Teachers Union Opposes Virtual K-8 Charter School 772
theodp writes "'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,' said unimpressed Chicago Teachers Union president Marilyn Stewart of the Chicago Virtual Charter School, which will open to Chicago elementary school students this fall if approved by the state board of education."
But of course you can (Score:4, Funny)
(an essential skill...)
Re:But of course you can (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But of course you can (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that you also learn negative solical interactions; i.e. getting picked on, bullied, etc. So it is a crap shoot as far as helping kids be social. I learned to be not very social and it was years before I became more outgoing after my experiences in school.
Re:But of course you can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But of course you can (Score:5, Insightful)
I went through the public school system; my younger brother was home schooled. Guess which one of us is the cynic? Saying he "wasn't taught what the real world is like" is a compliment; it's better not to see injustice as "normal", just because that's the way things looked growing up.
As a side note, he's become the more gregarious of the two of us. I'd say anyone who assumes you need public school in order to become socialized is either completely ignorant of what they're talking about, or else their cross section of "home schooled" kids are the previous generation of religious kids who were taken out of school by their parents.
What is this, a Klan rally? (Score:5, Insightful)
These two are mixing to produce the category of behavior we're interested in:
I went to public schools my whole life (except for one year in a private school in 6th grade). In college and after, I have known several dozen people (between my age -- now 29 -- and younger -- 21-ish) who were home-schooled. Some of them were Christians, some were not. There were plenty of ill-adjusted homeschool people of both the religious and non-religious variety, and plenty of ill-adjusted people of the home-schooled and public-schooled varieties.
There are two types of disconnect among these groups that are being perceived as identical but are not. On the one hand, there is a social ill-adjustment by which a person is unable to interface with others in social situations due to a lack of exposure and a lack of instruction about social graces. On the other hand, there is a social disjunct arising from a desire to be separate from certain behaviours or experiences viewed as undesireable (profanity, pornography, lude speech, self-righteousness, judgementalness, prudishness, or whatever else they may perceive to be objectionable). In this latter case, the disjunct is often complementary; that is, those who would like to distance themselves from lude speech, for example, may not interact freely around those who use such speech, whereas those who do speak in a way they consider lude may not interact freely around those they consider prudish. In such cases, each tends to perceive the difficulty as coming from the other exclusively.
This is categorically different than the former sort of difficulty, in which there is no reason for the separation -- that is, it is not by choice on any level -- but it is for reason of inability.
Having said this, the cause of the former sort of person -- people who are unable to interact socially -- is parents who do not know how to socialize their kids or instruct them in social matters. There are lots of people who homeschool who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children, and there are lots of people who farm schooling out to the state who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children. There are lots of Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct there children, and there are lots of non-Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children.
The other difficulty is one of choice. It stems from Christians not wanting to be certain behaviors (whether from weakness or strength or whatever), as well as from non-Christians not wanting to be around certain behaviours (whether from weakness or strength or whatever). It stems from Christians not wanting to accomodate people (Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors, and non-Christians not wanting to accomodate people (non-Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors. Some parents -- Chrisitan and non-Christian -- pass on these preferences to their children, often passively, but sometimes actively.
The "loony" behavior to which you have alluded is the latter sort -- choosing things you consider ridiculous to choose (I know you do because you ridicule them by calling them "loony"). Going far down any branch of choice makes the decisions of those on other branches seem ever more peculiar (and I'm not one who is for "moderation at all costs" -- it seems to me we should do something all the way if it's worth it to us). I have a relative who always talks about "those damn Republicans" in such a manner as that he sounds as though he believes they are these impish wretches rubbing their hands together and plotting how best to destroy other people. I have a friend who seem
Re:But of course you can (Score:4, Informative)
Virtually every single person in this article thread, and in TFA itself, is using non-scientific evidence, especially anecdotes. See the post further down by some AC about "Lauren" the college dropout he taught who was home-schooled. It therefor stands that, if nobody is linking studies/research at all, one anecdote is as good as another. Your only valid counterpoint would be a scientifically credited link; as it stands my direct experience is more valid than your uninformed opinion (neither of us is being scientific).
What proof is there anyway? Even if you could study the students (this is being done BTW, my brother was tracked by one such study), then any data gathered over the last few decades will be skewed by the number of religion based home schooling.
As for comparisons between the two of us, we're damn similar people. Close to the same intelligence, similar academic performance (I test better, he get's his assignments done more often), similar personality. Why do I dislike people far more than him? I was taught froma very early age that people are scum. He never learned that lesson.
However, learning that lesson did me no practical good, whereas ignorance has actually benefitted him. We have wound up at about the same place in life as well, so arguements that I must have a better job/higher education/whatever don't fly.
And even if he were more gregarious than me, all you've proved is that, in our case, which system we went through had no positive or negative impact on our lives. Ie, home schooled kid fairs no worse than public schooled kid when all other variables are as close to identical as possible. Which would still be an arguement in favour of home schooling.
Re:But of course you can (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, kids are incapable of thinking for themselves, especially in the grade school years. They need to be taught the difference between right and wrong before they can be taught how to ascertain whether something is right or wrong.
The real problem is that parents have too many escapes nowadays from parenting. The TV and video game consoles offer more stimulation to children than anything else, so they are captivated by it. And parents need to get things done, so they don't mind dumping off their kids in front of the TV for a few hours while they do some house work. Seems to me people have the attitude that if my kid is in front of the TV, at least I know they are safe, right?
Few children will actually turn of the TV or the Video Games and open a book and do some reading. When a child reads, they become better spellers, and better writers. They learn good habits. The TV is a waste of time, even educational shows.
Re:But of course you can (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean kids are incapable of thinking how we want them to think (as in socially accepted ways) until we teach them how. Then they need to be taught what we think of right and wrong before they can ascertain whether something is right or wrong according to our system.
Kids can
Re:But of course you can (Score:4, Insightful)
The Underground History of American Education. [johntaylorgatto.com]
Re:But of course you can (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, there are a lot of things that children "learn" in school that I think are counter productive. We just moved to New York (Long Island) this year (from the west coast), and the school here is terrible. All the kids are "dating" in 5th grade (which I think is the parent's fault). The school has dances for 5th grade. They are two years behind where her old school was in pretty much every academic subject. The kids are allowed and even encouraged to use profanity in school.
So, next year she will be attending a private school. One semester at the crappy New York school is too much.
Re:But of course you can (Score:3, Informative)
Currently as in 1950?
In my state, which is fairly conservative, kids are taught that no matter how they act and think, there is nothing wrong with it, that if you are bad in class, that they can and will do nothing to correct it (because parents will sue them), and that no matter what you do wrong, it is somebody else's fault. So in fact, I would hav
Re:But of course you can (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember that jerk in school who used to punch a select few nerds in the head as hard as he was able? Remember how the teacher always ignored it?
Go try that in "real life." Punch someone in the office like that. Or even your neighbor. Let me know how it turns out.
The absurdly antisocial behaviors which go on in schools every single day are things that no adult would put up with in the workplace for an instant.
Re:But of course you can (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. Why don't you provide empirical evidence, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal supporting your claims? Fact is, even the U.S. Department of Education admits t
Re:A note to moderators (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A note to moderators (Score:3, Funny)
Troll 2: First!
Winner: None
Troll 1: FP!!
Troll 2: OMG FIRst Post!
Winner: None
The ony winning move is not to first post.
Re:A note to moderators (Score:5, Interesting)
Public schools have failed precisely because they are not doing precisely what it is they are required to do. There are many solutions, not the least of which is to eliminate teacher unions (of which I am a member) completely. I can think of no greater conflict of interest than unions lobbying the state on educational issues. There is no concern for educational quality only what is in the teachers' best interests. In fact, I believe that public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. This is hardly an anti-labor/anti-union position, as public employees (police, fire, teachers) a) chose their profession b) have job security and c) serve vital roles which the market cannot remedy. Unlike say an auto manufacturer who has competitors, is accountable to shareholders, and has to actually market and sell a product, you have no real choice when you dial 911 or send your child to school.
The unions have been infiltrated with very left-wing ideologues and it has permeated every sector of education. Now, before people get upset, just think about those places where "intelligent design" has been adopted into the cuuriculum. Many want that no more than others want Heather has two mommies but it is exactly the same prinicple. I've always believed that privatization of schools is the ultimate answer. In fact, government should stay out of the schools, marriage, business, the internet, etc.
Re:A note to moderators (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldn't agree more. My parents, both members of the NEA and NJEA (New Jersey) are basically extorted into paying fees to an agency that hardly ever help in any way, and seem to spend more time lobbying on issues that have nothing to do with education (or the views of my parents.)
Please - this is NOT a push to start a flame war, so realize this post is NOT about abortion. However, at least with the NJEA and definatley with the NEA, for some reason, they lobby HEAVILY on pro-choice decisions in local and national arenas. While it not only confuses me (less aborted babies = more kids in school = more teaching jobs) it's totally outside the realm of anything to do with the education of children or what's in the interest of the teachers who are part of the union in the capacity of doing their jobs.
Teachers unions are so misguided and misdirected that they're almost completely useless. I know that they are certainly there for certain things like arbitration, but I feel that they evey shy away from conflict whenever possible, even discouraging teachers from filing grievances.
I'm rambilng. Point is, I agree with ya.
Re:A note to moderators (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about education - it's about maintaining power.
Re:A note to moderators (Score:3, Insightful)
Try thinking of it this way, though
(less aborted babies = more kids in school = larger class sizes = less attention paid to individual students = decreased teaching efficiency)
or
(less aborted babies = more unwanted kids = more neglected kids = more kids with learning problems = more disruptive kids = worse conditions in the classroom)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:privatization of schools (Score:3, Informative)
From the school district. You've heard of school vouchers right? The idea is families decide where their child can get the best education and the government pays for it (up to what it would have otherwise cost them in a public school). And before you start saying that some schools wouldn't teach anything, the laws can be written in such a way that the schools would still have to be accredited by the state to be eligible to ac
Re:privatization of schools (Score:3, Informative)
Because in the other countries the school systems are not required to take every single student all the way through 12th grade, no matter the school. Students are tested periodically to even get into the schools. Highschools have entrance tests and they only accept the top X students. Don't get a high enough scoore? You can't go to that school. Try one of the less prestigious ones. Get low enough?
Re:privatization of schools (Score:3, Informative)
They don't, which you'd realize if you did any actual research on the topic. Traditional school systems are failing *everywhere*; it just so happens that the U.S. school system shortfalls are more widely publicized, and U.S. citizens tend to be far more critical than their counterparts in Europe and Asia.
Max
Re:A note to moderators (Score:4, Insightful)
Statistically thats true, simply because statistically ANYBODY straight person can become a parent which drags down the statistic for them. Homo couples generally adopt, and its rare and very hard for them to do so in much states, so that bottom of the barrel gay generally isn't allowed to have/keep a child.
Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Informative)
To be very honest with any comments like this, and comments that bash schools online, everyone should take the time to visit a site called Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow [ecotohio.org]. If it wasn't for this possibility, students that made a few bad mistakes, young teenage parents, and socially impaired individuals that I knew growing up would have just ended up dropping out all together and getting their GED. Instead, they got their high school diploma.
To anyone who thinks it isn't possible to sit in front of a comput
Not the best idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the best idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not the best idea (Score:2)
I think the people who criticize this would also criticize home schooling. This is basically home schooling with some help. It also gives the home schoolers affiliation with an actual school d
Re:Not the best idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that the Teacher's Union needs the classroom more than the kids. Online learning through accredited schools is proven and effective. Teacher's Unions, on the other hand, have only been proven to look out for the Teacher's best interests, often to the detriment of thier students. I choose to take the Teachers Union's opinion with a grain... make that a truckload of salt.
Re:Not the best idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I would posit that the public school system as it stands today is actually more HARMFUL socially to our kids than helpful. This is mostly due to the large class sizes, the overall lack of discipline and the lack of healthy student-teacher interaction. This is not something that is really "fixable" within our current structure. Teacher's Unions have too much power, and things are too centralized in a large and inefficient government beaurocracy.
Learning is a highly personal experience. It is something that should be done OUTSIDE a large social atmosphere where peer pressure and concern with social standing can take mental precedence over learning the material at hand. Also, by personalizing the learning experience, one learns self-assurance and the ability to work alone and self-start. These are CRITICAL skills in society today. Those in public schools who learn these skills do not do so BECAUSE of public schools, but DESPITE public schools.
We need to encourage the uptake of more Teleschooling and small, private schools, and get away from large, Socialistic beaurocratically run schools. It's in our kid's best interests.
Re:Not the best idea (Score:4, Insightful)
And I would agree with you.
One of the most harmful, even detrimental consequences of a school's warped social atmosphere is the massive (though not total) inhibition of dating. As Slashdotters know all too well, if you're not one of the popular elite, any attempt at dating will not only be rejected but will be the business of 400 other kids within twenty-four hours. When you detain kids for six hours a day, under threat of legal enforcement, it's only natural they'll be extremely bored and behave like this.
But it sure doesn't teach all those non-elite how to interact with the opposite sex in a normal manner. If anything, it teaches them to be separate and distant. I think we all know people who never overcame that handicap.
I can't imagine how this prepares anyone for adult life. When I date someone, it's no one's business except mine, hers, and possibly a few friends and family. I'm obviously not the only one who places value on this, considering the lengths to which celebrities have been known to go in order to get a little privacy where their social lives are concerned.
Re:Not the best idea (Score:3, Informative)
I have actualy. In fact, just the other day I met a kid at my workplace who was with his dad. Turns out the kid was being home schooled and the father was there to pick up some supplies and get some information about what he would need to teach his kid some video production / editing. The kid was probably the most well mannered, nice and appropriate kid I've ever met. To tell the truth his demeanor was more appropriate than 95% of the adults I work with on a daily ba
Re:Not the best idea (Score:3, Interesting)
People need to realize that locking kids up in a basement and throwing away the key is not prerequisite for home education.
I was home schooled K-12, using a curriculum so religious and conservative it would likely make the majority of Slashdot readers barf, and yet, I like to think that I turned out relatively OK. I'm a college graduate, I have a good job as a programmer, and I'm happily married. I even have friends!
The only negative effect that homeschooling had on me sociall
Re:Not the best idea (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better to end up as Ralph, even Piggy than as J (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better to end up as Ralph, even Piggy than as J (Score:3, Insightful)
That's called "parenting", an apparently lost art in many parts of the First World. So lost, in fact, that some people actually think it's impossible to teach a child these things outside the context of the scho
Re:Not the best idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the school. When you think "public school," you're probably thinking of the ones near where you grew up. In that case, dealing with the annual wedgie is no reason to pull the kids out of school. However, I think they may be much worse in Chicago than you might be used to. In many of these schools, violence is pretty much guaranteed. Now I'm definitely against home schooling - those kids turn out like complete losers way too often - but if your school has a statistically defined murder rate, I'll take the loser over the dead kid.
I think a much better solution to your problem is to instead try and clean up the schools and get rid of the little arseholes in there.
I'd have to agree with you, but the bleeding hearts in this country would never let that happen. To them, it's apparently better to subject 1000 kids to daily violence and a shitty education than to "leave behind" a few kids. Since that choice (getting rid of the arseholes) isn't available to parents, you have to get your kid away from the arseholes. Sometimes, some form of home schooling (or charter schooling) is the only real option.
Fortunately, the wife and I are very lucky, as we have good jobs that allow us to live in a very good area that has probably the best public schools (non-magnet) in the country. So, unless we pack up and move to Compton, our kids will never have to face that. But for parents who are not so lucky, it can be a hard decision when your kid gets beaten up everyday. Or when you start hearing about kids bringing guns to school. Or when your kid starts getting pressured to join a gang. Or when your 12 year old daughter starts getting hit on a little too strongly by convicted 17-year-old rapists. At that point, you do what you have to do to get them out.
Re:Not the best idea (Score:5, Insightful)
You need a bigger sampling. I home school my kids and and know dozens of other home school kids and not a single one is a "complete loser". In fact, they are (compared to both public and private schooled kids) much better socialized, better mannered, and better educated. When my oldest daughter was 10, she could hold an intelligent convo with an adult, and probably even teach them some algebra concepts, yet when she entered a private school in the 10th grade, she was immediately accepted socially among her peers (and the teachers). Her first semester at college she got a 4.0 and is on the student government. And I'm just as proud of my 16YO son, who clearly likes being home schooled, he's got a great job and a car he paid for, he's learning piano (his idea) and is very active in a number of teen groups, even leading some of them. So the idea of home schooled kids being poorly socialized is a complete non-starter. For every "loser" who you can find that was home schooled, I bet I can find a dozen in the public school system that are worse.
So your sample of home schoolers is obviously tainted. I respect your right to not home school your kids, but if you're going to argue that public schools produce better kids, you're going to need to fudge a lot of statistics. Maybe you could borrow some ideas from the MS "Get the Facts" campaign about how to twist statistics to your benefit.
The main reason that home schooled kids do so well on tests, in college, and later is life, is because their parents are highly involved. This is the same advantage that the cyberschools have and the reason that the teachers unions hate them (and home schoolers) so much.
Teacher unions are no different than the AFL-CIO, they exist to protect the jobs of their members and get them more money, their "concern" about the childrens education is just a pretext, like the auto workers union's "concern" about the quality of the cars they produce. Childhood education is just a product that they produce in order to make money for themselves. So, don't ever be surprised that they come out against anything that might reduce their control of education, they would suggest shutting down all private and parochial schools if they could get away with it.
Re:Not the best idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this is exactly the reason why most people who can homeschool. You might
Re:Not the best idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. The norms of the real world are nothing like the norms of a second level school. A second level institution operates in its own private sub-culture that is almost totally detached from reality. It's a morbid, almost fantastic perversion of the way the world normally works.
Do you have people in your place work work running around throwning pieces of half eaten fruit at you? Do you walk down the corridor past groups of senior members of staff and have them push or trip you over? Do you have to put up with people screaming, laughing and joking as you try to get work done? Are you prohibited by law from leaving if any of these things happen?
This kind of thing does not go on in primary education, or teritiary, or in the real world. It's a phenomenon peculiar to second level institutions only, and is the result of good intentioned efforts to educate teenagers by surrounding them with other teenagers with little meaningful adult contact.
People don't learn how to socialise in secondary schools. In most cases, they have to unlearn bad social habits they picked up there. If you want your child to learn how to socialise, have them socialise with adults more often.
Re:Not the best idea (Score:5, Informative)
There are 3 levels: Gifted, Magnet, and normal. To get into gifted, you have to test highly (they administer tests to 5 years olds, no kidding) - only 1 in 40 to 1 in 100 that apply get in. To get into a magnet school, you have to be lucky - it is a random lottery (about 1 in 10), though you can apply to any that you want (unfortunately, it is heavily weighted by race - so if you are white you are virtually guaranteed to be accepted into a school in an area of town that would literally get you killed). The normal schools are done by geography - and there is only one that you are assigned to. These are the school with guns+kids - even though you have to pass through metal detectors to get in.
Almost everyone that can afford it goes to a private school, or the magnet and gifted schools. So the normal school students self select for parents that don't care or are destitute. (If the parents cared enough presumably they would move into a better district, or at least lie!) If you look at the school statistics, what happens is that all the kids do just fine until about the 4th grade. Presumably, at this point some of the kids get into drugs and violence - the grades, test scores, etc. all take a nose dive (from everyone, including african american kids achieving near 90% - to the african american kids achieving less than 50% in one year).
Most of the information is available online - I actually know some of the people in the Chicago Public School system management, and they are good people really trying to get things fixed, but there is too much politics, too little parental involvement, and too little money.
Re:STFU (Score:3, Funny)
Teen pregnancy? In my day, if you didn't have kids by the time you were 15, you were out of the tribe (either you're sterile, or you don't put out - either way, we don't want you). Science class was learning how to bash rocks together to make fire, shop class was learning how to make our poi
But what about socialising? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be smart around stupid people - they'll come and beat you up for it.
Avoid gatherings of other people - they'll beat you up because you 'looked funny at them'.
Don't speak to classmates - they'll chase you around the school yard for using 'funny words'.
Hate - it's difficult to learn to love people who chase you all the way home.
Should I go on?
I know, this doesn't go for everybody, but I can see that this on-line teaching will do some people a lot of good.
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:2)
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:2)
I agree that socialisation in school is crappy. But to play devil's advocate, would you really prefer it if your kid didn't learn that other people might resent his intelligence, so when he starts work he thinks that everybody is stupid and he's clueless about why people get pissed off with him?
I was significantly smarter than my peers all through school, and at first I didn't actually realise that other people had difficult
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the homeschoolers of today are the same ones of 25-30 years ago. Most parents I know who intend to homeschool are not religious nuts. They just don't want their kids to go to government schools for obvious reasons.
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention, that a harmful social environment is potentially worse than no socialization at all. It's fairly easy for a public school to become a Lord of the Flies scenario, with a combination of kids who have to be there, a self-contained social structure with no goal or purpose, and administrators who don't care.
School is supposed to be for learning, anyhow. Let the kids socialize on their own time. Maybe if they actually taught kids things in school instead of "socializing" them, things would work better in the first place.
Put the kool-aid down. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, anyone can find examples of students both home schooled and public schooled and use that as reasons to support their side of the story. Fact is home school kids do just fine in society, many scoring far higher than their peers.
home schooling is villified by those who fear its results. Common methods include claims of lack of socialization with peers or religious dogma. Usually the "religious angle" is played out more up north than elsewhere.
You can expect similar arguments from the Teachers Unions and those who are held in its thrall to any advance in education which leads to a loss of their power and influence.
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am about to make some generalizations based on my experience and the experiences of colleagues.
My experience has shown precisely the opposite. Homeschooling, when done well, produces individuals that are better equipped to meet the world and its challenges than "traditional" schooling. Instead of being surrounded by individuals of one's same age (and, often, one's same race, social status, etc) the homeschooler learns how to interact with people of all different ages, and adults in particular. Most home
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:2)
I don't think the kids would even learn so much. How many times do teachers have to say "[Jimmy], pay attention!" Most kids don't have the greatest attention span (damn dreamers - ridalin for everyone!). Put them in front of a computer - even with supposed blocks, which at least one person will work around then post on MySpace for everyone else to do - and they will do other things.
When will this country (USA - maybe even others, too) wake up and realize that we should put more focus - not less, and not cl
Re:But what about socialising? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a 14 year old. and if you tell me that the social environment in scool is beneficial then you are completely stupid.
Let's see the lessons she is learning from her peers....
1 - drugs are cool
2 - sex is cool
3 - harassing the odd kid is cool
4 - being an asshole is cool
5 - smoking is cool
6 - stealing is cool
7 - EMO is cool
8 - Smart is un-cool
9
Oh really? (Score:2, Informative)
These [japanese-online.com] sites [monash.edu.au] teach [yousei-ziploc.com] you [learn-japanese.info] basic [freejapaneselessons.com] Japanese [wikipedia.org] if [wikipedia.org] you [about.com] study [about.com] enough. [about.com]
Parents just have to watch to make sure their children aren't looking at porn instead of studying and help them along.
Re:Oh really? (Score:2)
The person also has to have the basic skills of interacting peacefully with their co-workers. Not ranting, swearing, playing dangerous pranks, or pranks at all, for that matter. It's not their time -- something posters here seem to have a hard time understanding. Many home-schooling parents treat the teaching as a job; make the k
Like home school (Score:4, Informative)
And this doesn't speak to the socialization aspect. Half of what is taught in school isn't just the three R's. The other half is how to become a responsible adult functioning in a society where you must interact with others. Sheltering kids from the outside world does not teach them that.
How would this be... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How would this be... (Score:2)
Sure you are going to get some kids with social problems that are in home schooling, same as you are going to get kids with social problems that attend a normal school, such as Columbine. However you look at studies you find there is no such difference. for instance a study by the
Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
But most of them do not think about it at all.
It can work. (Score:5, Informative)
I know that homeschooling works, and works well, because my daughter is homeschooled. She scores very high on achievement tests. She is so socialized (outside of public school), we have to sometimes limit her socializing in order to spend non-educational time with her. When she started high school level curricula, we associated ourselves with an umbrella school for advise, transcripting, focused tutoring, etc. This took some of the anxiety off of us when we started considering college prep issues.
This Chicago effort appears to merge the homeschooling concept with oversight by the city's education system. This closely parallels what we have found to be a very successful combination.
so true (Score:5, Insightful)
A basic element of learning-teaching is the teacher, who just can't be replaced, the kids need far more than data, need also affection, support, guidance and motivation, I find hard to believe a computer will provide much of it, not to mention that we might see physical problems later and probably conductual issues.
A common lie, every teacher knows...that it might be true for a lil' while, but later: "ain't doin' your work".
don't get me started in the lack of arts, music and p.e.
Yeah right. (Score:5, Insightful)
People want alternatives, Public schools suck, Teachers do not do their jobs, administrators do as little as possible to get by, the social atmosphere inside the school is very similar to that of a state prison. Middle School is simply 3 years of cruel punishment to kids and the public schools refuse to do anything to fix it.
Parents are seeking out charter and private schools in droves because of the poor quality of public schools, this is another step that allows the child a huge amount of educational freedom. Unsupervised, yes a kid would rather play than learn something that they would consider useless to them at that time. (Social Studies, English, Math) but with supervision a kid that understands math like it was her native language can accellerate way past everyone else including her teacher and get the education she needs. I remember being berated by a science teacher in school because I disagreed. I brough in a paper that proved that I was right and I was sent to the office for being a smart-ass. Teachers in schools hate it when they encounter a child that is smarter than they are and they lash out at those kids to get them back in line. When a kid knows far more about astronomy and astrophysics than the 8th grade general science teacher knows that teacher should STFU instead of telling the kid to STFU.
I am all for anything that eliminates the bad teachers, and that means upsetting the entire teachers union, so be it.
Private schooled kids are better educated.
Charter schooled kids are better educated.
Home schooled kids are better educated.
finally I will bet that computer schooled kids are better educated.
when compared to public schools.
It is a written in stone fact. only the fools believe otherwise.
Unfortunately, most of the poor can not afford the $200-$300 a month for their kids private school tuition.
This is such bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Financial Interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonder why? Is it the kids, or is it the jobs/pay of the teachers...
Teacher's Union in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
In Ontario, the provincial liberal government is gutless, they always cave in to ANY union, and so they just give away our money for no reason, and the unions know this and they take advantage of this even more than in the rest of the country. Teachers get more 'professional development' days (during business days) in Ontario than anywhere else it seems like and they don't really spend those days for any development, and this happens while in private organizations PD days are taken during weekends. Those who bother to show up for those days don't really learn anything new, or if there is anything, it is all about the administrative part. In reality, teachers have entire summers that could be dedicated to 'improvement' in their profession, but what they do, is get summer jobs and make even more money instead. (they earn all of their money in the winter, but those ARE the money for the entire year, but they get to work 2 jobs and make double during the summer, isn't that great for them?)
So whenever I hear that a teacher's union opens their collective mouths to say something, all I can think of is that the parents, the kids, and the rest of the society is about to get a shaft.
(Ontario, you have to wake up and fire this union, fire those teachers who are lazy and useless and get yourself into a better alternative deal.)
The Union opposes it? (Score:3)
For the Teacher's Union to oppose this is like a cow opposing a new steak restaurant. Of COURSE they don't want it. The reasons given will probably not be the real reasons, either.
Quite simply, this means fewer teachers and probably lower pay for teachers as well.
And since when do teachers have responsibility for our children? Oh, that's right, it used to be that way and recently we've taken away all their power. They can't discipline children, they can't even give them a good stern talking to without a parent claiming they are singling out their child. And now they think they have the right to dictate WHERE children are taught? Yeah, right.
If a parent wants to send their child to a virtual school, LET THEM. It's FAR better than home schooling. There WILL be interactions with other people, just not interactions as people born in the 50s require. My best friends are on the internet, not local. (I'm 29.) You CAN learn to work with others at a distance. You CAN learn to appreciate that others have feelings. In fact, with the internet being what it is, I find it vital that they DO learn that skill. Many people today hide behind the internet and use it to 'grief' people, inside games and outside.
This type of school will require a different teaching style, of course. There will have to be more emphasis on group projects and individual accountability within groups. I have seen very little of that in public schools, and not much more in college, despite the 'group project' class we had for programming.
And this isn't saying there won't be field trips and occasional group physical projects. There just won't be an official classroom to have to go to every day.
Also, let's not forget the time savings. Riding the bus to school is an hour trip. Another hour getting home. That's 2 more hours for studying, socializing, or relaxing, depending on how the teacher deals with it. I think you might find that 2 hours is a LOT of extra time to get things done.
This goes WAY beyond 'we're not forcing them to socialize'. This could be a very very useful method of teaching children.
Last, as noted in other posts, some schools have severe problems with violence. Those same students will still be disruptive, but when they can be contained with a click of a button and prevent disruption of the class, without taking away their option to learn (1-way communication, instead of group conference for that student) then most of their motivation is gone. Class clowns won't have a reason to pull that for more than a few seconds.
Something to think about.
Re:The Union opposes it? (Score:3, Insightful)
As far the other points, the teaching styes you mentioned are already in wide use at schools.
not much different than ... (Score:2)
Not much different than sitting at a desk as some teacher reads a book outloud while simultaneously writing it out on a blackboard. You write what's on the board into a jotter. At the end of the 'lesson' he walks out without ever making eye contact.
The only skill I ever learned in education was how to stand up or sit down at the sound of a bell.
subsidized home schooling (Score:3, Insightful)
The quality of education is another big issue. If a parent chooses to homeschool a child, and goes through the hurdles, then as a society we must respect that choice, and given that the parent has shown some responsibility, the chances are good the education will be adequate. But what about the parent that is just told their kid no longer has to go to school? Is that parent going to work for 7 hours to keep the kid on task? Is that parent going to teach organizational skill. Is that parent going to make sure the kid goes to the library once a week, differentiate problem concepts, learns how to eat at a table? One reason homeschooling has become so popular is that schools increasingly have to teach much more than content, and parents would rather teach those other things themselves. The one benefit of this program is that the child will be subject to NCLB, as opposed to if he or she was at a private or home school.
As this program moves to higher grades, the problems increase. We are already seeing schools setup specifically to manufacture credit for athletes, thus denying them their socially guaranteed education. Todays NYT reported that this practice even has formally infected colleges, as if that is a surprise. There are other kids that the school would want to educate a home, kids that often would do much better with the structure at school. Inevitable this program will be used to move certain students out of the school system.
Virtual schooling will happen, and this experiment will be widely watched. It is not just about saving teaching jobs. It is about making sure that public education does not become more useless than it is. There are innovation within the school that can reduce costs while still allowing teachers to pay adequate attention to students. Likewise there are kids that might do better or equally well at home. However, history tells us that much of the innovation over the past 40 years has been to reverse Brown.
Homeschooling (Score:5, Informative)
The most common question we get about it is "what about social skills". A lot of people who homeschool make very conscious efforts to make sure their kids receive social skills. We are involved in co-ops, we do field trips with other homeschool kids, there are sporting activities, and he has other kids in the neighborhood. The best argument I heard about schools & social skills was this: teachers don't want you to be social during classes. When you were growing up were you allowed to talk in class? Of course not. You talked between classes and at lunch. Most of the social skills you received were not tought by a teacher but interaction with other kids. This can be gained outside of school too.
Yes, my son does behave different than some other kids. Some things are good and some are bad. He doesn't really understand that some questions are very awkward to ask in public, he tends to interrupt, and his patience isn't the best. On the other hand, he can talk to any adult much more easily than I ever could and he naturally asks questions if he doesn't understand something. When interacting with other kids I don't really notice a difference. He interacts with his public school & homeschool friends the same way and they play the same games.
Virtual schools have advantages & disadvantages except you get some outside support. Some parents really need that extra support because they don't feel comfortable being on their own.
The biggest benefits to non-traditional learning are the ability to go at your own pace and to change the teaching method if it doesn't work. When we started math with my son we got a really cool math program. It had blocks and videos as well as worksheets. It looked really great to me. He absolutely hated it. We tried for a few weeks and gave up. We switched to another program which had very bright and colorful worksheets but no blocks or videos. He responded much better to it and was able to learn the material much easier. Learning at your own pace is good for him too. There is no being "left behind". Until he understands the subject we don't go to the next.
That all being said, homeschooling isn't for everyone. Some kids just don't respond and need more structure. Some parents don't want the responsibility or can't be home to be the teacher. Even in virtual schools the idea isn't just "sit them in front of a computer and you are done". There is other non-computer stuff in any program I've ever seen. I can't comment on the quality of the Chicago program, but I'd imagine it is the same way. The majority of time isn't computer related. I'm sure it will be less flexible and less "go at your own pace", but that isn't necessarily bad because some kids really need the structure. It depends on the child.
Also remember that things change. The parent or the child may decide to go back to traditional schooling. People and situations change. You can always switch. All 50 states have laws permitting homeschooling. Some are more "interesting" than others, but they all allow it.
There is also one other myth I'd like to dispell. Other than social skills the second most common question is about religion. Not everyone is a religous zelot who homeschools. I'm not even remotely religious. Lots of people do it because they feel it is the best opportunity for their children and not to shelter or block their kids from the outside world.
By the way, another thing which helped convince me that it isn't a bad idea was the fact that a lot of homeschoolers are ex-teachers. You would be amazed how many ex-teachers there are doing this. Every ex-teacher I talk to says that public schools waste time and they spent the vast majority of their time on a few kids in a class.
Home Education (Score:3, Interesting)
A Union Opposing Progress? No.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look the bottom line is that the education system in this country will never be fixed until we break up the teachers unions. Liberals will scream and yell but it has to happen. One of the most important functions a government can provide is education. In this globalized economy education is more important than ever and it's impossible to have a good education system if you can't hold teachers accountable for their performance. I had teachers in high school who showed movies just about every day and taught us nothing because they knew they couldn't be fired. They were tenured and that was that. I had friends who in 12th grade were taking the equivalent of an 8th grade math class. That's simply unacceptable and we're paying the price. The USA will continue to decline until we fix our education system. Unfortunately both politicians and corporations have an interest in maintaining the status quo. If the average citizen was educated enough to know know badly they were getting fucked by both Uncle Sam and the upper 1% then most of the politicians would be out of a job.
Virtual schools as an improvement on homeschooling (Score:3, Funny)
What I've observed here in St. Louis, Missouri, anyway, is that our public schools run the gamut from excellent to horrible, depending on where you happen to live. Our schools in the city itself are largely in the "poor to horrible" category. In the "inner hub" counties closest to the city, they're only 1 step better in most cases. As you move further west of the city, into the more affluent counties, the public schools generally improve.
Unfortunately, the kids at the highest risk of getting a substandard education are often the same ones with parents who simply can't afford to stay home and homeschool their kids. So what you typically see are kids of well-to-do upper middle-class parents being homeschooled because their parents just believe they "know better" how to teach their kid(s) than the school districts do, or because they're a little overprotective.
My thinking is, by homeschooling, you're *already* denying your kid(s) a lot of opportunity to build social skills. If they're using a virtual school on the computer while they're at home, vs. only interacting with the same parent(s) they always interact with anyway, how much difference does that really make? What's important is that homeschoolers get their kids involved in extracurricular activities so they're getting to interact with their peers in other settings.
inside perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure.... Send your kid to school on-line.... (Score:3, Interesting)
School is more than learning the three R's. It's learning how to deal with other individuals. Life involves cultivating relationships and learning what works and what doesn't when dealing with another human being. It's not just knowing the right information to get straight A's.
The social aspect of actually GOING to school is too-often downplayed. Your kid needs to learn how to deal with other people... both good people and bad people. Those people-skills are something you can't get in a home school setting, no matter how you try. And those skills are a better indicator of success later in life than any report card with straight A's.
An argument against home-schooling (Score:3, Funny)
I agree that you can teach them some social skills, but how will they be able to form lasting friendships and relationships? I'm sure some will be able to, but it took me 8 years in school with my friends to get really close to them. Friendships don't just happen on a trip to the zoo for some. If I'd try to homeschool a child, I'd be afraid it'd turn into either a socially reclusive or an overly social person. (you know, the type that is friends to everybody and yet nobody)
Friends are one of the most important aspects of life and you should give your child every opportunity to find real friends you can!
The Unions (Score:3, Informative)
1) More power for the union.
2) More money for the union.
They are against new testing. They are against non-testing based instruction. They are against charter schools. They are against charter schools even if it means no schools. (Charters were willing to set up in New Orleans long before the public schools would have been able to operate. The unions fought against them, in favor of no schools at all.) The unions are against any changes to the tenure system. The unions are against anything proposed by or endorsed by the conservatives. The unions are against Wal-Mart. The unions are against the high cost of living. The unions are against forcing the teachers to get technology traning. The unions are against the schools spending more of their budgets on technology (and less on teachers). They are against home schooling. They are against school funding cuts. They are against property tax increases.
And they support teachers retiring at 55 with 25 years of service. They expect to work 25 years, only about 1/3 of their lives, and have the rest of us taxpayers who work from 16 to 65+, including summers, to support them. (Earlier retirement means hiring more teachers, which means more union members and more dues paid.)
Let's find out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but the real question isn't "Does it work?", but rather, "Does it work better?".
There's a straight forward way to test it.
Allow some number of children to be educated this way, and compare them with standard school kids.
(Of course, there's probably many less destructive ways to test it too.)
I'd say it's strange that they haven't proposed this, but then,
I don't hear much talk about comparing results for any other schooling method either.
The U.S. seems to stress conformity above all else.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Homeschool ignorance relieved here! (Score:3, Informative)
http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html [learninfreedom.org]
http://www.pregnancy.org/article.php?sid=189 [pregnancy.org]
I look for some studies that showed public shooling was better, but there aren't any.
Thanks for illustrating it (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what, simpleton? Noone considers astrology a science nowadays.
Basically all you've told me is that you're exactly the kind of ignoramus we loathe: the kind that isn't just content to be an ignorant, but tries to drag everyone else down to his level. The kind who isn't just content to have no fucking clue about real science, but _has_ to bandage his ego by looking down upon those who do.
Tired of elitism? Well, that starts at home. Stop acting like an elitist idiot yourself. The whole "I'm so much better than you because I don't understand science" ivory-tower is what gets us techies to reply with elitism right back. Most of us can accept that not everyone has the inclination or in some cases the IQ for science. Sure. Society needs painters and plumbers too. But seeing an idiot trying to present his ignorance and idiocy as proof of superiority _will_ get a sneer from those who do understand why your arguments only betray massive ignorance.
Re:Thanks for illustrating it (Score:2)
Bah, some people just don't have a sense of humour and concentrate too much on people teasing them to realise that the same people will tease themselves readily enough. I think that if someone thinks that everyone who makes jokes about them is an elitist arsehole, and that someone can't
Re:Thanks for illustrating it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for illustrating it (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't waste your time; that was almost certainly a calculated troll, trying to hit every negative stereotype of humanities majors to provoke reactions.
Re:Agree Completely (Score:2)
Oh the irony. This coming to you from a "scie
Re:Agree Completely (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure
where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or
an engineer.
translation : I'll be a manager at a McDonalds.
You do realize that the number of liberal arts phd's around big campuses is huge? I know of 2 people I was good friends with that went to University of Michigan and one has a PHD in political science, the other has a phd in Philosiphy and a phd in music history.
He is in line for tenure as well, 15th in line, in about 15 years he MIGHT get it but right now with some of the cuts made he works part time tutoring students and still lives in the campus housing and looks like a 38 year old gen-X hippie. He is a great friend, but still dreams of driving a bmw and living in the big stone house near campus (IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!)
That is the other path that can and will happen, when financial cuts come the "foofy" classes are the first cut. I can go to any resturant in Ann Arbor and get served by a myriad of Masters and Doctorate degrees.
It's more of an addiction to the campus and College lifestyle than seeking an education. Many of the career students in the wierder degree fields are there to fill their addiction.. IT exists everywhere though. RMS was a career student, and the IT building of almost any campus has some hermit that has several degrees but still lives there. (same for the physics and chemistry building as well.)
I'm just saying that going to be a professor is great, but dont bank on your tenure until you have it in your hand. With your education level you should know that trusting fellow humans is folly at best.
Re:Agree Completely (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or an engineer.[sic]
I got an undergraduate degreee in
Re:Agree Completely (Score:5, Funny)
Copy and pasted. (and quick commentary) (Score:3, Insightful)
*Googling, please wait...*
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! [mathforum.org]
But I digress.
Here's the deal. Do what you love. Don't blame us for doing what we love. To think that your chosen career is somehow "better" than someone else's is pure arrogance.
Re:Online Universities (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, with all the potential for abuse an online program could have, as with home schooling, if someone comes from that sort of background and still knows their stuff (scores well on standardized tests, etc.) they're probably smarter and/or more self-motivated than someone with an equivalent score from a regular school.
Re:Online Universities (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should even some regular college degrees deserve respect? Countless colleges allow students to pass through the system with degrees simply because they excel at sports. Many pass on students who only get through sub-par course.
That college degree doesn't come with a grade point average, is a C student at your local state university going to do as well as someone with a higher average from an online university?
Besides, doesn't this smack of elitism? We still have cases where some degrees are worth more than others. Some colleges are looked down upon because in truth the education they provide is better. Why not discriminate based on the fact that applicant A's football team regulary hands your school's ass to it every year?
Education is what you make of it. Public education is no longer about turning out good students who are well balanced with the skills needed to enter the real world. Its a damn jobs program with a bunch of social engineering thrown in to convince kids that the government knows whats good for them.
Re:Online Universities (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Online Universities (Score:4, Insightful)
This is of course rubbish. As someone who has been in the position of hiring I can say there are many factors to consider. To "disregard" a resume based on the university is a disservice to the company and candidate. In more senior positions the education section is almost irrelevant.
If we're talking junior technical positions (ie straight out of school) then you will be expected to take a test prior to any sitdown interview. Often that means dozens of candidates in a room with all sorts of diverse backrounds (English majors to CS grads).
Re:Online Universities (Score:2, Informative)
I think you should disregard all degrees, but beside that, why would you disregard online universities?
I've gone to physical university and I'm currently going to an online university, and I can tell you it's a hell of a lot more work and learning in the online one.
The classes don't have 500 people in them for one, unlike the physical university I went to. The professor actually interacts with us personally.
It also costs about 5 times more to go online,
Re:Online Universities (Score:3, Interesting)
"Online Universities" are not Universities (Score:3, Insightful)
So-called on-line universities are in general not accredited and have no standards at all. They are frauds. All you do is send them a few thousand dollars and they send you a piece of paper (or maybe a pdf that you have to print yourself) that says "Degree" on top of it.
For years, some universities have offered correspondence courses by mail. A few let you do an entire degree by correspondence. Typically those universities have some mechanism for proctore
Re:Online Universities (Score:3, Insightful)
I may be a bit biased as I graduated from an online university. Unfortunately, I do not have a rich mommy and daddy to pay for my school and even if I did, I still would have done it myself. I didn't have time to go to frat-daddy mixer keggers or get into squirt gun fights in the dorms after binge drinking. I