Homeschoolers Growing Nationwide

[88GT]

I had no idea about community or group-issued diplomas amongst homeschoolers. My understanding was that the GED was the method of completion for these kids. Thanks for the education.

To clarify, the homeschool issues the diploma. My kids will graduate from a diploma from 88GT Highschool (or whatever we call it). It is equivalent to any diploma issued by any other school within the state.

You're making generalizations based upon big city standards. The situation that I referenced involved eight children whose parents saw tax loopholes and deprived their children of an otherwise beneficial public education. You of course didn't have that info when you replied. They do not live in Detroit. They live in North Carolina in an "above average" public school district. Their kids are very good people. That may not have been the case had they been exposed to the social challenges of public schools. I'm not saying there is no trade-off, I'm saying there is an inherent dishonesty in depriving your children of their best interest in light of pursuing your own best interest. It is not always a best-case-scenario when you have ignorant (or selfish) parents educating their children because it is their right. Children should receive enough knowledge and education to know that they can do better for themselves should they wish. That is the American Dream.

I make no generalization other than to say that it is a fallacious argument to hold homeschooling in contempt for the occasional failure as a unique characteristic of homeschooling. Said failures exist in all models of education and have less to do with the model/approach than other factors. To argue that a homeschool failure is something different than a government school failure or other educational failure is to ignore the evidence.

But since you've strayed off the original path, let me address the tangential issues you've raised here. I would make the argument that homeschooling (and by that I mean parent-directed and parent-funded, which could mean private brick and mortar or tutor; it does not have to mean parent-taught) is always the best option. You and I evaluate the option based on different standards. Yours is outcome-based. You see a child who might have done better in another setting and think the parents should have made a different choice. I see a parent who was free to raise his children as he saw fit and rejoice that he still has that freedom. I value the freedom to choose more than the outcome of a single child. Moreover, since the government educational system is just another form of welfare, and I cannot possibly oppose income welfare and support educational welfare without being a hypocrite, I support the abolition of all tax-payer funded educational systems. Let the parents be solely and completely responsible for their own children. And only their children. I fully admit I am highly biased.

Dumb/ignorant/stupid people exist. They're sometimes made by their parents and sometimes willfully become who they are. It is not my place to judge them or prevent them from achieving their destiny. I acknowledge that. I think you missed the mark on the rest of this quoted section. I am definitely not implying that people who homeschool their children are defiling education in our society. In fact I said in my original post that my wife and I have talked very seriously about it. My statements were, as outlined in my comments above, concerning the qualification of any parent to teach any child.

Let's stop right there and consider the ramifications of your position. Just exactly what qualifications are necessary to teach a child? Have you ever done it before? Do you believe that 4 years of classroom management and logistics with a little bit of lesson planning thrown in for good measure are the qualifications we should be considering? Why stop at teaching a child? Why don't we start measuring parents based on their qualifications to raise a child? Does that sound a like a good idea to you? Where do we draw the line for "good parenting?" And do you support confiscatory taxing schemes to fund programs that raise someone else's children according to the government's standard?

I in fact do NOT support the abolition of government run education because abolition as defined would be utter, decisive, and immediate destruction of the system.

Well, yes, that is the goal of abolition.

I know without a doubt that most in our country (50% at last politicization) depend on the government in some way to survive.

Relevance?

Those individuals are not likely to take on any financial burdens to afford their children the opportunity to learn who and what they could become...much less feed them.

My friend, the existence of welfare payments to these individuals doesn't change their parenting or their children's outcome. Your point is moot.

If nothing else schools nowadays are an absolute necessity of babysitting and soup kitchen such that the irresponsible, yet fertile, *******s in our country having children they can't afford don't bring down the whole shebang by way of mobs and mobs of street kids.

Absolute? I disagree. Necessity? By what standard? Those horrible parents you speak of are the ones who don't care if their children are in school or not. Having the taxpayers fund a babysitting/lunch service doesn't change a thing. This is the elephant in the room for those who can't seem to wrap their head around the idea of dumping the government educational system: having it doesn't make parents better parents; ergo, it doesn't improve outcomes for the children. Let's re-visit the Detroit school system 8th graders. Explain to me the value, or necessity if you will, of funding a school system that can't do any better than an 8% literacy rate at grade level? How is that any better than not taking money from taxpayers and getting the same result?

Now I have to congratulate you 88gt because you (un?)wittingly got me, the most conservative person I know, to say something remotely socialist. Well played!

LOL, well, that wasn't my intention. But I can't say I'm surprised. There are very few who see government education for what it really is.

 

[RockofStrength]

I'm hardly surprised to see homeschooling on the rise: for many parents who would have homeschooled a generation ago the option simply didn't exist: that is to say, they weren't aware of it. The internet makes it easier to find out about homeschooling, to purchase and research curriculum etc. The easier it becomes to cheaply acquire quality information, the more popular homeschooling becomes.

That said, I do agree that there are people who would be better off attempting to enroll their child in a private school than teaching them at home, even if it would only be for a short time so they can learn the ropes. I personally think that sheer lack of education shouldn't be a stopping point, as a high-school level of education is hardly difficult to acquire though it does require a substantial time investment, but there may well be people that are not suited to teach their kid everything.

I argue for the gradual abolition of public education for that reason, among others. Public schools both drain money and set a taxpayer-funded floor on the price of a private education, since a private school has to be able to offer something substantial to a parent to make up the tuition cost. Public education also forces people who choose other methods of education to continue to pay for that empty "seat" that their child was supposed to occupy. Vouchers, to me, are a bad way to deal with the problem because shuffling my money around costs even more money owing to the worker bees needed to track all of that shuffling, and they raise the issue of government funding all education and setting their standards via that foot in the door.

Furthermore, I can say definitely that homeschooling is not a rich (or even lower middle-class) family issue only. We are friends with several families that have in the past sold homes and gone to renting, gone without most major conveniences for months at a time etc owing to lost jobs/lack of funds and yet their kids are still well educated, intelligent, and friendly. It truly is a matter of parental involvement and tireless effort, not how much you can spend on a thousand-dollar curriculum.

 

[Dobber]

<ALL COMMENTS REMOVED FOR SPACES' SAKE. QUOTE LEFT SO YOU KNOW I'M TALKING TO YOU.>

You defended your position clearly and very well. My position on parenting is that if I don't give my children all the tools they need to be more successful than me in every way, I've failed. It is unfair of me to hold all parents to that standard but life isn't fair...so I do. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you have the same outlook BUT the difference between our arguments seems to be that you still want to afford those parents who don't fit my measure the opportunity to go it their own. I suppose I'd be a hypocrite myself if I said you were wrong. You're not wrong, that proposition just upsets me. It makes me sick to see the "parenting" that goes on within my generation and the lack of interest many parents take in their childrens' futures. Thus, emotion allows for illogical opinion and I am wrong...you are right. That'll teach me for coming down to the political discussion board.... ;-)

-Dobber

 

[88GT]

You defended your position clearly and very well. My position on parenting is that if I don't give my children all the tools they need to be more successful than me in every way, I've failed. It is unfair of me to hold all parents to that standard but life isn't fair...so I do. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you have the same outlook BUT the difference between our arguments seems to be that you still want to afford those parents who don't fit my measure the opportunity to go it their own. I suppose I'd be a hypocrite myself if I said you were wrong. You're not wrong, that proposition just upsets me. It makes me sick to see the "parenting" that goes on within my generation and the lack of interest many parents take in their childrens' futures. Thus, emotion allows for illogical opinion and I am wrong...you are right. That'll teach me for coming down to the political discussion board.... ;-)

-Dobber

Looky there. Civility and good terms in the political forum! My hat's off to you for doing your part to keep it that way. You should come back here more often. I like conversing with you.

 

[historian]

Looky there. Civility and good terms in the political forum! My hat's off to you for doing your part to keep it that way. You should come back here more often. I like conversing with you.

This MUST END!!!!! YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLS OF ELDERBERRIES!!!!!

 

[Degtyaryov]

As someone who was homeschooled for most of his life, I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand homeschooling has the potential to offer an education far superior to public school. I turned out just fine, as did most of the other homeschoolers I know. The problem is that most children are homeschooled by religious fundamentalists who want to prevent their children from being exposes to the real world so that they can fully brainwash them into their particular dogma. Intentionally teaching one's children lies such as young earth creationism and evolution denial handicaps their intelligence, limits their ability to obtain or do many high paying jobs or be fully integrated into civil society, and constitutes a form of child abuse IMO.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I have to disagree. Understanding as I do that the public education system serves little function save to produce well-indoctrinated sheep for the wolves of this world, I strongly disagree: dismantling public education would be one of the most responsible things that anyone could do, and would be an act of true patriotism. How to achieve this noble goal eludes, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction toward individual responsibility, instead of this continual slouch toward ignorance and collectivism.

 

[88GT]

As someone who was homeschooled for most of his life, I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand homeschooling has the potential to offer an education far superior to public school. I turned out just fine, as did most of the other homeschoolers I know. The problem is that most children are homeschooled by religious fundamentalists who want to prevent their children from being exposes to the real world so that they can fully brainwash them into their particular dogma. Intentionally teaching one's children lies such as young earth creationism and evolution denial handicaps their intelligence, limits their ability to obtain or do many high paying jobs or be fully integrated into civil society, and constitutes a form of child abuse IMO.

And, this folks, is why it's so damn dangerous to let the government usurp our parental rights. Don't like the choices another parent makes, just have the government label it child abuse. There's apparently a whole lot of a little bit of liberal left-ism on INGO.

Beyond that, your characterization of the limits of being educated on a young earth paradigm is just asinine.

 

[level.eleven]

And, this folks, is why it's so damn dangerous to let the government usurp our parental rights. Don't like the choices another parent makes, just have the government label it child abuse. There's apparently a whole lot of a little bit of liberal left-ism on INGO.

Beyond that, your characterization of the limits of being educated on a young earth paradigm is just asinine.

In your school, what do you teach as to the age of the earth?

 

[Degtyaryov]

And, this folks, is why it's so damn dangerous to let the government usurp our parental rights. Don't like the choices another parent makes, just have the government label it child abuse. There's apparently a whole lot of a little bit of liberal left-ism on INGO.

Beyond that, your characterization of the limits of being educated on a young earth paradigm is just asinine.

I said *I* think it's child abuse, not that the government should intervene to seize such children. Much as I hate the thought of it, I don't think more government is the answer. And I'm absolutely right about the constraints young earth creationism imposes on people. It pretty much bans you from any STEM job, its rabid rejection of critical thought hampers one from succeeding in law, and the false version of biology it teaches means adherents would need remedial school in order to work in medicine.

That's a huge number of doors to shut on a child's future for absolutely zero benefit, and that's not right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As someone who was homeschooled for most of his life, I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand homeschooling has the potential to offer an education far superior to public school. I turned out just fine, as did most of the other homeschoolers I know. The problem is that most children are homeschooled by religious fundamentalists who want to prevent their children from being exposes to the real world so that they can fully brainwash them into their particular dogma. Intentionally teaching one's children lies such as young earth creationism and evolution denial handicaps their intelligence, limits their ability to obtain or do many high paying jobs or be fully integrated into civil society, and constitutes a form of child abuse IMO.

My what harsh assertions! Can you prove Christianity (or any other religion) false by empirical means? Can you prove that the world began as you believe? How do you know anything to which you ascribed the quality of being a lie is in fact a falsehood, or better yet, that parents are knowingly and willfully teaching things they recognize as lies? Prove it. If this is such a handicap, how did people believing in those very principles build the most successful nation on earth which has set into decline as those values have become increasingly rejected? How can free exercise of the First Amendment be said to constitute child abuse?

the false version of biology it teaches means adherents would need remedial school in order to work in medicine.

You have to believe in macroevolution in order to work in medicine? I would like to know how that changes one's understanding of the present condition and function of any organism.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I said *I* think it's child abuse, not that the government should intervene to seize such children. Much as I hate the thought of it, I don't think more government is the answer. And I'm absolutely right about the constraints young earth creationism imposes on people. It pretty much bans you from any STEM job, its rabid rejection of critical thought hampers one from succeeding in law, and the false version of biology it teaches means adherents would need remedial school in order to work in medicine.

That's a huge number of doors to shut on a child's future for absolutely zero benefit, and that's not right.

What...a....load....of....crap.

I guess all my friends that are "religious fundamentalist" dogma lovers really didn't receive their engineering, engineering masters, and phd's?

 

[level.eleven]

My what harsh assertions! Can you prove Christianity (or any other religion) false by empirical means? Can you prove that the world began as you believe? How do you know anything to which you ascribed the quality of being a lie is in fact a falsehood, or better yet, that parents are knowingly and willfully teaching things they recognize as lies? Prove it. If this is such a handicap, how did people believing in those very principles build the most successful nation on earth which has set into decline as those values have become increasingly rejected? How can free exercise of the First Amendment be said to constitute child abuse?



You have to believe in macroevolution in order to work in medicine? I would like to know how that changes one's understanding of the present condition and function of any organism.

Can't prove a negative.
Yes.
If parents are teaching lies AND they don't know it, we have a bigger problem at hand.
Brainwashing is child abuse. Doesn't matter if it is suicide bombing or that women are lesser humans.

I'm not interested in a macro/micro debate. Those aren't actual scientific terms.

 

[level.eleven]

They faked it. Happens everyday. I've had students come to me at the beginning of the semester confirming the fact. All I can do is present the science. The evidence.

 

[Degtyaryov]

Can't prove a negative.
Yes.
If parents are teaching lies AND they don't know it, we have a bigger problem at hand.
Brainwashing is child abuse. Doesn't matter if it is suicide bombing or that women are lesser humans.

I'm not interested in a macro/micro debate. Those aren't actual scientific terms.

Basically this. I'm not saying parents are maliciously teaching children things they know to be false, I'm saying they have a duty to do their best effort to teach the truth, and when their entire worldview can be disproven with 15 minutes on google, they obviously are not.

And you should know that times were different in 1776; scientific knowledge wasn't nearly as advanced as it is today, and what may have seemed a perfectly reasonable explanation then may have been proven wrong by now. Obviously I can't fault someone for being unaware of evolution if they died 50 years before Darwin discovered it. In 2013 however, Darwinian evolution has been the accepted scientific consensus for the origin of human beings (NOT of life in general, totally different things) for over a century, and there isn't really a good excuse for not being aware of that.

 

[historian]

And away we go...

Can I claim I started this fight?

 

[HoughMade]

[edit]

I had a longwinded, rather haughty and arrogant response to the idea that my belief about origins will impede my children's progress.

I decided I was wrong to say what I did. Suffice to say, I have objective evidence that young earth creationism will not impede one's material success, as if that's the most important measure of success.

 

[level.eleven]

[edit]

I had a longwinded, rather haughty and arrogant response to the idea that my belief about origins will impede my children's progress.

I decided I was wrong to say what I did. Suffice to say, I have objective evidence that young earth creationism will not impede one's material success, as if that's the most important measure of success.

It is a waste of time to lie to children in this fashion. They are going it figure out once they leave the homeschool. Spare them the embarrassment, tell them what the evidence supports.

 

[HoughMade]

It is a waste of time to lie to children in this fashion. They are going it figure out once they leave the homeschool. Spare them the embarrassment, tell them what the evidence supports.

It is not only a waste of time, but supremely harmful to teach children that they have no moral responsibility above that of an animal, no eternal significance and no value beyond what they can produce for others. Like it or not, those are just a few things that are the logical end of a purely naturalistic world view.

It is plain silly of you to make the statement above. I am an adult with a very complete education who believes in young earth creationism. I know physicians and scientists who do as well.

Your supreme arrogance to tell me that I am setting my children up for embarrassment, I actually find it amusing. My children know what the secular world teaches. My oldest son just got a Pass + on his ECA biology test (look it up) that includes extensive sections on evolution. They simply understand that what is force fed as state dogma is no less based upon faith in a certain world view than religious beliefs. It's funny how when you start from a perspective that accepts only pure naturalism, all the evidence you choose to recognize supports that view. Yeah, that's good science.

 

[steveh_131]

Your supreme arrogance to tell me that I am setting my children up for embarrassment, I actually find it amusing. My children know what the secular world teaches. My oldest son just got a Pass + on his ECA biology test (look it up) that includes extensive sections on evolution. They simply understand that what is force fed as state dogma is no less based upon faith in a certain world view than religious beliefs. It's funny how when you start from a perspective that accepts only pure naturalism, all the evidence you choose to recognize supports that view. Yeah, that's good science.

Gotta agree with this. None of us were here thousands of years ago. We have some evidence that gives us clues, but nothing conclusive about the age of the earth. We weigh that evidence and make our decision.

I am tired of the insinuation that I'm taking the intellectual low-road. I'm not sold on a young earth, but I believe it is perfectly plausible given the evidence (or lack thereof) available to us. This is after quite a bit of thought and research.

I am sure that I will be teaching my children both sides of this debate, and show them all of the information available. Contrary to what evolutionists would claim, we do use logic, evidence and rational thought processes to reach our conclusions.