Evolution Phobia....

ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Evolution Phobia....

Here's an article talking about the resistance of teachers to teaching evolution.

Evolution teaching poor in U.S. high schools

So, we know there are science teachers that don't want to teach evolution...that's there own dang fault...

But it appears that many don't want to because they are scared of the controversy or fear they cannot defend it...Certainly, YEC have no problem defending their position.

Can we blame the US's ignorance or resistance to the fact that it's not being taught in schools? It seems that this is being perpetuated with each generation.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Awesome quote : Students

Awesome quote :

Students should make up their own minds, explained a Pennsylvania teacher, "based on their own beliefs and research. Not on what a textbook or on what a teacher says."

I want this guy to grade all my exams.

 

 

 


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Read a rather similar

Read a rather similar article in a Dutch newspaper too.
Although it's a christian newspaper, they do quote someone saying "The 60 percent that are careful (who say kids don't need to believe evolution, just know what they have to know for the tests) are undermining the authority of scientific experts and legitimate creationist arguments"
To answer Anonymouse: I would write on top of my page that I believed the FSM created us 300 years ago with all memories and everything in place, and answer all questions accordingly Laughing out loud


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:Read a

Thunderios wrote:

Read a rather similar article in a Dutch newspaper too.
Although it's a christian newspaper, they do quote someone saying "The 60 percent that are careful (who say kids don't need to believe evolution, just know what they have to know for the tests) are undermining the authority of scientific experts and legitimate creationist arguments"

"legitimate creationist arguments" , aka the bible ?

I'm hoping that's an article on the american situation, and not a piece on similar situations in dutch classrooms.

Thunderios wrote:
To answer Anonymouse: I would write on top of my page that I believed the FSM created us 300 years ago with all memories and everything in place, and answer all questions accordingly :D

A++

Result ! Bullying teachers works !

And now, for my maths exam, I will answer questions through the medium of interpretive dance. Deal with it.


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:"legitimate

Anonymouse wrote:

"legitimate creationist arguments" , aka the bible ?


Sorry, kind of a mistranslation, legitimate was supposed to be a verb. So basically it says that they make the creation arguments legitimate, whereas they actually aren't.

Anonymouse wrote:
I'm hoping that's an article on the american situation, and not a piece on similar situations in dutch classrooms.

It is. Although my biology teacher denies evolution. I'm trying to set that straight, though.

Anonymouse wrote:
And now, for my maths exam, I will answer questions through the medium of interpretive dance. Deal with it.


That would be so funny, someone dancing during a test Smiling

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:And now,

Anonymouse wrote:

And now, for my maths exam, I will answer questions through the medium of interpretive dance. Deal with it.

I would love to see that Smiling 

I thought having a school curriculum was mandatory, some teacher deciding that what my kid needs or doesn't need to know sort of shits on all the tax money I invested in the school system.  Those teachers should be fired immediately. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fucken classic, Anon

Anonymouse wrote:

Awesome quote :

Students should make up their own minds, explained a Pennsylvania teacher, "based on their own beliefs and research. Not on what a textbook or on what a teacher says."

I want this guy to grade all my exams.

 

Me too. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It has been once again

It has been once again popping up in cable news. There is no controversy. There are merely theistic bullies who don't want the sunlight of scrutiny to be taught to their kids. So instead of accepting reality they put on a false sense of fairness in asking, "Why cant we teach both".

That would be like asking, "Why cant we teach that the moon is made of cheese along with it being rock and a satellite and let the kids decide?"

Scientific facts are not up for debate. You don't get to vote in or out gravity. Evolution is a fact and teaching garbage to your kids, if you insist on dumbing  down your kids, do it on your own fucking time. YEC is not science, nor is it even history. It is a relic of a tradition of selling ignorance.

Go have your comic book club on your own time. School is for education, not political correctness.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Go have your

Brian37 wrote:

Go have your comic book club on your own time. School is for education, not political correctness.

 

ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Brian37

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Go have your comic book club on your own time. School is for education, not political correctness.

 

ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

 

 

So true. Even in college, very few teachers gave me an understanding. Our climate of teaching is very Orwellian. It teaches more to be a parrot than it does to have understanding. I have actually learned more outside the classroom than I did in the classroom.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think we should be slave drivers. I think it is better to understand fully a little than to parrot alot.

I DO think every student is different and respond differently to different stimuli. I myself, even outside class, never responded well to "sink or swim". I respond better, and understand more, when I can ask questions and try to summarize what someone is trying to tell me to see if it is matching up with what they are telling me.

Bob Spense can tell you he has taught me some things and our back and forth exchange helped my understanding.

What I cannot stand is when someone loads the kitchen sink on me without any clarification.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:ROFLMAO!

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:ubuntuAnyone

Kapkao wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

You are out of your mind. You want to put a child's young sponge of a mind into the hands of people who believe the earth was made in 6 days, and believe in a book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? You want the people who claim a baby can be made without a second set of DNA "home schooling"?

Saying rightfully that our education system is broken should not constitute throwing gas on the fire.

The right wing controls the purse strings of our economy and part of that is control over school books. They would love home schooling because it would strip any oversight to prevent those who do it from skipping facts in favor of superstition.

At least with public schools they cannot escape some sort of scrutiny. I would suggest fixing public schools, not setting up more of a monopoly for theocrats. I am for home schooling WITH OVERSIGHT, but you leave that in the hands of the right wing, they will strip that oversight away. These are the same people who bitch that school days aren't lead with prayer.

Privatize that as a blanket absolute solution, and we would, long term end up looking like a Christian version of Iran.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The right wing that has

The right wing that has control over text books have tried to make ID equal to evolution. They have also done everything they can to avoid Thomas Jefferson's scrutiny and blasphemy of religion. They do everything they can to put a theocratic spin in the name of Jesus in our classrooms. That is bad enough. You put learning at home considering that these idiots control textbooks and their content, you might as well skip everything and just hand kids bibles and leave it at that.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:ubuntuAnyone

Kapkao wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

Can the home-school teachers at least be competent educators? Can they at least be judged on other criteria than how much tongue they gave God's ass last Sunday?

To give you an indication of the moronic status of church schools - the church where I went during much of my (public) high school days asked me to be the principal of the school they were starting. I was 16 at the time of the job offer and they wanted me to start ASAP..

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My x landlord, sent his

My x landlord, sent his daughter to a private Catholic school. Whatever truth in math and science and history they might teach is poisoned with "god did it" on a daily basis. He is a social liberal and an economic conservative. I would over hear her doing her religious homework, and then he would comment to me, "I wish they wouldn't teach her that crap".

She might have smaller classes, safer environment and more individual attention, but it doesn't teach her to question the religious aspects of the school. Learning isn't just about absorbing information. Without critical thinking skills, even the smartest people can fall for bullshit.

This environment, for whatever short term good it might do, has far more baggage that can cause damage to society long term.

You'll never get any of those teachers at that school to allow the students to be critical of "god did it".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Kapkao

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

You are out of your mind. You want to put a child's young sponge of a mind into the hands of people who believe the earth was made in 6 days, and believe in a book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? You want the people who claim a baby can be made without a second set of DNA "home schooling"?

Out of my mind, it is. Schools aren't here to determine what people believe... and a YEC would (inevitably, that is) only fail biology. 

I'd say a person who only  flunks biology a significant improvement over what we have graduating from high schools atm. 

Quote:
The right wing controls the purse strings of our economy and part of that is control over school books.

So ready to demonize the rich, are you? You've never heard the phrase "limousine liberal"? "Latte liberal"? The immense support Obama got from Hollywood in '08 didn't exactly come from the poor. Both of which is irrelevant, but whatever floats your political boat, dude.

Quote:
They would love home schooling because it would strip any oversight to prevent those who do it from skipping facts in favor of superstition. (...) These are the same people who bitch that school days aren't lead with prayer.

It's funny you mention that, because at the same time there was public prayer in school, there wasn't a trainwreck of a schooling system. Interesting coincidence. Good thing I don't throw the word "correlation" and "rational" the way Bob Spence does (apparently translating to anything that happens to agree with his political pov.)

Quote:
Privatize that as a blanket absolute solution, and we would, long term end up looking like a Christian version of Iran.

Hyperbole makes it cute.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:To give you

jcgadfly wrote:

To give you an indication of the moronic status of church schools - the church where I went during much of my (public) high school days asked me to be the principal of the school they were starting. I was 16 at the time of the job offer and they wanted me to start ASAP..

I'm not in favor of private schooling... in some cases they're worse off than public schools. (in every statistic)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

To give you an indication of the moronic status of church schools - the church where I went during much of my (public) high school days asked me to be the principal of the school they were starting. I was 16 at the time of the job offer and they wanted me to start ASAP..

I'm not in favor of private schooling... in some cases they're worse off than public schools. (in every statistic)

 

Yet you're in favor of home schooling? Bringing all the kids to the public house so they can be taught over drinks and darts?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yet you're in

jcgadfly wrote:

Yet you're in favor of home schooling?

Yes. Because it is much more effective education than either. I have no idea what the second sentence is about.

 

edit; Actually, I've never heard of education at a pub. (They aren't called public houses here) If you have a linkable example of it, I'd be interested.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yet you're in favor of home schooling?

Yes. Because it is much more effective education than either. I have no idea what the second sentence is about.

 

edit; Actually, I've never heard of education at a pub. (They aren't called public houses here) If you have a linkable example of it, I'd be interested.

I only called it a public house instead of a pub to draw the distinction between it and a private home (which would then become a private school if homeschooling is done there).

So you're against and for private schools depending on what else you call the building?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

You are out of your mind. You want to put a child's young sponge of a mind into the hands of people who believe the earth was made in 6 days, and believe in a book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? You want the people who claim a baby can be made without a second set of DNA "home schooling"?

Out of my mind, it is. Schools aren't here to determine what people believe... and a YEC would (inevitably, that is) only fail biology. 

I'd say a person who only  flunks biology a significant improvement over what we have graduating from high schools atm. 

Quote:
The right wing controls the purse strings of our economy and part of that is control over school books.

So ready to demonize the rich, are you? You've never heard the phrase "limousine liberal"? "Latte liberal"? The immense support Obama got from Hollywood in '08 didn't exactly come from the poor. Both of which is irrelevant, but whatever floats your political boat, dude.

Quote:
They would love home schooling because it would strip any oversight to prevent those who do it from skipping facts in favor of superstition. (...) These are the same people who bitch that school days aren't lead with prayer.

It's funny you mention that, because at the same time there was public prayer in school, there wasn't a trainwreck of a schooling system. Interesting coincidence. Good thing I don't throw the word "correlation" and "rational" the way Bob Spence does (apparently translating to anything that happens to agree with his political pov.)

Quote:
Privatize that as a blanket absolute solution, and we would, long term end up looking like a Christian version of Iran.

Hyperbole makes it cute.

Get off this "demonizing the rich". As long as there are humans, humans will seek power. RIGHT NOW there is an effective hijacking of our economy by ONE CLASS, and that class uses religion to keep people from facing the fact that they are being fleeced.

You put ANY system in place without checks and balances and the vacuum it creates will allow for a power grab.

I am not going to put any faith in the right wing that supports a Christian theocracy and corporate anarchy. This isn't about wealth, it is about monopolies of power.

You are falling for the false dichotomy of either/or when all I am saying is that RIGHT NOW, in our current climate we are reaching more of a monopoly and the people doing it are buying off both parties and using religion to do it.

If you knew anything about Thomas Jefferson, WHO WAS A BUSINESS OWNER, you'd also know he warned about monopolies OF ANY KIND.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Private business, or even

Private business, or even private property, in an open society IS and should be a given because that is part of our nature to want things. I am addressing abuse of power. No rules is just as bad as absolute rule. The right wing uses social issues and fear of government propaganda to maintain it's control over the economy.

If the right wing gave one ratts ass about the middle class or the poor, they would pay livable wages, they would pay for health care and they would leave religion at the door politically, and they wouldn't keep shipping jobs overseas.

The corporate class's idea of competition isn't to raise living standards, their idea of competition is to have us work slave wages like India and China.

As much as I love the NFL, it pisses me off that TAX PAYERS paid for the halftime show at the Super Bowl. So don't give me a lecture about socialism when the top class has no problem using my tax dollars.

Keep people dumb and stuck on labels and sell them utopias and you can pick their pockets all day.Thats what Stalin and Hitler did and just because I am talking about a class doing it, instead of a religion, or political ideology, doesn't make it moral. It still amounts to "money equals power and might makes right" the same fucking attitude the god of Abraham has in all the three holy books.

Just because you have power doesn't make you automatically moral.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:As much as I

Brian37 wrote:


As much as I love the NFL, it pisses me off that TAX PAYERS paid for the halftime show at the Super Bowl. So don't give me a lecture about socialism when the top class has no problem using my tax dollars.

 

I'm sorry, how do taxpayers pay for the Superbowl ads? I'm just unfamiliar with how that works.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote:Brian37 wrote:As

lalib wrote:

Brian37 wrote:


As much as I love the NFL, it pisses me off that TAX PAYERS paid for the halftime show at the Super Bowl. So don't give me a lecture about socialism when the top class has no problem using my tax dollars.

 

I'm sorry, how do taxpayers pay for the Superbowl ads? I'm just unfamiliar with how that works.

 

This year,  Chrysler spent bailout money on the ad featuring Eminem and GM spent bailout money on an ad for the Volt (in addition to funding Rodgers' MVP Camaro.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yet you're in favor of home schooling?

Yes. Because it is much more effective education than either. I have no idea what the second sentence is about.

 

edit; Actually, I've never heard of education at a pub. (They aren't called public houses here) If you have a linkable example of it, I'd be interested.

 

Kap, how does having a teacher who was schooled in public schools, and barely passed, make home schooling any better?

I'm not saying all credentialed teachers are great teachers, I'm asking how some parent who is a crack head or didn't finish high school or .... is better than said credentialed teacher.  Yeah, some parents are very intelligent and very capable of schooling their children.  But I think we can agree that is not the case for all parents.  There is also the problem of time - if the parent(s) have to work full time (or more) to put food on the table and a roof over everyone's head, then when are the children going to get educated?  If you say "neighborhood schools" then we are back at a simplified version of public schools.

Also, it is not a matter of flunking just biology.  There is also geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, genetics, anatomy and a score of other sciences that are connected to understanding evolution.  They all point to the same result.  Their theories are all intertwined.  I agree that eventually, home schooling everyone would eventually lead to a theocratic and ignorant population.  There would be some people who had the money and leisure to educate themselves, but for the most part, we would be looking like England during the 17th century - only the rich were educated and the poor were mostly illiterate.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote:Brian37 wrote:As

lalib wrote:

Brian37 wrote:


As much as I love the NFL, it pisses me off that TAX PAYERS paid for the halftime show at the Super Bowl. So don't give me a lecture about socialism when the top class has no problem using my tax dollars.

 

I'm sorry, how do taxpayers pay for the Superbowl ads? I'm just unfamiliar with how that works.

 

I wasn't talking about the ads. I was talking about THE SHOW the Black Eyed Peas played at half time. NOT TO MENTION all the tax funds the owners get to build new stadiums. The old NY stadium which has been torn down is still being paid off by tax payers.

THE NFL is not the only business builking the taxpayers.

Corporate America wants privatized profits but socialized loses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41466397#41466397

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Kapkao

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yet you're in favor of home schooling?

Yes. Because it is much more effective education than either. I have no idea what the second sentence is about.

 

edit; Actually, I've never heard of education at a pub. (They aren't called public houses here) If you have a linkable example of it, I'd be interested.

I only called it a public house instead of a pub to draw the distinction between it and a private home (which would then become a private school if homeschooling is done there).

So you're against and for private schools depending on what else you call the building?

if the building is called "house" and the student-teacher ratio is 1:1, I'm not against it.

Also, in most conversations I've had about this, private schooling is held separate from home schooling...

(*arrrgh* why must some atheists be so pedantic *arrrgh*)

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I'm not saying all

cj wrote:

I'm not saying all credentialed teachers are great teachers, I'm asking how some parent who is a crack head or didn't finish high school or .... is better than said credentialed teacher. 

Are those the types of people who home school? Probably not?

Quote:
There is also geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, genetics, anatomy and a score of other sciences that are connected to understanding evolution.

In an actually scientifically related field, yes. Thus goes the biggest complaint many kids have with school: (outside of grammar school) "How many useful skills does it teach? Life skills?"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yet you're in favor of home schooling?

Yes. Because it is much more effective education than either. I have no idea what the second sentence is about.

 

edit; Actually, I've never heard of education at a pub. (They aren't called public houses here) If you have a linkable example of it, I'd be interested.

I only called it a public house instead of a pub to draw the distinction between it and a private home (which would then become a private school if homeschooling is done there).

So you're against and for private schools depending on what else you call the building?

if the building is called "house" and the student-teacher ratio is 1:1, I'm not against it.

Also, in most conversations I've had about this, private schooling is held separate from home schooling...

(*arrrgh* why must some atheists be so pedantic *arrrgh*)

 

1. You woke up the smart ass in me.

2. The majority of the home schooling parents (at least in the US) are woefully unprepared for educating their children and are held prisoner by the texts that the Christian home-school systems provide (I say Christian because that's all I see being sold).

3. There is the issue of accreditation - What good is getting a diploma from a home school if the kid can't get into college?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:lalib

jcgadfly wrote:

lalib wrote:

Brian37 wrote:


As much as I love the NFL, it pisses me off that TAX PAYERS paid for the halftime show at the Super Bowl. So don't give me a lecture about socialism when the top class has no problem using my tax dollars.

 

I'm sorry, how do taxpayers pay for the Superbowl ads? I'm just unfamiliar with how that works.

 

This year,  Chrysler spent bailout money on the ad featuring Eminem and GM spent bailout money on an ad for the Volt (in addition to funding Rodgers' MVP Camaro.

I didn't know that, pile that on as well. Not a shock.

And two needless wars that have not yet benefited either country made a shit load of private weapons manufactures extremely wealthy.

And this is the shit that gets me. It isn't the fact this happens. It is the fact that there is all glossed over by promise of the brass ring and no return on it and losses that will burden future generations as well.

I find it hard find sympathy for big business when it hypocritically takes tax payers money, blackmails the public if they suggest they can afford more in taxes, which they can, and then threaten to cut jobs if they cant explode their profit margin at the cost of the other two classes.

It would make sense to allow this ONLY if it were pragmatic and these business put back into the economy HERE more than they take out of our taxes.

So I don't want to hear them bitch when some asshole in a cubical tells someone they cant have a life saving operation because some corporate dick head says they wont pay, and bitch when the person ends up in the emergency room.

It isn't so much that any class asks for government help, there are all sorts of "socialism" that exist in America. It is the rape of the economy and abuse of power I object to.

WITH less regulation comes more responsibility. I don't see the top class doing a damn thing to address the cost of living gap or health care costs. Until they start caring I don't think they should get any tax cuts and they shouldn't get any tax funding for a damned thing.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. You woke

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You woke up the smart ass in me.

That doesn't take much... all I have to do is thumb my nose at your political ideology a la "Native Americans saw what happens when you don't control immigration"

 

Quote:

2. The majority of the home schooling parents (at least in the US) are woefully unprepared for educating their children

In what manner? Or did you mean unqualified rather than unprepared?

 

Quote:
3. There is the issue of accreditation - What good is getting a diploma from a home school if the kid can't get into college?

Which college, you say?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Kapkao

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

You are out of your mind. You want to put a child's young sponge of a mind into the hands of people who believe the earth was made in 6 days, and believe in a book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? You want the people who claim a baby can be made without a second set of DNA "home schooling"?

Out of my mind, it is. Schools aren't here to determine what people believe... and a YEC would (inevitably, that is) only fail biology. 

I'd say a person who only  flunks biology a significant improvement over what we have graduating from high schools atm. 

Quote:
The right wing controls the purse strings of our economy and part of that is control over school books.

So ready to demonize the rich, are you? You've never heard the phrase "limousine liberal"? "Latte liberal"? The immense support Obama got from Hollywood in '08 didn't exactly come from the poor. Both of which is irrelevant, but whatever floats your political boat, dude.

Quote:
They would love home schooling because it would strip any oversight to prevent those who do it from skipping facts in favor of superstition. (...) These are the same people who bitch that school days aren't lead with prayer.

It's funny you mention that, because at the same time there was public prayer in school, there wasn't a trainwreck of a schooling system. Interesting coincidence. Good thing I don't throw the word "correlation" and "rational" the way Bob Spence does (apparently translating to anything that happens to agree with his political pov.)

Quote:
Privatize that as a blanket absolute solution, and we would, long term end up looking like a Christian version of Iran.

Hyperbole makes it cute.

Get off this "demonizing the rich". As long as there are humans, humans will seek power. RIGHT NOW there is an effective hijacking of our economy by ONE CLASS, and that class uses religion to keep people from facing the fact that they are being fleeced.

You put ANY system in place without checks and balances and the vacuum it creates will allow for a power grab.

I am not going to put any faith in the right wing that supports a Christian theocracy and corporate anarchy. This isn't about wealth, it is about monopolies of power.

You are falling for the false dichotomy of either/or when all I am saying is that RIGHT NOW, in our current climate we are reaching more of a monopoly and the people doing it are buying off both parties and using religion to do it.

If you knew anything about Thomas Jefferson, WHO WAS A BUSINESS OWNER, you'd also know he warned about monopolies OF ANY KIND. 

press it

Ah, so Obama can be bought off with... religion? Well he certainly isn't paying attention to princinple so maybe. Yes, their are a lot of sellouts to big business, but that's because they can most easily bankroll election campaigns. I don't recall religion being involved.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You woke up the smart ass in me.

That doesn't take much... all I have to do is thumb my nose at your political ideology a la "Native Americans saw what happens when you don't control immigration"

 

Quote:

2. The majority of the home schooling parents (at least in the US) are woefully unprepared for educating their children

In what manner? Or did you mean unqualified rather than unprepared?

 

Quote:
3. There is the issue of accreditation - What good is getting a diploma from a home school if the kid can't get into college?

Which college, you say?

1. I agree with you on immigration but I can't do anything about my ancestors.

2. I meant both. Teaching is different from parenting though there is a part of teaching in parenting. Educationally unqualified also.

3. For example, Indiana University (where I work) is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. If a secondary school is not a member of that institution (or one of the sister agencies in the Higher Education Council) their diploma is considered insufficient for admission to the college. Many home school curricula (particularly Christian ones) lack this accreditation. So these kids go through a graduation ceremony and then have to get a GED.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

You are out of your mind. You want to put a child's young sponge of a mind into the hands of people who believe the earth was made in 6 days, and believe in a book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? You want the people who claim a baby can be made without a second set of DNA "home schooling"?

Out of my mind, it is. Schools aren't here to determine what people believe... and a YEC would (inevitably, that is) only fail biology. 

I'd say a person who only  flunks biology a significant improvement over what we have graduating from high schools atm. 

Quote:
The right wing controls the purse strings of our economy and part of that is control over school books.

So ready to demonize the rich, are you? You've never heard the phrase "limousine liberal"? "Latte liberal"? The immense support Obama got from Hollywood in '08 didn't exactly come from the poor. Both of which is irrelevant, but whatever floats your political boat, dude.

Quote:
They would love home schooling because it would strip any oversight to prevent those who do it from skipping facts in favor of superstition. (...) These are the same people who bitch that school days aren't lead with prayer.

It's funny you mention that, because at the same time there was public prayer in school, there wasn't a trainwreck of a schooling system. Interesting coincidence. Good thing I don't throw the word "correlation" and "rational" the way Bob Spence does (apparently translating to anything that happens to agree with his political pov.)

Quote:
Privatize that as a blanket absolute solution, and we would, long term end up looking like a Christian version of Iran.

Hyperbole makes it cute.

Get off this "demonizing the rich". As long as there are humans, humans will seek power. RIGHT NOW there is an effective hijacking of our economy by ONE CLASS, and that class uses religion to keep people from facing the fact that they are being fleeced.

You put ANY system in place without checks and balances and the vacuum it creates will allow for a power grab.

I am not going to put any faith in the right wing that supports a Christian theocracy and corporate anarchy. This isn't about wealth, it is about monopolies of power.

You are falling for the false dichotomy of either/or when all I am saying is that RIGHT NOW, in our current climate we are reaching more of a monopoly and the people doing it are buying off both parties and using religion to do it.

If you knew anything about Thomas Jefferson, WHO WAS A BUSINESS OWNER, you'd also know he warned about monopolies OF ANY KIND. 

press it

Ah, so Obama can be bought off with... religion? Well he certainly isn't paying attention to princinple so maybe. Yes, their are a lot of sellouts to big business, but that's because they can most easily bankroll election campaigns. I don't recall religion being involved.

 

No he isn't ON THE ISSUE OF RELIGION, but it is because the big business knows how effectively they can use the right wing to fund their pick pocketing, that it forces the issue of religion into the political sphere to become a distraction.

I think more recently that is being exposed. But you cannot tell me as much God smack Bush Jr used in first run for office and his entire 8 years, that big business didn't find that marketing motif useful.

There are so called "grass roots" activists, that after you peal the layers the money funding them is traced back to a rich fat cat paying a marketing firm to make it sound "common man".

Obama has not been bought off on some issues, but he isn't being tough enough on corporate anarchy BECAUSE they are effective marketers of emotional appeal on issues of God, guns, taxes and wealth.

They want the public afraid of their churches being shut down. They want the public afraid of taxes. They want the public afraid of abortions. They want the public afraid of their guns being taken away. That is the slight of hand they market to keep their "no rules" status quo going. None of that in reality will happen. They are just effective marketers to get Jesus freaks to buy into it.

I think this could go away with congressional term limits and public funding of political campaigns. Right now the Supreme Court reciently fucked the other two classes that said that a corporation COULD be treated as an individual and that blows away any check on money over influencing politics.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No he isn't ON

Brian37 wrote:

No he isn't ON THE ISSUE OF RELIGION, but it is because the big business knows how effectively they can use the right wing to fund their pick pocketing, that it forces the issue of religion into the political sphere to become a distraction.

I actually agree with this.

Quote:
I think more recently that is being exposed. But you cannot tell me as much God smack Bush Jr used in first run for office and his entire 8 years, that big business didn't find that marketing motif useful.

Microsoft... Yawheh approved... hmm, nope.

Exxon, "our light sweet crude increases your kharma in the afterlife".

Fox News... well, if only because they're in bed with GOP.

Unless you count RNC, WorldNetDaily, and EWTN as businesses I'm not seeing the connection. Tell me you're not making an argument based on a hunch in your belly...

Quote:
Obama has not been bought off on some issues

Lie.

 

Quote:
They want the public afraid of their churches being shut down. They want the public afraid of taxes. They want the public afraid of abortions. They want the public afraid of their guns being taken away. That is the slight of hand they market to keep their "no rules" status quo going. None of that in reality will happen. They are just effective marketers to get Jesus freaks to buy into it.

If "They"=GOP than yes.

Quote:
I think this could go away with congressional term limits and public funding of political campaigns. Right now the Supreme Court reciently fucked the other two classes that said that a corporation COULD be treated as an individual and that blows away any check on money over influencing politics.

Truth.

 

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. I agree

jcgadfly wrote:

1. I agree with you on immigration but I can't do anything about my ancestors.

2. I meant both. Teaching is different from parenting though there is a part of teaching in parenting. Educationally unqualified also.

3. For example, Indiana University (where I work) is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. If a secondary school is not a member of that institution (or one of the sister agencies in the Higher Education Council) their diploma is considered insufficient for admission to the college. Many home school curricula (particularly Christian ones) lack this accreditation. So these kids go through a graduation ceremony and then have to get a GED.

2. Qualifications are just that. To what purpose does mom or dad need a CV to teach their own kids?

3.rut roh, I'm fucked on accreditation.

http://www.ncahlc.org/component/option,com_directory/Itemid,184/

Quote:

Currently or Previously Affiliated Institutions - 02/08/2011

The Higher Learning Commission accredits institutions in: Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao is right about one

Kapkao is right about one thing. Home schooled kids, on average, do much better than their public school counterparts, ostensibly. When all the assessments and standardized tests roll in, home schooled kids almost always score significantly higher. Since the parents are the teachers, the ratio of teacher to student might be 1:1, 1:2 or even 2:1, rather than 1:30. The kids always have their "teachers" around, who they can ask for help with problems. Plus, a lot of high school teachers are really not very good. I know I had a couple of teachers in high school that just wanted to clobber over the head sometimes. So, it makes sense that home schooled kids would get higher scores. On top of that, a public school system, like a complex public anything in the U.S., is terribly wasteful.

But, I still wouldn't say that everyone or maybe even most kids should be home schooled. Home schooled kids only score better on average; so, you do have your Young Earth Creationist moms that couldn't pass high school algebra 2 drilling their kids on how God made the world 6000 years ago. Obviously, those are kids that I would rather were taught by someone else. There's also the fact that there are clear important advantages to being in a public school that can't be illustrated with a test score. The kids get to be more independent, so they are the ones that are taking control of their education. A lot of times, the home schooled kids' moms are big helicopter types; it can be more the parents cramming the stuff down their kids' throats than anything else, and that's not a good thing in the long run. Also, public school kids get to socialize with other people their own age and participate in activities like clubs and sports with their classmates; there's no way a home schooled kid can get the same level of contact with their peers. Dealing with people might not matter on standardized tests, but it's certainly going to matter in the real world. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Kapkao is

butterbattle wrote:

Kapkao is right about one thing. Home schooled kids, on average, do much better than their public school counterparts, ostensibly. When all the assessments and standardized tests roll in, home schooled kids almost always score significantly higher. Since the parents are the teachers, the ratio of teacher to student might be 1:1, 1:2 or even 2:1, rather than 1:30. The kids always have their "teachers" around, who they can ask for help with problems. Plus, a lot of high school teachers are really not very good. I know I had a couple of teachers in high school that just wanted to clobber over the head sometimes. So, it makes sense that home schooled kids would get higher scores. On top of that, a public school system, like a complex public anything in the U.S., is terribly wasteful.

But, I still wouldn't say that everyone or maybe even most kids should be home schooled. Home schooled kids only score better on average; so, you do have your Young Earth Creationist moms that couldn't pass high school algebra 2 drilling their kids on how God made the world 6000 years ago. Obviously, those are kids that I would rather were taught by someone else. There's also the fact that there are clear important advantages to being in a public school that can't be illustrated with a test score. The kids get to be more independent, so they are the ones that are taking control of their education. A lot of times, the home schooled kids' moms are big helicopter types; it can be more the parents cramming the stuff down their kids' throats than anything else, and that's not a good thing in the long run. Also, public school kids get to socialize with other people their own age and participate in activities like clubs and sports with their classmates; there's no way a home schooled kid can get the same level of contact with their peers. Dealing with people might not matter on standardized tests, but it's certainly going to matter in the real world. 

 

Has anyone done statistical analysis to try and take parental involvement into account?  Obviously home schooled kids have parents who care about their children's education, no matter what the reason is.  Is the average home schooled kid equal to the 'average' public schooled kid who has highly involved parents?

It just seems like bad statistics to compare the populations straight across when they are likely highly unequal in background and social/familial support.

 

I don't know either way, this isn't something I've studied since I have no desire to home-school my own children.  It could be all the studies take this into account.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:I'm

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

I'm not saying all credentialed teachers are great teachers, I'm asking how some parent who is a crack head or didn't finish high school or .... is better than said credentialed teacher. 

Are those the types of people who home school? Probably not?

 

If all children were home schooled, do you really believe all parents would be well educated and able to cover all subjects?  Any subjects?  A few?  Reading?  Balancing your bank accounts? 

 

Kapkao wrote:

Quote:
There is also geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, genetics, anatomy and a score of other sciences that are connected to understanding evolution.

In an actually scientifically related field, yes. Thus goes the biggest complaint many kids have with school: (outside of grammar school) "How many useful skills does it teach? Life skills?"

 

So, I'm in the kitchen with my grandson when he was about 11.  Showing him - mixtures vs suspensions vs solutions, the second law of thermodynamics, the chemistry of dish washing, fluid dynamics and chaotic systems in the plumbing - and we don't need science?

This is how you get the dopes we have drive by this forum - don't believe in evolution, don't understand simple medicine, don't understand electricity, don't know how their computer works, but by golly, they are surrounded by miracles and don't need science in their lives.

Dumb asses - you are free to join them at any time, Kap.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Has anyone

mellestad wrote:


Has anyone done statistical analysis to try and take parental involvement into account?  Obviously home schooled kids have parents who care about their children's education, no matter what the reason is.  Is the average home schooled kid equal to the 'average' public schooled kid who has highly involved parents?

That's a good point. I have no idea.

mellestad wrote:
It just seems like bad statistics to compare the populations straight across when they are likely highly unequal in background and social/familial support.

Ah, in other words, correlation doesn't prove causation? E.g. maybe higher income parents are a lot more likely to home school. So, maybe home schooled kids do better because they are of a higher social status and not necessarily because they are home schooled.   

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:mellestad

butterbattle wrote:

mellestad wrote:
It just seems like bad statistics to compare the populations straight across when they are likely highly unequal in background and social/familial support.

Ah, in other words, correlation doesn't prove causation? E.g. maybe higher income parents are a lot more likely to home school. So, maybe home schooled kids do better because they are of a higher social status and not necessarily because they are home schooled.   

 

Hmm.  http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_3.asp

Income levels are roughly similar, but obviously in home-schooled environments a single parent is bringing in most of that income and in non-home-schooled both parents work.  Mostly white families, with higher education levels.  So the family unit as a whole has more time to devote to children...obviously, lol.

 

This is interesting: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/twps0053.html#char

30% chose homeschooling because of education, 33% because of religion.

 

Anyway, I didn't see anything with comparisons normalizing for parental involvement, so if anyone digs anything up I'd be interested to see it.  Seems like a worthwhile line of inquiry though, so I'd assume someone, somewhere, has done the research.

 

Overall, my concern would be public schools have a large pool of parents who really don't put much thought into their children, or effort to be honest.  They just ship them off and forget about them.  Maybe they yell at them a bit for bad grades.  Compare that to home-schooled kids where the parents care enough to devote a very large chunk of time and energy.  In public schools a motivated parents can get kids in honors classes, keep them out of trouble by monitoring peer group influences, keep academics a priority, etc. and that seems like a more accurate group to assess when comparing the groups.  It just seems a bit apples and oranges.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:If all children

cj wrote:


If all children were home schooled, do you really believe all parents would be well educated and able to cover all subjects?  Any subjects?  A few?  Reading?  Balancing your bank accounts?

Just the parents who give a rats ass about their kids being taught something besides evolution.

 

Quote:
Kapkao wrote:

Quote:
There is also geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, genetics, anatomy and a score of other sciences that are connected to understanding evolution.

In an actually scientifically related field, yes. Thus goes the biggest complaint many kids have with school: (outside of grammar school) "How many useful skills does it teach? Life skills?"

 

So, I'm in the kitchen with my grandson when he was about 11.  Showing him - mixtures vs suspensions vs solutions, the second law of thermodynamics, the chemistry of dish washing, fluid dynamics and chaotic systems in the plumbing - and we don't need science?

This is how you get the dopes we have drive by this forum - don't believe in evolution, don't understand simple medicine, don't understand electricity, don't know how their computer works, but by golly, they are surrounded by miracles and don't need science in their lives.

Dumb asses - you are free to join them at any time, Kap.

The average person -plumbers, especially- have no direct use for science. Thanks for the red herring and personal attacks, though, as well as the strawman in your first sentence above.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Is the

mellestad wrote:
Is the average home schooled kid equal to the 'average' public schooled kid who has highly involved parents?

Poorer families, on average, see their children more expendable than more well-to-do ones. Doesn't mean lower-middle class parents don't homeschool (because they do.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:mellestad

Kapkao wrote:

mellestad wrote:
Is the average home schooled kid equal to the 'average' public schooled kid who has highly involved parents?

Poorer families, on average, see their children more expendable than more well-to-do ones. Doesn't mean lower-middle class parents don't homeschool (because they do.)

What?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Overall, my

mellestad wrote:

Overall, my concern would be public schools have a large pool of parents who really don't put much thought into their children, or effort to be honest.

Duh.

Right there you have reason #1 why most schools would be better off if (compulsory) education wasn't considered a 'human right'. Many of these people tend to be the drop outs, underachievers, and the "at risk" kids.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:What?"It

mellestad wrote:

What?

"It just seems like bad statistics to compare the populations straight across when they are likely highly unequal in background and social/familial support."

THere are only so many ways to interpret "background".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:mellestad

Kapkao wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Overall, my concern would be public schools have a large pool of parents who really don't put much thought into their children, or effort to be honest.

Duh.

Right there you have reason #1 why most schools would be better off if (compulsory) education wasn't considered a 'human right'. Many of these people tend to be the drop outs, underachievers, and the "at risk" kids.

 

Are there any non-compulsory industrialized nations we could use to compare outcomes?  I'm curious about relative social costs/benefits.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Are there

mellestad wrote:

Are there any non-compulsory industrialized nations we could use to compare outcomes?  I'm curious about relative social costs/benefits.

No recent example, because the UN declaration of human rights went into effect 1947.

The immediate benefit: vastly improved school system

Cost: lots of idiot teenagers with too much time on their hands (as if that isn't a problem now)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:ubuntuAnyone

Kapkao wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
ROFLMAO! If schools were truly about education, I fear I might have had to read more, study harder, and actually do something to pass. For the most part, I just regurgitated information.

(Compulsory) Public schooling is about anything other than keeping teenagers from becoming a statistic? I've always been at a loss for why for it's so important to ideological atheism. A home schooling (secular or not) would outclass a public schooling in America (and likely quite a few other areas in the world, developed or not) every day of the week. Because even for all the money poured into public schooling, it's still mostly trash here.

I teach math in public schools...money doesn't seem to be the problem, but as the article pointed out, teachers have something to do with it. Kids don't know about evolution (or other subject matter) because the teachers don't know or don't want to teach something... I've met some children of homeschoolers who were exceptionally bright kids and knew their stuff, but at the same time, I've met kids from public schools too. To me, at least in terms of a philosophy of education, is to capture the imagination of students so they will want to explorer to I try and make it interesting and practical...but this doesn't always work. 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I teach

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I teach math in public schools...money doesn't seem to be the problem, but as the article pointed out, teachers have something to do with it. Kids don't know about evolution (or other subject matter) because the teachers don't know or don't want to teach something... I've met some children of homeschoolers who were exceptionally bright kids and knew their stuff, but at the same time, I've met kids from public schools too. To me, at least in terms of a philosophy of education, is to capture the imagination of students so they will want to explorer to I try and make it interesting and practical...but this doesn't always work. 

 

What happened to being a programmer?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I teach

bleh

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)