Homeschool

[Astor]

Just to let you know, I only started homeschooling when I was 3rd grade, so I'm not completely ignorant ya know.

 

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but wouldn't that mean you only attended a public school until the age of 9?

 

For me, homeschool gives me the perfect amount of schoolwork, to the point where I don't have the problem of not wanting to learn something.

 

So there's no pressure? For me, at least, school taught me how to deal with pressure, work to deadlines, and manage my workload efficiently, AND still have time to read, spend time with friends, walk my dog, go riding, paint miniature armies and play video games.

 

And the whole "not social thing" is total crap. I've got plenty of friends, and being with homeschoolers filters out most types of people that I don't want to know. No offense, but I have no interest in talking to "normal" people. I have friends from church, cooking class, and neighbors.

 

You obviously don't want to know them, but that's another important aspect of school - meeting and getting on with people from other backgrounds. There were plenty of people at school that I didn't want to know, but on the whole i'm glad I did.

 

I don't have to wake up obscenely early,

 

What's 'obscenely early'? I'm sorry, but that just sounds lazy. You can't simply stroll into your future job at 11.00AM simply because 9.00AM is obscenely early. 4 in the morning is obscenely early. Between 7 and 8 is normal for pretty much everyone.

 

don't drown in homework,

 

Only people who can't manage themselves properly drown in homework. It's not quite as bad as people are making out.

 

get to keep up with my various projects,

 

That's easily doable, even if you end up spending less time on them, or having to wait till the weekends.

 

get dress however I like, get to eat whatever I want,

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that American schools didn't have uniforms, and I thought that students were able to take their own meals to school if they choose.

 

That is my opinion, if you have a different opinion, "De Gustibus non Disputandum est" (About Tastes there is no argument in Latin)

 

Thank you for explaing that last part was in Latin. I thought it might be Klingon.

 

No-one is disputing that it's your right to prefer your education system, I'm just trying to understand it better, because homeschooling isn't as popular here in the UK as it seems to be in the US.

[Q]

What's 'obscenely early'?

The asscrack of dawn, obviously.

[Darth Avlectus]

I hardly see why making sure the parents teaching the future members of society aren't educated themselves is a bad thing.

<snip>

Not so much that as it is the subtle things such as more, and more, and more, and still more hoops.

 

Schools do not breed MTV "retards"; parents do.

Oh yes they do, when many of the english classes and such practically pave the way by talking about such content that is on TV that they watch and making it so much a part of the class. When Vocational ed classes are reduced to this ridiculous crap as well. Or health classes do the same for social health/self esteem. Might make for an interesting AP psychology discussion but that's about it, assuming many students even get that far, which they don't.

 

The only part of school that should really be prepping you for the world is the education. Social interaction preps you for another portion, but, again, the rest of that is in the parents hands.

It's doing a piss poor job in the education department. Since it seems relatively established here:

What I think public and even private schools offer is the social experience.

I can say with some certainty that the socialization aspect is more of its strong point. When education to be dispersed in this more social manner suffers, what we end up with as our graduated product are MTV retards.

:words:that falls entirely upon the parents shoulders.

then that is the parent's fault.

, this still comes down to bad parenting combined with a a whole lot more bad parenting.

Yet when general decency standards are brought up (which is at least as much a social issue as it is educational), nothing much is done about it. Except maybe sometimes it is somehow interpreted as breaching separation of church and state and then people start having a fit over that in a red herring.

But, of course when little Jimmy fails they aren't going to blame themselves. They're going to blame Jimmy, and the school for failing them. Then the schools get a bad name, funding gets cut, and so on.

And when the kid IS disciplined by the parents? When the kid IS well behaved in school? You're over generalizing. This isn't really a problem with reasonable and fairly decent parents (which most are), especially ones who look out for their child's best interests.

 

Parents who look out for their children and their best interests and who have spine to tell the system "NO", stand up for their kid, discipline their kid, and actually make the school do their job to deal with their kid as s/he is, are often frowned upon by these educational associations. I cannot help but to shrug off your above statement. Especially when (even the well paid) teachers tend to continue seeing things in a majoritarian fashion.

 

I was an outcast for much of my school life, but I'd hardly call that "street savvy". Personally, I'd define "street savvy" as someone who ignored school and instead spent their time doing less than desirable things.

Notice how I said more and not totally.

Teachers work with hundreds of kids under a **** salary thanks to complaining parents.

Back to blaming parents again.

Do you -really- expect a teacher to sit down and bring a court room meeting for every fidget and finger pointing in every class? They are there to teach, not to babysit brats.

First off when they are un-passionate as a new teacher, that sends a real poor message to the students. When the teacher already has issues unrelated to the class and is a stick in the mud day in and day out throughout the year with depression not necessarily in any way related to the way students are treating him/her, that doesn't go over well. So if these teachers are not coddled for it, I don't have a problem with that.

 

Do I expect it to be a courtroom in class? No, but a more stern demeanor might help. They don't have to parent their students, no. However, a Teacher is like a third parent as that's where students spend a good deal of time. Teachers don't need to demand respect, but they do need to put it forth that they are not to be disrespected. It works both ways. Character begets character as an influence, parent or teacher notwithstanding.

 

When they are older and established teachers whose pay is a bit more, well, maybe it's unreasonable, but you'd expect they have the experience to shrug it off.

Perhaps this is expecting too much. I've no problem paying more if the teacher unconditionally performed better for it--which I have not seen. It's more of the same, but now with added complacency.

 

Teachers get paid **** for a thankless job, made even more thankless by people that assume the above.

 

They get more than parents in the working poor classification do.

In generic "public school" serial numbered systems this argument may have pull, but in these "distinguished" schools, uuhhh no. Those schools have more funding, perhaps 10 fold, and yet still grad to real application rates for work are only marginally better (still low), literacy rates are still falling, and the higher ed or trade school enrollment situation is mediocre at best.

 

I could understand it from a PS# teacher and (to a point) sympathize.

 

Teachers in these comfy communities (full range from city to rural) are paid more than admittedly those in public serial schools. Yet, they don't have much more to show for it vs their PS# counterparts considering their products (the graduating students) are generally unprepared. And I'm going off broad observation with a fair level of consistency in what I have seen around the country. Given pay raise to said number of teachers doesn't necessarily mean the same number of teachers will perform better. All I hear is that they want more money ...for what I and many others see as doing only marginally better.

 

Granted you did raise a good point: Funding might be lopsided for sports. Yet that seems a bit too generalized to be everywhere all at once as you seem to imply. There is maintenance costs to make sure we still have a building. It gets more expensive over time and yet a new building is even more-so out of the question. Then there's transportation which is even more unruly and expensive. But nevermind. :¬:

 

I had genuinely amazing teachers that worked multiple jobs.

...

I, frankly, find that set of statements pretty damn offensive considering. Maybe you had terrible teachers, but I had some teachers that genuinely enjoyed their work and were paid **** and all they got in return were angry phone calls from parents who have no idea how to raise a child.

 

With all due respect: Don't know what community you grew up in, but not every community has a fabulous school system whose worst problems are dysfunctional families with spoiled brats.

 

If only we were all so fortunate to get teachers who enjoyed their work. Unfortunately, that's frightfully rare.

 

Maybe it was so for your experiences that +PAY=+QUALITY, but where I went, all it meant was a fancier building. Those rural teachers seemed more... spoiled than the PS# teachers. In those settings the teachers could throw the bad student out because they were unwilling to deal with problematic kids.

 

To be fair: In a PS# setting the quality was where they played hardball back and no they didn't take flack form students. They do have that going--and they need more of that, but frankly, as their pay goes up, so rises their complacency.

 

Perhaps you should consider that if they get paid more... uh, you might get more quality teachers. Frankly, you get what you pay for.

If distinguished schools get substantially more, then by that logic they should turn up exponentially more quality grads than they have, enough to make a significant difference in

1) the failure rates,

2) grad to job or higher ed/voc institution enrollment.

 

That doesn't appear to be happening much. Marginally at best.

 

You know what, maybe you had really bad teachers. I don't know. But blame them for being jackasses

I think I already do.

instead of going on a completely uninformed rant about how all teachers are on "meds" or whatever BS.

Yes, I was generalizing there a bit, but frankly not everyone has an absolutely fabulous public school experience like you did where the majority of problematic peers are spoiled brats.

 

Those communities do not seem to have a vast majority of children of broken homes who have parents that, like the teachers, work multiple jobs and have problems of their own as well. Or where students are paying rent with their parents and are having troubles because of that.

The parents often do not, and for the most part, will never, make as much as teachers.

While I hate schools that ignore bullying, take it to the administration. If its that bad, then home school.

Thank you. And while you're at it, take your lopsided funding complaint to the same administration.

But, perhaps if you listened to their protests instead of assuming they are greedy ****s then they might get paid more to CARE.

I reiterate: Teachers in comfy little domiciles out on the coast may be fine but it isn't making much of a dent in the larger picture's problems, and frankly throwing money at it doesn't seem like much of a solution to that.

Sorry if you had bad teachers,

Oh? But are you really? Somehow that rings hollow and smacks of condescension.

Perhaps you ended up on the "most likely to go to columbine" list because of the content of that same sentence.

Let's examine:

Yeah yeah, whatever, F*** off. I don't really care, get that **** out my face.

That was in response to all the, how you said "sucky people", because I wasn't there to join in all the social crap--I was there to get on with life.

 

Thanks for insulting the jobs of people I respect and worked to help me though my education.

 

I don't assume that something I've observed around the country is universally axiomatic, as there is always an exception.

[Lynk Former]

Heh, I love that...

 

Academic person: "Social people should get on with life."

Social person: "Academic people have no life."

 

I also find it funny how the younger crowd seem to be closer to grumpy old men complaining about "dem damn punks and deir ROCK music, get a job yer hippies!" and the older folk seem to be a lot more relaxed and open to social and cultural exploits, yada, yada, yada... I know that's a generalisation, it's not all like that, but it's something I've noticed.

 

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

My parents pulled me out of school when i was around 8 because i was constantly bullied and left out because of my ethnicity.

 

They worked hard and sacrificed a lot to put us kids into a Christian homeschooling curriculum, in the hopes that we would get a "quality education, instilled with Christian values".

But i think they put to much faith in the Christian curriculum. It was as if by just putting me into it, i would be magically be a fine kid.

But i have my problems.

 

Academically, there is a lot of potential for me to excel. But my academic life is connected to my spiritual life, and both are in a paltry condition.

This may seem weird to the non religious, but when i'm 'right with God', i can complete huge amounts of work and my grades skyrocket.

My academics havnt been like that for over 3 years.

I also have a lack of motivation, and don't know what to study in university, or do with my life. But i hear thats normal.

 

Socially, ive akways been a recluse. I never needed social interaction for fulfillment. But thats not ot say i hate it or anything. I enjoy it when i have it. Personally, i have no trouble talking to anyone, and even don't mind socializing with girls. (i am so bad)

I think this social aptitude exists because i went to school for a few years before i started homeschooling. I also do normal stuff (like watch normal movies, etc).

But homeschooling can really make some people weird. Like, unbelievably, jawdroppingly, "is this even possible??!" weird. Ive met a few of those, but i don't hang with the homeschool crowd.

 

As for church, the only normal guy that is also my age is leaving for uni in a month. Thats going to suck. (you generally don't get many young people in my denomination.)

I only have a few great friends that ive had for years. But thats ok. (for reasons in previous paragraph)

And i have absolutely no doubt in my ability to get friends when i want to.

 

Recently I have been hit with a strong urge for individuality. I want... need to be my own person. I have to have privacy. I need to know things no one else around me knows. It gets like that when the only people you ever see for days on end is your family, which is the type that wants to know how many times youve breathed during the day. So i do what i can, like watching movies and reading books by myself - that only i know about. Even have some 'out there' viewpoints of my own. (*gasp!*)

I also have started socializing a lot more to this ends.

 

I also think a lot about what it would have been like if i went to school. Also about the main reason many have said: the ladies. In my family, love is forbidden, crushes can't be acted upon, and dating is evil. This is a ridiculous result of culture, family tradition, and conservative religion. Watching a love story movie with my parents would be like raking a heated fork across my flesh. A kissing scene; something i would find beautiful, the 'rents would find abhorrant and change the channel. I find this attitude somewhat immature.

I have contemplated getting a girlfriend, and i don't think ill have any problems in doing so, but i decided that the resultant ****storm would just be too much trouble for its worth.

 

 

I do not believe that homeschooling, in and of itself, is necessarily good or bad.

I believe in any situation, school or homeschool, it is the parents actions that make the difference. Its all about infuence. My parents wee never really involved with their kids, something i found dissapointing when i was around 11, but grew used to. Conversely, nowadays i like the way things are, and would actually find it extremely awkward discussing anything personal with the rents.

They put me into homeschooling to pull me from 'the evil influences of school', and i think they relied on the heavily christian textbooks to be the positive influence. But they were just textbooks. Sure, they were some influence and taught me some good things, but for the most part i was unintentionally left to pickle in my own influence. Which, naturally, like all human beings, is evil.

 

 

Would school have been better for me? I don't think it would have. Im pretty sure that the parents not being involved is a cultural thing, and i doubt it would have been any different if i was in school. In fact, it would have been worse, with no parental influence to offset the extremely strong influences in school, i'd probably have impregnated at least 50 or so girls by now. (OT style!)

 

But personally, I do not hold anything against my parents for anything they did. As far as i can see, they did everything in their mind they needed to do, and went through a lot of hardship, and sacrificed much to do it.

My problems and shortcomings are my fault and my responsibility. All that said, the game isn't over. There's still time to change, or get fixed or whatever. Its up to me to do what i have to, for myself.

But it is an easier said thing than done. Metaphorically, its like I am a wilted, malnourished plant, denying the rich fertilizer that is readily available to me, because using it will flush out the toxins within me, and the toxins feels good, man.

 

School or Homeschool? I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. I believe parental inflence can make or break a child, whether they be in Chicago or Boston or whatever. (although Chicago does have the risk of rattening your efforts by causing your kid bodily harm or generally getting them killed. In that case make sure each one knows the grind well enough and plays Switzerland. cuz no one touches a baller)

 

 

Proper training and raising can make your child truly shine no matter what circumstance he's in.

 

Call now to get a free set of drug or pregnancy tests with every order.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I've been homeschooled all my life. I can interact fine with nearly anybody except girls I like and people I don't like. I'm able to hold my own in a discussion with adults, or with kids my age (not younger, since I have no idea what they are talking about half the time).

Most affordable schools teach only one learning curve. I learn differently than other people. I learn things better when I have an image or a map, or a hands on experience to learn about it, and I also work better when I'm able to discuss what I've learned, and research it further with help from my teacher.

Plus, the education in my area (close to Chicago) sucks. Just talk to some of my friends. They can hold a conversation, but only if its about Twilight, gossip, video games, celebrities, or some other useless garbage that will prove totally useless in the future. Trying to hold an intelligent conversation with them will most probably prove futile.

I prefer to discuss politics, current events, religious debates, so on so forth.

All I'm saying is that home schooling has been more beneficial for me than the alternative.

yo you sound like a ****in aspie lol

 

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

Oh, oh, oh. I also like the whole "I'm superior because I believe I am and so does my mom" sort of thing. It's great XD I love it. Keep up the good work

[Pho3nix]

in b4 j7 locks this thread

[Miltiades]

I'm able to hold my own in a discussion with adults

That's like daddy letting his son score a goal.

 

Just talk to some of my friends.

Names and addresses, please.

 

I prefer to discuss politics' date=' current events, religious debates, so on so forth.[/quote'] Kids your age should be concerned with the most useless aspects of life. Seriousness is for later... or never.

 

It's better to be influenced by a variety of people than by just one or two. Otherwise, you more likely to be channeling your parents ideas than deciding for yourself. Besides, parents already control a big part of your life, don't want them to control you more. Parents, bah. Those evil beings.

[Working Class Hero]

I've been in both public schooling and am currently homeschooled. Both have their advantages and their negatives. I wish I could make a blanket statement that homeschooling is better in every way, but I can't.

 

-Academics-homeschooling is mostly superior to public school. I learn much more quickly by myself. There is more freedom in what I learn and how I learn it. On the other hand, I miss out on technological subjects. For example, publicschoolers get to do much more interesting labs that require special equipment.

-Bias-someone mentioned that homeschooling is more biased than public school. In my experience, it's actually less biased. Admit it, every history textbook and history teachers you had before college tried to paint America in the best possible light.

-Qualifications and loony parents-I don't think that parents need a degree to homeschool their kids. Gradeschool educations are not really that complicated and teaching degrees don't mean anything. If your parent is one of those loony Christian Science types, though, and I know this from seeing it firsthand, you're not getting a complete education. You're getting an education as biased as the liberal public school "God is dead" type.

 

-Socializing-homeschoolers inherently get less type with their peers. Homeschoolers are often more reserved and less socially aware (me included:)). Homeschoolers though, luckily avoid most vices of public school (drugs, drinking, and pregnancies). You might say, "Aren't homeschoolers simply postponing that until college?" Unfortunately, some are, but most will have the maturity to act responsibly. Besides, we're not that sheltered in high school.

 

-Conclusion-I wish I had a cheesy Latin motto, but I don't. These are just the opinions of a homeschooler who realizes he still has much to learn about the world.

[Trench]

So, you interact with your friends fine except when they talk about... social things.

 

Their social skills and "useless" knowledge is going to prove more useful for them in the future than your book smarts. That is the reality of society. Book smarts only get you so far, while their "garbage" will get them social points. Not everyone wants to discuss politics all the time. Is exhausting.

 

I think you'd find that if you were in a school with them, their "garbage" knowledge proves more useful than you think. Sorry to say that High School, College, or a job is going to be quite the culture shock for you.

 

I never said that. I can converse fine with them. It just get's a little old when they go over the same subjects over and over and never actually move on to talk about something serious.

Besides, I don't need to know the latest scores on CoD, or know the tragic ending to one of the twilight books to earn social points. I do "other" things to get me points at a party.

 

Also, being homeschooled I get to be taught gun safety, and how to properly shoot a deer.

[Quanon]

-Bias-someone mentioned that homeschooling is more biased than public school. In my experience, it's actually less biased. Admit it, every history textbook and history teachers you had before college tried to paint America in the best possible light.

 

Thing is, your parents, when your of a younger age, you believe them more. They're your "teachers" from the start, you give them a lot of credit on the "trueth" of many things.

 

Teachers in schools, they offer differant views, I had a few differant teachers on history, mind I live in Belgium, so it was all mostly focused on our own little country. And just like an country, we have a certain pride about we've done, though, in our lessons, the ugly/bad side of the medallion wasn't skipped.(Congo comes to mind... )

 

Still, I wouldn't say, teaching at home is bad, if indeed many public schools have students carrying about weapons and what not, I'dd bet I might teach my own kid at home. Still, I strongly believe, that going to school gives you a much broader view on life and its many annoying/ fun stuff it throws at you.

 

But I can't say more, I don't live in the USA, I'm not a parent, so what the hell do I know

[mimartin]

These are just the opinions of a homeschooler who realizes he still has much to learn about the world.

I'd say you are well ahead of the curve with this statement. Unlike you as a teenager I thought I knew it all as I grew older I came to understand I really did not know it all and no matter my education level I never will.

 

Also' date=' being homeschooled I get to be taught gun safety, and how to properly shoot a deer.[/quote']Gun safety is something that everyone needs to learn. However, isn’t that something that should be taught outside of the classroom curriculum? What University are you planning to apply to Redneck State?

[Tobias Reiper]

I'm not a homeschooled person, which is funny considering I could learn more on the internet than an entire year at school.

[Trench]

Gun safety is something that everyone needs to learn. However, isn’t that something that should be taught outside of the classroom curriculum? What University are you planning to apply to Redneck State?

 

You seem to have missed my attempt at humor. Perhaps I should have used an emoticon?

[Jae Onasi]

While you may think that is true, I have scientific evidence that you are biased in your think:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Can someone who hemorrhages rainbows truly be trusted to have a balanced perspective on any subject?

:rofl:

 

 

 

And @topic: Is my bad drawing and spelling because I was lying on the couch using MS Paint or because I was taught in the public school system?

Yes, and/or your hallucinations.

[Tobias Reiper]

While you may think that is true, I have scientific evidence that you are biased in your think:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Can someone who hemorrhages rainbows truly be trusted to have a balanced perspective on any subject?

 

Good sir, that is the best piece of art I have ever seen, and it's followed up by the best question ever asked.

[JediAthos]

I have two children, they're not school age yet, but when they are they will most likely be going to public school unless I can find a good private school that won't ask that I donate an arm and a leg for the privilege of having my children attend their institution.

 

That said, like Jae if I were forced to make a choice between an abysmal/dangerous public school system or homeschooling I would much rather go the homeschool route. My wife is a certified teacher and I'm sure would do just fine.

 

I would also agree with Quanon's point about seeing different points of view being in an actual school. With homeschool you receive one view,vbelief, and set of experiences on every subject and issue. In a school there are multiple sources to pull information from including other teachers, students, guidance counselors etc...Yes the internet can be used as a tool at home but I find that a conversation with a person can yield so much more. I suppose that would go hand in hand with socialization as well.

[VarsityPuppet]

..."friends" in public school are always going to say that school sucks. Shocking discovery, kids don't like going to school regardless of how good or bad the school is.

 

QFT ^ Most who say otherwise are damned liars!

 

They protest because public schools are getting less and less money, and what money they do get is forced into area it isn't needed. Like a new football field where new teachers and books are needed.

 

This is what my former highschool did. They spent $1,000,000 installing an artificial turf football field when they could have spent it on anything ranging from new computers, new desks, much needed repairs. But no, let's support the sucky ass football team who loses EVERY SINGLE GAME. Shame shame shame.

 

If you have time to waste, or are interested, you can check out this video some kids made at how poor the damn school is.

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

 

 

 

Being homeschooled allows me to grow much closer to my family, and have deep, mature conversations that wouldn't be able to be had if I was in Public school...

 

I'm sorry Jr, but you're wrong here. I've had many numerous deep and mature conversations (actually I guess the correct term would be existentialist and angsty), with friends of mine and even people I didn't really even know that well. It seems that you think that everyone that goes to a public school is generally incapable of any deep thought, which is not true. It's better said that most don't care too greatly about deep thought at that point.

 

...being with homeschoolers filters out most types of people that I don't want to know. No offense, but I have no interest in talking to "normal" people.

 

I hate when people throw around the word "normal". Seriously, it's gets on my ****ing nerves.

 

YES, I understand that not everyone is normal, but too many people like to throw it around just to justify their own personality flaws nowadays.

 

Girl: "Why can't you be normal?"

Guy: "I don't like being normal, being normal's BORING. Normal people are boring."

Girl: "Hmm, I see... still, could you pull your pants up? Not many normal people greet like that."

Guy: "But I said, being normal's-"

Girl: "YES, I GOT IT. YOU HATE BEING NORMAL."

 

Seriously, some people I know have shoved the fact that they're so NOT NORMAL down other peoples throats, that people just hate them for being annoying instead.

 

I think people should be striving for more normalcy anyways. No one wants to hear that you're NOT NORMAL, because in most cases we presume that you're either not all there, or think you're better than us.

 

Back to the point though, many good things can be learned from these 'normal' people you speak of. If anything, it would be how to blend in and not draw attention to yourself by appearing arrogant.

 

You're a good kid JuniorModder, but you need to tone down the opinions a bit.

 

I never said that. I can converse fine with them. It just get's a little old when they go over the same subjects over and over and never actually move on to talk about something serious.

Besides, I don't need to know the latest scores on CoD, or know the tragic ending to one of the twilight books to earn social points. I do "other" things to get me points at a party.

 

Actually, knowing what's going on in terms of popular culture is very important, I'd say. Knowing the tragic ending to one of the Twilight books might, for instance, would allow you to trigger a discussion between a peer of yours and therefore you might be able to find common ground between you and that person. Of course, I personally wouldn't care to meet anyone who reads Twilight, but that's another story.

 

All I'm saying is that knowing about such frivolous things can and will generally lead you to meet new new people, so don't discount it.

 

 

It's better to be influenced by a variety of people than by just one or two. Otherwise, you more likely to be channeling your parents ideas than deciding for yourself. Besides, parents already control a big part of your life, don't want them to control you more. Parents, bah. Those evil beings.

 

Yeah, if my only influence was from my parents, I'd be such a tool.

[Lynk Former]

Also' date=' being homeschooled I get to be taught gun safety, and how to properly shoot a deer. [/quote']

I'm so glad I live in Australia.

[mimartin]

I'm so glad I live in Australia.

 

What's wrong Lynk? Your dad never taught you how to shoot and skin yourself a Kangaroo?

[Endorenna]

I think people should be striving for more normalcy anyways. No one wants to hear that you're NOT NORMAL, because in most cases we presume that you're either not all there, or think you're better than us.

 

I agree that announcing you're not normal at every opportunity isn't a good idea, but I don't think people should try to be more normal. Why can't people just act like themselves? Sure, you have to be more polite than usual in some situations and stuff like that, but that doesn't mean you have to pretend to be just like everyone else.

[Lynk Former]

Btw... just curious... but what IS normal? Is there like a picture you can find to show me what normal is because I have NO idea what that is.

[True_Avery]

Not so much that as it is the subtle things such as more, and more, and more, and still more hoops.

Fair enough. Hoops are probably being added because homeschooled kids edge behind non.

 

Oh yes they do, when many of the english classes and such practically pave the way by talking about such content that is on TV that they watch and making it so much a part of the class. When Vocational ed classes are reduced to this ridiculous crap as well. Or health classes do the same for social health/self esteem. Might make for an interesting AP psychology discussion but that's about it, assuming many students even get that far, which they don't.

Afraid I don't know what you mean. Could you elaborate?

 

It's doing a piss poor job in the education department. Since it seems relatively established here:

I'll comment more when you elaborate the above, but I do not know of many schools that teach MTV as a class. What I do know is a lot of kids don't give a damn and become these "retards", as you put it.

 

I also know, from experience, that a lot of kids have trouble because of **** parents. I'll elaborate more below.

 

Yet when general decency standards are brought up (which is at least as much a social issue as it is educational), nothing much is done about it. Except maybe sometimes it is somehow interpreted as breaching separation of church and state and then people start having a fit over that in a red herring.

I problem in of itself. There isn't nearly enough control over parents, and maybe it should stay that way. I'm not certain.

 

But I bet if you picked up almost every bad apple in a school you'd find a terrible parenting situation underneath it. You can put people in perfect schools, but if their support structure at home is terrible then it means nothing.

 

And when the kid IS disciplined by the parents? When the kid IS well behaved in school? You're over generalizing. This isn't really a problem with reasonable and fairly decent parents (which most are), especially ones who look out for their child's best interests.

So, parents have absolutely nothing to do with how kids act?

 

Parents who look out for their children and their best interests and who have spine to tell the system "NO", stand up for their kid, discipline their kid, and actually make the school do their job to deal with their kid as s/he is, are often frowned upon by these educational associations. I cannot help but to shrug off your above statement. Especially when (even the well paid) teachers tend to continue seeing things in a majoritarian fashion.

Who the hell cares if they "frown" at you? **** them. Make them do their job if they're not. A frown isn't going to stop a good parent from pushing.

 

If more parents pushed schools, perhaps they'd do a better job and get a better graduation rate and then more money. Throwing your hands up and say "I give up, the teachers are unstoppable" helps nobody and is just a step backwards.

 

Notice how I said more and not totally.

Doesn't answer my question on why you would use the word Street Savvy.

They get more than parents in the working poor classification do.

In generic "public school" serial numbered systems this argument may have pull, but in these "distinguished" schools, uuhhh no. Those schools have more funding, perhaps 10 fold, and yet still grad to real application rates for work are only marginally better (still low), literacy rates are still falling, and the higher ed or trade school enrollment situation is mediocre at best.

So, better buildings, teachers, money etc do nothing.

 

Lets see what else is on the board:

 

...

 

PARENTING.

 

...

Boy, don't you sit there and tell me you never, once, had a teacher you liked.

 

Teachers in these comfy communities (full range from city to rural) are paid more than admittedly those in public serial schools. Yet, they don't have much more to show for it vs their PS# counterparts considering their products (the graduating students) are generally unprepared. And I'm going off broad observation with a fair level of consistency in what I have seen around the country. Given pay raise to said number of teachers doesn't necessarily mean the same number of teachers will perform better. All I hear is that they want more money ...for what I and many others see as doing only marginally better.

 

Granted you did raise a good point: Funding might be lopsided for sports. Yet that seems a bit too generalized to be everywhere all at once as you seem to imply. There is maintenance costs to make sure we still have a building. It gets more expensive over time and yet a new building is even more-so out of the question. Then there's transportation which is even more unruly and expensive. But nevermind. :¬:

I'll try to explain myself better:

 

Money makes the world go round, and currently the schools are running on flat wheels.

 

Why do they protest? For higher salerys, yes. However, "money" can spread to many areas of a school, not just teachers.

 

Ever notice what the hell happened to field trips? Why buses are used less? Why school buildings around the country look more and more worn?

 

Yet, the sports area almost always look fantastic.

 

My school got $50,000 to use. However, the district told my school how to use it, namely, $40,000 of that went into a new football field and accessories.

 

Meanwhile 25% of the staff got cut and the rest received a lower paycheck, while my history teachers had petitioned for more up-to-date books.

 

You know my class had up-to-date books? Because my history teacher bought them out of his pocket because the district denied him money in favor of improving sports fields in the district. Not up to safety code, but to just make them look more presentable. And even then, he could only afford 15 books out of a 32 person class.

 

With less money relegated to teachers, we had some cut and some left because they found what the district did to be appalling. So, we had a significant lack of teachers, so every teacher has to go from 25 to 35 students per room, giving them a much larger work load for less pay.

 

But our football field looked great!

 

My Elementary School and Middle school cut after school programs and field trips entirely because they could no longer afford them, meaning my area no longer has after school programs for anyone. Books are getting older, schools almost 70 years old are falling to pieces, and our grad rate is slowly decreasing.

 

But you know what one of the absolute best schools in San Diego is? A place called High Tech High, which is the most up to date school in the area. It was put together some years back, and the place is covered with computers, better paid teachers, and the best part being it doesn't have a district to tell it to make a football field. It currently has one of the best records in the area.

 

My High School finally decided after years of petitioning and protesting that they no longer wanted to listen to the ****ty district, and petitioned the state for chartership, which they got. The school now gets the money is allowed to spend it how it so desires, and is currently rising to being the top school in the district.

 

Throwing a money at a problem blindly doesn't help, I agree. But it is also naive to assume that giving them no money at all will change nothing. Schools still need money to function, and regardless of whatever grudge you hold against teachers that hurt you the schools still need it. Perhaps not aimed entirely at the teachers, but if you have SO much problem with teachers then give them more money so more schools can be like High Tech High and essentially have everyone use a computer all day.

 

With all due respect: Don't know what community you grew up in, but not every community has a fabulous school system whose worst problems are dysfunctional families with spoiled brats.

I use the term "brat" loosely. Please, I got beat up in Elementary School a few times and my district is covered with delinquents and pregnant chicks.

 

The worse problems my district has is the district itself. Grossmont, I believe, is one of the oldest school and shows it. There are signs on the buildings that say "By entering this building you are giving up the legal right to press charges for any damage done" because some of them are 50 years old and out of repair. The school has a nursery because it has the highest pregnancy rate in the district, and it also has the most gang violence.

 

Guess what? It has the largest and nicest sports field of any school in the district. The sports center is almost twice as large as the actual school, and its freaking beautiful.

 

Why? Because the district makes the school spend all their money there. Not suggests it, outright forces them to spend it. Meanwhile the actual school is physically unstable and incredibly unsafe to the point most classes take place in transportable buildings outside.

 

The students are appalling, and the trait is shared in most of the schools. However, I was in a Special Education class in Middle School and I'll explain how this works into my view of schooling.

 

If only we were all so fortunate to get teachers who enjoyed their work. Unfortunately, that's frightfully rare.

I don't think you're right with frightfully rare. That seems less to do with logic and more of a personal vendetta against all teachers everywhere.

 

While it may be uncommon, I don't think its rare.

 

Maybe it was so for your experiences that +PAY=+QUALITY, but where I went, all it meant was a fancier building. Those rural teachers seemed more... spoiled than the PS# teachers. In those settings the teachers could throw the bad student out because they were unwilling to deal with problematic kids.

Same difference. Your schools money went into a nice building, mines went into a nice field.

 

What I'd like to know is how you know your teachers got paid gross amounts of money as you seem to imply. Many of my teachers worked multiple jobs after schools because the district wasn't paying them their promised wage. My Middle School teacher had to petition for her paycheck now and then because they'd often just not send it, or only send half.

 

See what I mean about protesting?

 

To be fair: In a PS# setting the quality was where they played hardball back and no they didn't take flack form students. They do have that going--and they need more of that, but frankly, as their pay goes up, so rises their complacency.

So... we should pay the even less to make damn sure they don't get complacent. That'll teach'em to think on their toes.

 

You pay **** salaries, you get **** teachers. This is the same with any employee system. A higher salary means more competition for the slot. If you pay low, then not only are you going to get less teachers but you're going to get teachers who either suck, or do it simply because they can't do anything else with their teacher credentials.

 

I understand what you mean about a high pay check making you more at ease with your job, but you're still making a gross generalization about teachers.

 

I don't think money itself will fix the problem, but I do, however, think money is an incentive where as you seem to think it accomplishes next to nothing. If the teachers themselves are a problem, then help put more quality control regulations onto teachers.

 

But, I'll say it a million times, a teacher means absolutely nothing if students are not willing to learn, nor listen. Short of filling every class with drill instructors, students need to take some responsibility for their education. If they're undisciplined, then that is a failing on the parent.

 

A single Teacher sees a student an hour or so a day out of a 5 day week a little over half of the year. I think a parent has a little more to do with their attitude then that teacher.

 

If distinguished schools get substantially more, then by that logic they should turn up exponentially more quality grads than they have, enough to make a significant difference in

1) the failure rates,

2) grad to job or higher ed/voc institution enrollment.

 

That doesn't appear to be happening much. Marginally at best.

Ok, first off, what the heck does a "distinguished" school mean. Are we talking private or something?

 

Second, a school does not have utter and complete control over grad rates. EVENTUALLY the kids and parents need to step the **** up and put their foot through the door instead of expecting teachers to do it for them.

 

And yes, I am still blaming parents and will continue to do so.

 

Yes, I was generalizing there a bit, but frankly not everyone has an absolutely fabulous public school experience like you did where the majority of problematic peers are spoiled brats.

Yes, my school system has absolutely no other problems then having spoiled rich kids.

 

Oh, and screw off about the "Fabulous public school experience".

 

Those communities do not seem to have a vast majority of children of broken homes who have parents that, like the teachers, work multiple jobs and have problems of their own as well. Or where students are paying rent with their parents and are having troubles because of that.

The parents often do not, and for the most part, will never, make as much as teachers.

1) You assume teachers do not have kids of their own

2) You assume my community has no idea what a broken home is

and 3) I said many of my teachers worked multiple jobs because the district often refuses to pay them their promised check.

 

Thank you. And while you're at it, take your lopsided funding complaint to the same administration.

Already have. I'll make sure to tell them your plan of cutting all teacher funding because its useless anyway.

 

I reiterate: Teachers in comfy little domiciles out on the coast may be fine but it isn't making much of a dent in the larger picture's problems, and frankly throwing money at it doesn't seem like much of a solution to that.

I'll reiterate as well: Listen to what they're protesting about instead of scoffing at the fact they're protesting.

 

Oh? But are you really? Somehow that rings hollow and smacks of condescension.

Usually, yes, but I am sorry that your teachers ruined something for you. But frankly I think that is given you a heavy bias towards all teachers being lazy ****s out to get you personally. Again, sorry you have bad teachers but don't insult those that try.

 

Back to blaming parents again.

Allow me, as I said above, to explain exactly why Parents, overall, can go eat a bucket of nails and why most parents are not responsible nor descent human beings looking out for their child's best interest:

 

The class I was placed into in Middle School was a special education class of sorts for **** ups. When my Middle School could no longer handle a particularly bad egg, they'd expel them and they'd get sent to one of the many rehab or bad egg schools in the area. If a parent fought against this, there was the possibility of being placed into a Special Education class, which my parents took over a school that locks you in a closet if you misbehave.

 

More accurately, it was a class put together by a teacher that used to teach extremely mentally unstable individuals. She mainly taught suicide potentials at hospitals. This class was for people with bi-polar disorder, mental problems, and kids who had been particularly screwed over by their parents.

 

I was there because I got chewed up and spit out in elementary school and could no longer function within normal classes. I was one of the lucky few who didn't go home to be beaten by our parents.

 

Some kids were on meds because they're parents no longer wanted to deal with them. Some were abuse cases, and others just neglected. While everyone had problems, almost every one of them out of an almost 60 person class (between two classrooms) could be linked directly back to their bad parents, or the bad parenting of others.

 

I saw kids disappear into divorce cases. Some disappeared when child services came for them. Some attempted suicide a few times. Other drank and drugged themselves into oblivion for attention because their parents let them do whatever they wanted and they desired structure.

 

Think of what a parent could do to their kid, and that kid was in this class in some fashion. Every year the class grew bigger and more exotic. Then you had to deal with the other poorly parented kids who made fun of and/or beat up the kids in our class.

 

Our teacher was more of a mother to a lot of them then their actual parents ever had been. They could no longer function in a regular schooling environment because they had little to no structure at home. Come High School, most of these kids flunked and disappeared.

 

Later I volunteered for her class for High School and she had more kids than ever, and this batch even more ****ed up than the last.

 

This gave me perspective, and it also gave me the experience to notice when a sour egg in a class was acting out due to other reasons. the biggest **** ups I ever met in High School were cases just like their; their parents didn't give a damn about what they did so they didn't give a damn about school.

 

We have different outlooks on life. You prefer to blame the teachers an the system, where as I prefer to pull out the weed and look at the roots of the problem. My teacher was the most caring teacher you'd ever met, and she knew specifically how to deal with abuse and mental cases. She went out of her way to help every student, and hired aids to personalize the experience with the students.

 

Most still came out terrible.

 

The problem is not entirely the school systems fault. Eventually society has to let their balls drop and blame the ****ing parents for ruining these kid's lives. Parents see heir kid failing, and instead of thinking "what can I do to help" they call up the teacher and demand them a new grade. I've seen a teacher get yelled at by a parent for failing a girl who submitted a paper that as literally a print out of a wikipedia page. He demanded he give her a pass, and the teacher refused.

 

Teachers see a kid, on average, 1 hour or so a day, 5 days a week, for about half a year. A kid goes home to their house and parents every day and spends the rest of the 18 hours with them.

 

I will always blame the parents because I legitimately believe that if you grab a bad egg and turn it over you'll find the smudge of bad parenting underneath. Even if the teachers were awful, that's still a drop in a lake. Bullies are just the sad result of poor parents, and while I'd like teachers to control them I'd prefer the blame be placed on ****ty parenting then on apparently spoiled rotten teachers.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the parents brought down the value of public schooling, cut funding, and bring down grad rates and are responsible for the crime rates in this country. Their primary problem is they prefer to aim blame away from themselves and aim it at the easiest thing to point at: the schools and the media.

 

Bad eggs come out of good schools, and golden eggs come out of bad. If the parents weren't responsible for their golden shine, then they took the responsibility into their own hands and took control of their life instead of becoming an MTV "retard".

 

I'd also like to know exactly what an MTV "retard" is because you made it sound like they still graduated. I'll say the same thing I said to the other guy in the thread: People are smarter and more dedicated then I think you care to give them credit for. That includes teachers.

[VarsityPuppet]

I agree that announcing you're not normal at every opportunity isn't a good idea, but I don't think people should try to be more normal. Why can't people just act like themselves? Sure, you have to be more polite than usual in some situations and stuff like that, but that doesn't mean you have to pretend to be just like everyone else.

 

That more accurately describes what I was trying to say.

I'm just saying that people should stop trying to stand out so much intentionally. If they really are truly different, let it speak for itself, you know? Don't rub it in people's faces is all.

 

Btw... just curious... but what IS normal? Is there like a picture you can find to show me what normal is because I have NO idea what that is.

 

I can't show you a picture, but I can sort of start to paint one... and then realize it's impossible anyways

Of course, I'd be an idiot to fall into the trap of describing an "absolute normal", so I'm not going to do that.

Instead, I'll give you a vague unsatisfying answer like any politician would do.

 

'Normal' seems to consist of what's relatively common or accepted among a specified group of people.

 

Around here, for instance, not many kids homeschool. It would be fitting to say that it's normal that most kids ages 5-18 go to a public school.

 

Suffice it to say that any kids outside of that range going to a public school would not be 'normal' but, not necessarily bad either.

 

That's as far as I'm going. You get the idea.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

The problem is not entirely the school systems fault. Eventually society has to let their balls drop and blame the ****ing parents for ruining these kid's lives. Parents see heir kid failing, and instead of thinking "what can I do to help" they call up the teacher and demand them a new grade. I've seen a teacher get yelled at by a parent for failing a girl who submitted a paper that as literally a print out of a wikipedia page. He demanded he give her a pass, and the teacher refused.

I have never experienced or seen this sort of thing first hand, but reading everything you've said, what gets me is: why do these parents not give a crap about their kids? Why do they abuse them and mess their lives up? Is it so hard to stop and analyse "why the hell is <X part of life> such a mess?" What is the reason??