Anti-Homeschool Germany

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

http://www.mises.org/story/1425

Just because Massachusetts had a literacy rate of 98% two years before compsory education enacted in 1852 does not mean, as you seemed to be implying, that public education has been bad for the USA as a whole.


People are homeschooled in Canada as well, for a variety of reasons. For some kids, the public education system really doesn't help them, as it does for most kids. If you are being completely failed (not learning the most important bits, mainly, how to read, do math, and interact with your peers, not necessarily in that order), then being homeschooled is a good alternative. I don't know anyone who was homeschooled, but I'm sure they could get into university as easily as the next kid. They'd just have to write the LPI like anyone who didn't get 85% or higher in English 12. Maybe they challenge all the government exams and their college entrance marks are based on that. I'm sure it works out fine.

[elven dragonrider]

let's face it, public schools in the US stink. At the public school in my town there at least 1/10 of the people there have seriously considered comitting suicide. Maybe exaggerating, but you get the point. And the edu. stinks! No one there will go to a good college with just what the teachers teach you there; and what is up with the fad where the teachers teach for 15 minutes and let the kids do homework for the rest of the period? That is really good teaching! (I am homeschooled, because I attended a private academy, but they changed headmasters and the edu. went way downhill, and my only other choice is to go to the public school, which is worse than the private one we left! bad situation)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Just because Massachusetts had a literacy rate of 98% two years before compsory education enacted in 1852 does not mean, as you seemed to be implying, that public education has been bad for the USA as a whole.

I'm pointing out that the absence of compulsory and free public education did not involve high levels of illiteracy.

Many people believe that without it, people would not learn. That's not true, or wasn't historically.

One stereotype at a time, Nurv. Got things to do.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm

By 1940, the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites, 80 percent for blacks. Notice that for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were nevertheless literate. Six decades later, at the end of the twentieth century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can’t read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled. Before you think of anything else in regard to these numbers, think of this: we spend three to four times as much real money on schooling as we did sixty years ago, but sixty years ago virtually everyone, black or white, could read.

I'd say the ramifications of that might be negative.

[brownjenkins]

Literacy among New England's transient poor, 1750-1800

A number of historians have investigated the rate of literacy of New Englanders before 1800, using as their sources various legal documents connected with the disposition of estates. Kenneth Lockridge used wills from towns in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine; Linda Auwers used real estate deeds and wills from one Connecticut town; William Gilmore used a combination of real estate deeds, township petitions, account book customers, and wills from towns in Vermont and New Hampshire; Ross Beales used probate records from one Massachusetts town; and Gloria L. Main used letters of guardianship and administration from Massachusetts towns. In addition, two other historians, Joel Perlmann and Dennis Shirley, used the 1850 and 1870 census records from towns in all six New England states to discover (retroactively) the literacy of women born in the late 1700s and still alive in the mid-nineteenth century.(1)

These historians discovered a nearly universal literacy among New England men and varying levels of literacy among New England women in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Beales found female literacy to be about 53% for the entire period 1731-1800.(2) More time-specific studies produced similar results: Lockridge estimated female literacy at about 45% on the eve of the Revolution; Gilmore found it to be about 67% at that time; and Main found 56% literacy among women widowed during the Revolutionary Era.(3) But other studies produced significantly higher rates: Auwers found female literacy to be 90% by the Revolutionary period, and Perlmann and Shirley found nearly 100% literacy among women who had been born before the Revolution and were still alive in the mid-1800s.(4)

Using estate documents causes a sampling bias that these historians have recognized: it over-represents older adults, males, and wealthy people. Literacy rates that accurately describe prosperous older men do not necessarily apply to people who did not have enough property to leave any estate documents. Gilmore estimated that his sources, which went beyond wills and deeds, still left out about 20 percent of the population.(5) We need a source of signatures left by people in that 20 percent, whose literacy rates might or might not support the statistics these historians have produced.

These literacy rates for poor, transient women and men are much lower than those usually derived from signatures and marks on property-related documents. The difference is very striking, in fact: female literacy among the poor is half of the most conservative previous estimate of female literacy; male literacy among the poor is two-thirds of previous estimates. These dramatic differences suggest two things. First, literacy and property-holding are positively related; people who own property are more likely to be literate. And second, property-related documents skew literacy rates substantially upward and present an inflated view of New England literacy. To present a less biased view of literacy in 18th-century New England, we must make a wider search for documents (such as transient examinations) that reflect the experience of unpropertied people. If we take these poor into account, we must conclude that literacy was not all universal in New England by 1800, neither for women nor men.

It should be noted as well, that most historical studies that claim to represent historical "literacy" are based solely upon one's ability to sign their name, and nothing else. Today's standards of literacy are much higher.

[The Gaffer]

I'm with bj here. I think any "stats" on historic literacy rates would have to be very cautiously interpreted. Definitions, sampling populations and methods are bound to have changed massively.

That's not to say the public education system in the US is a thing of beauty; I have no idea. Clearly lots of people don't think so.

[brownjenkins]

A more apples to apples study might be to look at the more recent ones comparing half-day kindergarten to full-day, or comparing children that go to nursery school and/or kindergarten to those that don't start compulsory education until the first grade. There's overwhemling evidence that points towards early education being key to later success. And, in today's world, cumpulsory public education is simply the only way many children have a chance to get that kind of education.

Remember, not all parents are well-off and/or educated themselves. Not all parents even care if their children are educated.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

if all the money is there because of taxation. Successful education programs in urban public schools are a lot closer to private school models than to traditional public ones, uniforms and all. And look at how families fight to get their "disadvantaged" kids into Catholic schools. http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/3/355
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
Homeschooling may disproportionately represent white exodus from the schools, but every kind of person is trying to get out.

And I disagree entirely that "early education", if by that you mean "compulsory school", is the key to "later success", if by that you mean anything except "getting along in school."

Half-day to full day kindergarten just means they adjust to their conditions faster. It doesn't mean they become more able persons.

Wouldn't the point of education, ideally, be providing a population with the resources to be effective, contributing members of their society? Show me where compulsory public education is doing that. Because my newspapers do not reflect it.

What parents don't care if their children are educated?
Parents care about that. They just aren't sure how to get it. And as for, "not every parent is educated enough" http://www.mhla.org/supt/research.htm

[brownjenkins]

I think you are getting a bit heavy on the doom and gloom. Public school simply isn't that bad when you look at reality instead of statistics.

I will agree that the best education comes from parents, but there is no reason why you can't have a combination of both. I have four children and a wife who is a very qualified teacher. All four were "instructed" by my wife and I during the first few years of their life (the youngest just starting).

Then, at preschool age, our town has a state program at one of the public schools that is for kids with learning disabilities (they get to attend for free). The other half of the class is made up of children from the town of the same age who have no disabilities and have a strong educational and social foundation for their age (something all three of my children qualified for). They act as mentors, more or less, for the others.

All three of my children have attended, and I think it's given them things they could not have gotten at home. Most importantly, the ability to work with and understand other children with emotional and learning problems later in life. The teacher of my older children, who is in fourth grade now, told me in a recent conference how good he is with one of the autistic kids in his class. My kid is fairly popular, and he makes a point of including this kid in birthday parties and other social events that not too many other kids in the school would do. He also protects this kid during recess when others try to tease him. It should be noted too, that if not for state laws, this child would not have been allowed in public school at all, and would have been sent to an institution instead.

On the education front, my two oldest get great grades and are at or near the top of their class. A big part of this is some good teachers over the years, and another big part is work at home. We do homework with them every night. We watch educational programming and talk about anything from science to politics at the dinner table with them.

Sure, there have been some bad teachers along the way, and some bad kids that made for tough times here and there, but I see that as an extremely important learning experience for them as well. As I said earlier, dealing with success is easy, but learning to deal with failure and adversity is a skill I see sorely lacking among many adults who have gone to exclusive private institutions (and I know quite a few).

In the end, unless you live in an absolutely horrible school district, public schools supplemented by parental involvement as needed can lead to a great education and to a social experience that is much more realistic than the one you would get staying at home for a majority of your adolescence.

To be an "effective, contributing member of society" you have to actually be a part of that society first.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'm pointing out that the absence of compulsory and free public education did not involve high levels of illiteracy.

Many people believe that without it, people would not learn. That's not true, or wasn't historically.

One stereotype at a time, Nurv. Got things to do.

That it is not the evidence of your article. it is the apparent wish of the article - but clearly not the evidence of your article.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc Brandybuck

Sorry if I offended you. I did actually make an effort to find another article from a different point of view (i.e. Bop's thing) after I first posted but I didn't find any. And yes, I admit I didn't strain myself to find one.
As for radicalized Christians: Uh... no. On that you are wrong. It gets waaay more radical out in the world. Besides, it's a petition. How often are petitions unbiased? Never.

I was not offended. I found the article offensive in both it's bias, lack of creditability, zealot-like drumming up of issues and requests for an active co-ordinated pressure group like approach to each and every issue not 100% in totalitarian step with it's broadly narrow beleifs and dogma.

I found it odd it was posted here. By all means post your own opinions- in your own words - but copying propagandist religious doctrine and pressure group campaigning in activistic articles i found somewhat more than a trifle off on a board like Entmoot. Everyone isd entitled to their views and debating them - but to post pressure group and fundamentalist propaganda here verbatim is not on.

It's an interesting article, Merry - and the Germans seem (even through the multi layers of sheer bias .. ) to be rather state dogmatic themselves -

but then - given that - write your own peice!, don't taint Entmoot with activistic emails or articles.

Best, BB

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

broadly narrow

Nice!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Brown Jenkins, your family took responsibility for the education of your children. You chose to avail yourself of the public school sytem in your area. If it hadn't been suitable, you'd have checked out private schools, looked for tutors, done what you had to to get them the education they needed.

In what way, then, are you different from a homeschooling family? Except that what worked for you included this school.

The majority of people who homeschool in the US, according to a recent report from the US Department of education, do it for a primary reason other than "to provide religious or moral instruction." 31.2% were concerned about the environment in the schools. 16.5 % were dissatisfied with the academic instruction. 6.5% had a child with a physical or mental health problem, and 7.2% had a child with other special needs. 8.8% had another primary reason that wasn't on the list.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homescho...ML/table_4.asp

That leaves 29.8% who identified "to provide religious or moral instruction." as their primary reason for homeschooling. That's a third, of the idealogues that get most of the press.

Now, personally, I think if you believe you need those extra 40 hours to provide religious instruction, well, it's your right. I even have a theory as to why that would be so. My form of faith doesn't require that level of sales.

But no type of schooling fits all, and no type of schooling protects you against challenge and loss. Homeschoolers, statistically, volunteer more in their community than non-homeschoolers and they go to summer camp, little league, Girl scouts, all kinds of public activities. This sense that they're all staked out at Ruby Ridge just isn't accurate. A lot of homeschoolers just do it for particular times, putting the kids in regular schools in high school, for example.

And I completely agree that parental support and good teaching are the essential components of academic and other success.

Why would that conflict with homeschooling?

[trolls' bane]

Wow! This is a lot to read...

EDIT: Forgot the rest of the post!

I'll perhaps catch up with it later. I could only skim a little of it.

[jellyfishannah]

This is a very interesting discussion.

I am not shocked that homeschooling is illegal in Germany but it is confusing that they EXPELLED the girl because her parents were tutoring her at home. That makes no sense.

I was homeschooled myself and, frankly, hated it. NOT because I was not getting enough socially but because the situation in our home made it very difficult to study and I was left mostly on my own to learn. Math is especially difficult to learn on your own and I lagged for a while until I got a math tutor.

I was surprised to see that the math grades were so high in homeschoolers because I've heard that though homeschooler usually have reading levels way beyond that of their peers, they often suffer in the area of mathematics. Of course, the way one kid is homeschooled can be vastly different from the way another is.

I agree with brownjenkins that it is extremely important for children to grow up in an environment where they have to deal with people on a regular basis but I don't think that it necessarily has to be from a school or have anything to do with scholastics.

Really, I am all for public schooling but the situation in American public schools right now is sometimes not pretty. I would have gone to the high school here myself had it not been for its reputation.

That being said, homeschooling is a really great option for parents who want to teach their kids in either a non-traditional way or a traditional way but better quality. I certainly don't think many families should try it seeing as most families can hardly stay together! It requires a lot of discipline on both the parents' part and the child's part.

It's funny that they tell you in University, "You're not going to be spoon-fed like you were in high school." Homeschoolers feel as if they suddenly ARE being spoon-fed.

[Rían]

great post, jellyfishannah! Thanks for the first-hand info. I loved your last comment!

[Butterbeer]

i think 'earl' should be a Duke!

Duke S - i beleive it is Brownjenkins -

not - brown Jenkins! - that sounds rather like an errant toddler in Just william!

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

let's face it, public schools in the US stink. At the public school in my town there at least 1/10 of the people there have seriously considered comitting suicide. Maybe exaggerating, but you get the point. And the edu. stinks!

Especially where I live, it seems. I've been somewhere where pre-high and high schoolers had trouble reading very simple paragraphs and whatnot.

Originally Posted by BB

write your own peice!

I would, but I've only got an hour for computer. (Lent and all.)

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Homeschoolers, statistically, volunteer more in their community than non-homeschoolers and they go to summer camp, little league, Girl scouts, all kinds of public activities. This sense that they're all staked out at Ruby Ridge just isn't accurate. A lot of homeschoolers just do it for particular times, putting the kids in regular schools in high school, for example.

I can vouch for that part. I've done so much of that it's not even funny. And, like I said, I have a pretty dang good job and I couldn't do it if I was public/private schooled. Better than, as my dad would say, "You want fries with that?"

As for preschool: I never went and I personally think I turned out fine, thank you very much.

[Rían]

I think preschool is over-rated.

[Thain Peregrin Took I]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think preschool is over-rated.

I agree. I didn't go to preschool, and I'm doing fine. According to the preschool commercials, I was supposed to be failing in school.

Anyway, back to homeschool.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Homeschoolers, statistically, volunteer more in their community than non-homeschoolers and they go to summer camp, little league, Girl scouts, all kinds of public activities. This sense that they're all staked out at Ruby Ridge just isn't accurate. A lot of homeschoolers just do it for particular times, putting the kids in regular schools in high school, for example.

So true. It's not like homeschoolers are cut off from the world. They volunteer and participate in activities. They still have friends through neighbors, youth groups, sports, homeschool groups, childhood friends, etc.