California court strikes a blow for children; homeschooling virtually outlawed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should evolution be an issue? I didn't do any formal studies on it until I got to first year university and did a history of science class.

Sure I knew what it was about, but was I ever tested on it? No.

I don't see why they should test homeschool children any differently then they test the other students.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Give one good reason why, if the chlid is learning, that the parents qualification to teach matters one bit?

Jon Miller
(in a homeschool environment)

Because you don't know until far too late of the lack of learning. I personally think a relatively simple qualification would be adequate - a few months of training plus a month a year or something like that, 20-30 hours a week for that month(s), provided by the state at a low cost to the parent. They should know how to teach children - for the sake of their own children, if for no other reason.

It is treated as if it is simple to teach children, just taking a bit of intelligence. This is the great travesty of American education, if there is one; that the ability to teach is taken for granted. If we valued the ability to teach children properly, we would pay our teachers much more, and not imply that we could do just as well on our own, if we weren't so busy making gobs of money doing 'far more important things'. Meh. It's hard to teach a child all of the things a child needs to know to survive in the modern world, and it should be treated as a skill that must be acquired.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should evolution be an issue? I didn't do any formal studies on it until I got to first year university and did a history of science class.

Sure I knew what it was about, but was I ever tested on it? No.

I don't see why they should test homeschool children any differently then they test the other students.

In the modern world, evolution is taught in high school (and often middle school) in its basic form, as part of biology. I learned it in 7th grade and more thoroughly in 9th and 11th grade (I took bio and then AP bio).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Parents and churchs can already mention creationism or ID. Students should have to know evolutionary theory I agree (it should be part of their highschool science tests, based on when I remember learning anything of import about it in school), but to tell their parents what they can't teach their kids is beyond outrage.

Jon Miller

I don't think I suggested not being allowed to teach any given thing My point is not that *I* think it is a problem, it is that *people* will object to being required to teach evolutionary theory (in any degree). They object already to their children being taught it in schools; do you really think they will not object to being required to teach it at home?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Test the parent *prior* to see if (s)he is qualified to teach.

Not until you test the teachers to see if they are qualified to teach. It's only fair after all.

[Jon Miller]

But the truth is that you are wrong. And you are putting road blocks in the way of childrens education for your own idealism.

Test the kids every year. Or even a couple times a year. At the worse the kid loses a year, which is pretty common in our ****ty education system anyways.

Good teachers have the ability to teach large groups something that they would have a hard time learning. Most of the time we just teach easy things.

Additionally, I am not a good teacher. I still have an easy time going 1-1 with people who are having hard time learning.

Those who aren't having a hard time learning don't need me or their teachers. They just need someone to direct them in what to do, and to hold them accountable on a daily or hourly level (in k-12 education).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I don't think I suggested not being allowed to teach any given thing My point is not that *I* think it is a problem, it is that *people* will object to being required to teach evolutionary theory (in any degree). They object already to their children being taught it in schools; do you really think they will not object to being required to teach it at home?

Then their kid doesn't pass and has to go to the ****ty public school the following year to retake the grade.

Most people who homeschool (who care, which is the vast majority) don't want their kid going to the ****ty public school as the highest priority. So even if they don't want their kid to beleive evolution, they will teach him or her about it to make sure the kid passes the 9th grade tests.

Those homeschool parents who don't care (which is the problem in homsechooling, but is far smaller problem then the problems in our ****ty public schools...) would lose the right to teach their kids int he first year they tried to, so they wouldn't count anyways.

What do you guys imagine the problem with homeschoolers are? They are better prepared then their public school peers. They aren't lacking in knowledge of evolution. You all seem to have some issue in your mind as some big crime being purpetuated on these kids by their parents. But you don't have statistics or any evidence to back this up with.

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Give one good reason why, if the chlid is learning, that the parents qualification to teach matters one bit?

Because subject matter advances, so simply relying on past performance doesn't equate to competency for future performance.

For instance, my Mom would have been just fine teaching me to read and write. (In fact, she did.) Basic math too. But there's simply no way she was qualified to teach Geometry or Algebra, let alone Trig, Calc, Chem, Physics, Biology, or CS.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the modern world, evolution is taught in high school (and often middle school) in its basic form, as part of biology. I learned it in 7th grade and more thoroughly in 9th and 11th grade (I took bio and then AP bio).

I didn't take biology or AP biology.

But in the lower level grades 8,9,10 we did some basics about evolution, but I can't recall being tested on them.

I remember the chemistry and the physics tests quite well. I remember some biology that we did, different kinds of plants and animals, but we weren't tested on evolution.

I didn't find out about Lyell or any of those cool folks until university.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
But the truth is that you are wrong. And you are putting road blocks in the way of childrens education for your own idealism.

Test the kids every year. Or even a couple times a year. At the worse the kid loses a year, which is pretty common in our ****ty education system anyways.

Good teachers have the ability to teach large groups something that they would have a hard time learning. Most of the time we just teach easy things.

Additionally, I am not a good teacher. I still have an easy time going 1-1 with people who are having hard time learning.

Those who aren't having a hard time learning don't need me or their teachers. They just need someone to direct them in what to do, and to hold them accountable on a daily or hourly level (in k-12 education).

Jon Miller

... And this is the tragedy of which I spoke above (that very intelligent people think this).

Unfortunately, Jon, not very many kids are as bright or as motivated as you. Even in a one-on-one situation, there is skill required to teach a child the material they need to know in order to attain adulthood and function in society. Further, there are quite a few things that need to be addressed specifically in home-schooling regarding socialization, etc. that parents may not know about.

Teaching, in any degree, is a skill and should be treated as such. We wouldn't let you do open heart surgery on your child without an M.D.; why should we let you do something just as important - educate them - without at least some VERY basic training? It's not like 20-30 hours a YEAR is all that much to ask, is it?

[Jon Miller]

How much did your teachers teach you CS/trig/etc? For most students (and most teachers) the teacher has hardly any involvement in the learning process at all. They are mainly there to maintain order, keep the students studying, and give tests/etc.

And, btw, I am OK with higher standards being required of homeschooled students then public school stuents. As that allowed for public school students is atrocious.

Jon Miller

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What do you guys imagine the problem with homeschoolers are?

Most - quite possibly 90%+ - of homeschoolers are perfectly fine, or at least in most ways. Most homeschooling parents do a good job of trying to learn how to teach their children, and put quite a bit more time into it than I am suggesting they should be required to. Many undoubtedly pay to attend training courses.

The point is that SOME do not, and regardless of the precise numbers, it should be required that all children are properly educated, for THEIR sake. Just because most appear fine now, doesn't mean that you know of the ones that aren't (they probably aren't going to university, after all...) and doesn't mean we should ignore the few.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Unfortunately, Jon, not very many kids are as bright or as motivated as you. Even in a one-on-one situation, there is skill required to teach a child the material they need to know in order to attain adulthood and function in society. Further, there are quite a few things that need to be addressed specifically in home-schooling regarding socialization, etc. that parents may not know about.

Teaching, in any degree, is a skill and should be treated as such. We wouldn't let you do open heart surgery on your child without an M.D.; why should we let you do something just as important - educate them - without at least some VERY basic training? It's not like 20-30 hours a YEAR is all that much to ask, is it?

A lot of bright and motivated people are very poor teachers.

Socialization is another matter, which hasn't been brought up as of yet and has nothing to do with testing the teaching skills of the parents.

Parents are already educating their kids (at least, the ones who care). Do we require classes and tests of every parent? All this is doing is placing roadblocks in front of parents who wish to educate their kids more.

And I can't imagine anything that would be useful to teach in 20-30 hours.

Jon Miller
(I went through a lot more of that of training to be a TA, and it was all pretty much worthless.)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Most - quite possibly 90%+ - of homeschoolers are perfectly fine, or at least in most ways. Most homeschooling parents do a good job of trying to learn how to teach their children, and put quite a bit more time into it than I am suggesting they should be required to. Many undoubtedly pay to attend training courses.

The point is that SOME do not, and regardless of the precise numbers, it should be required that all children are properly educated, for THEIR sake. Just because most appear fine now, doesn't mean that you know of the ones that aren't (they probably aren't going to university, after all...) and doesn't mean we should ignore the few.

I am refering to statistics (those I could fine). Statistically, homeschooled students are 18+ points above their public school peers. This is huge!

If we are going to get upset about the few people who slip through the cracks of the homeschoolers, why aren't we having a revolution over the majority who fall into the gaping holes in our public schools?

Jon Miller

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I'm fairly sure John Jay would disagree with you on the first part there

John Jay quit the Supreme Court because it had no power. I think you're speaking of John Marshall.

John Marshall said that a court could strike down a law when it conflicted with the Constitution because the Constitution expressed the will of the people while a statute only expressed the will of the Legislature, who are the servants of the people.