have a DC who scores well on tests that you're supposed to "Set an example for the community".

Like the "salt and light" argument, this seems to be another variation on "Your Christian duty obliges you to regard your children as means rather than as ends."

[Ellie]

Clearly, the author is unaware of the vast numbers of parents who withdrew their children only after fruitlessly trying to work within the system. Sheesh.

[TranquilMind]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/08/21/4086856_nc-homeschools-and-abandoning.html?sp=%2F99%2F108%2F&rh=1

 

:huh:

 

"When parents are committed only to their own child’s education, that affects the education of other children, those whose parents don’t have the time or inclination to fight for improved school conditions, those whose parents must work long hours and can’t devote evenings to school projects and PTA meetings. When parents are committed only to their own child’s education, that affects communities for whom schools have long been a source of unity. What does that do to education in North Carolina, education in the United States?"

 

So it is my responsibility to take over for those parents that can't (or won't) do anything? Humph.

 

"The problem is seeing opting out of the system as a solution. Instead of looking for solutions within the system, these parents remove themselves and their students, making it more difficult for the school environment to improve for other students. What do these children learn about community?"

 

"When we drop out instead of tackling challenges head on, our world narrows. We suggest that our family is the only one that matters."

 

 

Oh, now this makes me mad. The reason I started homeschooling was because the "system" wouldn't lift a finger to help us. I asked, I pleaded. Nothing. So don't tell me it is because parents don't want to tackle challenges.

 

This person, whoever they are, obviously hasn't watched the news or tried to actually DEAL with the system!

Goodness.  Yes, my own childrens' education should suffer for the good of all those other children.

[momacacia]

You know...I know of someone in my state who ran for and got elected to the school board in order to change things. They've done both public and homeschool. I think this coming year their family is homeschooling...while they're effecting change on the school the board. Seems the closest one can come to a win-win, but we won't all run for school board. ;)

[DesertBlossom]

I do not consider local control a superior model, especially not if you live in a  community with a low educational level where the community is not willing to invest in education.

I do not believe that universal standards are responsible for the poor educational outcomes, and I would like children in a poorly educated community to be offered the same educational opportunities as children in communities with a  high average educational level - because the quality of education is THE most crucial factor in social mobility.

Coming from a different system, I find it unbelievable that school districts can get away with not offering certain science and math classes - in my home country, the curriculum is set centrally and every school in the state must offer the respective coursework. Period. The outcomes I see from that are far superior to what I see in the US.

I am sorry for the poor kids in rural communities with low levels of education, if their community gets to decided what schools can offer and what they are willing to pay for. Chances that these kids get a competetive education that enables them to do something different from their parents will be slim.

ETA: As a college instructor in a state university, I see first hand how wide the disparities are between different schools and how much the quality of the kid's education depends on the lucky draw of location. I find this shameful for such a rich country - and to some extent it is the local control that is responsible for the discrepancies.

Washington does not have to "know" your kids to decide that all children should have access to a college preparatory high school education that deserves the name. I am scratching my head how raising the abysmally low educational standards in this country can be considered a bad thing....(but further pursuing these avenues of thought will lead into politics which we are not allowed to discuss on these boards.)

 

My husband used to teach in an inner city school.  It was mind-boggling how poorly they treated their teachers.  Because it was a failing school (a label put on them by the federal government) they had all sorts of extra funding. They had support people in the school whose job it was to help the new teachers. DH said they acted put out of he ever asked for anything.  They had incredibly detailed requirements for their lesson plans (an outside company was hired to come in and teach the teachers what to do), which were nearly impossible to complete.  DH spent hours and hours of unpaid time prepping for his classes trying to fulfill the lesson plan requirements. They provided "breakfast in the classroom" and the kids were asked take a snack even if they just put it in the trash so the school could continue to get their funding for it. They had "extended day" where the kids were in school for an hour longer than normal. Not only were the kids so completely burnt out that they learned nothing that last hour, the teachers weren't even getting paid for teaching an extra hour every day! The turn over rate for teachers was 30% EVERY YEAR. By the time DH left after 3 years at the school he was one of the old timers.

 

I've actually heard people say that if the middle class white kids would return to inner city schools, then the "minority" kids would do better. *facepalm*  Funding isn't going to fix that school district. The current system is broken. There are still places where schools are doing well. But IMHO, the federal government has ruined public schools. 

 

ETA: I think half the problem is the federal government and the other half of the problem is the disintegration of the family in our society. I used to teach public school as well, and I never worried as much about my "low" kids who had strong, supportive families as I did about my kids who had no support at all and whose homes were completely dysfunctional.  A strong family will help a struggling child overcome their challenges. Helping a child who is suffering in a dysfunctional family is like swimming upstream.

[Michelle_NC]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet (just got through the first page of responses) but the author of this article teaches at a private college and doesn't have children. She also received her degrees from private colleges and universities. I would love to know how much time she spends upholding her end of the "social contract" of public education.

 

http://ladyliberty1885.com/2014/08/24/nc-parents-slaps-down-absurd-news-and-observer-homeschooling-article/

[kiwik]

I can't be bothered going back to find the quote. I suspect in the US the boat has already sailed. Where i am all schools in the country that receive government funding teach the same curricula and have registered teachers on the same pay scale and more or less the same hours. The exceptions are 4 experimental charter schools which can set their own hours and have unregistered teachers but still much the same curricullum and very small number of private schools. This means your essential choice is home school or public school.

 

In many other places though so many parents have sent their children to private schools that the public schools are only for people who are too poor or whose parents don't care. That is a social problem as the schools become demoralised and ignored (after all no-one in power has kids at a public school).

[snowbeltmom]

In many other places though so many parents have sent their children to private schools that the public schools are only for people who are too poor or whose parents don't care. That is a social problem as the schools become demoralised and ignored (after all no-one in power has kids at a public school).

I see that happening in my neck of the woods. People that can afford private school are leaving the public schools, even those highly rated.