Home-schooled Evanston teen accepted by 7 of the top universities

[ptif219]

http://www.hslda.org/docs/link.asp?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Echicagotribune%2Ec om%2Fnews%2Fchi%2Dhomeschool%5F18apr18%2C0%2C48048 63%2Estory


In what has been called the most competitive year ever for college admissions, Chelsea Link defied the odds to get accepted into Yale. Then Harvard.

Then came the fat envelopes from Princeton, Columbia, University of Chicago, Stanford and Northwestern University.

Making that feat still more extraordinary, Link has been home-schooled since age 5.

"I was a little nervous," the Evanston 18-year-old said. "I was worried that I might not get into even one school."


This isn't false modesty on Link's part, but an acknowledgment that many stereotypes about home schooling—think barn raisings and "Little House on the Prairie" wardrobes—are still entrenched.

True, she had nailed perfect scores on the SAT and ACT, is the reigning world Irish harp champion, aced all her AP exams and enjoys nothing more than kicking back with the latest copy of Scientific American.

But being both first and last in your senior class poses a challenge for colleges accustomed to comparing credentials from conventional high schools.

"There's a built-in conflict of interest when the person evaluating your performance is Mom or Dad," said Barmak Nassirian of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Still, many admissions officials say they are becoming more at ease with applicants who took alternative paths, if for no other reason than it's a booming market. Almost 2 million American students are educated at home, and more than 80 percent of colleges have formal policies for assessing these applicants—up from 52 percent in 2000.

While the pool has expanded, so has home-schoolers' savvy about how to package themselves, said Christopher Watson, dean of undergraduate admissions at NU, where the number of such applicants has doubled since 2002.

"We haven't changed the way we review applications, but the way home-schoolers are submitting applications has changed," he said. "They've become very good at taking out the question marks."

Now, the only uncertainty for Link, who hopes to study neuroscience, is where she will attend. She has until May to decide, although the crimson sweat shirt she wore may have provided a clue. Harvard offered slots in the class of 2012 to only about 7 percent of 27,000-plus applicants, an all-time high




Is this a threat to public schools and teachers unions?

Will the liberals see this as a threat to their indoctrination of Americas youth?

I say hats off to homeschool families it is not easy and takes a real committment.

[Alonzo]

It's amazing. In one of the college I attended, if you had any personal relationship with the professor (lover, family member etc.) then someone else had to grade all your work. Yet, in many American colleges, they're like "Great! You're mommy gave you straight A's!"

This isn't so much about this kid, I just don't see why colleges take home schooled grades seriously unless they're backed up by SAT and AP scores.

[Cobra]

ACT and SAT aren't much to go by. Not hard you just hafta learn for the test.

[ptif219]

http://www.baptistbanner.org/Working/The%20facts%20about%20homeschoolers%20778.htm


A study titled "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America" found that, on average, homeschooled children scored 30 to 37 points higher than public school students in all subjects on standardized tests. The study consisted of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families. Dozens of other studies produced similar findings


Home schooled kids do as well of better then public school.

This means no left wing indoctrination and more independent thinking.

[Alonzo]

This means no left wing indoctrination and more independent thinking.

Left wing indoctrination, like tolerance? Besides, there seems a hell of a lot of right wing, religious indoctrination going on at home.

Besides, how do they actually perform in college and beyond, in environments where someone isn't entirely devoted to them and it may be 100:1 instead of 1:1, like at home?

[4Reaganomics]

I think if she was accepted to these elite schools that the schools have confidence that she will succeed in the classroom and beyond graduation.

[ptif219]

Left wing indoctrination, like tolerance? Besides, there seems a hell of a lot of right wing, religious indoctrination going on at home.

Besides, how do they actually perform in college and beyond, in environments where someone isn't entirely devoted to them and it may be 100:1 instead of 1:1, like at home?

If you call teaching young children gay is normal tolerance i call it a lie.

http://homeschooling.about.com/od/highschool/a/colleges.htm


Home educated students generally score at the 65th to 80th percentile on achievement tests, 15 to 30 percentile points higher than those in public schools,” writes Brian D. Ray, Ph.D. of the National Home Education Research Institute. They also tend to stay in college and finish on time, often with above-average grades. This makes them very desirable students

I guess people on the left have a problem with families taking control of their own education and saving the tax payers money.

[4Reaganomics]

you are threatening their line of thinking here pft219

gov't is always and will always be the answer and your statistics are meaningless to them

[PatrickHenry]

I guess people on the left have a problem with families taking control of their own education and saving the tax payers money.Well, the problem is that they don't get the needed indoctrination.

Lefties call for genuflection before the shrine of government.

But then...damn...so do the fuckin conservatives! :ecstatic:

[Alonzo]

If you call teaching young children gay is normal tolerance i call it a lie.

It's called teaching people to treat others as equal and to respect, not insult or beat, them.


Home educated students generally score at the 65th to 80th percentile on achievement tests, 15 to 30 percentile points higher than those in public schools,” writes Brian D. Ray, Ph.D. of the National Home Education Research Institute. They also tend to stay in college and finish on time, often with above-average grades. This makes them very desirable students

I guess people on the left have a problem with families taking control of their own education and saving the tax payers money.

So how do they perform relative to other students, who are similar academically, going into the colleges they attend? And how do they perform after college?

[4Reaganomics]

"often with above-average grades"

that means that they often outperform their peers at the university

In terms of prospective success, they have the ability to get into better schools due to better test scores. Chicago is a school that could give one quite the ability to succeed in the workplace.

I wonder what percentage of home educated children are criminals in comparison to public schooled children as well. I think many of these studies need to be looked into.

I'd assume their ability to get into better schools would lead to more successful professional careers. I am uncertain though, but I plan on looking for studies and hope that more are conducted.

[Alonzo]

Well why don't you research it and find out?Or do you always expect others to do your research must be that public school attitude showing.:madlaugh:

You see I don't have time to do your research I leave tomorrow to go to work on my 3 week country tour in my big truck.

If you can't back it up then don't make the argument. And I agree with you, it's laughable to make a claim then refuse to back it up.

"often with above-average grades"

that means that they often outperform their peers at the university

In terms of prospective success, they have the ability to get into better schools due to better test scores. Chicago is a school that could give one quite the ability to succeed in the workplace.

But what type of college do they tend to go to? I would think it would be difficult for a home schooler to handle a larger college. And do they do as well in the work force, when they're on their own with no parent or authority figure checking up on them? You also don't get that in large schools, and I wonder if they struggle without it.

I wonder what percentage of home educated children are criminals in comparison to public schooled children as well. I think many of these studies need to be looked into.

It would be hard to find a suitable sample. In the city, where there is usually higher crime rates to begin with and the economic situation usually makes such schooling much more difficult. Also religion seems to be a driving factor behind much home schooling, and cities are usually less religious than suburban and rural areas.

I didn't know any home schooled kids growing up, and I don't know anyone who homeschools now. You'd need to find a way to control for all the other factors and that would likely be difficult.

[4Reaganomics]

Point well made

There is a good amount to control


I think a main point in the discussion has to be that there aren't any statistics to show that being home schooled makes one any worse off.

Given that all of the statistics we have show that children are better off when home schooled or at least comparable, shouldn't parents have the liberty to home school their children?

[ptif219]

The last forum I was at they had a thanks for a useful post button i really miss that thanks 4Reaganomics.

[Alonzo]

Point well made

There is a good amount to control


I think a main point in the discussion has to be that there aren't any statistics to show that being home schooled makes one any worse off.

Given that all of the statistics we have show that children are better off when home schooled or at least comparable, shouldn't parents have the liberty to home school their children?

People have a right to home school. The question is whether it is a better choice. It may be a better choice only in certain areas for that matter.

Then there's the separate issue of whether or not the state should take tax money away from public schools and give them back to individuals, especially if it's done without regards to the needs of the individual.

[4Reaganomics]

States are making it increasingly harder to home school children though.

The good thing about federalism is that it gives people the ability to move to a state that is more welcoming to their wishes, but it isn't easy for families to leave jobs and move away from their families sometimes.

I personally feel that indviduals will care for their own children and their education more than the gov't and that they can use their own tax dollars more effectively then the gov't on behalf of their kids education.

[Alonzo]

States are making it increasingly harder to home school children though.

The good thing about federalism is that it gives people the ability to move to a state that is more welcoming to their wishes, but it isn't easy for families to leave jobs and move away from their families sometimes.

I personally feel that indviduals will care for their own children and their education more than the gov't and that they can use their own tax dollars more effectively then the gov't on behalf of their kids education.

My questions relate to the ability of many parents to effectively home school, such as those who do it for religious reasons, and the ability of people to manage completely on their own and in diverse environments. I don't know of statistics or evidence that supports either side to the point where I can say "Ok, the evidence suggests X". I do know that what I've seen does not really answer my questions.

It could be a situation where many home schoolers do well, but, at the same time, many parents are unequipped to do as well as the public school they would have attended.

And they may do well academically, but the group and teamwork that may be essential to the later success may be lacking in these students.

They also may struggle with diversity and large groups. Diversity is a particularly important issue in certain areas, such as medicine and psychology. And in those cases it's purely for practical reasons, as you need to be able to tolerate and work with diverse populations in order to effectively treat them and, especially in psychology, even identify the problem that needs treatment and what doesn't need treatment.

[PatrickHenry]

I have observed homeschooled kids close-up and personal

Some of the parents are actually teachers. Others are waay smart and keep their kids on track.

Unfortunately, I have observed some of my friends' kids being poorly taught and essentially becoming dummies. A twelve year-old who can barely scrawl her name? And her native intelligence is not really limited or anything? Sheesh.

I would say if there is greater scrutiny on homeschooling, it should take the form of annual testing so that the kids' future isn't affected by their parents' poor decisions.

But going after homeschoolers wholesale would be a repudiation of America's cherished values of taking responsibility for ourselves and our families.

[NDNdancer]

http://www.nheri.org/NHERI-Research.html

Here's some pretty good data about homeschooling Zo.

I know a bunch of homeschoolers and their kids do incredibly well compared to other kids. It's not for everyone though, it's damn hard work for it to be successful.

1. you're with your kids 24/7 and you have to find time for yourself.
2. single parent households really can't do this
3. it takes out the income of one of the parents, can many families afford it?
4. the socialization thing actually is one of the good things about homeschooling, you can control what kind and with who your kids socialize with
5. you have to make an effort for the socialization part of things to be effective

There's more, but that's all I could think of right now.

Every state has guidelines and laws that govern how homeschooling takes place. But, there is tons of information and help available, curriculum, ideas, etc online that is for the most part free. There is an expense for materials for supplies and equipment but the homeschoolers are a very tight knit group and almost every community they share resource materials readily.

[Alonzo]

http://www.nheri.org/NHERI-Research.html

Here's some pretty good data about homeschooling Zo.

Thank you.

I've seen similar ones, and that is a good education site. But that's also the problem I'm having. I'm trying to find things from organizations such as the APA or department of education, not ones that are designed to advocate a certain cause, such as the site you linked.

Essentially I'm looking for something that would actually show both sides and be accurate.

That site seems much like looking at animal abuse on factory farms on an SPCA website. It's a good place to learn the general concepts, but is the information unbiased?

I know a bunch of homeschoolers and their kids do incredibly well compared to other kids. It's not for everyone though, it's damn hard work for it to be successful.

1. you're with your kids 24/7 and you have to find time for yourself.
2. single parent households really can't do this
3. it takes out the income of one of the parents, can many families afford it?

This is one of the problems I have personally, I don't like the concept of one parent not working, especially when it's the mother. I think having a working mother provides a good role model for children, particularly female children.

4. the socialization thing actually is one of the good things about homeschooling, you can control what kind and with who your kids socialize with

Is this a good thing? Children need to learn this on their own to an extent, otherwise they it would seem that they risk issues later in life with who to associate with and who not to. It also raises the issue of diversity again, is it a good idea to have parents so tightly control who their children associate with?

5. you have to make an effort for the socialization part of things to be effective

And if they don't? Or if they fail to teach the child how to work with and accept people from different backgrounds? There are some professions that you really can't do without that.

That made me think of something else though. Is homeschooling more suited to certain jobs? For example, if a student wants to be an accountant vs. a psychologist, does homeschooling effect the long term outcomes differently depending on what is required of people in those jobs?

[ptif219]

Thank you.

I've seen similar ones, and that is a good education site. But that's also the problem I'm having. I'm trying to find things from organizations such as the APA or department of education, not ones that are designed to advocate a certain cause, such as the site you linked.

Essentially I'm looking for something that would actually show both sides and be accurate.

That site seems much like looking at animal abuse on factory farms on an SPCA website. It's a good place to learn the general concepts, but is the information unbiased?



This is one of the problems I have personally, I don't like the concept of one parent not working, especially when it's the mother. I think having a working mother provides a good role model for children, particularly female children.



Is this a good thing? Children need to learn this on their own to an extent, otherwise they it would seem that they risk issues later in life with who to associate with and who not to. It also raises the issue of diversity again, is it a good idea to have parents so tightly control who their children associate with?



And if they don't? Or if they fail to teach the child how to work with and accept people from different backgrounds? There are some professions that you really can't do without that.

That made me think of something else though. Is homeschooling more suited to certain jobs? For example, if a student wants to be an accountant vs. a psychologist, does homeschooling effect the long term outcomes differently depending on what is required of people in those jobs?

Where do you come up with this.Taking a mother away from her kids because the government over taxes us is good?

Why don't you just say only the government knows how to run your life without the government you don't know what your doing.

Yes we should have diversity like Obama and the diverse things his pastor taught.:madlaugh:

You are reaching think about this the government teaches things that go against what parents teach so the students end up confused.


Maybe you just want all kids drugged so they can be controlled and taught how to be good little liberals with the unions and the democrats values.Can't mention Jesus but must teach its ok and normal to be gay.

[BoogyMan]

My questions relate to the ability of many parents to effectively home school, such as those who do it for religious reasons, and the ability of people to manage completely on their own and in diverse environments. I don't know of statistics or evidence that supports either side to the point where I can say "Ok, the evidence suggests X". I do know that what I've seen does not really answer my questions.

It could be a situation where many home schoolers do well, but, at the same time, many parents are unequipped to do as well as the public school they would have attended.

And they may do well academically, but the group and teamwork that may be essential to the later success may be lacking in these students.

They also may struggle with diversity and large groups. Diversity is a particularly important issue in certain areas, such as medicine and psychology. And in those cases it's purely for practical reasons, as you need to be able to tolerate and work with diverse populations in order to effectively treat them and, especially in psychology, even identify the problem that needs treatment and what doesn't need treatment.

I was wondering when this discussion would get around to the standard silliness that nearly all homeschool discussions contain when those attacking homeschooling cannot prove their assertions, and it is time to post the best rebuttal to such ridiculousness that I have ever read. Please see the article below.


Source: Link (http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/001/bitter_homeschooler.html)

1 Please stop asking us if it's legal. If it is — and it is — it's insulting to imply that we're criminals. And if we were criminals, would we admit it?
2 Learn what the words "socialize" and "socialization" mean, and use the one you really mean instead of mixing them up the way you do now. Socializing means hanging out with other people for fun. Socialization means having acquired the skills necessary to do so successfully and pleasantly. If you're talking to me and my kids, that means that we do in fact go outside now and then to visit the other human beings on the planet, and you can safely assume that we've got a decent grasp of both concepts.
3 Quit interrupting my kid at her dance lesson, scout meeting, choir practice, baseball game, art class, field trip, park day, music class, 4H club, or soccer lesson to ask her if as a homeschooler she ever gets to socialize.
4 Don't assume that every homeschooler you meet is homeschooling for the same reasons and in the same way as that one homeschooler you know.
5 If that homeschooler you know is actually someone you saw on TV, either on the news or on a "reality" show, the above goes double.
6 Please stop telling us horror stories about the homeschoolers you know, know of, or think you might know who ruined their lives by homeschooling. You're probably the same little bluebird of happiness whose hobby is running up to pregnant women and inducing premature labor by telling them every ghastly birth story you've ever heard. We all hate you, so please go away.
7 We don't look horrified and start quizzing your kids when we hear they're in public school. Please stop drilling our children like potential oil fields to see if we're doing what you consider an adequate job of homeschooling.
8 Stop assuming all homeschoolers are religious.
9 Stop assuming that if we're religious, we must be homeschooling for religious reasons.
10 We didn't go through all the reading, learning, thinking, weighing of options, experimenting, and worrying that goes into homeschooling just to annoy you. Really. This was a deeply personal decision, tailored to the specifics of our family. Stop taking the bare fact of our being homeschoolers as either an affront or a judgment about your own educational decisions.
11 Please stop questioning my competency and demanding to see my credentials. I didn't have to complete a course in catering to successfully cook dinner for my family; I don't need a degree in teaching to educate my children. If spending at least twelve years in the kind of chew-it-up-and-spit-it-out educational facility we call public school left me with so little information in my memory banks that I can't teach the basics of an elementary education to my nearest and dearest, maybe there's a reason I'm so reluctant to send my child to school.
12 If my kid's only six and you ask me with a straight face how I can possibly teach him what he'd learn in school, please understand that you're calling me an idiot. Don't act shocked if I decide to respond in kind.
13 Stop assuming that because the word "home" is right there in "homeschool," we never leave the house. We're the ones who go to the amusement parks, museums, and zoos in the middle of the week and in the off-season and laugh at you because you have to go on weekends and holidays when it's crowded and icky.
14 Stop assuming that because the word "school" is right there in homeschool, we must sit around at a desk for six or eight hours every day, just like your kid does. Even if we're into the "school" side of education — and many of us prefer a more organic approach — we can burn through a lot of material a lot more efficiently, because we don't have to gear our lessons to the lowest common denominator.
15 Stop asking, "But what about the Prom?" Even if the idea that my kid might not be able to indulge in a night of over-hyped, over-priced revelry was enough to break my heart, plenty of kids who do go to school don't get to go to the Prom. For all you know, I'm one of them. I might still be bitter about it. So go be shallow somewhere else.
16 Don't ask my kid if she wouldn't rather go to school unless you don't mind if I ask your kid if he wouldn't rather stay home and get some sleep now and then.
17 Stop saying, "Oh, I could never homeschool!" Even if you think it's some kind of compliment, it sounds more like you're horrified. One of these days, I won't bother disagreeing with you any more.
18 If you can remember anything from chemistry or calculus class, you're allowed to ask how we'll teach these subjects to our kids. If you can't, thank you for the reassurance that we couldn't possibly do a worse job than your teachers did, and might even do a better one.
19 Stop asking about how hard it must be to be my child's teacher as well as her parent. I don't see much difference between bossing my kid around academically and bossing him around the way I do about everything else.
20 Stop saying that my kid is shy, outgoing, aggressive, anxious, quiet, boisterous, argumentative, pouty, fidgety, chatty, whiny, or loud because he's homeschooled. It's not fair that all the kids who go to school can be as annoying as they want to without being branded as representative of anything but childhood.
21 Quit assuming that my kid must be some kind of prodigy because she's homeschooled.
22 Quit assuming that I must be some kind of prodigy because I homeschool my kids.
23 Quit assuming that I must be some kind of saint because I homeschool my kids.
24 Stop talking about all the great childhood memories my kids won't get because they don't go to school, unless you want me to start asking about all the not-so-great childhood memories you have because you went to school.
25 Here's a thought: If you can't say something nice about homeschooling, shut up!

[preservanation]

That's a keeper, Boog!
I especially like the distinction which is drawn between socializing and socialization...super.
This too..
14) Stop assuming that because the word "school" is right there in homeschool, we must sit around at a desk for six or eight hours every day, just like your kid does. Even if we're into the "school" side of education — and many of us prefer a more organic approach — we can burn through a lot of material a lot more efficiently, because we don't have to gear our lessons to the lowest common denominator.

[Truth_and_Power]

Left wing indoctrination, like tolerance? Besides, there seems a hell of a lot of right wing, religious indoctrination going on at home.

Besides, how do they actually perform in college and beyond, in environments where someone isn't entirely devoted to them and it may be 100:1 instead of 1:1, like at home?

My best friend was homeschooled for most of his gradeschool. He did fine in college and now has two masters degrees. IMO being homeschooled makes you more self-motivated than kids that sit in a classroom and get spoon fed, whose only contribution is to do what they're told (some of the time) and try to crack jokes that the other students will like. I know he made it atleast through calculus in highschool.. was an eaglescout.. etc etc. Now he's a therapist and helps other people (probably public schooled) with their psychological/behavioral issues. LOL

[preservanation]

there seems a hell of a lot of right wing, religious indoctrination going on at home.
9) Stop assuming that if we're religious, we must be homeschooling for religious reasons. http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/001/bitter_homeschooler.html

[Alonzo]

I was wondering when this discussion would get around to the standard silliness that nearly all homeschool discussions contain when those attacking homeschooling cannot prove their assertions, and it is time to post the best rebuttal to such ridiculousness that I have ever read. Please see the article below.

That post, while nice if I were insulting people, was completely lacking in any actual answers.

[Alonzo]

My best friend was homeschooled for most of his gradeschool. He did fine in college and now has two masters degrees. IMO being homeschooled makes you more self-motivated than kids that sit in a classroom and get spoon fed, whose only contribution is to do what they're told (some of the time) and try to crack jokes that the other students will like. I know he made it atleast through calculus in highschool.. was an eaglescout.. etc etc. Now he's a therapist and helps other people (probably public schooled) with their psychological/behavioral issues. LOL

I didn't say there weren't any good examples, I'm talking collectively.

[Alonzo]

http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/001/bitter_homeschooler.html

That's about the one thing I can really find a reliable source on:

The next two reasons for homeschooling most frequently cited as applicable were to provide religious or moral instruction (72 percent)

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/parentsreasons.asp

[Truth_and_Power]

I didn't say there weren't any good examples, I'm talking collectively.

Well, so far we have one allegorical answer, and one statistical answer (test scores), and you have provided.. questions.

[Alonzo]

Well, so far we have one allegorical answer, and one statistical answer (test scores), and you have provided.. questions.

Because I'm not the one claiming one or the other. This entire thread consists of one side making claims and one side challenging that without actually making claims.

The only claim I made was the religious one, and I supported that when challenged by pres. You can see it if you look up a few posts.

[Truth_and_Power]

Because I'm not the one claiming one or the other. This entire thread consists of one side making claims and one side challenging that without actually making claims.

The only claim I made was the religious one, and I supported that when challenged by pres. You can see it if you look up a few posts.

Okay, just making sure you weren't claiming that home-schooling is worse for children than public schooling. Without that claim, I can see no reason why it should be discouraged.

[preservanation]

AlonzoMourning23: "That's about the one thing I can really find a reliable source on:"

The next two reasons for homeschooling most frequently cited as applicable were to provide religious or moral instruction (72 percent)


http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/parentsreasons.aspAnd that's a bad thing?
Last I checked we have the right to freedom of religion.
Because of the left's push to remove God from our schools, I can see why parents who want their children to grow up with morals and faith would flock to home schooling.
Falls to reason.

[Alonzo]

Okay, just making sure you weren't claiming that home-schooling is worse for children than public schooling. Without that claim, I can see no reason why it should be discouraged.

Well I personally believe it is, but I can't back it up with reliable evidence (or oppose convincingly support home schooling) so I'm not actually claiming it is. I believe that it's risky due to the various capabilities of parents. I also believe diversity is an extremely important thing for children and I fear that many parents, particularly those doing so for religious reasons, will discourage it.

Basically, my concern is the long term outcome that goes beyond mere academic grades that children get, or are supposed to get, from jr. high, high school and college.

But I can't really claim that those concerns are correct, I can't claim that they're not either.

I also have concerns that relate more to the stay at home mom angle, which seems to be the typical pattern. I think it's good for children to see two, hard working parents earning a living. Working mothers would seem to encourage daughters to want to excel and not be dependent on a man.

[BoogyMan]

That post, while nice if I were insulting people, was completely lacking in any actual answers.

It isn't an insult, it is pointing to the folly of the ridiculous arguments made against homeschooling, and they are just that, ridiculous.

[Alonzo]

AlonzoMourning23: "That's about the one thing I can really find a reliable source on:"

And that's a bad thing?
Last I checked we have the right to freedom of religion.
Because of the left's push to remove God from our schools, I can see why parents who want their children to grow up with morals and faith would flock to home schooling.
Falls to reason.

It seems like it would be problematic for diversity reasons. And it seems like it would be problematic for certain areas, such as psychology (due to the diversity issue) and biology (due to the opposition to scientific evidence if it contradicts the bible).

Basically it would seem like it could be problematic for children if they want to major in certain fields.

I went to a Catholic school and, while hardly diverse, they did encourage tolerance and diversity. They even devoted a quarter of religion class one year to teaching about religious diversity, and we learned about forms of buddhism, Islam (such as the five pillars), hinduism and different protestant groups.

In science class they taught scientific theories, they didn't incorporate religious beliefs, such as creationism, into it.

That I don't have an issue with. Religious schools that don't believe that is a good thing I do.

[preservanation]

These are not "religious schools" like the Catholic one you attended, Zo.
I think the term "homeschool" is pretty clear

[Alonzo]

These are not "religious schools" like the Catholic one you attended, Zo.
I think the term "homeschool" is pretty clear

My point is, since you asked me if it's a bad thing that religion is a reason, that it is bad if they don't teach real science and they teach things against diversity.

[preservanation]

I don't even know what diversity means.
Do you mean race?

As far as science and such, there are standards which to be met on every subject conducted by school boards.
The Home school kids consistently do better on those tests than the kids in Govt school, BTW.

[Alonzo]

I don't even know what diversity means.
Do you mean race?

Race, culture, religion, and sexual orientation. If you can't effectively work with all of those then the whole social services area is a bad choice for you.

Culture is particularly problematic in some areas. Certain signs of child abuse in one culture, such as children sleeping with parents, are normal practices in other cultures. And there are even psychological diseases that manifest themselves differently in various cultures, or are only present in certain cultures.

As far as science and such, there are standards which to be met on every subject conducted by school boards.
The Home school kids consistently do better on those tests than the kids in Govt school, BTW.

So, for example, say they are taught creationism and new earth religious beliefs. Are they seriously prepared for the future if they wanted to be a biologist? That's what I mean with science. It's not even conflicting beliefs, it's that no one is going to hire them if those beliefs are relevant to their work, especially if they live in areas such as new england.

[preservanation]

It's not even conflicting beliefs, it's that no one is going to hire them if those beliefs are relevant to their work, especially if they live in areas such as new england.I take it this doesn't fall under your purview of 'diversity'?

[Alonzo]

I take it this doesn't fall under your purview of 'diversity'?

Teaching or advocating unscientific beliefs in the field of science isn't a way to get ahead.

It's not a diversity issue. If a young earth creationist wants to be a doctor then I have no problem at all, if they want to be a psychologist I have no issue either. But if they want to be a biologist and they intend to teach or advocate their religious views during their employment (and not purely on their own free time), then there's a problem.

[BoogyMan]

Race, culture, religion, and sexual orientation. If you can't effectively work with all of those then the whole social services area is a bad choice for you.

Culture is particularly problematic in some areas. Certain signs of child abuse in one culture, such as children sleeping with parents, are normal practices in other cultures. And there are even psychological diseases that manifest themselves differently in various cultures, or are only present in certain cultures.

How does the ability to work with someone come into this Zo? We all work with people with whom we disagree on many things including religion, lifestyle, culture, etc. Homeschooling has little to do with this and the whole argument seems to me to be misdirection towards the standard, and in all actuality false, view that is presented of home schooled individuals by those desiring to discredit it.

[Alonzo]

How does the ability to work with someone come into this Zo? We all work with people with whom we disagree on many things including religion, lifestyle, culture, etc. Homeschooling has little to do with this and the whole argument seems to me to be misdirection towards the standard, and in all actuality false, view that is presented of home schooled individuals by those desiring to discredit it.

Because, in the social services sector, you need to gain a level of trust, and you need to be able to understand the people you're dealing with.

If people don't think you understand or respect them then you're not going to be very effective.

The level of understanding and tolerance for diversity needed is very different depending on the field your in. While, as an accountant, you may only need to tolerate them in the most basic sense, if you actually have to help those people and connect with them, then the level of tolerance you respect for diversity you need to have is much higher.

One problem facing psychology is the lack of minority psychologists and counselors. The problem is, in practice, many people won't trust or connect the same way with people from outside their group. Essentially, a white man born in the u.s. may have a harder time establishing trust with a chinese immigrant than a chinese man, even one born in the u.s.

Now, while that seems a bit off topic, I'm pointing that out to explain my point. While you or I can't change our ethnicity, people can change the way they deal with diversity, and how well they understand those differences and similarities. By doing so you can increase the chance of successfully treating patients, and you would have more success than someone who has little cultural understanding and expects everyone to conform to typical white, American standard of behavior and beliefs.

That's why I question the ability of homeschoolers, particularly those homeschooled due to religious reasons, to effectively deal with people who are different from them, especially if they choose fields where they must help a diverse population.

[brum]

And they may do well academically, but the group and teamwork that may be essential to the later success may be lacking in these students.

.


My wife and I have talked about this issue quite a bit and we have decided to home school our kids. I dont trust that the public school systems are fit to educate anyone properly. I know that when I got into college I felt that high school had left me unprepared for the next level.

As for social interaction there are many options for home school children. I know that here in the town I live in there are many home school children and they often get together in groups and socialize, there are aslo times when they do projects together just for the purpose of building team skills.

In high school we spent whole weeks talking about and specific battles of the civil war but in four years we spent one part of one day talking about financial responsibility, and that was in the form of an activity where they gave everyone a pay check from different jobs randomly and we had to go around our gym paying bills and buying things. It was very pointless in the long run and we really didn't learn much from that exercise.

I'm not sending my children to public schools becasue I'd like them to be prepared for what ever they want to do after graduation.

[Elrathin]

As for social interaction there are many options for home school children. I know that here in the town I live in there are many home school children and they often get together in groups and socialize, there are aslo times when they do projects together just for the purpose of building team skills.

Also there are sports, community activities, etc that I'm sure they can attend.

The only problem I have with homeschooling is making sure the people that are homeschooling are qualified to do so. Most of the homeschooling parents I know of are great, but then you have a few that just should not be homeschooling their kids at all and this is shown when the kids go in for testing.

A neighbor of mine a few years back did homeschooling for her kids, and from what I saw, it was working great with them. They had the one on one time they needed and they were able to excel without being held back.

[4Reaganomics]

Couldn't you say the same thing about teachers? There are a ton of horrendous teachers that are in our schools today.

[Elrathin]

Couldn't you say the same thing about teachers? There are a ton of horrendous teachers that are in our schools today.

I'm not arguing that point at all and agree with you there. I don't believe tenure should be applicable for ineffective teachers.

But what I want to make sure is that there isn't some witch hunt for teachers. IF the child isn't learning, it might not be the teachers fault entirely. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, there are more factors to learning than the teacher, there is the parents and the child as well.

But yeah I do think there are ineffective teachers that aren't doing their job.

[4Reaganomics]

I think the notion of dismissing homeschooling due to the possibility of an ineffective parent is not of much value.

On average, a parent does much better at educating their child than teachers, and I do not believe the possibility of a not so effective parent should deter states from allowing homeschooling to be practiced.

[Elrathin]

I think the notion of dismissing homeschooling due to the possibility of an ineffective parent is not of much value.

I didn't dismiss it, I said that the only problem I saw were that there are some that shouldn't be homeschooling is all. I even commented that most are success stories.

[4Reaganomics]

Very well El, I agree.

I have a question for you. Do you think that since parents are more successful at educating their kids, that their kids would be better off if their parents could choose their prospective school instead of the gov't.

Meaning if a parent could choose which school his kid could attend with his tax dollars, do you think that this would yield better results than the current system?

[Elrathin]

I have a question for you. Do you think that since parents are more successful at educating their kids, that their kids would be better off if their parents could choose their prospective school instead of the gov't.

Meaning if a parent could choose which school his kid could attend with his tax dollars, do you think that this would yield better results than the current system?

Not really, and I will tell you why.

You have a rich school, that has the best equipment, best football team, etc. So you have parents wanting their kids to go to that school. That school would be severely overcrowded at that point if parents could choose their schools for their kids wouldn't you agree?

[Wndrtch]

It's amazing. In one of the college I attended, if you had any personal relationship with the professor (lover, family member etc.) then someone else had to grade all your work. Yet, in many American colleges, they're like "Great! You're mommy gave you straight A's!"

This isn't so much about this kid, I just don't see why colleges take home schooled grades seriously unless they're backed up by SAT and AP scores.

Are there any colleges of repute that DON'T require SAT/AP? I thought that was always a requirement.

[Alonzo]

Are there any colleges of repute that DON'T require SAT/AP? I thought that was always a requirement.

They do, but they place less and less weight on them than they used to.

[Wndrtch]

They do, but they place less and less weight on them than they used to.

LOL!

I guess they can't deny too many kids, or they may not be able to make payroll after a while. Have to pay professors to work afterall.

Standards slain by economics. sad.

[4Reaganomics]

Not really, and I will tell you why.

You have a rich school, that has the best equipment, best football team, etc. So you have parents wanting their kids to go to that school. That school would be severely overcrowded at that point if parents could choose their schools for their kids wouldn't you agree?

Under the current system of course it would. But parents would pick the better schools for their kids, thus demand for better schools would increase and we would have "more better" schools lol.

I believe that if gov't allowed people to chose where they send their kids to school with their tax dollars that a good amount of private schools would spring up and many children who would be stuck at failing public schools could have the opportunity to go to private schools and parents can act as consumers, which will demand more results from the schools.

If a schools stats go down, people will demand it less, thus they are facing adversity and must perform.

Guaranteeing these public schools funding no matter what and these teachers employment no matter what and forcing children to be a part of it is a disaster IMHO.

[Alonzo]

LOL!

I guess they can't deny too many kids, or they may not be able to make payroll after a while. Have to pay professors to work afterall.

Standards slain by economics. sad.

Umm....... that was strange since nowhere did I say they lowered standards, I said they placed less emphasis on standardized testing.

[4Reaganomics]

There is a direct correlation between Average SAT score and the top 125 ranked schools according to U.S. news report

They are mostly all above 1200 and as you make your way down the list you often see an increase

[BoogyMan]

Also there are sports, community activities, etc that I'm sure they can attend.

The only problem I have with homeschooling is making sure the people that are homeschooling are qualified to do so. Most of the homeschooling parents I know of are great, but then you have a few that just should not be homeschooling their kids at all and this is shown when the kids go in for testing.

A neighbor of mine a few years back did homeschooling for her kids, and from what I saw, it was working great with them. They had the one on one time they needed and they were able to excel without being held back.

There are many public school teachers who, while carrying a credential, should not be teaching either. I really don't see the efficacy of this argument. I can point to the consistently higher scores of home schoolers on nearly every standardized test and ask why the plethora of so called "credentialed" teachers cannot produce said same result.

[BoogyMan]

Umm....... that was strange since nowhere did I say they lowered standards, I said they placed less emphasis on standardized testing.

In order to get into college the same standardized tests are used and are quite handily bested by most home schooled individuals. I would say that the emphasis on standardized testing is apparently there for the tests that actually matter.

[piratemonkey]

http://www.baptistbanner.org/Working/The%20facts%20about%20homeschoolers%20778.htm


A study titled "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America" found that...

Hee, hee...

A book published by an organization who's charge it is to promote home schooling doesn't qualify as a valid study by anyone's measure... except for maybe "Baptistbanner.org".
http://www.amazon.com/Strengths-Their-Own-Characteristics-Longitudinal/dp/0965755401

Sorry, but your reference isn't proof of anything.

[Alonzo]

Hee, hee...

A book published by an organization who's charge it is to promote home schooling doesn't qualify as a valid study by anyone's measure... except for maybe "Baptistbanner.org".
http://www.amazon.com/Strengths-Their-Own-Characteristics-Longitudinal/dp/0965755401

Sorry, but your reference isn't proof of anything.

And this is the problem. Virtually all the info I see, demographic info excluded, is from advocacy groups.

In order to get into college the same standardized tests are used and are quite handily bested by most home schooled individuals. I would say that the emphasis on standardized testing is apparently there for the tests that actually matter.

But wouldn't you say that a 1400, or even a 1600 (or whatever the perfect score is now that they've changed it) is less valuable than it was 20 or 30 years ago? At least that's why I've been hearing, that they're placing more emphasis on other things besides testing.

[BoogyMan]

But wouldn't you say that a 1400, or even a 1600 (or whatever the perfect score is now that they've changed it) is less valuable than it was 20 or 30 years ago? At least that's why I've been hearing, that they're placing more emphasis on other things besides testing.

Such as indoctrination.......

[Wndrtch]

This is one of the problems I have personally, I don't like the concept of one parent not working, especially when it's the mother. I think having a working mother provides a good role model for children, particularly female children.

So, a stay-home Mom isn't "working", and not a good role model? So, who is going to kiss little Sally's booboo when she scrapes her knee? Don't you think it matters to Sally, if the person doing the kissing is her Mom or some stranger at Daycare? What do you think matters more to little Sally, her Mom's 6-figure income and lack of time/attension, or her Mom's hugs when she feels bad, at the moment she feels bad?

Screw the little brat, I want my SUV!

[Alonzo]

So, a stay-home Mom isn't "working", and not a good role model? So, who is going to kiss little Sally's booboo when she scrapes her knee? Don't you think it matters to Sally, if the person doing the kissing is her Mom or some stranger at Daycare? What do you think matters more to little Sally, her Mom's 6-figure income and lack of time/attension, or her Mom's hugs when she feels bad, at the moment she feels bad?

Screw the little brat, I want my SUV!

Quality of time spent together is better than quantity. And a quality day care is not harmful.

What is harmful is teaching young girls that a womans place is in the home.

[Wndrtch]

Umm....... that was strange since nowhere did I say they lowered standards, I said they placed less emphasis on standardized testing.

Umm...I fail to see the difference between the two?

You can modify the testing methodology, to allow more children to pass who would have failed otherwise. Or, you can place less emphasis on the test results, to allow more children to pass who would have failed otherwise.

The results are the same.

[4Reaganomics]

Women don't have a "place" in general Zo.

People in general will do what is best for their family. A woman being a homemaker is completely acceptable if the family has the finances to do so and they think it is for the benefit of their children.

Having kids see women and men do various jobs and perform various roles in society is the answer. If they see women working and women staying it home it lets them see variety and gives them the ability to choose.

[Alonzo]

Umm...I fail to see the difference between the two?

You can modify the testing methodology, to allow more children to pass who would have failed otherwise. Or, you can place less emphasis on the test results, to allow more children to pass who would have failed otherwise.

The results are the same.

You do realize grades, direction of grades (steadily improving), extracurricular activities, essays, interviews etc. all factor in, right?

[Alonzo]

Women don't have a "place" in general Zo.

People in general will do what is best for their family. A woman being a homemaker is completely acceptable if the family has the finances to do so and they think it is for the benefit of their children.

Having kids see women and men do various jobs and perform various roles in society is the answer. If they see women working and women staying it home it lets them see variety and gives them the ability to choose.

Woman should be in the workforce just as men are, barring any significant imbalance. I don't expect Bill Gate's wife to work if she doesn't want, and I don't expect John Kerry to work if he doesn't want to, since their spouse makes significant sums of money.

But, given the traditional gender roles in society, I think having a working role model is important for a young girl, so that she can see successful, hardworking women who are more than just homemakers.

Society expects men to go out and work, so I don't think it's harmful for a boy or a girl to see a stay at home dad, assuming he really is doing things around the house and assuming full homemaker duties, not sitting around and doing nothing. Though I still wouldn't encourage it.

[4Reaganomics]

So basically you are saying that because female homemakers were common in society before, that anyone taking that roll now as a mother is contributing to the image of women staying at home and thus are affecting their kids negatively?

[Wndrtch]

Quality of time spent together is better than quantity. And a quality day care is not harmful.

So, as long as you spend a "quality" 5 min with them at night before bedtime, they're OK with that? No worries? No endless hours in a councilors office?

If quantity doesn't matter, then 5 min a night should be fine, right? Hell, cut it back to two, if quantity doesn't matter.

Jesus Christ, did you want children or a pet that talks!

No wonder so many teens hate their parents.

What is harmful is teaching young girls that a womans place is in the home.

It's not harmful, it's called "instincts".

What's harmful, is spiting out kids, and ignoring them for 18 years. To a child, there is a big, HUGE difference between Mom/Dad and everybody else on the planet. They are inately aware that they are uniquely yours.

If you both want to work 24/7 and focus only on career, then be responsible and don't have kids.

[Wndrtch]

You do realize grades, direction of grades (steadily improving), extracurricular activities, essays, interviews etc. all factor in, right?

I guess you're right. Who hasn't heard of the dumb basketball jock, that gets a full scholarship to BC, only to graduate not able the read his $14Million NBA contract.

[BoogyMan]

But, given the traditional gender roles in society, I think having a working role model is important for a young girl, so that she can see successful, hardworking women who are more than just homemakers.

Any woman who choses to be a homemaker is choosing a full time job and an honorable work. It is sad that you would discount their labors in this fashion Zo.

[Truth_and_Power]

But, given the traditional gender roles in society, I think having a working role model is important for a young girl, so that she can see successful, hardworking women who are more than just homemakers.

Now we get to the truth of the matter. You want to make sure your values get taught to all kids.

[Wndrtch]

Any woman who choses to be a homemaker is choosing a full time job and an honorable work. It is sad that you would discount their labors in this fashion Zo.

Yeah, a fulltime job that doesn't stop at 5PM.

A home is no different from a business in that it has cashflow, resources that need to be maintianed, and personell to be managed daily. The homemaker is a senior-level C.O.O. and responsible for the daily operation of the home's business. Yet, the payment is only the enduring smile on the face of your child.

Why does the Left, push so hard to make women into men? Why is it wrong to them, to want to stay home, and raise the kids?

If we look at our society over the last 70 years, as we moved further away from the traditional home make-up, we see increases in teen crime, teen drug abuse, teen dropouts, teen pregnancy, teen depression/suicide, and on and on, and on...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Truth and Power said:
Now we get to the truth of the matter. You want to make sure your values get taught to all kids.

BINGO... we have a winna!

[Alonzo]

So, as long as you spend a "quality" 5 min with them at night before bedtime, they're OK with that? No worries? No endless hours in a councilors office?

If quantity doesn't matter, then 5 min a night should be fine, right? Hell, cut it back to two, if quantity doesn't matter.

Jesus Christ, did you want children or a pet that talks!

No wonder so many teens hate their parents.



Much as been written on the effect of early maternal employment on children’s well-being. However, few have identified the pathways through which employment should exert its influence on children. This paper uses children’s time diary data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its Child Development Supplement to obtain direct measures of both the quantity and intensity of time children spend with their mothers, as well as information on the quality of parenting behavior and maternal employment. The study attempts to examine three key questions: (1) Do children who receive more maternal care and/or more intense maternal care during early childhood have higher cognitive ability than those children who received less quantity/intensity of maternal care? (2) Is early maternal employment associated with negative child cognitive outcomes, controlling for the quantity and intensity of maternal time investments in childcare? (3) To what extent does the quality of early parenting influence children’s later cognitive outcomes? The preliminary results suggest that it is not the amount of time children spend with mothers nor maternal employment but the quality of early parental care that matters for children’s later development. Family home environment and positive parenting (e.g. positive mother-child relationships measured by maternal warmth, emotional encouragement, and cognitive stimulation) have the strongest and most consistent relationship with children’s cognitive test scores.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/4/6/1/p104611_index.html

I guess you're right. Who hasn't heard of the dumb basketball jock, that gets a full scholarship to BC, only to graduate not able the read his $14Million NBA contract.

Have you ever actually looked into what colleges want from applicants? It goes well beyond test scores and even academics. They want people who contribute to their school and the community, and have the potential to do so afterward.

Any woman who choses to be a homemaker is choosing a full time job and an honorable work. It is sad that you would discount their labors in this fashion Zo.

Boogy, that is something both parents should be doing. Girls shouldn't be taught that the ultimate goal in life is to make babies and take care of their husband.

I'd much rather see young girls, and young boys, have role models that show women are capable of accomplishing every bit as much as a man, instead of reinforcing gender stereotypes.

[4Reaganomics]

Because their mother stays home to take care of them doesn't mean they are being taught that that is what "all women should do".

Women are capable of producing just as much as men, but to say that they have to take part in activities that men of 50 years ago did and stay away from what women 50 years ago did is absurd.

There are plenty of women who were raised in households where their mother stayed home, and many of them went on to extremely successful careers because they had a parent at home who cared.

While I understand your quality of time link, I don't understand the direct correlation between mothers staying home and children being affected negatively. I would like to see this stat.

If its the quality of the time that matters, are you going to shun mothers who can afford to and wish to engage in more high quality time with their kids?



Show me a stat

[Alonzo]

I wasn't making a point that staying at home harms children in that sense, I was countering the point wnd seemed to be making that working mothers harm children.

My point is that stay at home mothers don't provide as good of a role model children in terms of showing them what women are capable of. Not that staying at home actually harms them.

[4Reaganomics]

What do you suggest then? That all mothers should be these feminist role models out back doing yard work after a day on the construction site?

Do you honestly believe that if a mother can afford to stay home and spend time with her child and do her homework with her everyday after school and read to her more often that she will "be a bad role-model"?

I bet there are over 10 million little girls in this country who would cry at the thought of having a mother who cared about them that much. How many sons would give an arm in a leg in certain neighborhoods to see their mom not on drugs or out with different men.


There are much worse role-models than stay at home moms. Sure it shouldn't just be a woman's job, but I simply can't agree that it sets a bad example for a child.

[Alonzo]

I think 2 working parents provide the best role model for children, and I think both parents should be working barring one having so much money that it's meaningless. But I don't think one parent has any more duty to stay home, or be a homemaker, than the other.

What do you suggest then? That all mothers should be these feminist role models out back doing yard work after a day on the construction site?

If that's the type of work they can get and they want then I'd have no problem with that, that's what fathers are expected to do.

Do you honestly believe that if a mother can afford to stay home and spend time with her child and do her homework with her everyday after school and read to her more often that she will "be a bad role-model"?

I bet there are over 10 million little girls in this country who would cry at the thought of having a mother who cared about them that much. How many sons would give an arm in a leg in certain neighborhoods to see their mom not on drugs or out with different men.



"Not as good of a role model" and "bad role model" aren different things entirely.

[Buck Laser]

There was a story in last week's Sunday paper about a kid from Austin who got perfect scores on both the SAT and the ACT tests, and piled up massive numbers of hours doing community service. His father even took a leave from his job to take his son all over the country for pre-admission interviews and campus visits. Nevertheless, he didn't get admitted to a number of schools that were his top choices. Harvard is the only one I can remember at the moment. He did get admitted to UC Berkeley, which isn't exactly shabby.

Just as a point of interest, every time a recession hits, college applications soar, probably because people don't see many opportunities in the work force. Given that the kid in Austin had perfect scores, I'd guess there were other factors that gained the home-schooled kid his record of admissions.

[PatrickHenry]

Alonzo's ideal mom:

http://photos4.flickr.com/5671005_a381eaf06f.jpg

[Wndrtch]

Much as been written on the effect of early maternal employment on children’s well-being. However, few have identified the pathways through which employment should exert its influence on children. This paper uses children’s time diary data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its Child Development Supplement to obtain direct measures of both the quantity and intensity of time children spend with their mothers, as well as information on the quality of parenting behavior and maternal employment. The study attempts to examine three key questions: (1) Do children who receive more maternal care and/or more intense maternal care during early childhood have higher cognitive ability than those children who received less quantity/intensity of maternal care? (2) Is early maternal employment associated with negative child cognitive outcomes, controlling for the quantity and intensity of maternal time investments in childcare? (3) To what extent does the quality of early parenting influence children’s later cognitive outcomes? The preliminary results suggest that it is not the amount of time children spend with mothers nor maternal employment but the quality of early parental care that matters for children’s later development. Family home environment and positive parenting (e.g. positive mother-child relationships measured by maternal warmth, emotional encouragement, and cognitive stimulation) have the strongest and most consistent relationship with children’s cognitive test scores.

Zo, you didn't answer my question. Is 5min/day with your kid a good thing, if quantity of time is irrelevant? I already know that I made you strugle a bit with that question, because you opted to let an obscure "study" answer for you, instead of telling me what was in your heart. You know deep down that only spending 5min a day with your child is absurd, so therefore the amount of time spent with a child does matter.

How does a child percieves quality? By the amount of time you spend with them! Time IS quality to a child. When you don't spend time with a child, they think you don't love them as much.

Also, this study refers to "cognitive", not "behavioral".

[Truth_and_Power]

I'd much rather see young girls, and young boys, have role models that show women are capable of accomplishing every bit as much as a man, instead of reinforcing gender stereotypes.

This same argument works for teaching religion in schools.

[Alonzo]

Zo, you didn't answer my question. Is 5min/day with your kid a good thing, if quantity of time is irrelevant? I already know that I made you strugle a bit with that question, because you opted to let an obscure "study" answer for you, instead of telling me what was in your heart. You know deep down that only spending 5min a day with your child is absurd, so therefore the amount of time spent with a child does matter.

Umm..... 5 minutes is a strawman argument since working mothers spend much more than 5 minutes with their kids.

Second though, I struggled with it? The study directly deals with the issue raised. You made a claim it was harmful. Studies such as this, which show quality is more important than quantity, are what my opinion is based on. Essentially, my opinion is what it is due to them.

How does a child percieves quality? By the amount of time you spend with them! Time IS quality to a child. When you don't spend time with a child, they think you don't love them as much.

I'd like to see you back that one up. Does that mean that kids almost always think their daddy, if he's the only one in the workforce, doesn't love them much?

Also, this study refers to "cognitive", not "behavioral".

You're talking about love and emotions, cognitive tests deal with the issue here.

[Alonzo]

This same argument works for teaching religion in schools.

That religion opposes gender stereotypes and teaches children that women can do as much as men?

[Truth_and_Power]

That religion opposes gender stereotypes and teaches children that women can do as much as men?

You have values you want taught to everyone's children.

[Alonzo]

You have values you want taught to everyone's children.

And you don't?

So you have no problem with people teaching their kid white supremacism? I'd be surprised if you didn't.

The fact is that everyone wants at least some of their values taught to everyone.

[Truth_and_Power]

And you don't?

So you have no problem with people teaching their kid white supremacism? I'd be surprised if you didn't.

The fact is that everyone wants at least some of their values taught to everyone.

There is a downside to freedom..

[preservanation]

preservanation
I take it this doesn't fall under your purview of 'diversity'?

Teaching or advocating unscientific beliefs in the field of science isn't a way to get ahead.

It's not a diversity issue. If a young earth creationist wants to be a doctor then I have no problem at all, if they want to be a psychologist I have no issue either. But if they want to be a biologist and they intend to teach or advocate their religious views during their employment (and not purely on their own free time), then there's a problem.Only in the liberal mind can monolithic be a synonym for diverse.

[Alonzo]

Originally Posted by Zo
Teaching or advocating unscientific beliefs in the field of science isn't a way to get ahead.

It's not a diversity issue. If a young earth creationist wants to be a doctor then I have no problem at all, if they want to be a psychologist I have no issue either. But if they want to be a biologist and they intend to teach or advocate their religious views during their employment (and not purely on their own free time), then there's a problem.
Only in the liberal mind can monolithic be a synonym for diverse.

I see it as akin to hiring a doctor who believes antibiotics cure cancer.

[preservanation]

Zo, I know the way you see it, and you have the right to teach your children what you want.
However, if you want to teach America's youth 'The World According to Zo", open up your own school system.

[Alonzo]

Zo, I know the way you see it, and you have the right to teach your children what you want.
However, if you want to teach America's youth 'The World According to Zo", open up your own school system.

Last time I checked public schools taught evolution and encouraged diversity, except a few places like kansas anyway.

The opposing view has set up their own private schools. But why a public school system should teach religious beliefs or not encourage tolerance for the diverse american population is beyond me. Luckily, most of them agree with me.

[davo]

Will the liberals see this as a threat to their indoctrination of Americas youth?



This means no left wing indoctrination and more independent thinking.



Left wing indoctrination, like tolerance? Besides, there seems a hell of a lot of right wing, religious indoctrination going on at home.


Oh please, enough with the left wing and right wing name calling. When it comes to restricting home-schooling or private education, it doesn't matter if its a left-wing, politically correct liberal douchebag or a right-wing creationist neocon Christian lunatic who's doing it. Both believe their views should be used to indoctrinate your children, and you (or your children) shouldn't have any choice in the matter. Both do not believe in the concept of individual liberty and are hostile to the concept of free opinion. Both would like to use the Federal government to dumb down the education system and promote exclusively their own views.

Activist power freaks from both the 'left' and 'right' are on the same sides of the coin when it comes to the issue of home schooling, albeit for different reasons. Whilst one thinks the world will end if everyone's children don't receive adequate brainwashing about diversity, global warming, racial equality, sexual liberation and white guilt - and the other about 'judeo-christian' ethics, necessity of foreign wars, blind support of Dubya and Israel, abstinence-only programs and 'intelligent design', the principle is still the same. Both believe in utilizing big government to force everyone to think like themselves, and are hostile to the concept of individual liberty.

I have nothing but praise for home-schoolers, and after going through the public education system here in Australia (I can imagine its worse in the USA), I can fully sympathize with parents who opt to educate their own children. Once we see more Christian fundamentalism appearing in our public schools, there will be more people from the Left who will come to sympathize with home schooling. So can we please stop thinking of this as a 'left' vs 'right' issue, and start thinking about it as a big government vs the people issue, where it properly belongs.

[David]

Oh please, enough with the left wing and right wing name calling. When it comes to restricting home-schooling or private education, it doesn't matter if its a left-wing, politically correct liberal douchebag or a right-wing creationist neocon Christian lunatic who's doing it. Both believe their views should be used to indoctrinate your children, and you (or your children) shouldn't have any choice in the matter. Both do not believe in the concept of individual liberty and are hostile to the concept of free opinion. Both would like to use the Federal government to dumb down the education system and promote exclusively their own views.

Activist power freaks from both the 'left' and 'right' are on the same sides of the coin when it comes to the issue of home schooling, albeit for different reasons. Whilst one thinks the world will end if everyone's children don't receive adequate brainwashing about diversity, global warming, racial equality, sexual liberation and white guilt - and the other about 'judeo-christian' ethics, necessity of foreign wars, blind support of Dubya and Israel, abstinence-only programs and 'intelligent design', the principle is still the same. Both believe in utilizing big government to force everyone to think like themselves, and are hostile to the concept of individual liberty.

I have nothing but praise for home-schoolers, and after going through the public education system here in Australia (I can imagine its worse in the USA), I can fully sympathize with parents who opt to educate their own children. Once we see more Christian fundamentalism appearing in our public schools, there will be more people from the Left who will come to sympathize with home schooling. So can we please stop thinking of this as a 'left' vs 'right' issue, and start thinking about it as a big government vs the people issue, where it properly belongs.

QFT

I'm the biggest Leftest here and support homeschooling. A school, public or otherwise, has to teach to a class. A homeschooled student however will receive (if competently taught) a custom education that best fits their social, economic, religious and political needs.

[davo]

I'm an agreement with you, David. I was making a point about the 'left wing' and 'right wing' name calling earlier being counter-productive, and that people from either side can support or oppose home schooling. It's an individual vs big government issue; not a left vs right issue.