Homeschooling

[-lexus-]

Alright, this could be an interesting discussion.

What do people think? Should parents be allowed to school their kids at home, and thus not send them to a school. Or should every kid go to a school, no matter what the parents wish?



I personally think that homeschooling should be kept to an absolute minimum in most countries. I understand that there might be practical reasons why it becomes almost impossible to send your kid to a school, but those reasons aside, I think homeschooling is not good for the development of a child.

One reason is that at schools kids learn far more then just to read, write, math etc. You also interact a lot with other people from your own age. People who get homeschooling get this in a far lesser degree.

Another reason is the risk of indoctrination by the parents. There are quite some Fundamentalist Christians in the US for example, that because they dont want their child to hear about homosexuality and Evolution and all other kinds of things that do not fit in their world view, opt to school their kids at home. Which then results in kids getting schooled in their parents view, and only their parents view, denying them the ability and opportunity to hear other sides of the story as well.

Then there is the risk of a lack of quality. There is no standardization in home schooling. Some preform well, maybe even better then your average public school, but others might preform extremely bad. Its much harder to control. When homeschooling is sub par, its harder to detect and nearly impossible to improve. While schools can be controlled by the government, and if the quality is sub par the government can interfere by hiring or firing teachers.

 

[noex1337]

One reason is that at schools kids learn far more then just to read, write, math etc. You also interact a lot with other people from your own age. People who get homeschooling get this in a far lesser degree.

You do have a point here. Children who are home schooled have been said to have lesser social skills to a point (not from personal experience, because all the college students i know that were home schooled are quite sociable). That being said, homeschool children have a much lower chance of being bullied (close to zero, IKR?), and won't develop psychological problems because of that.

Another reason is the risk of indoctrination by the parents. There are quite some Fundamentalist Christians in the US for example, that because they dont want their child to hear about homosexuality and Evolution and all other kinds of things that do not fit in their world view, opt to school their kids at home. Which then results in kids getting schooled in their parents view, and only their parents view, denying them the ability and opportunity to hear other sides of the story as well.

Parents should have all right to teach their children whatever they want. If they want to teach them fundamentalist christian beliefs, so be it. They were the ones who had input in the creation of the child, no one else. Besides, the child will learn from when they become adults, and probably before due to television, videogames, music, pretty much any source of entertainment that exists. Society has a way of getting it's beliefs out to the masses.

Then there is the risk of a lack of quality. There is no standardization in home schooling. Some preform well, maybe even better then your average public school, but others might preform extremely bad. Its much harder to control. When homeschooling is sub par, its harder to detect and nearly impossible to improve. While schools can be controlled by the government, and if the quality is sub par the government can interfere by hiring or firing teachers.

Actually, there's been studies showing that the average home school student receives a higher quality of education that the average public school student. I'd like to quote wikipedia on that, but it seems that they out perform public school students on standardized tests, which seems to be the people judge the quality of education nowadays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschool#Test_results). Maybe it's the advantage of having a good student to teacher ratio, or maybe it's because the quality of public education is piss poor, but it seems the evidence proves opposite. Also, you mentioned government intervention. Do you remember "No Child Left Behind"? Look at how much good that did.

 

[-lexus-]

You do have a point here. Children who are home schooled have been said to have lesser social skills to a point (not from personal experience, because all the college students i know that were home schooled are quite sociable). That being said, homeschool children have a much lower chance of being bullied (close to zero, IKR?), and won't develop psychological problems because of that.

How many people get bullied on school to the point they need psychological help to cope with it? Im sure it happens but its really insignificant risk. Besides, people will come across bullying all their life. If you learn to deal with it at a younger age, youll be much better off later when you encounter it at work or in your personal life. While if you get a sheltered and protected life and you get bullied at your job or whatever, you have far less experience dealing with it.

Parents should have all right to teach their children whatever they want. If they want to teach them fundamentalist christian beliefs, so be it. They were the ones who had input in the creation of the child, no one else. Besides, the child will learn from when they become adults, and probably before due to television, videogames, music, pretty much any source of entertainment that exists. Society has a way of getting it's beliefs out to the masses.

If we take the example of America, a fundamentalist Christian can listen to Fox News, listen to Christian rock and radio channels and live a very sheltered life from videogames and stuff (most of the time it are conservative parent organizations that demand games and whatever to be banned). And of course it would be taught things like Evolution, but it would be marginalized by the parents, or they would be told that Evolution is just a lie designed by devil worshiping liberals who like to murder unborn babies. Ive come across plenty of people who think just like that, so society obviously failed to get its message across to people like that.

And do parents have the right to brainwash their child? It could lead to racism and extremism. So no, parents do not have the right to shape their kids entirely in the way they see fit. Society must have a say in it as well in order to prevent excesses and undesirable behavior. Besides that, I dont think its right to say that parents can brainwash their child until they are 18 and have destroyed the kids ability to think critically for them self.

Actually, there's been studies showing that the average home school student receives a higher quality of education that the average public school student. I'd like to quote wikipedia on that, but it seems that they out perform public school students on standardized tests, which seems to be the people judge the quality of education nowadays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschool#Test_results). Maybe it's the advantage of having a good student to teacher ratio, or maybe it's because the quality of public education is piss poor, but it seems the evidence proves opposite. Also, you mentioned government intervention. Do you remember "No Child Left Behind"? Look at how much good that did.

Now scroll down that article on wikipedia and youll see some criticism on the way they did the study.

Non the less, some kids may do it better at home then at school I wont deny that. However, its only a relatively small group that opts for homeschooling. But say that it suddenly becomes a majority, do you think that homeschooling would still produce these results? I doubt it. And then the government would not be able to improve quality or even check on the quality at all.

 

[Buried Under Ice]

Homeschooling provides an alternative for parents with children of special needs. Furthermore, it provides refuge for those who can no longer stand public schooling.

Remember the string of suicides in the US as a result of bullying by classmates? That's one aspect of public schooling that is not in homeschooling. Also, some homeschoolings are just public school tasks in an online class. I had a friend that was homeschooled and she still had social interaction with her classmates (through mics) and it was part of the public school system. I had another friend that was viciously attacked by tales of her doing certain sexual acts and had to remove herself to homeschooling, largely due to not being able to afford a private school and zoning not allowing her to transfer to another high school. Also, the one I mentioned before who took a public homeschooling online moved often, sometimes across the country, sometimes back to London, and changed many schools.

To continue, in most instances, the homeschooling is done by a parent that is repeatedly tested by the state education board. In fact, most cases have them being tested far more than normal teachers, and often having more qualifications.

As for the spread of parental beliefs through homeschooling, certain groups such as Fundamentalists actually have private schools where they group together. Even if they did homeschool their child, for any hope of continuing in the world the child would still need to attend college, resulting in a tad of a culture shock, if you will. And as much as we might condone the Fundamentalist Christians in their beliefs, the freedom of speech and religion allows them to continue this. If we disallow their right to do so, it is a violation of their rights. If we want those rights for ourselves, we must give it to them as well.

 

[Biomega]

If we take the example of America, a fundamentalist Christian can listen to Fox News, listen to Christian rock and radio channels and live a very sheltered life from videogames and stuff (most of the time it are conservative parent organizations that demand games and whatever to be banned). And of course it would be taught things like Evolution, but it would be marginalized by the parents, or they would be told that Evolution is just a lie designed by devil worshiping liberals who like to murder unborn babies. Ive come across plenty of people who think just like that, so society obviously failed to get its message across to people like that.

I don't know how that's relevant to home-schooling. But...

In some countries(namely Iran and Saudi-Arabia and etc) where Children are going to public school, are also plagued with ideas like Evolution is made by the devil and hatred towards homosexuals; mostly dissonance with other secular ideas.

And do parents have the right to brainwash their child? It could lead to racism and extremism.

Well, that's what happening all over the world, home-schooled or not.

[youtube]IguW9xHd2qo[/youtube]
^- Public School which teaches evolution and creationism. And the kids disagrees with Evolution part.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

How were you schooled [lexus]? Whichever method was used for you I elect that we do the opposite. That's the easier way to address this issue.

 

[Hadriel]

Then there is the risk of a lack of quality. There is no standardization in home schooling. Some preform well, maybe even better then your average public school, but others might preform extremely bad. Its much harder to control. When homeschooling is sub par, its harder to detect and nearly impossible to improve. While schools can be controlled by the government, and if the quality is sub par the government can interfere by hiring or firing teachers.

You say "perform well", but in what? Examinations based on a public school syllabus? The usual reason why parents opt for home-schooling rather than normal schooling is due to their dissatisfaction with the public education system, so why should they home-school their children to excel in such public education syllabus-based examinations? Morever, chances are that parents engaging in home-schooling for their child will choose to focus on a certain subject area which their child has interest in, not all subjects like in a public school. This specialization of knowledge prevents them from doing well, but they excel in the subject they were home-schooled in. It doesn't seem like a negative side-effect of home-schooling to me.



Personally, I believe that parents should be given free choice over whether they want home-schooling for their children or not. Both systems of education offer unique plus points and negative points, all of which can be solved with a little extra effort. For example, the problem of children in public schools not being able to cope in a particular subject due to the large breadth of subjects taught can choose to undergo tuition to allow him/her to catch up in that subject; the problem of home-schooled students being unable to socialize with others can be solved by giving him/her more chances to socialize with children of his/her age, like community events, and even internet interactions. In my opinion, there is no real "best" education method, as determining such is really restricted to a case-by-case basis. Certain children learn better in public schools, certain children learn better at home. It's up to the parents to make a decision.

 

[-lexus-]

Homeschooling provides an alternative for parents with children of special needs. Furthermore, it provides refuge for those who can no longer stand public schooling.

Like I said, I understand that there are practical cases were homeschooling is simply the only real alternative.

Remember the string of suicides in the US as a result of bullying by classmates? That's one aspect of public schooling that is not in homeschooling. Also, some homeschoolings are just public school tasks in an online class. I had a friend that was homeschooled and she still had social interaction with her classmates (through mics) and it was part of the public school system. I had another friend that was viciously attacked by tales of her doing certain sexual acts and had to remove herself to homeschooling, largely due to not being able to afford a private school and zoning not allowing her to transfer to another high school. Also, the one I mentioned before who took a public homeschooling online moved often, sometimes across the country, sometimes back to London, and changed many schools.

Social interaction over a webcam is far from the same as interaction with real people around you. And yes, I know bullying happens, and thats a sad thing, sure. But these cases are still extreme cases. They are far from normal. And if anything, it means that these kind of schools need to implement measures against the bullying.

As for the spread of parental beliefs through homeschooling, certain groups such as Fundamentalists actually have private schools where they group together. Even if they did homeschool their child, for any hope of continuing in the world the child would still need to attend college, resulting in a tad of a culture shock, if you will. And as much as we might condone the Fundamentalist Christians in their beliefs, the freedom of speech and religion allows them to continue this. If we disallow their right to do so, it is a violation of their rights. If we want those rights for ourselves, we must give it to them as well.

Their freedom of speech allows them to say the things they believe and the freedom of religion allows them to believe it. Neither should be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye to spreading hate and intolerance in the guise of religion.

I don't know how that's relevant to home-schooling. But...

In some countries(namely Iran and Saudi-Arabia and etc) where Children are going to public school, are also plagued with ideas like Evolution is made by the devil and hatred towards homosexuals; mostly dissonance with other secular ideas.

Well, that's what happening all over the world, home-schooled or not.

Yes, but in such countries the government itself is far from secular. In the middle east you see that there often isnt really a clear separation between church and state.

Even in those countries will benefit more from normal schools in the long run though. Usually its the government that secularizes first when it finally decides that its need to modernize in a lot of areas if they want to keep up with the rest of the world. Then the government can change the curriculum of the schools and secularize it. While if you allow everyone to be schooled at home, you run the risk that a lot of people keep lagging behind because their parents are still halfway stuck in the past.

Not saying that public schools are perfect because they are not. But its the best way and probably the only way to ensure some kind of standard for everyone.

You say "perform well", but in what? Examinations based on a public school syllabus? The usual reason why parents opt for home-schooling rather than normal schooling is due to their dissatisfaction with the public education system, so why should they home-school their children to excel in such public education syllabus-based examinations? Morever, chances are that parents engaging in home-schooling for their child will choose to focus on a certain subject area which their child has interest in, not all subjects like in a public school. This specialization of knowledge prevents them from doing well, but they excel in the subject they were home-schooled in. It doesn't seem like a negative side-effect of home-schooling to me.

Standardized tests. The standard that measures everyone at least in the west. Also the standard a lot of people will be looking at later.

Also, specialization can turn into a liability later on. I loved to draw when I was younger and I hated math. Say that my parents schooled me at home and opted to focus on things like drawing and leave math as much as possible. Id be a pretty good drawer but Id lack the basic skills in math. Nice and all but math is kinda essential. You might hate it when youre young but your gonna regret it if you dont know about it. Primary schools and high schools give you a broad but basic knowledge on a lot of things. Thats required because at a young age, you cant really choose what you want to do for the rest of your life. To take myself as an example again, I loved drawing, but now I hardly do it and I dont really care for it anymore as well. Boy am I glad that I never specialized at drawing when I was younger. I also had to choose early though. I had to choose though when I was 15, and I choose to specialize in economics. Worst decision of my life! But now I lack a lot of basic knowledge in physics, chemistry, certain areas of math, etc because I specialized to young.

Its much better to get a broad and basic knowledge about a lot of things, and find a whole bunch of it boring then being forced to specialize before you really know what you want to do with your life. What you might find utterly boring and stupid when youre 14-15 years old might be the thing you find incredibly fascinating when youre 20.

 

[Hadriel]

Standardized tests. The standard that measures everyone at least in the west. Also the standard a lot of people will be looking at later.

Also, specialization can turn into a liability later on. I loved to draw when I was younger and I hated math. Say that my parents schooled me at home and opted to focus on things like drawing and leave math as much as possible. Id be a pretty good drawer but Id lack the basic skills in math. Nice and all but math is kinda essential. You might hate it when youre young but your gonna regret it if you dont know about it. Primary schools and high schools give you a broad but basic knowledge on a lot of things. Thats required because at a young age, you cant really choose what you want to do for the rest of your life. To take myself as an example again, I loved drawing, but now I hardly do it and I dont really care for it anymore as well. Boy am I glad that I never specialized at drawing when I was younger. I also had to choose early though. I had to choose though when I was 15, and I choose to specialize in economics. Worst decision of my life! But now I lack a lot of basic knowledge in physics, chemistry, certain areas of math, etc because I specialized to young.

Its much better to get a broad and basic knowledge about a lot of things, and find a whole bunch of it boring then being forced to specialize before you really know what you want to do with your life. What you might find utterly boring and stupid when youre 14-15 years old might be the thing you find incredibly fascinating when youre 20.

Well, I'm not too familiar with the system of standardized tests, but I do know that a lot of people do use test results to determine employment. However, recently there has been more focus on promoting alternate methods of getting a job, such as going for interviews instead, so that whether you get the job or not isn't decided solely on how well you did for a test some time ago. Children who undergo homeschooling may be disadvantaged in this regard, but not that disadvantaged.

I don't disagree with all children receiving at least a certain level of education on all subjects. The problem is when students go to higher levels such as high school, where they are still forced to take all subjects and possibly learn things (such as advanced differentiation in maths) they will never come across in the future if they are not interested in the subject. Instead of having them learn so much of all the subjects, why not devote the time and money to boosting their knowledge of a certain subject even further, thus increasing their employment chances in the future? Also, maths is a pretty special case, since it's extremely applicable, but how about subjects like Geography and History? I don't think you'd need to know about Geography if you wanted to be a lawyer or something.

Still, I agree that parents shouldn't specialize their children's education from such a young age. Perhaps, they can cut the number of subjects taught down to the subjects the child is better at. Usually, someone enjoys something they excel at doing.

 

[noex1337]

Social interaction over a webcam is far from the same as interaction with real people around you. And yes, I know bullying happens, and thats a sad thing, sure. But these cases are still extreme cases. They are far from normal. And if anything, it means that these kind of schools need to implement measures against the bullying.

Cases of bullying are merely extreme cases? Such a beautiful world you live it. That is not at all reality, my friend.

Their freedom of speech allows them to say the things they believe and the freedom of religion allows them to believe it. Neither should be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye to spreading hate and intolerance in the guise of religion.

This however, is what you would call an extreme case. Due to the incredible minority of home-school advocates using it to spread hate and intolerance, we should abolish the system, right?

Even in those countries will benefit more from normal schools in the long run though. Usually its the government that secularizes first when it finally decides that its need to modernize in a lot of areas if they want to keep up with the rest of the world. Then the government can change the curriculum of the schools and secularize it. While if you allow everyone to be schooled at home, you run the risk that a lot of people keep lagging behind because their parents are still halfway stuck in the past.

Not saying that public schools are perfect because they are not. But its the best way and probably the only way to ensure some kind of standard for everyone.

Once again, No Child Left Behind. With government intervention, you sacrifice those who seek to excel to save the stragglers. In homeschool however, no such sacrifice is necessary with the flexible curriculum.

Also, specialization can turn into a liability later on. I loved to draw when I was younger and I hated math. Say that my parents schooled me at home and opted to focus on things like drawing and leave math as much as possible. Id be a pretty good drawer but Id lack the basic skills in math. Nice and all but math is kinda essential. You might hate it when youre young but your gonna regret it if you dont know about it. Primary schools and high schools give you a broad but basic knowledge on a lot of things. Thats required because at a young age, you cant really choose what you want to do for the rest of your life. To take myself as an example again, I loved drawing, but now I hardly do it and I dont really care for it anymore as well. Boy am I glad that I never specialized at drawing when I was younger. I also had to choose early though. I had to choose though when I was 15, and I choose to specialize in economics. Worst decision of my life! But now I lack a lot of basic knowledge in physics, chemistry, certain areas of math, etc because I specialized to young.

Once again, extreme case. What are the statistics of home school students learning only 1 subject?

Its much better to get a broad and basic knowledge about a lot of things, and find a whole bunch of it boring then being forced to specialize before you really know what you want to do with your life. What you might find utterly boring and stupid when youre 14-15 years old might be the thing you find incredibly fascinating when youre 20.

[/QUOTE]
Aren't you dealing a bit with extremes? And high school already does a good job at poorly specializing students as is. Think about how many students switch majors within their first 2 years of college.

 

[-lexus-]

Well, I'm not too familiar with the system of standardized tests, but I do know that a lot of people do use test results to determine employment. However, recently there has been more focus on promoting alternate methods of getting a job, such as going for interviews instead, so that whether you get the job or not isn't decided solely on how well you did for a test some time ago. Children who undergo homeschooling may be disadvantaged in this regard, but not that disadvantaged.

An employer still looks at the grades you have on your diploma.

I don't disagree with all children receiving at least a certain level of education on all subjects. The problem is when students go to higher levels such as high school, where they are still forced to take all subjects and possibly learn things (such as advanced differentiation in maths) they will never come across in the future if they are not interested in the subject. Instead of having them learn so much of all the subjects, why not devote the time and money to boosting their knowledge of a certain subject even further, thus increasing their employment chances in the future? Also, maths is a pretty special case, since it's extremely applicable, but how about subjects like Geography and History? I don't think you'd need to know about Geography if you wanted to be a lawyer or something.

Thats what they do in the Netherlands and it results in whopping 60% first years drop out rate on college. Why? Because they choose something when they were 14 or 15 and they found out that by the time they are done with high school, the things they choose were the wrong things. A 14 year old is simply still developing and by then his interests are not fleshed out. Most of these people simply arent ready yet to pick something.

Also, its damned important to know your history, even if your gonna do physics later on. Just as its equally important to know your geography. Everyone in Europe thinks the average American is a retard because they cant point out France, Germany and Canada on the world map. Its just general knowledge that everyone should have. Everyone should know about WW2 or the Renaissance or the general history of their home country.

Still, I agree that parents shouldn't specialize their children's education from such a young age. Perhaps, they can cut the number of subjects taught down to the subjects the child is better at. Usually, someone enjoys something they excel at doing.

Thats true, but thats not often the things a child will pick. I didnt pick economics because I was good at it. I picked it because I wasnt bad at it, compared to physics and chemistry, and because I thought I could easily get a better job with it. While technically, I was better at drawing and some of the more creative subjects. I know that at least half of the people in my class also picked economy because they simply didnt know what else to do. When I went to college, my first course was done only by people who had picked it because they didnt know what else to do or because they didnt get in the thing they originally wanted.

Cases of bullying are merely extreme cases? Such a beautiful world you live it. That is not at all reality, my friend.

No, bullying isnt an extreme case. Bullying resulting in suicide is.

This however, is what you would call an extreme case. Due to the incredible minority of home-school advocates using it to spread hate and intolerance, we should abolish the system, right?

The risk is to big. There are already plenty of Christians in the US pushing for creationism or ID being taught alongside evolution. If all those people suddenly went for homeschooling, I wouldnt like the consequences of it.

Once again, No Child Left Behind. With government intervention, you sacrifice those who seek to excel to save the stragglers. In homeschool however, no such sacrifice is necessary with the flexible curriculum.

How exactly does the government sacrifice the people that try to excel in order to save the stragglers?

Once again, extreme case. What are the statistics of home school students learning only 1 subject?

Not one subject per se. But if you limit the amount of subjects to say biology, physics, chemistry and math in favor of history, geography and social sciences, you push your kid into a specific area. While his interests may not be fleshed out and by the time hes 20 he comes to realize that he hates biology and physics, but that he cant do history because he never got enough of it at home.

Aren't you dealing a bit with extremes? And high school already does a good job at poorly specializing students as is. Think about how many students switch majors within their first 2 years of college.

That is because students have to pick to early, at a time they arent capable of properly picking a subject yet.

 

[noex1337]

No, bullying isnt an extreme case. Bullying resulting in suicide is.

So all bullying that doesn't result in suicide is perfectly acceptable?

The risk is to big. There are already plenty of Christians in the US pushing for creationism or ID being taught alongside evolution. If all those people suddenly went for homeschooling, I wouldnt like the consequences of it.

Then there would be people taught creationism. So be it. I grew up on creationism and I turned out fine.

How exactly does the government sacrifice the people that try to excel in order to save the stragglers?

Because stragglers were the focus of that initiative. If you excelled, you were no longer relevant. But google is your friend, do some research

Not one subject per se. But if you limit the amount of subjects to say biology, physics, chemistry and math in favor of history, geography and social sciences, you push your kid into a specific area. While his interests may not be fleshed out and by the time hes 20 he comes to realize that he hates biology and physics, but that he cant do history because he never got enough of it at home.

Then don't do it. It's that simple.

That is because students have to pick to early, at a time they arent capable of properly picking a subject yet.

But that's the same for all cases, so what makes public/private school better in this regard?

 

[Hadriel]

An employer still looks at the grades you have on your diploma.

Yes, I know that. It is an inevitable reality. However, I would like to think that an interview has equal influence as a diploma grade on whether you are employed or not.

Thats what they do in the Netherlands and it results in whopping 60% first years drop out rate on college. Why? Because they choose something when they were 14 or 15 and they found out that by the time they are done with high school, the things they choose were the wrong things. A 14 year old is simply still developing and by then his interests are not fleshed out. Most of these people simply arent ready yet to pick something.

Also, its damned important to know your history, even if your gonna do physics later on. Just as its equally important to know your geography. Everyone in Europe thinks the average American is a retard because they cant point out France, Germany and Canada on the world map. Its just general knowledge that everyone should have. Everyone should know about WW2 or the Renaissance or the general history of their home country.

But why should parents even homeschool their children with the aim of getting them to college? They should homeschool their children with the aim of getting them a good job in the field of study they like and are good at. If you bring in the earlier point of employment requiring a diploma grade, then I have nothing to say, since there is no argument against that.

And tha History/Geography thing was just an example. General knowledge is always good, but I don't think you have to know something like Gorbachev's Glasnost and Perestroika if you want to be a surgeon or something.

Thats true, but thats not often the things a child will pick. I didnt pick economics because I was good at it. I picked it because I wasnt bad at it, compared to physics and chemistry, and because I thought I could easily get a better job with it. While technically, I was better at drawing and some of the more creative subjects. I know that at least half of the people in my class also picked economy because they simply didnt know what else to do. When I went to college, my first course was done only by people who had picked it because they didnt know what else to do or because they didnt get in the thing they originally wanted.

Well, I guess that in this case it boils down to a case-by-case basis. Different children will have different preferences. Some will coincidentally like the subjects they are good at, and some will like subjects they are not good at, and so on and so forth.

 

[-lexus-]

So all bullying that doesn't result in suicide is perfectly acceptable?

No, of course not. But bullying will happen, no way around it. Better to learn from it at an early age then be confronted with it when youre much older. Its much easier to learn defense mechanisms against bullying at a younger age.

Because stragglers were the focus of that initiative. If you excelled, you were no longer relevant. But google is your friend, do some research

The idea behind it was to raise the quality of public schools, by testing schools on their students results and to see if they improved. But okay, people who excel probably get less attention. But they excel, so why should they need all the attention while the people who have it difficult dont get enough attention?

But that's the same for all cases, so what makes public/private school better in this regard?

Because its easier for high schools to change the program, no longer forcing anyone to specialize.

Yes, I know that. It is an inevitable reality. However, I would like to think that an interview has equal influence as a diploma grade on whether you are employed or not.

Well technically, your name has the biggest influence. But thats another topic.

But why should parents even homeschool their children with the aim of getting them to college? They should homeschool their children with the aim of getting them a good job in the field of study they like and are good at. If you bring in the earlier point of employment requiring a diploma grade, then I have nothing to say, since there is no argument against that.

And tha History/Geography thing was just an example. General knowledge is always good, but I don't think you have to know something like Gorbachev's Glasnost and Perestroika if you want to be a surgeon or something.

Doesnt college give you a much better chance at getting into a job into a certain field of study at a much higher pay grade? Besides that, college is as much a social experience as it is a learning experience. You will miss out on a lot if you dont go to college when all your colleagues you work with did (assuming you got a good job and arent turning burgers at the McDonalds)

 

[Hadriel]

Doesnt college give you a much better chance at getting into a job into a certain field of study at a much higher pay grade? Besides that, college is as much a social experience as it is a learning experience. You will miss out on a lot if you dont go to college when all your colleagues you work with did (assuming you got a good job and arent turning burgers at the McDonalds)

College gives you a much better chance as employers look at your college grades when they are deciding whether to hire you or not, like you said.

As for the social thing, I know that such a problem cannot be fully overcome, but at the same time it can be minimized by having the home-schooled child participate in social activities more.

 

[noex1337]

The idea behind it was to raise the quality of public schools, by testing schools on their students results and to see if they improved. But okay, people who excel probably get less attention. But they excel, so why should they need all the attention while the people who have it difficult dont get enough attention?

I think everyone should have equal attention. If you're failing, then put in extra time outside of school. It's fair that way.

Doesnt college give you a much better chance at getting into a job into a certain field of study at a much higher pay grade? Besides that, college is as much a social experience as it is a learning experience. You will miss out on a lot if you dont go to college when all your colleagues you work with did (assuming you got a good job and arent turning burgers at the McDonalds)

[/QUOTE]
Correction, College is more about a social and networking experience than it is about learning. Most people who are successful after college will tell you that. And I can agree to this. I only support Homeschool from a K-12 perspective. After that, it's absolutely useless (I still don't want to abolish it though).

College gives you a much better chance as employers look at your college grades when they are deciding whether to hire you or not, like you said.

As for the social thing, I know that such a problem cannot be fully overcome, but at the same time it can be minimized by having the home-schooled child participate in social activities more.

That won't work. It's not just about your peers, but also professors and possible mentors as well. That's hard to do when you do college at home.

 

[Hadriel]

That won't work. It's not just about your peers, but also professors and possible mentors as well. That's hard to do when you do college at home.

I know, that's why I said that the problem cannot be solved, only minimalized.

 

[-lexus-]

I think everyone should have equal attention. If you're failing, then put in extra time outside of school. It's fair that way.

Isnt that what the NCLB bill states? After a school fails for a specific amount of time, it must provide free extra tutoring to weak students. I assume that the extra tutoring means its done outside of normal class.