🚀 go-pugleaf

bradley@ai-lab.fh-furtwangen.de (Bradley Richards) wrote:

>In article <329796E9.52AA@rmii.com>, sockeye@rmii.com wrote:
>>> I am not arguing that homeschooling should be banned or that severe
>>> barriers (spelling flames to alt.null) should be erected, merely that
>>> some basic standards be set.

Home schoolers DO face standards.  Those standards are a damned sight
higher than the standards set for children sent to public school.  My
home-schooled daughter must pass a test every two years that shows she
meets or exceeds the minimum standards set by the STATE for
proficiency in about a dozen different areas.  Children in public
school NEVER have to prove they have met the same standards.  

My daughter has been home-schooled for three years now.  She was
failing the third grade halfway through the school-year, and we pulled
her out.  At the end of the fourth grade, she ranked TWO YEARS AHEAD
of her peer group in three areas, and ahead of or even with the upper
20 percent in seven or eight others.  Who was failing WHOM in this
case? 
>>
>>By whom, and for what purpose? I think our basic point of contention is
>>this: you, like most folks, seem to believe in the good intentions of
>>the school system. I do not.

The STATE sets the standard in Colorado.  Those standards are rather
low, but they exist.  One of the reasons so many people are removing
their children from the public school system is because the Schools'
standards are even lower.  My personal experience with the local
school district was abysmal:  they didn't want my input, they didn't
accept the fact that I held them accountable for their poor
performance, and they refused to allow us an active role in our
daughter's education unless it was to fulfill their agenda.  We now
home school.  So do thousands of other families.  The numbers will
increase as long as the administrative leadership in public education
is more interested in their other agendas than in real education.  
>>
>>Every time they can
>>take a child out of the house and force him/her into confinement,
>>passivity, and dependency(on the system), the system wins a battle;
>>every time a child escapes into homeschool or hooky they lose one.

I'm the father of three children: all have been failed by the
so-called public education system.  My very bright daughter was
slammed every time she tried to think for herself - in two school
districts (one in Colorado, one in South Carolina) the attacks from
the teachers were public and derogatory.  It's taken her 10 years
after graduation to find a way to learn what they didn't teach her in
public schools, and to feel good about herself again.

My son is adopted.  He suffered massive brain damage during the early
part of his life, before he was placed with us.  He has an effective
IQ of about 65.  In some areas, however, he can function at a much
higher level - near average.  We've presented the doctor's records,
psychological reports,  and recommendations to over a dozen different
schools during the 14 years between pre-school and his graduation
three years ago.  Only two of those schools accepted our information
and worked with US to ensure my son received the best possible
education he could get.  Most schools either labelled him retarded,
and sent him to some 'special education' classroom where he was
continuously treated as a two-year-old, or they 'mainstreamed' him.
Our son has severe damage to the short-term memory area of the brain -
he can hardly remember which classes he needs to go to, and he was
mainstreamed!  

Does anyone wonder why we home-school our youngest, who has some
severe ADHD problems?  

>Let's take a *long* step back, and forget about the current incarnation of 
>school boards, public schools, and so forth. The answer to the second question, 
>"for what purpose" is quite simple: to promote the long-term health of society. 

The decisions are NOT being made by "society".  They are being made by
a set few within that society who make decisions "because they are
professionals".  That means they don't have to listen to the rest of
society.  Social experimentation is rampant in the education system,
and there are no controls.  

>Taking an extreme example, if we decided not to school children at all anymore, 
>modern society would quickly disintegrate--education, at least in the form of 
>basic literacy mathematics and conversancy with other fields--is essential, if 
>one is to function in the real world. If one it to improve the world, one needs 
>somewhat more than this bare minimum.

Please define your interpretation of "improve the world".  It probably
doesn't match mine, I just want to know how far apart we are.

>In that sense, when people go off and home-school their children, it is
>unquestionably a prerogative of society to ensure that those children will 
>receive an education which will ensure that they will be productive members of 
>said society.

Why don't we hold the schools to the same high standards?  SAT scores
are dropping annually, across the board, nationwide.  The military had
to re-calibrate their entrance examination scores to allow enough
people to 'pass'.  Half the major companies in America have remedial
education programs for high-school graduates who can't perform well
enough to handle anything but the barest minimum jobs.

>The first question, "by whom", is then clear: by the government of the society,
>or by an agency appointed by the government. The government is, after all, the 
>active organ of society, and if the people making up said society disagree with 
>its actions, they have the power to change it.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence,
'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed'.  Most government agencies today, and
that includes the 'public education system', are so entrenched and
insulated they are beyond the ability of 'the governed' to change.
You can change the portion of these bodies that are elected every two
weeks, but it won't affect the core staffs who make and enforce the
majority of the rules.  Since nothing else works, people are 'voting
with their feet' - they're pulling their kids out of public schools.
Private schools are booming, and home-schooling is growing enormously
in popularity.  The ordinary people are also voting to take back some
of their rights by initiating and passing voter-created rules, such as
the 'Parents Rights' bill.  Expect to see more of these in the future.
More and more of the people of our society are sick to death of their
rights being abused by an uncaring and unlistening beaurocracy, and
are beginning to fight back.  This type of activity will increase
until the rights of individuals are once again respected by those that
supposedly are employed to do the will of the governed.  The people
are saying, very loudly and quite clearly, they no longer give their
consent for what government is doing in many areas.  That is their
right, and their responsibility under our form of government.

>To imply that, because the present system is not very good, we don't need any 
>system at all--that is simply naive, and does not contribute to a real solution 
>of the real problem. The "school system" is not some monolithic Godzilla--it is 
>made up of teachers and administrators who are real people, mostly doing their 
>best in a system they probably don't particularly like either.

The problem is that those with the power to institute change do not
see any clear reason to do so, and the rest are caught up in a mess
they have no say in.  The frustration level can be measured by the
turnover in teachers from year to year within any school.  There are
more teachers working in jobs outside of teaching than are in the
classroom.  Most of them are the best and brightest - that's why they
left.

That doesn't stop the system from being bad, or from being
unresponsive, or from being a total waste of time.  The problem is
that change isn't easy, and it doesn't happen overnight.  The
so-called 'parents' rights' initiative should be a wake-up call to all
government agencies that the PEOPLE are getting fed up, and they're
getting angry.  

This happened in France in 1789, and heads rolled.   It could happen
here, if the people making decisions don't start making some that
please more of the people that are affected by those decisions.

>Anyone who wants to live totally without constraints on something like 
>educational standards, which are fundamental to the health of a society, should 
>go off and live alone on a desert island. Living with people, one by definition 
>has a society, and living in a society imposes certain restrictions on absolute 
>freedom.

I tried to teach my children that they had the right to do anything
they wanted to do.  Period.  Without restraint.  I also taught them
they had to accept the consequences of whatever they did.  Some of
those consequences would be imposed by nature and natural laws - you
jump off the top of the house, and gravity will break your legs - or
more.  Some consequences are imposed by society - either through
social ostracism, or through laws.  When we impose consequences that
are inappropriate for the behavior, we introduce conflict, and that
will introduce either violent rejection or ridicule.  Either one is
anathema to a smooth-running society.  In all societies, there are
feedback loops:  if you ignore the feedback, the system either
explodes or falls apart.   History confirms this throughout its entire
span.

>Cheers,

>Bradley

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bradley L. Richards, AI Lab, Fachhochschule Furtwangen, D-78120 Germany
>http://www.ai-lab.fh-furtwangen.de:80/~bradley/
>bradley@ai-lab.fh-furtwangen.de

Mike Weatherford