"People should raise their kids this way because it will make the world more like the way I want it to be."
That's honest at least. It's pretty weak to put your personal gender politics ahead of what is best for the kid (and lets be frank, there's not enough evidence to say the genderless child-rearing is particularly better or worse, but that's not the point. Children are not supposed to be social studies experiments, that's the point).
But children are social studies experiments whether the parent is aware of it or not. They are raised according to the philosophies of the parents, both intentionally and subconsciously. "What's best for the child" is not a concrete position and it is entirely possible for someone to think that an early gender-neutral child rearing is what's best for the kid.
It just seems to me that there are really only two reasons you'd want to homeschool your kids:
1. To completely shelter them from things you don't want them exposed to, whether it's bad language or the devil's corrupting influence or evolution or playground chatter about the nasy bits.
BTW, all the evidence I've seen suggests that homeschooled kids are on average more social and better-adjusted than kids who went to public schools.
I'd be interested in seeing some of it. It certainly doesn't line up with the extensive anecdotal experience I have.
Me too, and not just because you admitted to making up some crazy bullshit up-page.
My anecdotal experience is also fairly negative towards homeschooling. Hell, the one homeschooler I met in the navy who actually impressed me the most still ended up suffering an ignoble fate once his sheltered ultra-christian upbringing collided with the brutal lord-of-the-flies reality of the submarine. The others I met weren't just extremely conservative, but also socially retarded.
Funny, my anecdotal experience has every homeschooler I know who took their education seriously (which only discounts two out of my three siblings) with at LEAST a four-year degree.
Including myself.
Of the group of people I grew up with, who were homeschooled, one has a degree in theater, one has a degree in dance and english (and dances with a company in Seattle!), one has a degree in political science and a master's in english, one has two degrees- creative writing and a master's in english, another has a degree in early childhood education, another has a degree in environmental sciences, and I have a degree in biology and just got accepted into a PhD program for Entomology.
Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence for the current homeschool/school debate.
Also? Fun fact- about half of those people were "unschooled" for most of our learning period. Two of us ended up going to "real" high school after a certain point, but for most of us it was because we wanted to get away from the family, and incidentally we both did very well (top 10%).
I was unschooled.
Yeah, but your parents were rich and white enough to pay for all those degrees. They could have shot you in the head and you would have still managed to pull off a BA in English.
I realize my wording was poor- of the people I mention that succeeded, none of those were related to me. I included the siblings as a disclaimer to those that know me and my personal situation with my family (my siblings are/were drug dealers).
I have no comment to make on your second sentence, except that it is profoundly silly.
Do we know the the correlation rates for the extremely religious and the homeschooled? Because that's probably pretty relevant.
Yeah, I get the feeling that Arch's parents didn't home school him and his siblings to ensure that the satanic public school system didn't lead him away from the jesus.
Actually....
My family is very "weirdly" religious- my mother doesn't believe in evolution, and she thought that the normal school environment A. wasn't conducive to education and B. was full of sin.
Coupled with C. I had a lot of health problems and D. my family moved states once a year thanks to my dad's job, she decided to homeschool my siblings and I.
Regardless of whether you're religious or not, conservative or liberal, "I don't think public schools are conducive to education" is one of the most commonly cited reasons for homeschooling. That's one of the factors that's consistent across the board.
The other consistent factor is that whether your family is religious or not, conservative or liberal, a child who is homeschooled is much more likely to have been raised in a two-parent household compared with the rest of the population.
That's a pretty dubious statistic - the single parent who wants to homeschool can't (in any convenient way) because s/he has to make a living to support the family instead of teach long division.
Do we know the the correlation rates for the extremely religious and the homeschooled? Because that's probably pretty relevant.
Yeah, I get the feeling that Arch's parents didn't home school him and his siblings to ensure that the satanic public school system didn't lead him away from the jesus.
Actually....
My family is very "weirdly" religious- my mother doesn't believe in evolution, and she thought that the normal school environment A. wasn't conducive to education and B. was full of sin.
Coupled with C. I had a lot of health problems and D. my family moved states once a year thanks to my dad's job, she decided to homeschool my siblings and I.
Regardless of whether you're religious or not, conservative or liberal, "I don't think public schools are conducive to education" is one of the most commonly cited reasons for homeschooling. That's one of the factors that's consistent across the board.
The other consistent factor is that whether your family is religious or not, conservative or liberal, a child who is homeschooled is much more likely to have been raised in a two-parent household compared with the rest of the population.
Which the report I linked last page also corroborates.
To be honest, as long as there are standards and homeschooled kids have to perform well on tests to make sure they're actually learning I don't think I can bring myself to give two shits about it.
Its such a minor issue it doesn't really register on the "things Sammich needs to worry about" meter, even if I find it a little bit silly.
Do we know the the correlation rates for the extremely religious and the homeschooled? Because that's probably pretty relevant.
Yeah, I get the feeling that Arch's parents didn't home school him and his siblings to ensure that the satanic public school system didn't lead him away from the jesus.
Actually....
My family is very "weirdly" religious- my mother doesn't believe in evolution, and she thought that the normal school environment A. wasn't conducive to education and B. was full of sin.
Coupled with C. I had a lot of health problems and D. my family moved states once a year thanks to my dad's job, she decided to homeschool my siblings and I.
Regardless of whether you're religious or not, conservative or liberal, "I don't think public schools are conducive to education" is one of the most commonly cited reasons for homeschooling. That's one of the factors that's consistent across the board.
The other consistent factor is that whether your family is religious or not, conservative or liberal, a child who is homeschooled is much more likely to have been raised in a two-parent household compared with the rest of the population.
That's a pretty dubious statistic - the single parent who wants to homeschool can't (in any convenient way) because s/he has to make a living to support the family instead of teach long division.
That's exactly true, which is why I mention it. Comparisons between all homeschooled children and all public schooled children are skewed by this factor, in my opinion.
"People should raise their kids this way because it will make the world more like the way I want it to be."
That's honest at least. It's pretty weak to put your personal gender politics ahead of what is best for the kid (and lets be frank, there's not enough evidence to say the genderless child-rearing is particularly better or worse, but that's not the point. Children are not supposed to be social studies experiments, that's the point).
But children are social studies experiments whether the parent is aware of it or not. They are raised according to the philosophies of the parents, both intentionally and subconsciously. "What's best for the child" is not a concrete position and it is in fact entirely possible for someone to think that an early gender-neutral child rearing is what's best for the kid.
But that's not your concern, at least it's not what you said. What you said was that the demolition of gender roles/stereotypes etc. is beneficial to you. There's also a small segment of very radically minded people who see the demolition of the very concept of gender to be a good thing. Neither of those viewpoints seems to be grounded in a belief that this is actually best for early childhood development, but rather that it's best for a utopian worldview which they support (and which is likely unachievable in any case).
I hardly think it's a social 'experiment.' And to what degree every child is a 'social experiment', or to get into a semantic argument over the definition of 'experiment' are both useless. I'm confounded that this is such a big deal.
Who thinks it's going to cause real harm if the kid chooses when he wants trucks or dolls at an early age. I just can't express enough disbelief that people would imagine this matters so much. They're not raising a child to think he's an alien to see what happens. I mean, goddamn, people didn't flip their shit this badly when the guy was teaching his son Orcish or Klingon or something as a second language early on. And that's definitely more of an expperiment than this.
And arguably even worse than this. Because they both don't matter.
As to the actual topic, much has been said, and I tend to fall on the side of "doubt this will do any harm, so who really cares?" part, coupled with tacit support for the statement (if that is what this really is) the parents are making.
That's exactly true, which is why I mention it. Comparisons between all homeschooled children and all public schooled children are skewed by this factor, in my opinion.
In that homeschooled students are, by their nature, more likely to come from households that produce good students?
The same problem exists when comparing private and public schools.
Public schools get their ratings tanked by their very nature.
That's exactly true, which is why I mention it. Comparisons between all homeschooled children and all public schooled children are skewed by this factor, in my opinion.
In that homeschooled students are, by their nature, more likely to come from households that produce good students?
The same problem exists when comparing private and public schools.
Public schools get their ratings tanked by their very nature.
Where we are headed with this is that well-adjusted families produce well-adjusted children, and poorly-adjusted families produce poorly-adjusted children. School does not matter. To an actually large degree, school does not matter. We're far more the product of genes than we give credit for.
"People should raise their kids this way because it will make the world more like the way I want it to be."
That's honest at least. It's pretty weak to put your personal gender politics ahead of what is best for the kid (and lets be frank, there's not enough evidence to say the genderless child-rearing is particularly better or worse, but that's not the point. Children are not supposed to be social studies experiments, that's the point).
But children are social studies experiments whether the parent is aware of it or not. They are raised according to the philosophies of the parents, both intentionally and subconsciously. "What's best for the child" is not a concrete position and it is entirely possible for someone to think that an early gender-neutral child rearing is what's best for the kid.
You seem to think that giving a patient the consensus drug for a condition is just as much of an experiment as giving him a trial drug that had never before been tested in humans. It's not. These parents are basically putting their children in a social biodome based totally on their personal theology rather than any sort of prior research or precedent. They have no reason to think this will work other than their own theology. They have no research backing them up, and can't even claim to be basing their methods on something that has worked before, which is something even those people who beat their kids because they were themselves beaten and think they turned out alright can claim.
I hardly think it's a social 'experiment.' And to what degree every child is a 'social experiment', or to get into a semantic argument over the definition of 'experiment' are both useless. I'm confounded that this is such a big deal.
Who thinks it's going to cause real harm if the kid chooses when he wants trucks or dolls at an early age. I just can't express enough disbelief that people would imagine this matters so much. They're not raising a child to think he's an alien to see what happens. I mean, goddamn, people didn't flip their shit this badly when the guy was teaching his son Orcish or Klingon or something as a second language early on. And that's definitely more of an expperiment than this.
And arguably even worse than this. Because they both don't matter.
Actually, there's quite a bit of research showing that learning a second language early on is beneficial, so those parents actually have something to stand on.
BTW, all the evidence I've seen suggests that homeschooled kids are on average more social and better-adjusted than kids who went to public schools.
Personally, I interpret that not to mean that homeschooling is awesome, but that our public schools are terrible.
I really think that you know the exceptions rather than the norm when it comes to homeschooled kids.
I think he's referring to the data that shows homeschooled kids do better both college and carreer wise than their public school counterparts, although the data does appear to be changing, although on my phone it's too much of a pain to search out the data.
In my opinion part of that relates to how how kids can really catch up to a public school's worth of social skills in just a few years, similar to how early childhood education or English second language kids tend to readjut to the average numbers within a few years (a la Freakonomics).
That's exactly true, which is why I mention it. Comparisons between all homeschooled children and all public schooled children are skewed by this factor, in my opinion.
In that homeschooled students are, by their nature, more likely to come from households that produce good students?
The same problem exists when comparing private and public schools.
Public schools get their ratings tanked by their very nature.
Where we are headed with this is that well-adjusted families produce well-adjusted children, and poorly-adjusted families produce poorly-adjusted children. School does not matter. To an actually large degree, school does not matter. We're far more the product of genes than we give credit for.
Didn't anyone read Freakonomics?
I wouldn't go so far as to say the school itself doesn't matter, but the quality of individual schools is determined in a large part by the socioeconomic status of the people who live in the community surrounding it. Schools situated in communities with higher real estate values receive better funding because local funding is often tied to real estate taxes. The families who live in those more expensive homes are also more likely to be two parent families where at least one parent has completed a bachelor's degree, and the more expensive the real estate, the more likely it is that one or both parents have at least some graduate education.
It's all so heavily inter-related that it's hard to point to any one factor and say: "this is the deciding factor."
In all seriousness I get the impression that parents who homeschool their children and keep them out of public schools are trying to shelter them from the negativity of badly raised children, bullying etc etc
But you can't keep that child in that protective bubble for ever, and when they do encounter these things in their adult life they more than likely won't handle it as well. I was bullied in school and as damaging as it was it taught me valuable lessons and prepared me for a fucked up adult world where people are dispoable and bullies very much still exist. The saying "it builds character" rings very true to me.
Edit: I still havent stated my opinion of the original story and all I can say that its pretty much useless, self serving and the name Storm is fucking horrible.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
"People should raise their kids this way because it will make the world more like the way I want it to be."
That's honest at least. It's pretty weak to put your personal gender politics ahead of what is best for the kid (and lets be frank, there's not enough evidence to say the genderless child-rearing is particularly better or worse, but that's not the point. Children are not supposed to be social studies experiments, that's the point).
But children are social studies experiments whether the parent is aware of it or not. They are raised according to the philosophies of the parents, both intentionally and subconsciously. "What's best for the child" is not a concrete position and it is in fact entirely possible for someone to think that an early gender-neutral child rearing is what's best for the kid.
But that's not your concern, at least it's not what you said. What you said was that the demolition of gender roles/stereotypes etc. is beneficial to you. There's also a small segment of very radically minded people who see the demolition of the very concept of gender to be a good thing. Neither of those viewpoints seems to be grounded in a belief that this is actually best for early childhood development, but rather that it's best for a utopian worldview which they support (and which is likely unachievable in any case).
Sure, it would be beneficial to me. And? I'm not stupid enough to believe that they could be destroyed utterly or even really seriously threatened, nor am I selfish enough to seek their destruction. I don't think humans are capable of dealing with such a thing currently, won't be able to in the near future, and maybe never will. Oh, I'd be very happy if our species is and it did happen but I'm not a utopian. That crap doesn't happen. Period. That doesn't mean I don't have ideals, but I don't let them get in the way of actual facts about humanity.
However, I will not say that current gender roles are healthy or good for early childhood development. And I won't stop arguing that current gender roles should be heavily reexamined. And if on the off chance I had a child, I sure as hell would give them as neutral an upbringing as possible because I know what it's like to have a heavily gendered childhood. And it certainly wasn't good for my childhood development. But I'm too detached to have kids so it's sort of a moot point.
In all seriousness I get the impression that parents who homeschool their children and keep them out of public schools are trying to shelter them from the negativity of badly raised children, bullying etc etc
But you can't keep that child in that protective bubble for ever, and when they do encounter these things in their adult life they more than likely won't handle it as well. I was bullied in school and as damaging as it was it taught me valuable lessons and prepared me for a fucked up adult world where people are dispoable and bullies very much still exist. The saying "it builds character" rings very true to me.
Edit: I still havent stated my opinion of the original story and all I can say that its pretty much useless, self serving and the name Storm is fucking horrible.
when they do encounter these things in their adult life they more than likely won't handle it as well.
That part I just don't think is true. I don't think 'homeschooled child' implies 'never interacted with other people, seen a movie, read a book, or been taught by their parents how to deal.' I wasn't bullied in public school. By your logic I'm not prepared for bullying either.
I think it's a fine idea. With my own kid I don't imagine I'll hide their gender, but I will make sure not to force on them dresses and easy-bake ovens if they are girls, or trucks and tools if they are boys. Storm is also a bad name.
Sure, it would be beneficial to me. And? I'm not stupid enough to believe that they could be destroyed utterly or even really seriously, nor am I selfish enough to seek their destruction. I don't think humans are capable of dealing with such a thing currently, won't be able to in the near future, and maybe never will. Oh, I'd be very happy if our species is and it did happen but I'm not a utopian. That crap doesn't happen. Period. That doesn't mean I don't have ideals, but I don't let them get in the way of actual facts about humanity.
However, I will not say that current gender roles are healthy or good for early childhood development. And I won't stop arguing that current gender roles should be heavily reexamined. And if on the off chance I had a child, I sure as hell would give them as neutral an upbringing as possible because I know what it's like to have a heavily gendered childhood. And it certainly wasn't good for my childhood development. But I'm too detached to have kids so it's sort of a moot point.
But you can't keep that child in that protective bubble for ever, and when they do encounter these things in their adult life they more than likely won't handle it as well.
I always find this kind of reasoning amusing.
'Sure, abuse is traumatic, but the earlier you expose kids to it, the quicker they adapt.'
The very nature of trauma is that it causes maladaptive behaviors. Sure, you can learn other positive skills from the experience, but it's still going to be a net negative. If abuse were a net positive, then we should just beat the shit out of our kids right now.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The very nature of trauma is that it causes maladaptive behaviors. Sure, you can learn other positive skills from the experience, but it's still going to be a net negative. If abuse were a net positive, then we should just beat the shit out of our kids right now.
You clearly learned your parenting philosophy from the same place my dad did. :P
...actually, now that I think about it, that probably featured into his thought process. Oh Jesus I just learned something about myself. :?
No one is saying exposure to abuse is important. But maybe exposure to an environment where not everyone is your friends and family? There is probably some merit to that.
"The world's not fair and mommy won't always be able to protect you" is an important lesson to learn. It doesn't mean that kids need to get stuffed in a locker, but the real world isn't well-represented by only ever learning one-on-one from your mom.
But you can't keep that child in that protective bubble for ever, and when they do encounter these things in their adult life they more than likely won't handle it as well.
I always find this kind of reasoning amusing.
'Sure, abuse is traumatic, but the earlier you expose kids to it, the quicker they adapt.'
The very nature of trauma is that it causes maladaptive behaviors. Sure, you can learn other positive skills from the experience, but it's still going to be a net negative. If abuse were a net positive, then we should just beat the shit out of our kids right now.
Just like how vaccines mean you should infect your kid with smallpox!
No one is saying exposure to abuse is important. But maybe exposure to an environment where not everyone is your friends and family? There is probably some merit to that.
This is what I was getting at.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
A propos of nothing, I knew a girl named Stormy in high school. She was hot. Also: bugfuck crazy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Regarding homeschooling, different people do it for different reasons. I've actually known some people who lived in Middle-of-Nowhereville and were homeschooled because the public schools were too religious.
If I lived somewhere where they refused to teach evolution in biology class, I might homeschool my kid.
No one is saying exposure to abuse is important. But maybe exposure to an environment where not everyone is your friends and family? There is probably some merit to that.
You are saying there may be some merit. We are saying it's more likely that it doesn't matter. Homeschooling seems to produce, on average, better scoring and more well-adjusted students. I'd be willing to argue that parents who make that choice would put out a good kid regardless.
I can't remember all of them, but the one study that comes to mind was in Chicago. There was a huge policy where any kid could choose any other high school to go to. And it was completely random after you opted in. Perfect for a study. Thousands and thousands of kids from every single possible background in the entire Chicago metropolitan area.
The end result? Students who opted in and got to switch did absolutely the same as students who opted in and did not get picked. All of them. And they all did better, by a wide margin, on average, than students who did not opt in. Merely opting in was the key factor. Schooling had nothing to do with their later success.
I'm drawing some broader generalizations from the evidence I've presented, I know. But I've read a little more than just this which formed my theory. I've merely forgotten it. But the impression is there. More relevant, however, is that it is simply my opinion that social adjustment and academic prowess is largely genetic. And a stifling environment does more harm than a warm environment does good.
No one is saying exposure to abuse is important. But maybe exposure to an environment where not everyone is your friends and family? There is probably some merit to that.
You are saying there may be some merit. We are saying it's more likely that it doesn't matter. Homeschooling seems to produce, on average, better scoring and more well-adjusted students. I'd be willing to argue that parents who make that choice would put out a good kid regardless.
I can't remember all of them, but the one study that comes to mind was in Chicago. There was a huge policy where any kid could choose any other high school to go to. And it was completely random after you opted in. Perfect for a study. Thousands and thousands of kids from every single possible background in the entire Chicago metropolitan area.
The end result? Students who opted in and got to switch did absolutely the same as students who opted in and did not get picked. All of them. And they all did better, by a wide margin, on average, than students who did not opt in. Merely opting in was the key factor. Schooling had nothing to do with their later success.
I'm drawing some broader generalizations from the evidence I've presented, I know. But I've read a little more than just this which formed my theory. I've merely forgotten it. But the impression is there. More relevant, however, is that it is simply my opinion that social adjustment and academic prowess is largely genetic. And a stifling environment does more harm than a warm environment does good.
The bolded part has me confused.
If social adjustment and academic prowess is largely genetic, then what difference does home or public schooling make..? You seem to think it's already mostly decided at that point. So what's the difference?
And, honest question, were YOU homeschooled all your life?
Homeschooling seems to produce, on average, better scoring and more well-adjusted students.
But we can't really show causation. I mean I could claim white people on average score better and are more well adjusted students, but that isn't because they're white.
Homeschooled kids tend to differ to a fairly strong degree from public school ones in some key areas, specifically parental involvement, which is one of the most important factors in determining a student's success. Its the same with successful students in public school, the best ones are the ones who have involved parents.
So a direct comparison between the two is going to be invalid, or at least rife with error.
Homeschooling seems to produce, on average, better scoring and more well-adjusted students.
But we can't really show causation. I mean I could claim white people on average score better and are more well adjusted students, but that isn't because they're white.
Homeschooled kids tend to differ to a fairly strong degree from public school ones in some key areas, specifically parental involvement, which is one of the most important factors in determining a student's success. Its the same with successful students in public school, the best ones are the ones who have involved parents.
So a direct comparison between the two is going to be invalid, or at least rife with error.
Yeah. I'm going to throw out a statement, and I haven't read any study to verify it, but I would bet a kidney that it's true:
"Contrary to the popular belief that homeschooled children grow up to be socially mal-adjusted, they are actually less likely to be incarcerated by the age of 30 than students who attend public schools."
...I'm certain that statement is probably true, but it's got nothing to do with homeschooling. More than 90% of homeschooled students come from two-parent homes because it's so difficult for a single parent to commit to homeschooling. By contrast, about 30% of children in the US grow up in single-parent homes, and the incarceration rate for that 30% happens to be higher.
SammyF on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Homeschooling seems to produce, on average, better scoring and more well-adjusted students.
But we can't really show causation. I mean I could claim white people on average score better and are more well adjusted students, but that isn't because they're white.
Homeschooled kids tend to differ to a fairly strong degree from public school ones in some key areas, specifically parental involvement, which is one of the most important factors in determining a student's success. Its the same with successful students in public school, the best ones are the ones who have involved parents.
So a direct comparison between the two is going to be invalid, or at least rife with error.
Well sure but the statement made should be placed in the context of a discussion that went along the lines of "lol homeschooled people are social retards lol".
Homeschooling seems to produce, on average, better scoring and more well-adjusted students.
But we can't really show causation. I mean I could claim white people on average score better and are more well adjusted students, but that isn't because they're white.
Homeschooled kids tend to differ to a fairly strong degree from public school ones in some key areas, specifically parental involvement, which is one of the most important factors in determining a student's success. Its the same with successful students in public school, the best ones are the ones who have involved parents.
So a direct comparison between the two is going to be invalid, or at least rife with error.
Well sure but the statement made should be placed in the context of a discussion that went along the lines of "lol homeschooled people are social retards lol".
I think the problem is a lot of people, myself included, have experience with the type of homeschooler that is kept home for religious reasons, which I think means a certain kind of upbringing, which the homeschooling is just a part of.
We then apply this same personality to homeschoolers at large, which of course is fallacious, if understandable.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
I find it so weird that there's such repulsion towards home schooling.
I mean, this may be a bit of a surprise, but sometimes one size doesn't fit all. What is so wrong with giving people a variety of choices on how to educate their child? Why be so afraid of something different, only because it isn't something you did in your uprising?
I mean, this may be a bit of a surprise, but sometimes one size doesn't fit all. What is so wrong with giving people a variety of choices on how to educate their child? Why be so afraid of something different, only because it isn't something you did in your uprising?
Well just because "one size doesn't fit all" doesn't mean that alternative X has merit.
Posts
But children are social studies experiments whether the parent is aware of it or not. They are raised according to the philosophies of the parents, both intentionally and subconsciously. "What's best for the child" is not a concrete position and it is entirely possible for someone to think that an early gender-neutral child rearing is what's best for the kid.
Or unchecked abuse at the hands of their peers.
I'd be able to give my kids more personalized attention rather than expect them to keep pace with a class of 30.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I realize my wording was poor- of the people I mention that succeeded, none of those were related to me. I included the siblings as a disclaimer to those that know me and my personal situation with my family (my siblings are/were drug dealers).
I have no comment to make on your second sentence, except that it is profoundly silly.
That's a pretty dubious statistic - the single parent who wants to homeschool can't (in any convenient way) because s/he has to make a living to support the family instead of teach long division.
Which the report I linked last page also corroborates.
I think we are in agreement.
Its such a minor issue it doesn't really register on the "things Sammich needs to worry about" meter, even if I find it a little bit silly.
That's exactly true, which is why I mention it. Comparisons between all homeschooled children and all public schooled children are skewed by this factor, in my opinion.
But that's not your concern, at least it's not what you said. What you said was that the demolition of gender roles/stereotypes etc. is beneficial to you. There's also a small segment of very radically minded people who see the demolition of the very concept of gender to be a good thing. Neither of those viewpoints seems to be grounded in a belief that this is actually best for early childhood development, but rather that it's best for a utopian worldview which they support (and which is likely unachievable in any case).
Who thinks it's going to cause real harm if the kid chooses when he wants trucks or dolls at an early age. I just can't express enough disbelief that people would imagine this matters so much. They're not raising a child to think he's an alien to see what happens. I mean, goddamn, people didn't flip their shit this badly when the guy was teaching his son Orcish or Klingon or something as a second language early on. And that's definitely more of an expperiment than this.
And arguably even worse than this. Because they both don't matter.
In that homeschooled students are, by their nature, more likely to come from households that produce good students?
The same problem exists when comparing private and public schools.
Public schools get their ratings tanked by their very nature.
Where we are headed with this is that well-adjusted families produce well-adjusted children, and poorly-adjusted families produce poorly-adjusted children. School does not matter. To an actually large degree, school does not matter. We're far more the product of genes than we give credit for.
Didn't anyone read Freakonomics?
You seem to think that giving a patient the consensus drug for a condition is just as much of an experiment as giving him a trial drug that had never before been tested in humans. It's not. These parents are basically putting their children in a social biodome based totally on their personal theology rather than any sort of prior research or precedent. They have no reason to think this will work other than their own theology. They have no research backing them up, and can't even claim to be basing their methods on something that has worked before, which is something even those people who beat their kids because they were themselves beaten and think they turned out alright can claim.
Actually, there's quite a bit of research showing that learning a second language early on is beneficial, so those parents actually have something to stand on.
I think he's referring to the data that shows homeschooled kids do better both college and carreer wise than their public school counterparts, although the data does appear to be changing, although on my phone it's too much of a pain to search out the data.
In my opinion part of that relates to how how kids can really catch up to a public school's worth of social skills in just a few years, similar to how early childhood education or English second language kids tend to readjut to the average numbers within a few years (a la Freakonomics).
--LeVar Burton
I wouldn't go so far as to say the school itself doesn't matter, but the quality of individual schools is determined in a large part by the socioeconomic status of the people who live in the community surrounding it. Schools situated in communities with higher real estate values receive better funding because local funding is often tied to real estate taxes. The families who live in those more expensive homes are also more likely to be two parent families where at least one parent has completed a bachelor's degree, and the more expensive the real estate, the more likely it is that one or both parents have at least some graduate education.
It's all so heavily inter-related that it's hard to point to any one factor and say: "this is the deciding factor."
In all seriousness I get the impression that parents who homeschool their children and keep them out of public schools are trying to shelter them from the negativity of badly raised children, bullying etc etc
But you can't keep that child in that protective bubble for ever, and when they do encounter these things in their adult life they more than likely won't handle it as well. I was bullied in school and as damaging as it was it taught me valuable lessons and prepared me for a fucked up adult world where people are dispoable and bullies very much still exist. The saying "it builds character" rings very true to me.
Edit: I still havent stated my opinion of the original story and all I can say that its pretty much useless, self serving and the name Storm is fucking horrible.
Sure, it would be beneficial to me. And? I'm not stupid enough to believe that they could be destroyed utterly or even really seriously threatened, nor am I selfish enough to seek their destruction. I don't think humans are capable of dealing with such a thing currently, won't be able to in the near future, and maybe never will. Oh, I'd be very happy if our species is and it did happen but I'm not a utopian. That crap doesn't happen. Period. That doesn't mean I don't have ideals, but I don't let them get in the way of actual facts about humanity.
However, I will not say that current gender roles are healthy or good for early childhood development. And I won't stop arguing that current gender roles should be heavily reexamined. And if on the off chance I had a child, I sure as hell would give them as neutral an upbringing as possible because I know what it's like to have a heavily gendered childhood. And it certainly wasn't good for my childhood development. But I'm too detached to have kids so it's sort of a moot point.
That part I just don't think is true. I don't think 'homeschooled child' implies 'never interacted with other people, seen a movie, read a book, or been taught by their parents how to deal.' I wasn't bullied in public school. By your logic I'm not prepared for bullying either.
I think it's a fine idea. With my own kid I don't imagine I'll hide their gender, but I will make sure not to force on them dresses and easy-bake ovens if they are girls, or trucks and tools if they are boys. Storm is also a bad name.
This is literally how I feel about it
I always find this kind of reasoning amusing.
'Sure, abuse is traumatic, but the earlier you expose kids to it, the quicker they adapt.'
The very nature of trauma is that it causes maladaptive behaviors. Sure, you can learn other positive skills from the experience, but it's still going to be a net negative. If abuse were a net positive, then we should just beat the shit out of our kids right now.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You clearly learned your parenting philosophy from the same place my dad did. :P
...actually, now that I think about it, that probably featured into his thought process. Oh Jesus I just learned something about myself. :?
Just like how vaccines mean you should infect your kid with smallpox!
This is what I was getting at.
Was she also a stripper? Because "Stormy" is absolutely a stripper name.
If I lived somewhere where they refused to teach evolution in biology class, I might homeschool my kid.
If I had a kid.
I don't want kids so it's a moot point.
You are saying there may be some merit. We are saying it's more likely that it doesn't matter. Homeschooling seems to produce, on average, better scoring and more well-adjusted students. I'd be willing to argue that parents who make that choice would put out a good kid regardless.
I can't remember all of them, but the one study that comes to mind was in Chicago. There was a huge policy where any kid could choose any other high school to go to. And it was completely random after you opted in. Perfect for a study. Thousands and thousands of kids from every single possible background in the entire Chicago metropolitan area.
The end result? Students who opted in and got to switch did absolutely the same as students who opted in and did not get picked. All of them. And they all did better, by a wide margin, on average, than students who did not opt in. Merely opting in was the key factor. Schooling had nothing to do with their later success.
I'm drawing some broader generalizations from the evidence I've presented, I know. But I've read a little more than just this which formed my theory. I've merely forgotten it. But the impression is there. More relevant, however, is that it is simply my opinion that social adjustment and academic prowess is largely genetic. And a stifling environment does more harm than a warm environment does good.
Don't be ridiculous, Marathon. This was back in high school! She was a minor! No way she was a stripper.
Yet.
The bolded part has me confused.
If social adjustment and academic prowess is largely genetic, then what difference does home or public schooling make..? You seem to think it's already mostly decided at that point. So what's the difference?
And, honest question, were YOU homeschooled all your life?
But we can't really show causation. I mean I could claim white people on average score better and are more well adjusted students, but that isn't because they're white.
Homeschooled kids tend to differ to a fairly strong degree from public school ones in some key areas, specifically parental involvement, which is one of the most important factors in determining a student's success. Its the same with successful students in public school, the best ones are the ones who have involved parents.
So a direct comparison between the two is going to be invalid, or at least rife with error.
Yeah. I'm going to throw out a statement, and I haven't read any study to verify it, but I would bet a kidney that it's true:
"Contrary to the popular belief that homeschooled children grow up to be socially mal-adjusted, they are actually less likely to be incarcerated by the age of 30 than students who attend public schools."
...I'm certain that statement is probably true, but it's got nothing to do with homeschooling. More than 90% of homeschooled students come from two-parent homes because it's so difficult for a single parent to commit to homeschooling. By contrast, about 30% of children in the US grow up in single-parent homes, and the incarceration rate for that 30% happens to be higher.
Well sure but the statement made should be placed in the context of a discussion that went along the lines of "lol homeschooled people are social retards lol".
I think the problem is a lot of people, myself included, have experience with the type of homeschooler that is kept home for religious reasons, which I think means a certain kind of upbringing, which the homeschooling is just a part of.
We then apply this same personality to homeschoolers at large, which of course is fallacious, if understandable.
I mean, this may be a bit of a surprise, but sometimes one size doesn't fit all. What is so wrong with giving people a variety of choices on how to educate their child? Why be so afraid of something different, only because it isn't something you did in your uprising?
Well just because "one size doesn't fit all" doesn't mean that alternative X has merit.
I mean look at homeopathy.