Do I Have To Pick Just One?
JB Doubtless, a blogger who is suddenly and welcomly posting a lot more than had been his habit for the prior several months wants to know:
He lays out quite a persuasive argument leading up to this, carefully paraphrasing the word "doodyhead" in slightly gentler terms to bolster his own gravitas on more than one occasion.
Problem is, I get a distinct sensation JB is speaking from that incomprably knowledgable state of parenthood known as "currently doesn't have any kids." Unlike other critics, I don't point this out in an effort to undermine his credibility to opine on this topic. Opine away, one and all!
Heck, a lot of what JB says is fine, save for his tendency to generalize in an area he well may assume is far more uniform than it actually is. That's a problem when anyone decides to lecture others about a topic he doesn't know very well himself. It's easier to discern a broad pattern and speak to that as if it's representative of the whole than to speak to particulars. I've been guilty as well in the past.
But when it came to putting my own son into an actual school my wife and I did research. A LOT of research, because he has special educational needs that are neither standard, nor easy to find offered anywhere prior to fourth grade. It turned out "secular humanism," which is indeed a moral position with which I disagree and would not like my children indoctrinated into, comprises a surprisingly small amount of the Fridley Public School kindergarten agenda. What's more, parental involvement, transparency of curriculum, and opportunity for advanced educational programs in Fridley Schools was unequaled when we compared public, parochial, and private school alternatives.
Those who haven't had an actual child you've attempted to match up to actual educational alternatives are a lot more free to wildy generalize and opine. But at some point your rhetoric has to meet reality. You can't effectively speak to that sort of thing in generalizations, or pure theory, or mere anecdotes. You need to have answers that address the specific situation of specific people's specific children.
Anyway, if JB wants to know whether I'm an ignoramus or a fool, I'd have a hard time choosing only one. The experience of parenting alone has cemented both of those as some of my undeniable attributes in a way my childless days couldn't anticipate. But I'll take my insight over JB's on this topic in any case.
The only people that should have their kids in public schools are leftists who actually believe in and agree with the secular humanist agenda. If you aren't one and don't, then you have to ask yourself one question:
Are you an ignoramus or a fool?
He lays out quite a persuasive argument leading up to this, carefully paraphrasing the word "doodyhead" in slightly gentler terms to bolster his own gravitas on more than one occasion.
Problem is, I get a distinct sensation JB is speaking from that incomprably knowledgable state of parenthood known as "currently doesn't have any kids." Unlike other critics, I don't point this out in an effort to undermine his credibility to opine on this topic. Opine away, one and all!
Heck, a lot of what JB says is fine, save for his tendency to generalize in an area he well may assume is far more uniform than it actually is. That's a problem when anyone decides to lecture others about a topic he doesn't know very well himself. It's easier to discern a broad pattern and speak to that as if it's representative of the whole than to speak to particulars. I've been guilty as well in the past.
But when it came to putting my own son into an actual school my wife and I did research. A LOT of research, because he has special educational needs that are neither standard, nor easy to find offered anywhere prior to fourth grade. It turned out "secular humanism," which is indeed a moral position with which I disagree and would not like my children indoctrinated into, comprises a surprisingly small amount of the Fridley Public School kindergarten agenda. What's more, parental involvement, transparency of curriculum, and opportunity for advanced educational programs in Fridley Schools was unequaled when we compared public, parochial, and private school alternatives.
Those who haven't had an actual child you've attempted to match up to actual educational alternatives are a lot more free to wildy generalize and opine. But at some point your rhetoric has to meet reality. You can't effectively speak to that sort of thing in generalizations, or pure theory, or mere anecdotes. You need to have answers that address the specific situation of specific people's specific children.
Anyway, if JB wants to know whether I'm an ignoramus or a fool, I'd have a hard time choosing only one. The experience of parenting alone has cemented both of those as some of my undeniable attributes in a way my childless days couldn't anticipate. But I'll take my insight over JB's on this topic in any case.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Monday November 14, 2005 at 11:37pm
1. K-5 in the US is competitive with K-5 Internationally, the really bad stuff seems to start in 6th and go downhill from there.
2. Special needs kids may always be better served at a public institution that has better access to resources than a private institution.
I also have no kids, so I readily agree that I have no freaking clue about schools other than what I read.
Depending on the parents this can sometimes present other problems.
This is not to say home schooling is never a good idea, but I'm just being realistic about the pros and cons. I doubt if you are the only parent to come to the conclusion that your kids will receive a better education in public schools, even if it means that at some point they will have to learn to take some of the things they are being taught with a grain of salt.
We'll keep evaluating the educational opportunities he has every year. If better things come along, we'll try to take advantage. But the main point is one size doesn't fit all.
On the other hand, I am blessed to be living in a relatively conservative area, so the far-left moonbat mode of education has not quite taken the foothold as it may have taken in many of our in-state schools.
Flamingbanjo, I know you're just quoting the ESTABLISHMENT government educators, but with due respect: that whole tired "socialization" tripe is the most lame, bogus, unfounded pile of dung imaginable. I know a lot of home school kids, including 2 in my home (4 and 6), and I'll put their social / "fit in" skills up against the skills of the average public school kid any day in any way. I have to ask, if the goal is to "fit in to large groups" are the public schools teaching them to be "socialized" to to be "Socialists"?
Regarding home school teachers not being good at all subjects: one of the hardest decisions is how to choose from all the home school materials and aids currently available. Also, with home school co-ops, and community classes, the "teacher qualification" argument doesn't hold water. I know many people with no more than a high school education who have home schooled kids to WAY outperform average public school kids (BTW in a little over half the class time).
I know they aren't necessarily your arguments, but the two standard old tired ones you trotted out are always ones used by the establishment to scare parents into thinking:
1) the kid will be socially dysfunctional (LIE)
2) the parents are too stupid / not qualified to teach (LIE)
Not in all cases, but in many, I think public teachers push these lies because a move to more choice and options, and away from public schools, takes away power and money, and a sense of unique qualifications / skills.