Posted on 04/27/2002 2:36:15 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Let's say one adult could educate 30 kids. That's "efficient" compared to one adult educating one or two or three kids. Okay?
But it doesn't mean everything in all cases. If one parent is going to be home all the time, then fine. If he or she is capable of being as effective a teacher, fine again.
The such a measure of efficiency wouldn't be useful, and the efficiency you talk about (hours the child spends learning, etc) is a more appropriate indicator.
Hey, I wasn't kicking homeschooling. It is right for some people. I just don't think it is right for everyone. Not every parent is a "bad person" if they have interests outside of doing their own children's schooling. But for those who want to, fine.
Just kidding, I think I know what you're trying to say. But if a teacher could take take 30 kids and teach them all they need to know, and not need to bring home work to finish, I would consider that one very efficient teacher! Heck, I wouldn't even begrudge them the 8 hours (although I would still think 8 hours for a young child is too long and inhumane.)
But since this is apparently a rare thing for a teacher to be able to do, (and I'm not faulting the teacher in all cases), I still think that for those who seek the most efficient way to teach their child, homeschooling is the only way to go.
Oh, and I just gotta say! This is another fabulous thing about homeschooling! I never miss anything that I want to do! I never have to "pick up the kids" or be home at a certain time. If I want to do something, I do it and the kids come with. Sometimes I might leave them with my mom, but in most cases I take my mom with me too!
For reasons which would become clear in a moment, Patty had been harassed by the DeKalb County school authorities for about 6 months and, by the time she moved into the Chamblee house, had been -- unbeknownst to us -- ORDERED to put the 6 year old into the nearest government elementary school or suffer the consequences. Because she wanted the boys to be educated Christians, there was no way she was going to do that and she told them so.
At approximately 2 am one morning, a loud knock on the door announced the arrival of the aforementioned "consequences." Dressed only in a nightgown, she was confronted by several burly police officers who thrust an arrest warrant in her face. With the now awakened 6 year old watching and the 2 year old wailing in the other room, she was handcuffed and led out the door to jail. She was tossed into a large cell with a couple of hookers and a junkie who spent much of the rest of that morning vomiting in the corner. The two young boys for whom the educational authorities professed such great concern were just left AT THE HOUSE -- ALONE! Patty was later told that the bureaucrats from Children Services who were SUPPOSED to accompany the cops were late and, in their haste to get this dangerous miscreant behind bars, the cops just missed the fact that the Children Services people were, well, missing. The CS folks showed up an hour later to find two terrified kids, one of whom had just seen his mother hauled off in cuffs.
Patty was ultimately brought to trial under the Georgia Truancy Statutes. Her pro-bono attorney tore the school authorities to shreds and hers has been called THE case that opened the floodgates to home schooling in Georgia. Once they had all the facts, the jury didn’t take long to acquit her. I’m proud to have played a small part in that.
At Patty’s trial, a previously overlooked aspect of the government schools was put into sharp focus for those paying attention: The Director of Instruction for DeKalb County testified that the then current 7 hour school day consisted of an average of approximately 3 hours or less of instruction. At that time, Patty was devoting 4 to 5 hours a day to direct instruction.
He also as much as admitted that the REAL reason they wanted ALL these kids in school was the $3,000.00 per kid per year they then got from the state and federal government. Empty seats = lost funds. As in most things, follow the money. Patty home schooled these two boys through high school.
And how did the boys turn out?
One is now a physician and the other a budding journalist.
But that now seems to be the norm for the growing legions of home schooled kids – which most likely explains why the NEA and the government school folks feel so threatened.
Thomas Jefferson believed an EDUCATED PUBLIC to be the cornerstone of the system he and the other Founders TRIED to leave behind. He would NOT, I feel certain, be a big fan of the current government education system. If he returned today, he’d home school his children just as he did before.
He said something like this: "Yeah, I got to feeling really guilty about denying my son the invaluable socialization he'd be getting in public school. So now, at least once a weak, I swear at him, tell him dirty jokes, offer him illegal drugs, beat him up and steal his lunch money."
Dan
Well, yeah!
Of course I agree with you. But as I posted above, the NEA is looking for ways to regulate home-schooling. A financially strong NEA has a better chance of getting at least some regulatory legislation passed.
The NEA is illegally using a portion of it's members' dues for political activism. We, home-schoolers included, need to convince teachers who belong to the union to request a refund in order to financially weaken the NEA.
--------------------------------
Another socialization-related accusation faced by home educators is that of overprotecting their children from the real world. If this is true, however, at least one researcher (Bliss, 1989) does not consider this to be a serious problem. She argues that "Protection during early, developmental years for purposes of nurturing and growth is evident in many arenas: plant, animal, and aquatic. Why should it be considered wrong or bad in the most vital arena, human development?"
Stough (1992),looking particularly at socialization, compared 30 home-schooling families and 32 conventionally schooling families, families with children 7-14 years of age. According to the findings, children who were schooled at home "gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children." The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that "insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children."
This echoes the findings of Taylor (1987). Using one of the best validated self-concept scales available, Taylor's random sampling of home-schooled children (45,000) found that half of these children scored at or above the 91st percentile--47% higher than the average, conventionally schooled child. He concludes: "Since self concept is considered to be a basic dynamic of positive sociability, this answers the often heard skepticism suggesting that home schoolers are inferior in socialization" (Taylor, 1987).
From the findings of these two studies, it would appear that the concerns expressed by teachers, administrators, and legislators about socialization and home schooling might be unfounded. Indeed, Bliss (1989) contends that it is in the formal educational system's setting that children first experience negative socialization, conformity, and peer pressure. According to her, "This is a setting of large groups, segmented by age, with a variation of authority figures...the individual, with his/her developmental needs, becomes overpowered by the expectations and demand of others--equal in age and equally developmentally needy."
Webb (1989), one of the few researchers who has examined aspects of the adult lives of wholly or partly home-educated people, found that all who had attempted higher education were successful and that their socialization was often better than that of their schooled peers.
------------------------------
The bottom line is this: Problems with 'socialization' was a myth create and spread by groups like the NEA who have an economic and political incentive to discredit homeschooling. Since 1994, the Department of Education has had pursuasive evidence that homeschooled children are equally or better socialized than their public school peers - yet, the myth continues.
Our school district is actually pretty "home schooler friendly" in that they do allow home-schooled kids to participate in extra-curricular activities and are not invasive about the "reporting" that the city schools and other districts require. As a taxpayer, I almost think they would HAVE to let HS kids participate. Fuzzy logic, eh?
I'm a home school mom wannabe, and every day I get closer and closer doing it. Fortunately, we have a small neighborhood elementary school so there is a great deal of personalized interaction between students, parents and faculty. My biggest peeve is the social engineering that goes on, albeit subtlely. Just this week my 4th grader (who still believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny) is to attend "Maturation Classes" presented by the school nurse. Not! I've pulled them out of all of these types of "programs" and am growing weary of having to defend it. The school's job (supposedly) is to teach them reading, writing and arithmetic. I can handle the rest, thank you very much.
Thanks for posting this link. I was looking for it to post myself.
It's always interesting to note that the NEA never lets the facts get in the way of their arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.