Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KBCraig]

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

[BrianMcCandliss]

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.

[5thconcerto]

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.

[BrianMcCandliss]

"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.

[QuoVadis]

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

[BrianMcCandliss]

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.

[5thconcerto]

"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.

[BrianMcCandliss]

"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.

[bartmy]

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.

[BrianMcCandliss]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

[BrianMcCandliss]

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.

[bartmy]

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.

[BrianMcCandliss]

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.

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.

[bartmy]

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.

[Tracy Saboe]

money-grubbing

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

In Defense of Money Grubbing

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