Forced Schooling in America

[m5lange1]

Packrat.

I agree with Leopard. That is thouroughly immoral. It has to be a state requirement. Nothing so drastic is put on home-schoolers here. I also strongly oppose such strong-arm tactics to make you jump through those hoops. You have my support and sympathy.

Oh man it is time for me to get off this site. I am actually responding to LB again but I just could not let this go.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Quote: mine:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
But no I do NOT think compulsary school should be enforced on those families. I would settle for a periodic check whether governmental or private. Whether federal or community based.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LBs:

And here again we hit another crucial point in the discussion. Others are suggesting alternatives, but here you clearly state that some specific top down system must be in place, otherwise NO CHECKS would be possible. Rather than allowing individuals to choose what is important to their own children's education, you are suggesting that some mysterious others, who are presumably omniscient and know what one curriculum serves all children, have the authority to rule over these parents who certainly have the strongest connection to those children. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Read the quote. I am not insisting on anything. I am stating an opinion. I am stating what I believe. Here is another of those ad hominems you get your bowels in an uproar over:

Remeber opinions? They are those things people are alowed to state in free societies. And yes I do recognize your right to beat them down for it if they do not fit your view. You, in fact, seem to make a hobby of it.

Anniee, to whom I still had some hope of sharing ideas,

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
as I'm concerned you've shown yourself either impaired, willfully ignorant, or devious, and whichever it is I have no desire to continue to engage it. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I re-read my post to you. I made pretty sure I was not refuting you in any way but telling you what I believed and why I believed it. If that qulaifies me as

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
impaired, willfully ignorant, or devious<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I sure don't know why.

I wonder if LB would consider that qoute an "ad hominim" or if you get a pass because you agree with him?

I was really trying to find a common ground. I sure am glad you assured me I did not make you angry though.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
By the way, I DO love this topic, and if anyone wishes to engage in it honestly and intelligently, I am still interested in doing so. Just for the record, I'm still very much into it. Thanks. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Who are you kidding? Without me being the Devil's advocate to this group you would just be posting nods and winks to each other about how enlightend you are and how you could take this country to "Nearly 100% lieteracy" if only the ignoran sheep of this county would hear you.

Think you might lose interest without an adversary or would you enjoy a 'lets all agree with me' fest?

Let us see....

Bye

[Anniee]

Actually there is a conversation starting right now that seems to be going well without a "devil's advocate" or whatever you said. As to "I sure don't know why" all you need to do is go back and actually read what I posted instead of that one bit (your favorite tactic so far) and you'll know why I said it. So long then.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Read the quote. I am not insisting on anything. I am stating an opinion of what I think. Here is another of those ad hominems you get your bowls in an uproar over:

Remeber opinions? They are those things people are alowed to state in free societies. And yes I do recognize your right to beat them down for it because they do not fit your view. You, in fact, seem to make a hobby of it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

How bizarre. Nothing I stated even hints at what you are railing against. No where did I suggest in the slightest that opinions are verboten, nor have I ever beat any down. I have responded to claims about reality, to requirements of specific suggested schema, and have noted the logical fallacies that abound in your arguments. There is no element of bias in this as you so dishonestly suggest, but rather a consistent appeal to reason and reality rather than baseless assertions.

Contrary to your protestations, your schema necessitated all that I noted, but rather than address that fact you once again made false accusations about me and then took off on a completely false and unrelated rant. By all means have your opinions.. I celebrate in such freedom of conscious. But understand that when you state something about reality, it can be verified by checking with reality. When the two do not match, there is no need to shoot the messenger, or to deny reality.


EDIT: To clear up what appears to be a confusion: the notion of what constitutes an ad hominem did not originate with me, nor do I determine what constitutes one. Here is a description of ad hominem that does not come from me at all:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

and from the etiquette section of this forum: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Highlight your opinions






This is important. All too often people state their opinion in such an absolute manner that it’s seen as fact rather than opinion. I know this is basic, but it’s the cause of most of the personal issues anywhere. Try to be considerate of your audience and remind them that it’s just your opinion.
No Ad Homonym's






If I were to say, "you are a moron, therefore your views are wrong", that would be an ad hominem. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It doesn't help arguments, and it's not tolerated. Other forms of personal attacks should also be reported-just use the 'report' button within the suspected post.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[Packratt]

Thanks for the replies.

I have to go soon so I can't reply to all of them singly right now.

Yes, we live in an "hours" state too, they mandate how many hours our children must be in "school", force us to pay for proficiency tests, and force us to prove our curiculum matches the school board's mandate by showing them materials and recorded hours of inclass time. We're pretty worried now because the local "attendence officer" has made a complaint in juvenile court since we cannot reapply for homeschooling since we don't have the money to get the results of the test our son took which are required when reapplying each year.

We worry that they will force him back into a school where he was regularly assaulted by older kids and where the teachers harrass him for looking different than the other kids.

Anyway... like I said, i really have to get some things done today. good luck to you all.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Think you might lose interest without an adversary or would you enjoy a 'lets all agree with me' fest?

Let us see....

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

LOL!!! How many times have I noted that it is those who stand opposed to us that give us the greatest assistance, the greatest insights, and the most worthwhile commentary? Have you not read any of these??

But for one to be such an opponent, one must be willing to acknowledge reality and the nature of reason, for to continue to do otherwise you are merely lashing out arbitrarily and without anything of note. Recall the Python scetch concering arguments and denials? To simply deny all that others say, or to ignore it as you have done, adds nothing to any argument or discussion. To engage others honestly, civilly, and intellectually is to create a situation in which all win, regardless of what point comes out on top. All learn, all move forward in such situations.

Throwing tantrums, insulting, and attacking persons in place of such reasoning necessarily detracts from any discussion in which such behavior is to be found.

I welcome honest able and willing adversaries, for they are our greatest resource.

[Anniee]

Packratt, please check your PMs and mail. Thanks.

[Comrade]

Any of you know the IB Program?

International Baccalaureate, its a program that's getting a lot of recognition and is implemented in the school I attend here in Texas. Its a new approach, anyways, though I am not so sure of how much more effective it is.
It seems to me that it is supposed to be about taking a few subjects and going into them deeply rather than skimming over a lot of material, but I think its closer to a regular AP class with a few extra caveats.

Look into it and I'll let the wiser talk about it.

Anyways, my thoughts on schooling. There's no motivation. "Getting a bad grade" which might lead to "not getting into college" is a distant concept, it doesn't really register with me. I work just hard enough so that I don't fail.

Now, I'm conceited enough to consider myself a genius, and I'm mostly a fan of history, and it amazes (and appalls) me how school can take something as fun to learn as history and make it stupid and boring. The only part of the day in which I resist learning about history is in my history class!

There's too much paper shuffling, too many essays, too many fill-in-the-bubble tests. Whoever created MLA should be murdered, it is stifling and completely prevents me from ever wanting to write anything literary at all. It's self-defeating.

School doesn't teach complexity of thought. It teaches a gruel of information, as if students were computer matrixes that just require input without interpretation to function. I know from 8th Grade several years ago that John Deere was the inventer of the first lightweight steel plow. Anyone care to point out how this is important in any way shape or form to myself. What I'm trying to say, is that school doesn't make people any smarter, which sounds like what an educational system should be trying to do, no?

There are few classes that actually teach me how to do things. Mostly multimedia courses, of which I am taking all. If not for these classes I wouldn't even be interested in computer animation or design, nor would I be any good with them (though I'm mostly self-taught, like most "computer people").

My version of an ideal educational system would work on two principals. This is disregarding any other factors, a "sterile" environment maybe.
1) To expose students to different ways of thinking and to encourage depth of thought.
2) To expose students to things that they can do in life, and teach them how to do it. This is inspired by the multimedia classes that I am taking, but I mean more than that. Things like shop class, which have real world application, electronics, just an introduction into the things you might encounter at a college level.

Just a side note, English class should be renamed Literature class. The only class in which I learn English grammar and vocabulary, is, ironically, in French.

Just FYI, I'm a Junior in the WFISD, in North Texas.

(P.S. School food doesn't suck)

[Kyran]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
It is immoral to demand a certain level of competency? We shouldn't let them "monopolize the education market"? Either you're advocating willful ignorance or you're touting that education's a luxury, and I don't know which idea's worse.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Yes, "Rebel." Forcing parents to educate their children by the standards of others is a tyranny. What a surprise this must be to you. With a name like yours, we'd expect you to support any idea that opposes ruling forces. I can only wonder WHY you do the opposite.

Here we have the most intelligent progressing thread I've seen yet. Only someone oblivious to the thread TOPIC would ask "What's wrong with forcing people to educate their kids?" The case was made on page 1. Go back and read it. Read Packratt's story for crying out loud.

Don't try to misconstrue my argument as a personal attack. I respect your right to your own opinion. But if you're going to stink up such a well-flowing discussion with rhetorical questions and insult then expect to reap what you sow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lightbearer, Annie, and Leopard:

1. Why should the officials who control failing schools have any authority over private ones?

2. Could the oppression of homeschoolers by officials be considered a hate-crime?

[Anniee]

Great question (and post) Kyran. The answer to #1 is that there is no valid or legitimate reason; the burden is certainly on the other side to produce one. For example I remember one person telling me the state has a "compelling interest" in the education of each child, and considering that this person was a lawyer I had to ask her to provide the four points of qualification that form a legal "compelling interest" and apply them to the issue, to prove her claim in other words. She unfortunately did not know the four points of which a compelling interest consist so we never did get to actually providing them. I'd be interested to see a statist do that with this issue though.

#2 is an interesting tack I hadn't considered. I hesitate to invoke things like that when I'm opposed to them on principle though, you know? In other words, I don't believe in hate crime legislation so is it right to invoke it for our cause just because hate crime legislation exists? It sure fits though :)

Kyran,

Annie has stated the answers so well that I cannot add anything of import.

[G. Adams]

Personally I would argue that the greatest way to a child a good education is to teach early, mainly get them into reading. But I think most parents feel they don't have the time to read to their kids and get them into reading. I don't think there should be any excuse for this, unless you really are doing three jobs a day to get a roof over your heads (though I don't think society should let a parent fall into such an awful situation). Oh, and for reasons I give later, make your kids over five watch the news, real news from a real source like the BBC or CNN too.

I also heard that the US education system starts at 6? I was in school at 3, and now you can get pre-nursery classes in the UK for 2.5 year olds.

I think it's also a fault of the US media, that they don't discuss the wider world enough, although there's not much you could do about this problem. In the UK broadsheets, about 1 third of the paper will cover none headlining international news, and it's not likely you'll find more than one page worth of gossiping shit. I could probably locate 95% of countries on a nameless map, and give the capitals of half of them, and I'm only 18. Most of this knowledge isn't from school but from watching and reading the news.

It is worth mentioning that the broadcasts of CNN outside of the US can be of some value, but those in the US cater so much to the state and the official party line that they lose all value.

I would go further and suggest that parents seek out many different news sources, including those away from the accepted and pop culture ones such as CNN in the US. Listen to broadcasts from other nations and from independent sources.

But this is a good idea for anyone interested in the world, not just for children. The powers that be in the US would not have the degree of favor and popularity they enjoy, nor would they so easily be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the general populace, if that populace would seek out the truth instead of accepting the spin.

[Anniee]

I didn't let my kids "watch" the news. Tabloid sensationalism is passed off as "news" these days and frankly it's far more violent and abhorrent than any of the movies people bitch about kids seeing. That's obviously a personal preference, though. They now have a viable framework from which to view and filter any of the heavily editorialized "news" though, knowing a good deal about economics, law, civics and such.

Heh I wait for the final version to come out in the history books Anything in today's paper is hearsay until then Keeping up on legislative matters day to day is much more important than the crap they write about in what is supposed to be the news, anyway. Fighting bad laws before they ever see the light of day, and promoting good ones, pestering your legislators, etc.

Annie,

Well it is worth being somewhat skeptical about the history books as well.. after all the victors write the histories.. look to the War of Northern Aggression for wonderful examples of such spin by the victors.

[Anniee]

Oh I know, believe me. I was keeping it light

[Anniee]

I can not believe I forgot to post this quote by Thomas Jefferson, which applies to so many of the arguments by the statists.

Here goes:

"It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father."

Thomas Jefferson.

I wanted to make it my sig line but it's too long :(

[G. Adams]

When I suggested CNN it was not to advocate it as a particular source, but an example of a reliable source. If the US CNN is different and softer than the international one then it should be scrubbed off as an example. I was advocating you get your kids to watch reliable and well reported news, and since CNN is off, I can only think of the BBC for one that is more than just a national news service. If possible, though I doubt it, I would suggest watching BBC's newsnight. Jeremy Paxman will tear politicians, no matter how powerful, if he feels it neccesary, regardless of whether the interviewed will refuse to come on the show again. of course they do, because all serious politicians do. Except American politicians, it was fun to see Rumsfeld and Perle talking to him at the beginning of the war, for one or two occaisions, but then he verbally battered them and now they send lackeys to take the heat.

As for newspapers, read the Guardian, the Independant, the Times, Le Monde. I know the first three are UK and the last is French, but they are good, strong and reliable sources. Read them on the net if you can't get them where you are.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
When I suggested CNN it was not to advocate it as a particular source, but an example of a reliable source. If the US CNN is different and softer than the international one then it should be scrubbed off as an example. I was advocating you get your kids to watch reliable and well reported news, and since CNN is off, I can only think of the BBC for one that is more than just a national news service. If possible, though I doubt it, I would suggest watching BBC's newsnight. Jeremy Paxman will tear politicians, no matter how powerful, if he feels it neccesary, regardless of whether the interviewed will refuse to come on the show again. of course they do, because all serious politicians do. Except American politicians, it was fun to see Rumsfeld and Perle talking to him at the beginning of the war, for one or two occaisions, but then he verbally battered them and now they send lackeys to take the heat.

As for newspapers, read the Guardian, the Independant, the Times, Le Monde. I know the first three are UK and the last is French, but they are good, strong and reliable sources. Read them on the net if you can't get them where you are.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I watched the clip where he asked Howard Strong (80's or earlier 90's?) in an interview, the same question over ten times to get it answered...perseverence is definitely one of his strongest attributes.

[m5lange1]

Posts from first on 2/12/04 thruough 2/17/04....................95

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
M5Lange1 on 02/17/2004
Who are you kidding? Without me being the Devil's advocate to this group you would just be posting nods and winks to each other about how enlightend you are and how you could take this country to "Nearly 100% lieteracy" if only the ignoran sheep of this county would hear you.
Think you might lose interest without an adversary or would you enjoy a 'lets all agree with me' fest?
Let us see....
Bye<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Posts From (including)2/18/04 .............................3 includiing this one.

MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anniee]

Yes, I was waiting for that <rolleyes.> The fact is, this public conversation has led to some private conversations that are actually a lot more pressing and important. Silence is preferable to puling anyway.