Teacher's neck broken over iPod...

[LadyT]

I want to know what your opinion is.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[Damocles]

It doens't have to be a particular regional school. The curriculum could come from a state body set up for homeschoolers. If they are going to get a diploma and get credit for particular courses, I do think there should be oversight and standardization. I just don't think there really shouldn't be much subjectivity left to people who are not trained as teachers. You can play the persecuted devils advocate all you want, but you're not going to convince me that standardizing their subjects and adding oversight is punishing them.

Also, i'm not saying they can't be homeschooled, I'm saying if are going to be homeschooled and their parents are going to act as their teachers, then this is what they are minimally required to teach.........

I think standardizing testing is a good idea, but standardizing curricula is not. One can determine if the child is performing to standards or not without enforcing a specific structure to the equation.

 

[LadyT]

I think standardizing testing is a good idea, but standardizing curricula is not. One can determine if the child is performing to standards or not without enforcing a specific structure to the equation.

Well, I think we are going ot have to agree to disagree. Because I think its a good idea and there is no changing that.

 

[Thorn]

If I understand this correctly, Damo, you're more concerned about a state-required curriculum that might be below the standards of some home-schooling parents, that might be like some of my old history classes, for instance (memorize dates but forget about anything important).

I think that so long as some basic standards in learning and performance are met, as should be required in cases such as leaningright has described, then the question of curriculum becomes moot. If I were in the position of deciding to homeschool my kids, one of the big factors for me would probably be the fact that classrooms in general simply aren't stimulating enough and bright students are, in fact, penalized because the curriculum is aimed at the lowest common denominator. The mainstreaming practices that place special needs children in regular classrooms add to this problem, both in the level of instruction required and in the amount of time and other resources that must be devoted to them at the expense of the education of the rest of the class. Teachers have really no choice in this matter, but homeschooling parents do.

So long as students have access to a variety of topics and, perhaps, instructional styles (one can become pretty stale, good intentions aside) then a bright student could thrive, academically, with such individual teaching. I'm still apprehensive about some of the potential social consequences of the possible isolation involved in learning at home. People assure me that there are plenty of opportunities for social/team contacts, but it isn't a simple matter, with many plus and minus factors.

Frankly I'm glad that this isn't a decision I'll have to make!

 

[IHateGovernment]

No offense, but few parents ever believe that they're abusing their children, even when they are. It's that road paved with good intentions again.

What does that have to do with me. I am well acquainted with what constitutes abuse and what doesn't. Any implication that my actions toward my children are abusive should not be made lightly.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Well for those who don't like that I'm going to homeschool my child I say I'm glad you're not in charge. We will be moving back to Jersey as soon as possible because they have the most lax homeschooling laws.

My daughter is now 21 months and can say over 200 words. She is learning her alphabet, loves books and loves to learn new animals. I believe she will be a gifted child as my wife and I were when we were children. The difference is we will be giving her the attention she deserves in order for her to reach her potential instead of being held back by other children.

If you don't use the bible thumping loonies as an example homeschooled children often outperform kids in public school. Also another interesting statistic is that the race gap in education disappears among homeschooled children. I don't want the fact that my child is female or black to be a hindrance in their education and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[Litmus]

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Based on what evidence? My continual victories and witticisms?

 

[Litmus]

Define "advocacy" in this context.

Not that you will, I just thought I'd point out the first and most obvious hole in your undoubtedly tedious argument.

You being unaware of the definition of advocacy is a hole in my argument? I don't think so, but nice try.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

You being unaware of the definition of advocacy is a hole in my argument? I don't think so, but nice try.

Yo! Wimp!

Main Entry: ad·vo·ca·cy
Pronunciation: 'ad-v&-k&-sE
Function: noun
: the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal

Homosexuality isn't a "cause or proposal" strictly speaking. Homosexuality is simply a fact of life: a significant fraction of people exhibit it. Always have, always will.

I await with bated breath your explication of "homosexual advocacy" as you fear it. "Mandator" I will put down to either a typo or an expression of your favored sexual position. Maybe both.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

No offense, but few parents ever believe that they're abusing their children, even when they are. It's that road paved with good intentions again.

What does that have to do with me. I am well acquainted with what constitutes abuse and what doesn't. Any implication that my actions toward my children are abusive should not be made lightly.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with you. Except that it has everything to do with you to the same extent that it has to do with all of us.

There should be an emoticon for this situation but I can't find one right off.

Like all of us, you have beliefs about what constitutes child abuse. Your beliefs may or may not be accurate: as an outsider, I have no way of knowing. Law and public policy can't deal with specific cases. Law and policy must deal with statistical reality and general cases.

FOR THE RECORD, I believe that you, personally, have very ethical and realistic notions of what children need: I don't fear that you are going to twist your children into monsters. I do, however, fear that many children will be horribly abused if we allow homeschooling to spread too far or with too few restrictions.

It's not about you, IH8, it's about people in general.

 

[Litmus]

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with you. Except that it has everything to do with you to the same extent that it has to do with all of us.

There should be an emoticon for this situation but I can't find one right off.

Like all of us, you have beliefs about what constitutes child abuse. Your beliefs may or may not be accurate: as an outsider, I have no way of knowing. Law and public policy can't deal with specific cases. Law and policy must deal with statistical reality and general cases.

FOR THE RECORD, I believe that you, personally, have very ethical and realistic notions of what children need: I don't fear that you are going to twist your children into monsters. I do, however, fear that many children will be horribly abused if we allow homeschooling to spread too far or with too few restrictions.

It's not about you, IH8, it's about people in general.

Wow. what a paternalistic nazi you are. Anything BUT freedom and fairness right, adolf?

You think you're so wise, but really you're an elitist prick who espouses racial discrimination and totalitarianism.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Wow. what a paternalistic nazi you are. Anything BUT freedom and fairness right, adolf?

You think you're so wise, but really you're an elitist prick who espouses racial discrimination and totalitarianism.

Oh, please. Pull your thumb out of your ass and suck on it instead: it might make you feel a little more secure.

We do not and cannot allow parents unconditional freedom to raise their children however they see fit. No society ever has and no society ever will. We do give them the benefit of an enormous doubt, which I believe is appropriate. There are limits, however.

 

[Litmus]

Oh, please. Pull your thumb out of your ass and suck on it instead: it might make you feel a little more secure.

We do not and cannot allow parents unconditional freedom to raise their children however they see fit. No society ever has and no society ever will. We do give them the benefit of an enormous doubt, which I believe is appropriate. There are limits, however.

Whatever you say, paternalistic, anti-freedom, nazi.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is why I think we need to rethink our entire school system. I know people don't like this idea, but if teachers are going to continue to have little to no disiplinary powers over the kids, yet some how be responsible for them, we should think about being able to kick kids out of the public school system indefinitely and let their parents be responsible for their education.

I think in a civilized society anyone who can't control a child without hitting them shouldn't be allowed to teach.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is why I think we need to rethink our entire school system. I know people don't like this idea, but if teachers are going to continue to have little to no disiplinary powers over the kids, yet some how be responsible for them, we should think about being able to kick kids out of the public school system indefinitely and let their parents be responsible for their education.

I assume that's what you mean by "discipline", even though child abuse as a disciplinary tool has been ruled out by men much smarter than you for many decades as innefficient and causing anger problems.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not exactly Darla, kids in school have no respect for the teachers becase it is not taught by parents or society, and the teachers are not allowed to instill it in them based on intimidation.

Kids in school have no respect for teachers because 90% of them are morons, have no idea how to talk to kids, and are only there for the cushy benefits. Not because they aren't allowed to abuse children. Our school system is shit. Just walk into a school. Even the architecture is shitty and will depress the hell out of you. Go into a classroom and here things in 12th grade that you'd think they should know by 3rd grade, taught by someone who can't teach besides reading from a book and using "teaching tools" provided by the state (hell, a kid could do this themselves! Why pay a person 40K a year to read a book?)

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, my suggestion is to kick kids like that out all together and make the parents responsible for getting them educated. How are they supposed to make someone learn or follow the rules when they are that defiant or show that they are willfully unwilling to be in school? Its not nice and ideally we'd like to educate everyone, but the resources they suck away from other chilren isn't fair to them.

I'm not against corporate punishment.

Tiana, you love to continue the cycle of violence. You know very little else. But turning angry kids directly into gang leaders (what else is there for them? The gut reaction you give is always wrong, Tiana. That's the problem with our society. Hit, hit, hit, never understand. And you're the same thing as that kid who broke the teachers neck) isn't going to solve anything.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Its a not a pretty solution, I know, but if they have shown that they are willing to with the school to the point where they violently rebel against faculty what do you do?

You could use Damo's solution.

But kicking them out of the school system would be the worse thing possible. They're fucking kids. They're going to fucking rebel. If you make them angry at the government by ruining their lives through it they're never going to stop being angry kids.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Alaskan boot camp then? If they are violently defiant to getting an education, I don't think keeping them around is going to thwart them from being a criminal. Its not fair to the other kids that want to learn and do well on standardized tests and go to college. Or even the kids in reform school that are trying to better themselves to get back into traditional classrooms. All you're doing is spreading the poison. Its better to isolate them and get rid of them so that the other students have a better chance.

The only way to do that effectively would be to murder them.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

From a teacher's standpoint, the bad kids have to go. There is no way you can create an environment conducive to learning if there is always the fear of an eruption or the room is in disruption.

I won't even allow a kid to talk while I am lecturing (There is no way they are going to be using an ipod or cell phone) unless they raise their hand and I acknowledge them. If they do talk they are sent out of the room. First time = swats, Second time = suspension.

Are you a college professor or something? It would be ridiculous to give teachers, and not neutral disciplinarianes, power to suspend, especially for something so trivial.