Free State Project Forum

New Hampshire -- The "Live Free or Die" State => Education/ Homeschooling => Topic started by: Dawn on November 15, 2003, 11:58:02 pm

Title: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Dawn on November 15, 2003, 11:58:02 pm
When you move to NH, please don't enroll your children in the public school system. We need to raise happy, healthy, intelligent children and the best way to do that is to give them the gift of homeschooling of private schooling. Plus it will help keep the tax bills down in NH! ;)
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on November 16, 2003, 03:34:59 am
How do we do this?
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Ogre11 on November 17, 2003, 11:57:19 am
I agree 100%, and I want to do this...but...

Currently I cannot for sheer financial reasons.  I'm working on it, but right now my 10-11 hour days are providing the income to pay bills.  I cannot effectively stop or reduce the hours working without massive financial penalties.

However...as part of the move to NH over the next year or three, this is one of the top priorities.  I'm currently deciding between continuing in the career area in which I am, finding a way to reduce hours without substantially reducing income (not very likely, but there are possibilities), and changing careers entirely.  One area in which I'm looking and researching is starting a homeschool (for my children and others) that will grow into a private school.  But for this to succeed, I need groups of people clustered together (for the economic base), which limits my options in NH.

Still developing, but I don't foresee my children ending up in public school in NH.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on November 17, 2003, 06:17:48 pm
Ogre, perhaps you could explore the concept of Cohousing (http://www.cohousing.org) and cooperative economics as a way to create that local economy of scale? You could provide a "landing place" for FSP migrants as well as get natives to move to a FSP town. And did you read this article by Gary North? For that new career you could start your own Daddy Daycare! Hehe.

http://www.publishers-management.com/rem/preview/
http://www.publishers-management.com/rem/preview/rr031017fb.pdf
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Ogre11 on November 18, 2003, 11:21:37 am
I hadn't heard of cohousing before, although it does look very interesting.  I see many cohosing places in MA, but none in NH.  I've done a little real estate investing, so I might be in a position to work through something like this.  I'll have to check into that some more, thanks for the link!

And yes, I've seen the info about the Daddy Daycare, and I'd love to start one -- but finances stop me at the moment.  I'm debating between moving sooner with a more traditional job, or putting the move off for a year or two in order to get finances in shape so I could start a business like that, knowing there'd be no income for 3-6 months.  Of course, if I can do that, I can certainly provide not only homeschooling and daycare for incoming porcs, but potential jobs as well!
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: rdeacon on November 18, 2003, 11:36:43 am
According to the cohousing web site there is currently no cohousing community in New Hampshire.  Cheshire county is a good place for one, if somebody is enterprising enough to start one up.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on November 18, 2003, 08:37:19 pm
Here is a cohousing community in Ithaca, NY (http://www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us/), which is a client of Brian Sullivan, the founder of the new Ithaca FSP local group.  :D

This cohousing group is no doubt part of the Ithaca progressives (like the Ithaca Hours people), but I see libertarians adapting the benefits of cohousing and intentional communities (perhaps we can call them rational (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Reason.html) communities?  ;)) to increase our self-reliance and productivity. A small academic day care (services and employment) can be combined with a cohousing community (the economic base) and this would not only avoid burdening the town's educational/employment resources, but actually reduce their burden by creating a new free market educational option for current town residents.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: kittiemeow on November 20, 2003, 02:18:51 am
I am very happy to see people discussing this topic.  My husband and I are planning to make our move to NH with in the next 2 years.  We have a 4 year old son that we will not put into the public school system.  

I would be interested in relocating in an area where there are others
who are like minded and would be interested in founding a Montessori or similar non conventional community school.  We are also interested in a "settlement" type situation where people can help each other through cohousing and cooperative economics.  

I believe that more liberty minded people would be convinced to
move to NH if they knew they would have an safe "landing" spot among
others with the same beliefs.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BlueLu on December 16, 2003, 11:31:44 pm
Before the last major reorganization of forum topics, I posed the question of what Porcs would like to see in a private school, in terms of course offerings, location, services, etc.  I have done a couple of searches and have lost the old thread.  For some reason it was not put under Education, in the reorg.

Anyway, I was surprised at the reactions, mostly from homeschoolers, that everybody supported my idea of opening a private school with a more or less traditional academic bent (my wife and I were both trained as grade school educators), but that all the respondents were really homeschoolers or unschoolers, and so probably would not send their children to a school that, while non-coercive, really emphasized traditional academics.

What is the pulse here?  Is this a desirable thing, or are all Porcs unschoolers?  

I feel like the ideas in Jason's thread suggesting "community schools" may work some places, but there is just nothing like the control of a single mind in management over an enterprise.  I feel like the single mind is almost always preferable to management by committee, or mass-vote.

I invite your suggestions here, if this sort of school is of interest to you.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on December 17, 2003, 01:03:37 am
Did you try searching your own posting history (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=35;action=usersrecentposts;userid=1619;user=BlueLu) to find that missing post?


I think formal instruction is very effective within it's limited scope. I don't see homeschoolers or unschoolers forgoing it's benefit's out of reactionary spite.

That being said, I find parents having their children raised from age 2 1/2 to age 22 by strangers as dysfunctional (simply do the math with socialization time). And factory schools are clearly unnatural and abusive. These two elements do nothing to enable a child to develop into an independent agent.

Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BlueLu on December 17, 2003, 01:35:18 pm
... I find parents having their children raised from age 2 1/2 to age 22 by strangers as dysfunctional

I absolutely agree.  My educational phylosophy is actually that the grade schools 80 years ago and back had it closer to right, when they graduated their students at 16 instead of 18.  A stated goal of our school, would be to prepare a young person to be self-sufficient by about the time they are 16.  They might go to college instead of into the workforce, but it would be expected that each matriculant would have a skill that could support them if they needed it.

And separating toddlers from their homes for more than a few of hours a day, is likewise repugnant, though we are leaving adults free to make such a choice.....  

One reason to send young children out for a few hours, is the case of many of my wife's current students, who are deaf.  Deaf children, raised in a home where the parents do not sign, will miss out on important age-specific brain development, if no one signs to them in a coherent language before the age of 4.  Many of her students will never be really conversational in a spoken or written language, because they did not get this sort of early intervention.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: TyrranzzX on December 22, 2003, 05:31:00 am
You can always group up with other parents and choose one to teach the families kids.  I wouldn't ask any group of parents to teach any more than 5 or 6 kids as each kid needs to get their time with the parent, but you get my point.  If you've got 3 families, 6 working adults and 3-6 kids, one of the parents can take off of work and teach the kids while the other parents work.  Financially, the families can share the burden of the 1 nonworking parent.  Additionally, this'll make sure the kids have some form of a social life with their peers.

  Each kid is going to be different.  Some kids just take and can begin independantly learning needing to stop here and there for help.    Others need some motivation or they'd rather be out smelling the flowers, so to speak.  For them, mabye bookwork isn't a good idea and more hands on activities are a good idea.  Why learn WW2 warfare from a book when you can play call of duty?

Additionally, as they get older their interests are going to take form.  Some of them are going to want to learn how to build a computer, while others will want to learn to build a house.  Apprenticeship is a good way of doing things.  One of the parents from one of the other families can take the kid to work a couple times a week, providng the employer is willing, and show them the way the job works and how to build a house.  

As for state requirements, talk about a low low bar.  Most kids, so long as you keep them away from overstimulation, are naturally inquisitive.  And as long as you give them an outlet for their curiosity, they'll go real far.  At some point your kid will ask you "how does the moniter work" and you can sit down with a book with em' for a few hours and teach them.

And as for how kids should be taught, since we're not talking about ignorant people for the most part doing this, they should spend some time educating themselves.  It really depends on family to family and bickering over some standard is silly.  I would, however, work with other I guess "groups" of families teaching their kids to share ideas and reading material.  From this you can reach a semi-standard of information so new parents aren't running all over the place reading lots of useless info.  Everyone's going to have their own interpretation and own way of doing things, and groups will have disagreements.

Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on December 22, 2003, 05:50:12 am
Good points TyrranzzX.  :D  I think self-reliant, co-operative community schooling is the way to go. And those first 3 families will make it easier for the next 3 families (and then the next 3... ) to choose a more natural, rational schooling choice rather than using the crutch of the "free" government daycare.
Hmmm... I wonder how many "libertarians" actually boycott gov schools? I wonder how many FSP members do? There must be something a core group of FSP activists could do to make the choice of opting-out easier.  :-\
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Margot Keyes (SUNSHINE) on January 07, 2004, 05:31:44 pm
Hi everybody!  I am so pleased to finally have some time to search this part of the site.  

My two daughters are in a Montessori preschool right now and though it is housed in a church there is ABSOLUTELY NO link to it in thought or action.  I firmly believe in Maria Montessori's method of allowing the child to direct his own learning within the scope of a well- organized arena with tangible manipulatives that enable him a "hands-on" way of learning.  Listening to lecture was no more fun in college than it was when we were wee ones.  

I also have 16 month old twins who will most likely not be able to be enrolled in this Montessori school here as we will be in the process of moving to NH.

I firmly believe that we can get around some of the homeschooling law restrictions of NH, appeal to those who don't want to homeschool their children nor send them off to become mindless automotons in the public schools.  

We need to work on this idea of a barter school system.  Those of you with degrees or experience in child schooling and child rearing can be the forerunners.  We need organizers.  We need MINIMAL administrative personnel. And we need a location.  The thought of a living, working, learning community is outstanding.  Wasn't that how it was all done in long times past?  Now with the internet, we certainly can keep our groups small and manageable but also have the world at our fingertips!!  Maybe we can work with existing library systems to have a new branch in a newly developed area that could also house our school?  

Perhaps we need to get a few of us together who really want to make this happen for our children and see where it can go!  I never felt qualified for homeschooling but I know several people who are involved in it and it seems much more like a cooperative effort of several families more than one sequestered nuclear unit holed up in their home away from the community.

My father was educated in a rural one-room schoolhouse in PA, went on the Penn State and worked for 30 years moving up the corporate ladder in his chosen field very effectively and happily.  IT CAN BE DONE!!!

Who else wants to give it a try???

best to all--SUNSHINE
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: silverfish on January 13, 2004, 01:50:46 pm
Sunshine, my wife and I have been discussing NH, and opening up a Montessori school out there. Not sure what is going to happen, I haven't officially joined FSP, however I continue to lurk here in the forums.

The Gary North article (which I see you have participated in the forum thread on) has got my wife thinking alot. This coupled with the fact that she was the business manager of the Montessori that my kids (4 of them from Primary to Upper Elementary) go to has her thinking that it can be done, and that NH may be the place to do it.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: K. Boyle on January 16, 2004, 12:48:54 pm
Co-housing? What about co-schooling? I want to homeschool, but my daughter is the type of child that must have other children around. Would it be hard to get a group of parents together to co-teach the children? Just a thought.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: jeanius on January 17, 2004, 08:52:35 am
I am hearing, and have been hearing for awhile, the same sorts of things.  There are a bunch of folk interested in group or co-schooling situations.  I think this will evolve naturally as we move to NH.  I personally don't believe that education training is necessary to teach our children.  As someone pointed out they are naturally inquisitive.  I find, in homeschooling my two older children, that having interesting materials and resources available and staying out of the way does wonders.  It is amazing how much they learn without my help and our structured time gets big benefits too!

Jean
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Dawn on January 17, 2004, 11:04:41 pm
I've been homeschooling my kids for 6 years now. Well, mostly they homeschool themselves - I try to stay out of the way, for the most part.

I'm not sure what the homeschooling community is like in NH, but I assume it's pretty similar to CT. Except for the lousy homeschool laws!

But, when you think of homeschooling, I suggest NOT thinking of bringing the public school type of "schooling" into your home. Yuck! Instead, think of basically extending what you do with your kids when they're preschoolers. There are tons of different ways to homeschool. You can use a curriculum - there are many available. You can go the eclectic route - use a little bit of this and a little bit of that. You can go the unschooling or self-directed learning route (that's what we love!). Or combine the 3 in different variations.

We don't spend an awful lot of time at home doing school work. As little as possible! We do lots of stuff with other people. We go to a friend's house for book club. We go to a monthly homeschool meeting. We go on field trips. We go to the library. They do gymnastics 2 or 3 days a week. They are in two girl scout troops. We do volunteer work.

Some of us have talked about starting a Liberty Learning Center. The vision is not firmed up, but it would probably be a facility for self-directed learners to enjoy themselves at. It could be for all ages and offer a wide variety of "courses", either structured or very informal, depending on the instructor and/or what the students want. There are so many wonderful possibilities!
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on January 18, 2004, 11:10:11 pm
Co-schooling is a term I've used before to describe co-operative or community schools. It is certainly an important part of a co-operative community.

Think of the typical co-housing community with it's "common house". Make that common house a tad bit larger (perhaps very larger) and put inside it offices and workspace (perhaps a bandwidth co-op for telecommuters, or doctor's and dentist's offices?) for adults and daycare/schoolrooms for the kids. You could visit your kids on your coffee and lunch breaks.


Btw, Mike Lorrey has posted elsewhere that he is trying to get Patri Friedman (grandson of nobel prize-winner economist Milton Freidman) to attend the FSP Fest. Patri has a webpage describing his own attempt to organize of a co-operative: alpinebutterfly.org (http://www.alpinebutterfly.org/ic/general.html).

Does anybody think we should organize a thread somewhere else to gather resources and information on this subject? I might even be creating a separate webboard devoted to this subject soon if there is enough interest.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on January 18, 2004, 11:12:38 pm
One more thing. Who would like to go in on $2,500,000 worth of lakefront property. (http://www.pruverani.com/view_listing_land.asp?MLS=103275&T=4) It's an established resort/summer camp in Andover, NH 30 minutes north of Concord.

 :D
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on January 18, 2004, 11:34:24 pm
And here I am with my eye on a former Kingdom Hall in Gorham for $120,000. (http://www.gallusandgreen.com/listingview.php?listingID=188)  I guess I just don't dream big enough!  :P

We're set on living in Coos County, particularly around Gorham, but the nearest Montessori school is in Intervale, part of North Conway, and I don't have the time or skills to start a Montessori school.  I'd consider buying this place and leasing it out at a loss if I had a commitment from someone who would operate a Montessori school from it (ahem, ahem!)

Just this afternoon, Devera and I were discussing how we are going to handle Gabriel's and Elizabeth's educations.  Our decision was that if we homeschool again, it would be adequate, but it would be best if we get both of them back into a Montessori school.  Now that we're getting down to brass tacks and this move is turning into reality, this is way tougher than I thought it would be.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on January 18, 2004, 11:42:28 pm
Nice view! (http://www.gallusandgreen.com/viewimage.php?imageID=310&type=listing)  :D


Btw Bruce, that $2,500,000 not only includes 236 acres with 1 mile of lakefront property but also multiple residences.  :D

25 households could buy in with $100,000 each and run the resort as an income generating business while developing sub-lots.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on January 18, 2004, 11:54:12 pm
Yes, indeed!   ;D

What's really intriguing is that this building has an upstairs apartment.  Advantages:

1.  The "schoolmarm" and her brood could live onsite in the apartment
2.  He/she could make money from the school
3.  They'd have low overhead since we would negotiate a reduced lease amount
4.  MY kids could attend at a reduced rate
5.  The house we're looking at is just two blocks from this building!
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on January 18, 2004, 11:58:18 pm
mark,

The problem is getting 25 Porcupines to work together on a daily basis.  I just don't think it will happen.  The folks who are Porcupine material and able to make things happen don't work well with others.  If there could be some arrangement where 1 takes command, and the other 24 of them invest and keep their mouths shut, it might work.

Not that it's impossible; just more than I would be willing to risk my money on.  If I had 2.5M that I wouldn't mind losing on a low-return investment like that, I'd consider it.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on January 19, 2004, 12:19:02 am
mark,

The problem is getting 25 Porcupines to work together on a daily basis.  I just don't think it will happen.  The folks who are Porcupine material and able to make things happen don't work well with others.  If there could be some arrangement where 1 takes command, and the other 24 of them invest and keep their mouths shut, it might work.





Ooooh. A challenge!  ;D
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on January 20, 2004, 06:28:47 am
Ooooh. And as a counter to Bruce's cynicism, some FSP essays.  ;)


Freedom of Association and Counter-Parasitism (http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/dilemma.jsp)
by Steve Cobb, February 2002[/b]

"When bad men combine, the good must associate;
else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
--Edmund Burke "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontent"


The First Dimension of Association (http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/assoc.jsp)
by Steve Cobb, March 2002[/b]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Corollary: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain anything deserve neither it nor liberty, nor will they probably get it.


Trading Trash for the Pearl of Great Price
(http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/pearl.jsp)by Nixicat Chesnavich, November 2002[/b]

"We do not belong here anymore. We have both been craving a community of people that have enough courage in their convictions to make a serious gamble on them. I have found that in my fellow Porcupines. I would give my life for this hope that we can carve out a place for ourselves. And I think enough others feel the same way that I do that we have a real shot. Tears flow free down my cheeks when I stop to contemplate what we can accomplish if we only dare."



Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on January 20, 2004, 08:02:31 am
marc,

It's less cynicism and more realism learned from experience and observation.  I didn't say it was impossible, just risky, difficult, and low yield.  These articles don't really counter that, or give proof of such.  The trick is to get people of like mind concentrated in an area so that their natural selfish tendencies complement each other.  Getting them to cooperate beyond that is going to be near impossible, particularly given the Porcupine mindset.

Don't get me wrong, though.  I'd love for you to prove me wrong and for Porcupine Plantation to become the cultural and financial capitol of New Hampshire!

Bruce's #1 rule for successful business partnerships:  Don't partner with anyone you're not married to.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on January 20, 2004, 09:15:35 am
Bruce, you wrote "and able to make things happen don't work well with others." The people that can make things happen are either of the rich kind of successful persons, and I would agree with you they don't need to work well with others to make things happen, or of the talented kind of successful persons. The talented successful person by nature works well with others as that's how they usually become successful. It's a result of exploiting the division of labor and specialization factor so important to economic productivity.


That being said I would agree that too many little indian chiefs would pose a problem to a group effort. I think sociology puts the limit at 5 individuals before splinter groupings occur. A solution to this problem is the same division of labor and specialization useful for economic production but in this case it is applied to goals to pre-qualify partners. You simply work with people that don't have strong counter-goals to your primary interests (or even care about them at all) but can take advantage of them as a positive externality to support their parallel goals.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Margot Keyes (SUNSHINE) on January 21, 2004, 02:06:50 am
Hey folks - around here in twin cities MN, folks converted an old flour mill to be a museum, I believe privately held, in fact.

What about bringing prosperity to some of the smaller towns who have mills that no longer maintain their original function, but could be converted to living quarters/a Montessori school (of which my four daugthers could attend!)/ doctors, dentists or other professionals' offices/coffee house/ bookstore/you name it.  Convert a mill, provide jobs for a small town, create a life of community and fellowship for ourselves and our children. It is my hubby's idea actually and we may not be millionaires (YET!) with money to throw away, but we aren't going to throw away our dreams for a better life either.  We are willing to do whatever we can with 25 others or 25,000 others who can work together in such endeavors.  Let's keep brainstorming!  Any thoughts???

SUNSHINE
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on January 21, 2004, 02:48:37 am
SUNSHINE, um, YEAH!  :D


Btw, I love your nickname. I don't care, I'm still a hippie at heart.  ;D

But seriously it doesn't matter what challenges we face as I trust everybody that shares our ideas are smart people and will offer a wonderful vision.


ps Is there a town you had in mind Sunshine?
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Ogre11 on January 21, 2004, 07:46:53 am
Hey folks - around here in twin cities MN, folks converted an old flour mill to be a museum, I believe privately held, in fact.

I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket on you here, really, I'm not!  BUT...

This is an area that I am very interested in.  I am researching and learning all I can.  I may end up with a 2-year plan for moving by trying my ideas where I live now (NC), and then duplicating them in NH.

I am working on creating a private school that starts at day care age and eventually will cover all grades.  Converting an old mill IS a great idea.  In a free market, this would be wonderful.  However, at least here in NC, the rules that govern a private person that physically has more than 3 children in a building (any building, including their own home) that are not related to them are extensive.  The laws outline how many windows and doors must exist.  They specifically describe how many windows per square foot;  how much grade the floor has to have; which way doors open and how they lock; handicapped access; outdoor, fenced square footage (with "appropriate" toys); and so on and so on.  I'm not sure an old mill building could be converted into a state-approved safe area for children.

However, that being said, I still love the idea.  The biggest expense in starting such a place is the initial and ongoing real estate expense.  An old mill should be on the lower end of the expense scale.  So as I look up, discover, and determine the required laws in NH, I will certainly keep this in mind.

Again, I'm about 95% sure this is the road I'm going down, I'm just not sure if I'll attempt to move AND start a new business, or if I'll try starting the business, and then once I've figured out how to do it, move and start another one...
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bugsbunny04 on January 31, 2004, 07:28:12 pm
Now here this. I did not read the rest of this thread. I'm just  gonna put my two cents in. It's like this: Not everybody can afford private schools. Not all families are able to do home schooling b/c both parents work. Home schooling, while it produces a slight academic edge, more often than not produces kids that are socially retarded if it is not balanced with the right activities such as playing ball at the local park or participating in the scouts or whatever (I am an excellent case study for this!) I was socially retarded until I went to school for about a year. I can honestly say I saw more asians in the first day than I had seen in my whole life. I was 16 years old and did not realize there was that many blacks in this community, much less that that was merely the number of highschool aged blacks. And another thing, until I went to school, I never got any :( And one last note, the idea is to keep education on the county level, not at the state level, and make sure through public referendum, frequent elections, making school board positions less about money by not paying them any more than the teachers, doing the same for principles, that the teachers are teaching our kids WTF we expect them to be taught, not a flatbed of horse hockey. And by the way, I aint your average libertarian. I aint really an average anything. But if you do homeschool your kids, make sure you don't hide them under a rock.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Penfist on January 31, 2004, 08:00:32 pm
Now here this. I did not read the rest of this thread. I'm just  gonna put my two cents in. It's like this: Not everybody can afford private schools. Not all families are able to do home schooling b/c both parents work. Home schooling, while it produces a slight academic edge, more often than not produces kids that are socially retarded if it is not balanced with the right activities such as playing ball at the local park or participating in the scouts or whatever (I am an excellent case study for this!) I was socially retarded until I went to school for about a year. I can honestly say I saw more asians in the first day than I had seen in my whole life. I was 16 years old and did not realize there was that many blacks in this community, much less that that was merely the number of highschool aged blacks. And another thing, until I went to school, I never got any :( And one last note, the idea is to keep education on the county level, not at the state level, and make sure through public referendum, frequent elections, making school board positions less about money by not paying them any more than the teachers, doing the same for principles, that the teachers are teaching our kids WTF we expect them to be taught, not a flatbed of horse hockey. And by the way, I aint your average libertarian. I aint really an average anything. But if you do homeschool your kids, make sure you don't hide them under a rock.

I certainly wouldn't argue for social retardation. I am curious however, have you ever wondered why both parents work in the average U.S. family? Some would argue that it is because they need to pay for all the toys, like big screen TV's, XBox's, etc. Others, including myself would argue that it is because those families want to maintain a decent standard of living and at the same time, they are paying almost half their incomes to the federal government under the threat of force.
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Tracy Saboe on February 01, 2004, 12:51:24 am
If government didn't teal half our money it would be possible to only have one breadwinner so most could homeschool.

Tracy
Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on February 01, 2004, 03:48:30 am
From John Stossel's Jan. 26 Lies, Myths and Downright Stupidity 20/20 special.

Myth No. 8 — American Families Need Two Incomes (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-3.html)

Many families in America say both husband and wife have to work, because they can't make ends meet without both incomes. It's the reason Sherri Kowalski and her husband say they both work.

Sherri gets up every morning at 4:00 a.m. because she took a job delivering newspapers. She also sells things on Ebay. Her husband works as a lab technician, but they say it's not enough money for the family. But does she really need this job?

Contrary to what we always hear, Americans make more money these days. The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that even after accounting for inflation, personal disposable income has tripled over the past 50 years. And Sherri's husband makes an above-average income.

The Kowalskis feel they need the extra income because they say they need to buy more things for their family. They recently bought a new, fully loaded minivan. But they have already have an Escort and a pickup truck.

"I wanted the better van; I didn't want the van with the cloth seats and the no entertainment system. Everybody wants more," Sherri said. A lot more.

Fifty years ago, the average family in the United States had one car. Today the norm is two or three. Houses have more than doubled in square footage, and shoppers just seem to spend as much as they want.

"Most families don't have to have both parents working. They do this by choice. People have decided they want to maintain a very high income lifestyle on two incomes to have all the things to keep up with the Joneses," Moore said.

Title: Re:Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: mark on February 01, 2004, 04:04:34 am
Now here this. I did not read the rest of this thread. I'm just  gonna put my two cents in. It's like this: Not everybody can afford private schools. Not all families are able to do home schooling b/c both parents work.


Bugs, maybe you should read the rest of this thread. If you do you'll see 2 themes are present: 1) an interest in low-cost, competitive educational care and 2) an interest in community mutual aid and voluntary association to reap the competitive advantages of social cooperation.

Oh, and if you follow the links to the academic daycares (http://www.publishers-management.com/rem/preview/) you'll see a private school could cost as little as $3,000 a year.

And might as well add this: Myth No. 7 — Money Can Buy Happiness (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-4.html)

I guess politicians are no different than the rest of us. Politicians want federal money for nice things like museums and senior centers and highways in their states. We want more money too, because we think it'll buy us things that make us happy. But that's myth No. 7.

We get a lot of messages from television and movies telling us that more money will make us happy. Lottery winners have press conferences, reality shows have pretty women lining up to marry rich guys.

One lottery winner told us she was very happy for several days, then the thrill wore off.

Milionaire hip-hop promoter Russell Simmons told me wealth didn't make him or his friends happy either. "If I know 15 billionaires, I know 13 unhappy people," he said.

Simmons' brother, Reverend Run, was the lead rapper for Run DMC. He said he suddenly realized money wouldn't buy happiness when he was at the peak of his career.

"I get to L.A., and I've got the presidential suite," he said, "and it all came at once. … And it was too much. I realized, 'OK, I got it, God. I got it. I got it. This will not work. It is not gonna make me happy.' … The only thing that's gonna make me happy, is the joy that's on the inside of me."

Research suggests that Reverend Run and Russell Simmons are right. A survey of 49 of the Forbes richest found that they weren't any happier than the rest of us.

Money magazine columnist Jean Chatsky polled 1,500 people for her book You Don't Have to Be Rich and found that more money makes people significantly happier only if their family income's below $30,000, but by $50,000, money makes no difference.

"Once you get to that $50,000 level, more money doesn't buy more happiness," she said.

Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: cmoquin on January 24, 2005, 09:17:29 pm
Just joined this forum today--we're looking to move to NH soon and will need to find a private school for our daughter.

I didn't see the democratic/Sudbury model mentioned yet in this thread.  Here's some information on it.  It's VERY libertarian and a great idea, I think.

http://www.sudval.org/01_abou_01.html
This gives some information on the theory behind the schools.

This is a website that lists Democratic-focused schools across the nation and their names/locations.  There are two listed for NH.
http://www.educationrevolution.org/lisofdemscho.html#new%20hampshire

Carla
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Rocketman on January 25, 2005, 06:26:25 pm
Reading this thread gives me hope.

I don't have any children (yet, perhaps), but I currently teach english (mostly composition) at a small community college in rural eastern Kentucky.  I'll be moving to NH as soon as I'm sure I can make decent money there and live somewhat comfortably.

I do the best I can to expand my students' intellectual horizons, but 99% of them attended government schools, so it's often frustrating.  There are a lot of sharp sticks in the bunch, despite all the layers of government-approved social programming, but most are accustomed to doing whatever it takes to get by with a minimum amount of thought and effort.  Most have become conditioned to hate reading (a direct effect of textbooks and coerced assignments, I think), so in that regard their intellects have been permanently disabled, their natural curiosity undermined if not destroyed.

I'm very interested in all of these non-government schooling options, and I've done some research in this area.  In fact, some of my methods borrow heavily from stuff I've read in homeschooling literature. 

Anyway, I think I could be especially useful with middle school and high school age students who are planning to attend college.  At least, I know exactly what they're in for.  Self-initiated learning doesn't necessarily prepare homeschoolers for the realities of a formal college education. 

If anybody has a business idea for a porc-friendly private school, I'd love to hear it.  I don't enjoy getting paychecks from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and I'd like to think there are more possibilities for individualized education than I can imagine.

---Rocketman
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Simon Jester on February 09, 2005, 09:23:19 pm
I also don't have any children yet, but after going through public schools myself and witnessing what one of my nephews is going through in public schools, not only will none of my theoretical children go to public school, but none will go to public school. I'm unschooling, all the way  8) 

I'd be nice if that made me exempt from paying money to fund public schools, though :(
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: SteveA on February 10, 2005, 12:45:16 pm
Another reason to prefer non-public schooling:

On Handcuffed and Felonious Children
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy60.html

A child with braces using a butterknife to eat is a felony.  9 and 10 year olds drawing stick figures in an agreesive stance can end up with police hauling your kids away.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bailey228 on June 30, 2005, 11:04:59 pm
Don't worry I wont! My husband and I firmly believe that institutions are evil and detramental to a child's development. Our daughter will not be born in an institution, she will be born in the comfort and safety of our own home (despite the fact that IL doesn't want anyone to give birth outside of a hospital, they prosecute all midwives they find). She won't ever know what it's like to literally feel stupider by the minute sitting in a public school. Public schools fail every student that comes through it's doors. Sure some pass with honors and straight A's, but the only thing they have really learned is how to join the system by thinking like the system wants them to (this one is my sister). There are the students that just can't seem to grasp anything told to them in school and they try but just feel stupid. The system can't handle different ways of learning and thinking so they just pass them off as failures. (this is my best friend who, even though she is beautifully talented in so many ways that she can't see, is living still with her parents working at walmart) Then there are the students who see the absurdity of it all and see no point in trying. They are intelligent but they fail every class. They hate the system and the system hates them. The system hates these students the most because they are the ones who may one day bring about their end. (this is myself and my husband) We may not be able to bring down the system, but we sure as hell won't support them by putting our daughter through their system. We can only try to bring them down by educating one person at  a time and by not putting a single one of our children (to-be) into even a day of their system.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Michael Reynolds on June 30, 2005, 11:42:49 pm
Hey, I'm a casua... I mean product of the Salem School System and I think I turned out alright!  ;) Seriously though, I turned out alright IN SPITE of the SSS, not because of it.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: KBCraig on July 01, 2005, 12:21:00 am
A co-worker, whose son is in the same grade as my daughter our our local middle school, told me today that his son had had a staph infection, of the MRSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus) variety. And it turns out that about 85 other kids in that school had been treated, too, and even the CDC had been involved.

As Mary said upon hearing the news, "Gee... some notification would have been nice!"

Our goal is to never have our youngest (age 2-1/2) in a government school.

Kevin
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on July 01, 2005, 12:36:13 am
I trust you'll be taking your older ones out as well? Never too late stem the tide...
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Tracy Saboe on July 03, 2005, 06:39:51 pm
As much as I antagonize Brian. I agree. Anybody who believes in the complete seperation of school and state, is welcome.

To me, the seperation of school and state is almost a neccessary first step.

Tracy
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: KBCraig on July 04, 2005, 02:52:01 am
I trust you'll be taking your older ones out as well? Never too late stem the tide...

Lemmee 'splain...  ;)

"Our" children are 18, 15, 14, almost 10, and 2-1/2. The eldest earned his GED, after being homeschooled for two years. Numbah Two (the only girl child) lives constantly under the threat of being yanked from public school any time we, as her parental units, are not satisfied that she's learning enough. Sons Three and Four don't live with us, but reside with my ex, so we don't have nearly enough input into their education. (Son Three (14) has been reading college texts and NASA white papers since he turned 8; Son Four (almost 10) is just as smart, but has suffered from public schooling, and if he lived with us, he'd be home-schooled no matter what he thought of it.)

And Numbah Five, the "ours" toddler, will hopefully never set foot in a government school. He's already telling us that he wants to go to school, but we get to define what "school" is for him.  :)

Kevin
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on July 05, 2005, 10:45:33 am
Forget about whether she's "learning enough;" she's not, since she should be learning only 2 things:
1) YOUR values, which only YOU can teach, and
2) How to make as much money as possible, which the school CAN'T teach; this is what colleges are for-- and they award degrees to prove it.

 Rather, it's important to get them college-ready as soon as they can be; this requires 1) a GED, and 2) the necessary skills to attend college.
A GED is easy; it's just basics, and you can easily obtain the essential requirements.
As for college-skills, that's just prep-work. Once you have a definitive list of that, you're all set.
Also, get them working on college entrance-tests (like the SAT and ACT) as soon as possible-- as well as other entrance-exams; many Asian kids do that no later than age 12, and routinely score in the 1500's by the time they enter college.

Otherwise I can't imagine anyone trusting their kid to a public school, to complete the above.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: 5thconcerto on July 05, 2005, 11:12:41 am
I haven't yet seen any discussion of the difference between schooling and education. I vote for education. Most of our founding fathers did not go to school, yet were highly educated. Schooling has nothing to do with education.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on July 05, 2005, 06:19:58 pm
"Education" is a buzzword that's never been really defined; it's just one of those "for the children" things with no real meaning, i.e. an emotional argument.
Schooling should defitely be a means to an end-- and this end should be identifiable; schooling is expensive, time-consuming and difficult, and should be made to show its worth on a monetary basis.
This is why I emphasize return-on-investment as a measure of a school's effectiveness, since it's the only real measure that matters in terms of the student's future; the rest is just hobbies.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: QuoVadis on August 17, 2005, 03:49:07 am
Sunshine:

A lot of home-educators use church facilities for group classes.  This set up works well as long as you don't let kids destroy the place.  If you're a religious person you might even be able to develop your church library to include materials relevant to home-education in case other parents are interested in joining your group or starting their own.

-JJ
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on August 21, 2005, 10:57:11 pm
That reminds me about how public school-libraries are a joke; when someone needs a particular book for a class, it's checked out by 40+ other students. Home-schooling allows you to teach children to do their own research at a REAL library. Let kids spend their time preparing for college and real life this way-- as well as studying there when they're not doing research. Most libraries also have conference-rooms that are empty during the day, where you can instruct.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: 5thconcerto on August 21, 2005, 11:27:17 pm
"Education" is a buzzword that's never been really defined; it's just one of those "for the children" things with no real meaning, i.e. an emotional argument.
Schooling should defitely be a means to an end-- and this end should be identifiable; schooling is expensive, time-consuming and difficult, and should be made to show its worth on a monetary basis.
This is why I emphasize return-on-investment as a measure of a school's effectiveness, since it's the only real measure that matters in terms of the student's future; the rest is just hobbies.


Education may be a buzzword to you, but to me, and throughout history, education is learning. Schooling is merely a process, and a twisted process at best.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on August 22, 2005, 12:44:50 am
"Education" is a buzzword that's never been really defined; it's just one of those "for the children" things with no real meaning, i.e. an emotional argument.
Schooling should defitely be a means to an end-- and this end should be identifiable; schooling is expensive, time-consuming and difficult, and should be made to show its worth on a monetary basis.
This is why I emphasize return-on-investment as a measure of a school's effectiveness, since it's the only real measure that matters in terms of the student's future; the rest is just hobbies.


Education may be a buzzword to you, but to me, and throughout history, education is learning. Schooling is merely a process, and a twisted process at best.

Nice that you have your own private vocabulary, but the mainstream majority considers "education" to MEAN "schooling" in the political sense of government programs. I'm speaking modern English-- this IS a political forum, after all, and it's not productive to mince words.

And education is an INVESTMENT-- a means to an end-- and if you can't show a net-return from it that exceeds other competitive investments, then it's just more feel-good-ism BUZZWORDS to scam power from the people, and money from the economy. Politicians make sweeping emotional statements about "the future of America" and other meaningless propaganda-statements to justify the public-school system, however if they can't produce a hard figure in terms of profits- both for the individual student and the economy, then they're just selling a pig-in-a-poke-- and at GUNPOINT. (Meanwhile, of course, freedom is PRICELESS-- and yet students of the public school-system have NONE, being forced against their will into involuntary servitude to receive an "education" (i.e. indoctrination) they didn't ask for, and the price of which will be deducted from their future-earnings-- if any; likewise, the school assumes absolutely NO responsibility for ANYTHING). This isn't even slavery, since at least slaves were protected by law to certain standards under their managers, and could not be abandoned, abused or even killed at will with zero accountability.

This is what non-profit management (i.e. government) is all ABOUT-- power without accountability,using good intentions as a means to justify coercion (of both funding AND attendance),  rather using than hard figures to induce both VOLUNTARILY (since they know that no one would do EITHER in such an instance). And this is why the public school-system fears privitization and home-schooling more than anything, since it holds them to a standard that grants greater returns on investment than public school, despite costing the parents roughly twice as much (since they must also pay for every penny of their child's rightful share of public school, if they were to patronize that system).

Hence, if the public school system were abolished, then education-costs would be HALVED.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bartmy on August 26, 2005, 06:27:15 pm
Forget about whether she's "learning enough;" she's not, since she should be learning only 2 things:


2) How to make as much money as possible, which the school CAN'T teach; this is what colleges are for-- and they award degrees to prove it.


Huh? C'mon Brian, that is pretty shallow, not to mention inaccurate. What percentage of 18 year olds even know what they want to do with their lives? Why would some one want to " make as much money as possible"?
So that they can be good little americans and buy stuff they don't need? Then build a bigger house and rent storage space for all their sh*t? That outlook is kinda disgusting to me. And is in direct opposition to reason number 1 that you listed. I doubt I am alone in my feeling...

My goal for my unschooled child is that he be happy and prepared for life. Certainly earning a viable income is a necessity but not one of only two things a person needs to know. Your posts come across as bitter, yet young. That is unfortunate, and I hope I am misinterpreting the lines.

Life is not a big competition to everyone, and success does not equal money.

Since when is "education" a buzzword?!????

Just because the state can't quantify all aspects of my sons knowledge (gained through education) with standardized tests doesn't mean that my use of the word with administrators is emotional. In fact, the opposite is true. I agree that government officials tend to use the word rather ambiguously regarding public schools.

Schooling should defitely be a means to an end-- and this end should be identifiable; schooling is expensive, time-consuming and difficult, and should be made to show its worth on a monetary basis.
This is why I emphasize return-on-investment as a measure of a school's effectiveness, since it's the only real measure that matters in terms of the student's future; the rest is just hobbies.


False. You are confusing money with earned self-worth, happiness, satisfaction and quality of life - to name a few. As I've grown older, I've come to the conclusion that relationships and hobbies are much more apt to create satisfaction and happiness than money ever could.

Nice that you have your own private vocabulary, but the mainstream majority considers "education" to MEAN "schooling" in the political sense of government programs. I'm speaking modern English-- this IS a political forum, after all, and it's not productive to mince words.

Of course you mean that "you" consider education to mean schooling. Education has a few, modern meanings. I got an education just yesterday watching an old couple interact on the beach at the end of my street.
Lastly, education should be a lifelong pursuit, IMO.


I agree that public schools are a terrible failure, but I'd be afraid if you were teaching a child values and ethics... sorry.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on August 27, 2005, 01:08:59 pm
Forget about whether she's "learning enough;" she's not, since she should be learning only 2 things:

2) How to make as much money as possible, which the school CAN'T teach; this is what colleges are for-- and they award degrees to prove it.


Huh? C'mon Brian, that is pretty shallow, not to mention inaccurate. What percentage of 18 year olds even know what they want to do with their lives? Why would some one want to " make as much money as possible"?

So that they can be good little americans and buy stuff they don't need? Then build a bigger house and rent storage space for all their sh*t? That outlook is kinda disgusting to me. And is in direct opposition to reason number 1 that you listed. I doubt I am alone in my feeling...

No, so they can be good Americans and have FREEDOM-- while respecting that of others. Freedom to live where they want, have what they want, and to DO what they want.
Nothing lets you do that like money.

Also, the system pays according to supply and demand, and so if you make more, you CONTRIBUTE more-- according to the CUSTOMER'S definition of "contribution," rather than that of some self-appointed ruler.

Finally, because of the prinicple of specialization, you're most likely to earn the most, by doing what you're best at-- which serves the twofold purpose of being your most engaging profession (since it makes maximum use of your abilities), as well as being the most lucrative; as such, you'll be doubly happy doing it (since it's a lot easier to love your work, when it PAYS a lot!). The person might have to find their own compromise between money and satisifaction, but if you're in the profession that makes the greatest amount possible, then this probably won't be problem since you'll be fully actualized, and the only problem will be that you'll be so fulfilled that you'll find yourself doing it TOO much.
(This isn't really a problem, however, since it will take things that you personally consider to be REALLY worthwhile to take you away from it, since your work-time will be worth more to you and others; this makes for a more "meaningful" life overall).

Quote
My goal for my unschooled child is that he be happy and prepared for life. Certainly earning a viable income is a necessity but not one of only two things a person needs to know. Your posts come across as bitter, yet young. That is unfortunate, and I hope I am misinterpreting the lines.

You are. If you're TRULY "unschooling" your child, then you'll do it to fulfill THEIR inidviduality, rather than simply supplanting the school's objectives and purposes with your own (which is, sadly, a tendency among many parents.  I'm not saying that you ARE doing this, but simply that  child-actualization and education, developing their unique abilities and interests-- rather than indoctrination and training of CHOSEN ones, i.e. letting them be THEMSELVES rather than some "mainstream standard," simply IS the definition of "unschooling.")

My points might sound trivial, but a lot of thought and research did go into them-- fortunately, freedom and capitalism go hand-in-hand. To begin with, I trust the consumer-market to determine its own priorities, and I respect consumers enough to make their own decisions rather than foisting my own upon them. Thus, if they have a demand for something, then they have the right to pay what they want for it.
Second, recent neuro-assessment science corroborates my holdings, that intelligence and intellectual ability is not a linear thing that varies in amount (i.e. one's IQ measure's one's ability), but quite INDIVIDUAL; as such, a person will tend to be most fulfilled by activities which engage their special talents, which are also likely to be most in demand due to specialization. By fulfilling this demand, the person will be likely to earn the most money at it-- in addition to being most fulfilled. It's a double-win proposition.

Unfortunately, the current educational-system tries to pigeonhole people's ability as a linear quantification rather than an equal qualification; likewise, regulations also do this in order to interfere with the free market. However, there are ways around this by incorporating one's abilities dyncamically via free enterprise.

Quote
Life is not a big competition to everyone, and success does not equal money.

Again, this goes back to supply and demand-- which IS competitive; if you earn more, you're CONTRIBUTING more according to subjective definitions of demand. Therefore, since I respect people's right to make their own decisions about what they want, then you ARE more successful in contributing to others and society, by earning more.
Too many people chase failed dreams that were inspired externally; maybe they saw a ballet or basketball game or science show that was popular, and decided that's what they wanted to do-- when in reality they were just after the prestige of it being a public event, or the faulty information presented regarding such a career-choice, or their lack of suitability for it etc. As a result, we've got a lot of broke, unhappy attention-whores looking for the spotlight via something for which they're simply NOT cut out,  rather than people pursuing their TRUE talents-- and fortunes. It's a sad psychology, and unfortunately the current politic fosters it.

Quote
Since when is "education" a buzzword?!????

Since the first time a politician used it to get money or laws passed-- basically, to separate the people from their money and freedom.

Quote
Just because the state can't quantify all aspects of my sons knowledge (gained through education) with standardized tests doesn't mean that my use of the word with administrators is emotional. In fact, the opposite is true. I agree that government officials tend to use the word rather ambiguously regarding public schools.

When they can put a dollar-amount on it, lemme know. I won't hold my breath, since they never will-- if they did, public schools would end tomorrow.

Quote
Schooling should defitely be a means to an end-- and this end should be identifiable; schooling is expensive, time-consuming and difficult, and should be made to show its worth on a monetary basis.
This is why I emphasize return-on-investment as a measure of a school's effectiveness, since it's the only real measure that matters in terms of the student's future; the rest is just hobbies.


False. You are confusing money with earned self-worth, happiness, satisfaction and quality of life - to name a few. As I've grown older, I've come to the conclusion that relationships and hobbies are much more apt to create satisfaction and happiness than money ever could.

Not if you can't sleep on windy nights; business before pleasure. However, under what I'm proposing, your business probably would BE your hobby, since it indicates what you're individually good at. There's a question often asked in career-counselling: "if you won the lotto and could retire, what would you do?" Your answer to this, indicates what you should do for living.

While it's possible that it might not earn as much as something else, the facts are that

1) the enjoyment you'll get from it, in comparision to the gruelling drudgery of something you don't like, DOES have a dollar-value, which only the person can decide;
2) it's more likely to earn more than anything else, since the person will be more "cut out" for it
3) the person is more likely to stick with it, and thus earn more overall in the long run.

Therefore, I view net-earnings as a distillation of the best choice overall-- which is appropriate, since price is simply trading something the customer considers less valuable, for what they consider MORE valuable. Again, this goes back to "unschooling," which follows the individual's initiative and values rather than imposing them.

Quote
Nice that you have your own private vocabulary, but the mainstream majority considers "education" to MEAN "schooling" in the political sense of government programs. I'm speaking modern English-- this IS a political forum, after all, and it's not productive to mince words.

Of course you mean that "you" consider education to mean schooling. Education has a few, modern meanings. I got an education just yesterday watching an old couple interact on the beach at the end of my street.
Lastly, education should be a lifelong pursuit, IMO.

I'm quite familar with Maslow's "hierarchical pyramid of needs," however again a lot of thought did go into my statements to serve a dual-purpose of need-fulfillment. While a person seeks both survival and purpose, they can achieve both BEST, believe it or not, by serving both best; in other words, a person tends to find the greatest purpose in what they ALSO find most lucrative. That might sound simplistic, but it's actually quite advanced and logical.

(continued next message)
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on August 27, 2005, 07:05:01 pm
Quote
I agree that public schools are a terrible failure, but I'd be afraid if you were teaching a child values and ethics... sorry.

Values and ethics begin by not stealing-- which is what public schools BEGIN by doing, teaching to a captive, paying audience. Likewise, they involve doing good unto others as well as yourself-- which can be done simply by free trade. Values are taught by deed as well as word-- so if you take away children's time, liberty and pursuit of happiness for what YOU subjectively decide is "their own good," that's what they'll end up doing to others. I prefer to respect their idividuality and Free Will-- which is the FIRST step to fostering the DEVELOPMENT thereof.

Freedom is the highest value there is-- anything else is theft, murder and slavery. To teach freedom, you have to set an example-- by RESPECTING it, and the right of others to live their own lives and make their own decisions-- not decide what they SHOULD do or have etc.
As such, a person who earns the most in a free market, will be DOING this the most-- and there's nothing more "ethical" than that.
So don't pretend that I'm only interested in material wealth-- it's just a reflection of one's own spiritual wealth, in a free society; it's not like one is stealing it, in any sense (except "fiat-trade" like licensing etc).

Everything has a cost-- and it's up to each person to determine relative worth of every sacrifice; likewise there's the principal of diminishing marginal returns, which ensures moderation. It's only when a person becomes obsessed beyond observing this equation, that this becomes a problem. And if they're allowed to develop their own values in the first place beyond external ones, then that's not likely.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bartmy on August 27, 2005, 10:50:00 pm
Your post has many non-sequiturs and questionable-at-best conclusions and assumptions. To wit:

Values and ethics begin by not stealing

As such, a person who earns the most in a free market, will be DOING this the most

So don't pretend that I'm only interested in material wealth-- it's just a reflection of one's own spiritual wealth

Everything has a cost-- and it's up to each person to determine relative worth of every sacrifice; likewise there's the principal of diminishing marginal returns, which ensures moderation. It's only when a person becomes obsessed beyond observing this equation, that this becomes a problem. And if they're allowed to develop their own values in the first place beyond external ones, then that's not likely.

Also, the system pays according to supply and demand, and so if you make more, you CONTRIBUTE more-- according to the CUSTOMER'S definition of "contribution

Finally, because of the prinicple of specialization, you're most likely to earn the most, by doing what you're best at-- which serves the twofold purpose of being your most engaging profession (since it makes maximum use of your abilities), as well as being the most lucrative

since it's a lot easier to love your work, when it PAYS a lot!

This isn't really a problem, however, since it will take things that you personally consider to be REALLY worthwhile to take you away from it, since your work-time will be worth more to you and others; this makes for a more "meaningful" life overall

a person will tend to be most fulfilled by activities which engage their special talents, which are also likely to be most in demand due to specialization. By fulfilling this demand, the person will be likely to earn the most money at it-- in addition to being most fulfilled

Again, this goes back to supply and demand-- which IS competitive; if you earn more, you're CONTRIBUTING more according to subjective definitions of demand. Therefore, since I respect people's right to make their own decisions about what they want, then you ARE more successful in contributing to others and society, by earning more.

1) the enjoyment you'll get from it, in comparision to the gruelling drudgery of something you don't like, DOES have a dollar-value, which only the person can decide;
2) it's more likely to earn more than anything else, since the person will be more "cut out" for it
3) the person is more likely to stick with it, and thus earn more overall in the long run.

 a person tends to find the greatest purpose in what they ALSO find most lucrative.


I'm not posting to debate or rip you point by point but these are some of the ones that jump out at me as lacking credibility and/or insight into human nature. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with you living your life based on "dollar values" but to suggest that it is a universal truth is your own construct. That's just not the way enlightened people operate. Methinks that you may lack exposure to great art, literature, music and philosophy...or perhaps you simply don't consider them important in the overall scheme of our brief time on this little rock. To each his own. Have fun and good luck. Peace.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on September 16, 2005, 04:53:10 pm
Quote
I'm not posting to debate or rip you point by point


Because you CAN'T-- because you KNOW I'm right, and so you'll just dither on into meaningless, pompous insults and other blood-sucking prattle.

Quote
but these are some of the ones that jump out at me as lacking credibility and/or insight into human nature. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with you living your life based on "dollar values" but to suggest that it is a universal truth is your own construct. That's just not the way enlightened people operate. Methinks that you may lack exposure to great art, literature, music and philosophy...or perhaps you simply don't consider them important in the overall scheme of our brief time on this little rock. To each his own. Have fun and good luck. Peace.


This is what Lenin referred to as a "useful idiot," i.e. a puppet who would rationalize the grossest violations of the most basic human rights, by diverting the issue via pompous-sounding claims that insinuate that anyone who disagrees is

 "unenlightened"

 or

"lacks exposure to great art, literature, music and philosophy...or perhaps you simply don't consider them important in the overall scheme of our brief time on this little rock" or a similar arrogant self-orgy of superiority and self-indulgence.

They basically say "the ends justify the means, which are so enlightened so as to transcend such mean issues as individual rights."

Newsflash: they DON'T.
Sorry, but that's JUST not what freedom is about;  and if you don't know that, then I don't know what to tell you-- although I doubt you'd listen anyway thanks to the siren-song of collectivism causing all logic to fall on deaf ears.

Compulsory schooling is a product of centralized government, in that it began in all states but one (Massachussets, not surpingly, where children were separated from their parents literally at gunpoint) shortly after the Civil War.

The Civil War was basically nothing but a similar collectivist-coup wherein people were similarly separated from their sovereignty, literally at gunpoint-- and if Hell wasn't experienced during the war itself, it definitely ensued soon afterward once the federal noose was secured and slowly tightened during the 19th and 20th century.
Now we're living with the aftermath, and it's about time we ENDED it once and for all by simply pulling back the curtain of "The Great US," to find the man behind it-- who, sadly, are thronged by "useful idiots" such as these, and I'm really not too concerned about convincing them to respect human freedoms.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bartmy on September 16, 2005, 05:27:04 pm
I am against forced school education - and I homeschool/unschool my son because of it - I don't just "prattle" on about what *I* believe.

Public schools obviously miss the mark more often than not.

You sound like a money-grubbing sociopath.

So, you deleted your post describing yourself as the "emporor with no clothes", look up some new disjointed and disconnected info, and then refer to art and literature as an "arrogant self-orgy of superiority and self-indulgence"

and expect to be taken seriously!!!! GO BACK TO THE MENTAL MASTURBATION YOU SEEM TO ENJOY SO, SO, SO MUCH


I think your reference to yourself being naked actually showed a little class, the ability to admit ignorance is a virtue when you know you are wrong. (and you are, deeply)

you seem better suited toward getting stoned and talking about the possible existence of the universe in your own belly button (if you have one, you android) with some college buddies and a few cases of coors light or budweiser.

Brian, the ability to string two and three-syllable words together indicates nothing. They must make sense to be effective.

The fact that you could possibly glean any connection between what I have written and Lenin's usefull idiot says quite alot about your intellectual capacity and your ability to reason.

GO ON WITH MONEY AS YOUR MEASURING STICK FOR LIFE AND HAPPINESS . YOU ARE SICK.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Tracy Saboe on September 16, 2005, 06:38:09 pm
Quote
money-grubbing

Nothing wrong with money grubbing. Hey he just gave you a compliment Brian!  :D

In Defense of Money Grubbing

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner24.html
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bartmy on September 16, 2005, 09:24:28 pm
Quote
money-grubbing

Nothing wrong with money grubbing. Hey he just gave you a compliment Brian!  :D

In Defense of Money Grubbing

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner24.html

I agree that money grubbing is a step up from pop culture and bad art. I don't believe that it is at the top of chart. To each his own, live and let live, yadda, yadda, yadda.
 It's just my opinion. Too many Americans work way too many hours in pursuit of the almighty dollar and in doing so miss out on life and family. And they are in major debt. No one wants to pay me for schooling my son, reading, writing, cooking, going fishing, chopping wood, playing a boardgame with my family in the evening or meditating at the lake every morning while stretching. I do get paid for building furniture (or whatever else, I work for myself), which I also love, just not enough to do it more than 35 or so hours a week.


Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Tracy Saboe on September 16, 2005, 09:37:08 pm
Of course one of the reason's people grub for money, is so they can have more free time at a future date.

I grub for money now, so that in 3 or 4 years I'll be able to grub for time for the rest of my life.

Time and money don't have to be tradeoffs if you invest both wisely.

Tracy
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bartmy on September 16, 2005, 10:25:17 pm
That sounds like a great plan for you Tracy. Whatever it takes, right? Everyone is different.

Time and money can most certainly be trade-offs. If you were older and raising a family, it would be crystal clear. I don't think that working hard for three or four years is going to carry you through raising a family though, unless you are making about a million dollars a year, pre tax income. I make $45-$65 per hour, and that's all I need. New Hampshire is cheap, I used to live on Cape Cod.

BTW, libertarian's support a woman's right to choose. Personal freedom and all that.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Tracy Saboe on September 17, 2005, 08:10:02 am
Except that some libertarians believe that the pre-born baby has rights too.

Where did THAT statement come from. We haven't talked about abortion at all in this thread.

Anyway, if all my debts (including my mortgage) were paid off, my wife and I could live fairly comfortably on $500/month or less.

That's what I'm doing. Working one job to pay of debts and the other to use use on expenses and invest and save and pay of debts like normal.

2ndly, I don't make nearly as much as you do. You might make different tradeoffs in regards to time/money if you only made $12/hour.

But you're right. everyone's different.

Tracy
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on September 17, 2005, 09:31:11 pm
I am against forced school education - and I homeschool/unschool my son because of it - I don't just "prattle" on about what *I* believe.

Public schools obviously miss the mark more often than not.

Wrong-- they HIT their ACTUAL  intended mark-- of totalitarian suppression of human freedoms, in the name of state supremacy. Do you REALLY think they're interested in bettering the children's own self-interests first and foremost-- whether they or their parents like it or not? If so, you're dangerously NAIVE.

And even if they DID have the child's best intersts in mind, they would have no right to attempt to further such by force-- but force is the inevitable currency of statism. And statism in turn is the inevitable result of centralization.

Quote
You sound like a money-grubbing sociopath.


As does ANY philosophically, economically and politically-literate person to the thus-illiterate, perhaps-- but your shortcomings are not my responsibility. The fact that I recognize finite commodities, as BEING finite-- and therefore quantifiable-- as well as SUBJECTIVELY valued, as opposed to your foisting your personal values of various things on me and others (as in your prattling on about how "I lack enlightenment" and other meaningless ad homeneim jabberwocky)--  proves me more intelligent and informed than you, in that you take pride in combining ignorance with arrogance.

Quote
So, you deleted your post describing yourself as the "emporor with no clothes", look up some new disjointed and disconnected info, and then refer to art and literature as an "arrogant self-orgy of superiority and self-indulgence"

and expect to be taken seriously!!!! GO BACK TO THE MENTAL MASTURBATION YOU SEEM TO ENJOY SO, SO, SO MUCH

Actually, it was deleted by the board-censors-- so I furnished something more politically-correct and less esoteric. I had a feeling the first one flew right over your naked-emperor-worshipping head anyway-- a feeling which, sadly, proved correct, as noted below:

Quote
I think your reference to yourself being naked actually showed a little class, the ability to admit ignorance is a virtue when you know you are wrong. (and you are, deeply)

And the inabilty to see your own ignorance is no virtue-- as is the Islamic saying that "more treacherous than the serpent, is the donkey which brays in the yard."
 I WASN'T referring to myself-- and for you to asss-ume such, is to make an ass of yourself indeed-- a HORSE's ass.
If you don't know what a "naked emperor" is, then you're not just politically, economically and philosophically illiterate-- you're LITERALLY illiterate!

Quote
you seem better suited toward getting stoned and talking about the possible existence of the universe in your own belly button (if you have one, you android) with some college buddies and a few cases of coors light or budweiser.

Now you show your own prejudice, and the ignorance out of which it ensues. Matter of fact, I've made contributions to the entire field of astrophysics which are still being sifted by the experts-- however I've been working on them since Sagan's day.

Quote
Brian, the ability to string two and three-syllable words together indicates nothing. They must make sense to be effective.

Make sense to whom-- to YOU? Or simply OBJECTIVE sense-- i.e. truth, of which all is God's?

 In either case, you flatter yourself-- by assuming that your failure to find sense in them, constitutes any testamony to their being NON-sense. Something flying OVER your head,  is only non-existent in the context of the two-dimensional thinker.

Quote
The fact that you could possibly glean any connection between what I have written and Lenin's usefull idiot says quite alot about your intellectual capacity and your ability to reason.

Yes-- but in the OPPOSITE of your intended meaning. Your words give you away  clearly-- as does your contempt for capitalism.

Quote
GO ON WITH MONEY AS YOUR MEASURING STICK FOR LIFE AND HAPPINESS . YOU ARE SICK.

So you WOULDN'T pay more of your money-- the money which you (giving you the benefit of the doubt) earned by trading your freedom toward fulfilling OTHERS' pursuit of happiness-- for something which facilitates your pursuit of happiness, than for something which DOESN'T?
You ARE either econimically illiterate-- or think that your values of what constitute "legitimate" happiness (i.e. that which fulfills your definition of "enlightened" values) are the TRUE ones, giving you license to FORCE them on others-- which makes you EVIL.

And a fool and his money are soon parted-- unfortunately in a democracy without liberty, such "paying-dearly departed" fools, tend to simply vote themselves  compensation from the thrifty and wise, as we are currently seeing in New Orleans.

Don't equate simplicity that you don't understand, with error-- rather than CLARITY. You might think that E=MC2 is a statement of ignorance just because "it doesn't make sense to you," but that doesn't make you a better physicist than Einstein. Likewise, your contempt for money, doesn't make you a better philosopher than I am.

Contempt for money, to quote Micheal Corleone, is a trick of the rich to keep others from it: and as such, is likewise thus a trick of the socialist to separate the freeman from his goods-- via enjoining the the aid of USEFUL IDIOTS.
Or as Pogo would say:
"You has met the enemy, and they is YOU."
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: bartmy on September 18, 2005, 08:46:30 am
I don't know how to get it through to you...

I don't want to foist any of my ideals upon you. My ideals are my ideals, they are laid out for perusal, laid out as an alternative viewpoint to that which you espouse... I don't want to pass any laws against people wasting their own lives, setting themselves up for midlife crisis, etc...my viewpoint is my opinion, and I'm sure that your opinion works for you...I am simply disagreeing with you regarding the almighty dollar as the only meaningful measuring stick to be applied to education,life,  happiness, etc.


That's why I said perhaps you are lacking exposure to great literature, etc...
Perhaps you are not, perhaps you don't care,...I don't know, nor did I suggest it is THE ONLY way...what I said was, your way is not the only way, and that I think to say your way is THE ONLY TRUE way is fallacious, and somewhat shallow.

 I can see now how it could be a part of that, but I still disagree when you suggest to people that it is the ONLY measure. I see life as being too subjective; too individual to be gauged by money alone. Perhaps if I was calculating acceptable casualties for a war, or worked for an insurance company...but that, to me, is statistical analysys, and many times far removed from the emotions and feelings that go into contributing to people's happiness and satisfaction during their lifetimes. Of course, if we don't earn ENOUGH money to live in the manner that we would like to, attaining happiness can be difficult. Poverty is not a hotbed of happiness, that much is obvious, but there are, IMO, WAY too many people who equate having a lot of consumer goods with being happy, even going so far as to rent storage space to store their EXTRA crap, only to eventually realize that things, commodities are NOT the answer to happiness. Sometimes at forty, sometimes on their deathbed.

When I said public schools miss the mark, I meant that they do not best serve children and teenagers. They are, in my opinion, about employing teachers and bureaucrats, and they remind me of a minor league farm system for corporations. Not too different than the former Soviet Union pulling physically talented youngsters out of first and second grade to train them for the Olympics 8 hours per day...

I love capitalism. I have my own business that I started many years ago with a small credit card from Sears. I have had as many as six well-compensated employees...I could very easily have paid them less, and kept more for myself, but I believe in paying people a livable wage...enough to raise a family and buy a house...Capitalism allows me to set up my life in the way that I want to, contribute what I want to, and take the risks that I want to. It's one of the things that allows me the balance in my life between work and family and play.

Everyone is different, Brian, and I'm sure you are well-suited to your field, as I am to mine. I respect you for thinking through your opinions and for the analyzing of yourself and available materials regarding your beliefs. You present some interesting ideas, and I have learned a couple things from cross-referencing some of your statements/opiniions.

Of course I earn my money. Of course I spend it (after food, shelter, clothing, savings) in pursuit of happiness. I do not stand in the way of anyone else earning their money...so I don't know what you are talking about. This would be an example of what I consider your faulty logic/non-sequiter type posting.

You ARE either econimically illiterate-- or think that your values of what constitute "legitimate" happiness (i.e. that which fulfills your definition of "enlightened" values) are the TRUE ones, giving you license to FORCE them on others-- which makes you EVIL.


Where, in any post, did you ever get ANY impression of me wanting to FORCE anything on anybody?????

Perhaps I am economically illiterate - although I doubt it, considering I've achieved what I set out to achieve in business, on my own- I just don't think that money is so great a tool to measure a person's life with and that there are alot of people out there who lived that way for awhile and found it cold and hollow, found out that their wife was a lonely pill-popper and that they didn't know their own children. I find that sad. Granted, a select few of the "money grubbers" get extremely rich and can then try to turn things around in their lives. Most don't ever have that luxury, most don't get rich because they spend everything they make in an attempt to "buy" happiness. These are the same folks contributing to the boom of the affore-mentioned self-storage industry.

I am first and foremost a self-reliant and rugged individual, i.e, I grow as much of my own produce as possible, am working at homemade solar heat for my house to get more "off" the grid, I homeschool my son on everything from welding to physics to investing and could survive a hike to the North Pole or make it to the summit of Mt. Everest if I chose to. I have multiple skills that allow me to do things myself - weld, build everything from computers to houses, plumb, electrify, cook, farm, repair machinery and engines or whatever - and a bunch of other simple albeit usefull skills. In that sense, I am "business before pleasure", although I take some measure of simple pleasure in doing those things as well. I like being self-sufficient.
 
If I can understand Dostoevsky, the various surprises of quantum mechanics, and get all excited about string theory but still not make sense of parts of your posts, well, perhaps I AM missing the point, but then again, perhaps you are ineffective at communicating your ideas using the written word. I haven't found much in this world that I haven't been able to understand when I've tried. I was cursed with an EXTREMELY HUGE brain. That's not to say yours isn't bigger, so maybe you need to simplify your posts a bit for me. Economic theory is a weak point for me, although I have looked up a few things since your postings to try to better understand where you are coming from.

Anyway, on a different note -
I can grasp your idea that someone producing the "most-needed" or "most wanted"product, and therefore charging alot for said product, is contributing the most. It seems to me that, in theory, it should be  COULD PoTENTIALLY be contributing the most. Contributing what though? If Iran is paying me alot for a nuclear bomb, and I provide it because it offers me the highest return on my time, what have I contributed? I realize this is an extreme example, but there are so many others that I would also consider very, very questionable as to how much they actually contribute, except to someone's bank account.
Perhaps I need to know your definitions of "contribute". I guess I am stuck in a bit of a left wing definition and charity keeps coming to mind when I think of contribute.

I don't have any contempt whatsoever for money, or for people who have alot of it. I have had contempt (well, contempt is a bit too strong of a word) for people who neglect their families needs by working 90 hours a week so that they can drive BMW's and keep up with the latest fashions and trends as a way of defining themselves - not realizing that it is, for the most part, all external bullshit that's been carefully contrived and polished to a shiny gleam by Madison Avenue executives. People who have nicer woodworking tools than I do but don't even know how to use them, they are there for Bob the neighbor to be "impressed".. People who have big houses with plasma T.V's in multiple rooms so everyone can disappear to their own little corner of the universe instead of interacting as a family unit and seeking meaningfull relationships. I guess you could call these people "collector's", because they accumulate alot of belongings, alot of shite. Contempt though...no, I feel annoyed with them, sorry for their families, their kids, sorry for them. I know it's kind of condescending of me to feel that way, but I do. I find it disappointing that humans can be so banal.

 I don't believe in taxing the rich to feed the poor or government enforced social programs of ANY kind. I guess in that sense, I would like to force my ideals on people - in that they need to be responsible for themselves and that those who are physically/mentally unable to care for themselves should be cared for by family, church, community, or voluntary charitable donations. I don't believe anyone has a "right" to anything that they haven't earned for themselves.
Except for healthcare, protection of personal freedoms and border protection from invasion. I have the sense that we would probably agree on much more than we disagree...is it McCandless?
G'Day
BTW, I don't have any problems with sociopaths, they are some of my favorite people. <G>
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: BrianMcCandliss on October 08, 2005, 07:35:59 pm
I'm not going to wade through all that, but I don't need to in order to get the idea. Sorry if you don't understand "liberty" as respecting others' SOVEREIGNTY regardless of what you may want or "think is right.

 However in this case the fallacy is more of a self-fulfilling sophistry. The US is NOT a free country, it's an EVIL EMPIRE. Until this changes, we're just going to have more people voting for laws on what they THINK others should do. Check out this letter  (http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_BxRY6OBEJnmK2T5PvTGaSLfZ43hJxa2Hsm6Tzsjevys=) on how to change it.


Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: cropperb on June 04, 2006, 12:23:36 am
I might have a solution:

Aristotle's Academy, a private school/home school hybrid.

I will be opening such an establishment, currently planning on Concord, in the fall of '07 or '08.

The biggest difference between my school and private school will be cost (mine will be a lot lower).

My school will NOT have a gymnasium, football feild, swimming pool, track, basketball court, tennis courts, etc and so on.

My school WILL have a comprehensive education in History, Science, Math and Literature.

For more information, see my other posts where I explain more indepth, or email me

brandonjesse (at) hotmail (dot) com

You can also purchase "The Philosophy of Education" by Leonard Peikoff at

www.aynrandbookstore.com

which is an excellant course in what education is and what it is for.
Title: Re: Don't enroll your children in the public schools
Post by: Dreepa on June 04, 2006, 09:40:42 am
During yesterday's MVP meeting I think one point that was brought up that was excellent.

What if we first try and get the busing of kids stopped?  Or make only the parents pay to bus their kids.  They should reduce the taxes in town by quite a bit.
This might be the first avenue to explore.