On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:40:04 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:12:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Steve......................................... .." wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.


Always some kind of conspiracy, it seems.........

You sure the "dark truth" is that *nothing* is being buried, and all those
Christians calling for home schooling arent just putting up a smoke screen
to cover their own failings ???

How about some cites ??? This is *your* claim, after all...........

http://www.ericfacility.net/database.../ed435709.html
http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/29home.h18
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issue...schooling.html

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Nice to see that all of my kids did better than the average home
schooled kid. God only knows how they would have done if home
schooled. Cringe.
Sue

Didnt you post at one time you had a teaching credential?

Gunner



Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "


Gunner



"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:56:04 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


There's much more to it than that. The premises of public education date
back a little over a century. It was something that was necessary for the
public good. Times have changed, and it's time to re-examine the
premises.

But that's not what the argument is about. It's about an entrenched
bureaucracy in conflict with a philosophy of bitter, resentful
malcontents.
There is no real argument, in other words, because they aren't honestly
addressing the same things. Neither does either side acknowledge or
examine
the real premises of public education, nor their status in a changed
world.

Ed Huntress

Bitter resentful malcontents? Hummm thats an interesting description
of people who want a better education for their kids, away from rape,
murder, drugs and the planned demise of personal responsiblity.

But they aren't the ones arguing the case, Gunner. Read your blogs. They're
full of bitter, resentful malcontents who hate public schooling -- and most
of them probably don't even have kids. g


Is this why most teachers and politicians send their children to
private schools? Because they are bitter resentful malcontents?

Most teachers do not send their kids to private schools. Most couldn't
afford it. Where do you get your information?

As for politicians, I haven't seen that data. Do you have any?

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:29:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families
are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost
exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics

Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.


Interesting. I see Ill have to start paying a bit more attention to
your spin on subjects and see just how high your bull**** factor is.

Again.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:17:05 GMT, "Siggy"
wrote:

Sounds to me like they had parents who gave a damn, encouraged their child,
and set a level of expectation that they personally followed up on. I
suspect that THAT is the common thread between home schooled children who
excel and public school children who excel rather than one educational
system vs. another.

Robert

Exactly. I live in the boonies, and there are quite a few
home-schooled kids in the area. Any talk of them doing better as a
group than public-school kids is just nuts. And it's easy to see why
if you look at the reasons many of the boonie parents don't send their
youngns' to school - 1. won't, or can't afford to drive them 15 miles
one-way twice a day to meet the bus. 2. don't want them to associate
with non-fundies....ever. 3. didn't go to school themselves, so don't
see the need. sigh Given the circumstances and attitudes, overall
success rates are bound to be pitiful.

When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest
thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.


Interesting. I see Ill have to start paying a bit more attention to
your spin on subjects and see just how high your bull**** factor is.

Again.

It won't be hard, Gunner. Unlike you, I check my sources and I check my
facts. It's a habit of mind, the exact opposite of the one that would let
you post five references in a single message from sources you don't know,
with no effort to corroborate them at all.

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:46:41 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


Until tests are mandatorily administered to ALL the home-schooled,
regardless of demographics, and scores are compared with those children
in
the public schools, such studies are pretty much meaningless.

None of the above studies take into account the home schooled kids who
were
not tested, which, by the way, seem likely to constitute the vast
majority.



Tell you what..why not take the 15 minutes or so and find the cites
that condem home schooling and present them for us.

The question is..given a tiny sampling of cites presented here, is
there any reason to believe that homeschooling is inferior to public
school? Not counting the non exposure to drive by shootings, drugs,
MTV peer pressure, etc etc

Post something and lets look at it.


Not my place, Gunner.

An individual made a claim, I asked for cites..........you stepped in with
sites that were later debunked.

While there is little doubt a devoted parent can often do quite well at
home-schooling, there is an separate demographic segment engaged in the
practice, these are the kids who do poorly enough in school the parents are
forced to remove them from the system for their safety and to avoid legal
troubles with the authorities, due to truancy and like problems.

These children are simply not currently being included in the samplings and
tests as far as I know.


Please note, much of my opinion on home schooling is in fact based on
personal experience, (we home schooled two of our own children for several
years) and also upon the experience of others whom are friends or relatives,
none of which ended up with students that excelled in any spectacular way as
a direct result of their home schooling.

Rather, I have a cousin who is a devout Christian, and for many years, the
family took in foster children, she raised 12 kids in all, as I
recall.......

Several of them are in and out of jail frequently, and none of them to my
knowledge are in a field earning much over minimum wage, with exception of
their oldest boy ( not a foster kid ) who is a Journeyman
Electrician..........

--

SVL

based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

Then why bother to read them... and why bother to respond to them...?
Greg sefton

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:51:42 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:46:41 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


Until tests are mandatorily administered to ALL the home-schooled,
regardless of demographics, and scores are compared with those children
in
the public schools, such studies are pretty much meaningless.

None of the above studies take into account the home schooled kids who
were
not tested, which, by the way, seem likely to constitute the vast
majority.



Tell you what..why not take the 15 minutes or so and find the cites
that condem home schooling and present them for us.

The question is..given a tiny sampling of cites presented here, is
there any reason to believe that homeschooling is inferior to public
school? Not counting the non exposure to drive by shootings, drugs,
MTV peer pressure, etc etc

Post something and lets look at it.


Not my place, Gunner.

An individual made a claim, I asked for cites..........you stepped in with
sites that were later debunked.

No, not debunked.
A question was asked about them, that Im unable to answer, but I still
think the general tone of the results is correct. Ive seen various
stats given about Homeschooling versus public school education, and
the public schools used were upscale, "state of the art" schools in
areas not rampant with poverty and low income single parent familys
that produced similar results. I will have to hunt for and find them.

While there is little doubt a devoted parent can often do quite well at
home-schooling, there is an separate demographic segment engaged in the
practice, these are the kids who do poorly enough in school the parents are
forced to remove them from the system for their safety and to avoid legal
troubles with the authorities, due to truancy and like problems.

Wow..which schools are those? Its been my experience the little
*******s are simply put in "special ed" classes and promoted
regardless of their competence.


These children are simply not currently being included in the samplings and
tests as far as I know.


Please note, much of my opinion on home schooling is in fact based on
personal experience, (we home schooled two of our own children for several
years) and also upon the experience of others whom are friends or relatives,
none of which ended up with students that excelled in any spectacular way as
a direct result of their home schooling.


Did the experience harm them in any way? Were they as exposed to rape,
murder, MTV peer pressure etc etc as the public school children are?

Rather, I have a cousin who is a devout Christian, and for many years, the
family took in foster children, she raised 12 kids in all, as I
recall.......

Several of them are in and out of jail frequently, and none of them to my
knowledge are in a field earning much over minimum wage, with exception of
their oldest boy ( not a foster kid ) who is a Journeyman
Electrician..........

Ok. This means what?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Well, I'm no teacher and have no children (to speak of) but I have observed
quite afew of both types as a 4H horse club leader. The home schooled kids
seem much more attentive and brighter. they ask more intelligent questions and
are much better behaved. they excell at the tests we give on various
equestrian subjects and in the horse shows we put on every year. I also do
blacksmithing demonstrations at the Stephen Foster Folk Center in N. FL when
thousands of kid come for events like the storytelling festival & folk life
days. I can pick out the HS kids by those traits above from the public
schooled kids. I can also pick the big city kids from the rural ones by the
attitude and intellect they show. I've seen some utter (HS) failures but many
more successes. Nothing scientific, so don't ask for "cites" (Ed). Just
personal observation over the last 5 years.
Greg Sefton

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics.

--
Ed Huntress

That may be true in general but I live in a very low income county and many low
income families home school very successfully. I don't know that I'd lump them
with illiterate or even dysfunctional. "Lying" is probably a bit of an
exageration but then exagerating is lying too, isn't it )
Greg Sefton

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:39:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest
thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.


Interesting. I see Ill have to start paying a bit more attention to
your spin on subjects and see just how high your bull**** factor is.

Again.

It won't be hard, Gunner. Unlike you, I check my sources and I check my
facts. It's a habit of mind, the exact opposite of the one that would let
you post five references in a single message from sources you don't know,
with no effort to corroborate them at all.

Ed Huntress


http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/policy/1996_2.HTM
http://www.mosaicaeducation.com/paradox.html
In 1973, 60% of Americans thought their children were getting a better
education than they had received, while 20% thought it was worse. By
1994, only 42% thought children were getting a better education, while
51% said it was worse.

Nationally, all teachers - public and private - are 50% more likely
than the general public to send their children to private schools. In
the inner cities, 35-40% of public school teachers send their children
to private schools, in contrast to a mere 13% of the general
population.

71% of Americans grade U.S. schools below "C" and 54% give their own
schools a low grade as well, according to a 1995 Gallup poll.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News December 1996 quarterly survey of
2,000 Americans reported that the top concern was improving public
education, cited by 57% of respondents (tied with reducing crime and
well ahead of such former front-runners as the federal deficit (40%)
or protecting the environment (26%)).

In terms of public elementary and secondary education, average real
expenditures per student have risen for more than a century, to $5,825
in 1993 (the last year for which data is available from the U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics),
and real aggregate spending levels have increased steadily at about
10% annually over the last 30 years, to $231.5 billion in 1993. In
addition, over $24 billion is spent annually on private schools.
Although funding per student and absolute spending is increasing, a
smaller percentage of those funds is reaching the classroom.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?...iew&record=315

September 12, 1997

Libertarian Party asks: Why is Congress sending its children to
private schools in record numbers?

WASHINGTON, DC -- Public schools: They're good enough for your kids --
but don't expect a Congressman to send his kids there.
That's what a new study from the Heritage Foundation reveals -- that
U.S. Senators are four times more likely than average Americans to
send their children to private school, and U.S. House members are
three times more likely.

"Congressmen get a failing grade when it comes to confidence in public
schools," said Steve Dasbach, the national chairman of the Libertarian
Party. "When they get a chance to vote with their children's
education, they vote against government-run schools."

The Heritage Foundation found that only 14% of Americans send their
children to private schools -- but a whopping 50% of U.S. Senators do
so, and 34.4% of U.S. House members. (The survey measured Congressmen
who responded, and who have school-age children.)

"Congress thinks government-run schools are a great idea for your kids
-- but not for theirs," said Dasbach. "For members of Congress, the
three R's of education are not reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic --
they're retreating, requiring, and rejecting...

"Congressmen are retreating to private schools, requiring us to pay
for a failing government-run school system -- and rejecting the notion
that they're hypocrites for doing so," he said.

Ironically, noted Dasbach, those Congressmen who know the most about
government-run schools avoid them most fervently. A full 40% of the
members of the House Education Committee send their children to
private schools.

"And no wonder. They're in a position to see exactly how bad
government-run schools really are," he said. "The message from these
Congressmen is: We like the public school system so much that we'll
tax you billions of dollars to pay for it; we'll pass laws to mandate
standardized national testing and curriculums; and we'll increase the
Department of Education's budget every year. But we don't like public
schools enough to send our children there."

snip

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to
assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

Then why bother to read them... and why bother to respond to them...?
Greg sefton

Unless it implies something really misleading, I respond to far fewer of
them than I used to.

The compulsion I have is to correct things that have a real consequence in
understanding important issues. Otherwise, I let them slide.

Ed Huntress

On 14 Feb 2004 12:48:15 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

The question is..given a tiny sampling of cites presented here, is
there any reason to believe that homeschooling is inferior to public
school?

Umm, gunner, the homeschool crowd selects for the brightest
parents. If you say that *all* the kids should be home
schooled, you are ignoring the simple fact that most kids
would learn zero at home if you relied on only the parents
to do the instruction.

Jim

Id have to disagree with you. I know a number of poorly educated
parents who have home schooled their children, and the children have
excelled. There are very very good learning materials out there for
exactly this reason. One does not need a teaching credential to teach
or even to know the subject material (our public schools are a perfect
example of that)

Shug...its an interesting subject that is indeed growing in leaps and
bounds all across America, and someday will change the entire
educational field.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:38:58 GMT, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:17:05 GMT, "Siggy"
wrote:

Sounds to me like they had parents who gave a damn, encouraged their child,
and set a level of expectation that they personally followed up on. I
suspect that THAT is the common thread between home schooled children who
excel and public school children who excel rather than one educational
system vs. another.

Robert

Exactly. I live in the boonies, and there are quite a few
home-schooled kids in the area. Any talk of them doing better as a
group than public-school kids is just nuts. And it's easy to see why
if you look at the reasons many of the boonie parents don't send their
youngns' to school - 1. won't, or can't afford to drive them 15 miles
one-way twice a day to meet the bus. 2. don't want them to associate
with non-fundies....ever. 3. didn't go to school themselves, so don't
see the need. sigh Given the circumstances and attitudes, overall
success rates are bound to be pitiful.

When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne

I see a post full of assumptions. Where are the test scores of those
children?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families
are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost
exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics.

--
Ed Huntress

That may be true in general but I live in a very low income county and
many low
income families home school very successfully. I don't know that I'd lump
them
with illiterate or even dysfunctional. "Lying" is probably a bit of an
exageration but then exagerating is lying too, isn't it )
Greg Sefton

I don't doubt that home-schooled kids do quite well on tests, Greg. It
appears that the average home-schooled kid actually is advantaged, though,
in several ways. They have parents who really care; they have parents who
make substantial sacrifices to educate their kids; they get something close
to one-on-one interaction with the teacher, full-time. What's the per-hour
value of a parent capable of teaching, 3 or 4 hours/day? How does that stack
up against the cost of public education? My guess is that it works out to
around $15,000 kid for home-schooling, versus something less than two-thirds
that for public school. More money, better education, eh?

The advantages are great in themselves, and I have nothing against
home-schooling. But it makes the statistical comparisons flaky or
misleading. And a lot of home-schooling advocates aren't above using the
statistics to draw a conclusion that's opposite of the truth. It's hard to
believe that all of the people who quote these stats are so cavalier about
them, or so ignorant of statistical methods that *all* of them fail to see
the errors.

Ed Huntress

On 14 Feb 2004 22:08:33 GMT, (Bray Haven) wrote:

based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

Then why bother to read them... and why bother to respond to them...?
Greg sefton

ROFLMAO!

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:39:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest
thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to
assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed
accordingly.


Interesting. I see Ill have to start paying a bit more attention to
your spin on subjects and see just how high your bull**** factor is.

Again.

Here's a perfect example. Just two messages ago, you said:

Is this why most teachers and politicians send their children to
private schools? Because they are bitter resentful malcontents?

Now you've quoted a pile of stuff, the last part of which addresses the
politicians issue.

If you check your figures, you'll see that your citations claim that
Congressmen and Senators, together, send 37% of their kids to private
schools [(435 * 0.344 + 100 * 0.50)/535], while you said "more than half."
As for the teachers, your citation is only about inner-city teachers, and
that number, too, is less than half. And the Heritage Foundation makes no
attempt, at least in this quote, to compare the figures for those two groups
with those of comparable-income families.

The more money people make, the more they're willing to pay for advantages
for their kids. I don't know of a single public-school teacher who would
claim that a public-school education is as good as a good private-school
education. But a *good* private school costs a lot more than public schools,
unless the school is a religious one that squeezes every penny, that
underpays its teachers, and that doesn't have to account for much of its
capital costs because they come from church contributions.

So it's a meaningless crock, as much Heritage Foundation "data" is a crock.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:56:04 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families
are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost
exclusively
are not.

Yes, but how does that fact prove that home schooling is
detrimental to children?

The assertion was not that home schooling is detrimental. It was that it was
superior. And that is not supported by the facts, Robert, because there is
no control on the groups being compared.

I was addressing the general debate, not that specific part
of it.

Another case of lying with statistics.

I don't know of any laws against "disfunctional families and
illiterate, impoverished families" home schooling.

Robert, I think you've just hit bottom in the reality department. g How
are illiterate parent(s) in dysfunctional families going to home-school
their kids? They're lucky to get them dressed and out the door.

Correct - so what they do has no value as evidence one way
or the other.

They
don't, but that's because of the combination of not wanting
to and not being able to.

Ah, yeah, no kidding.

If you dropped the "disfunctional
families and illiterate, impoverished families" from the
comparison, the results would probably be about equal
between the home schooled and publicly schooled children.

I see no reason to believe that's the case. Do you have facts, or just
speculations?

Just speculation, as I made clear.

No one knows and no one can know, because the computation
can't be done.

Of course it can. You can take a slice of socio-economic profile from each
and compare them. It isn't easy, and I doubt if anyone has both the money
and the motivation to do it, but don't say it can't be done. That's the kind
of analysis that's done all the time in economics.

In this field, it would so vulnerable to manipulation as to
be worthless. The researcher would find whatever he was
looking for.

One of the things you have to do is normalize for class size. What's the
average class size in home-schooling? Take comparable-sized classes in
public schools and compare them. You can mathematically adjust for class
sizes based on samples. BTW, one of my wife's classes contains four
students. My son is in an AP History class with seven. So there are some
small classes to compare.

The usual slam against home schoolers is that THEY are the
disfunctional, illiterate families and that home schooling
somehow damages their children. All the stats show is that
home schooling doesn't damage their children - at least not
academically. The only apparent damage done is to the
financial health and political power of public education.
THAT is what fires up the school boards and teachers' unions
- not the welfare of the children. (My opinion, of course.)

There's much more to it than that. The premises of public education date
back a little over a century. It was something that was necessary for the
public good.

Perhaps in your opinion, and in the majority's. But it was
just opinion, not fact. We need groceries, but there is no
reason to tax ourselves, set up free public grocery stores,
hire public grocery clerks and give away food to everyone
(while expecting those who want something different to
support the free public grocery stores while paying for
their own food). This is what we did about education, and
it is both expensive and ineffective. Education is a Good
Thing. Public education isn't the only way to get it.

Times have changed, and it's time to re-examine the premises.

The basic error in the model is the same as it always has
been.

But that's not what the argument is about. It's about an entrenched
bureaucracy in conflict with a philosophy of bitter, resentful malcontents.
There is no real argument, in other words, because they aren't honestly
addressing the same things. Neither does either side acknowledge or examine
the real premises of public education, nor their status in a changed world.

I don't know anything about these "bitter, resentful
malcontents," but they may exist. The entrenched public
education bureaucracy? Yes, they do seem to exist. (Where
I live, the entrenched public education bureaucracy just
tried to pass a bond election for obviously needed new
schools. They got their teeth figuratively kicked in by the
voters, so they are not quite as entrenched as they think
they are. We haven't heard much from them lately.) Perhaps
both groups are as you describe. From what I've seen of
modern day public education, people have every right to be
bitterly discontented about it. At least home schoolers are
doing something about it instead of just bitching, like I
do.

"Malcontent" and "discontent" mean just about exactly the
same thing, but one SOUNDS worse than the other. It's OK to
be a discontent, but not a malcontent.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

In article , Gunner says...

When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne

I see a post full of assumptions. Where are the test scores of those
children?

Gunner

That's the point - the home school stats look great because
you only see the ones that are success stories. I think
that unless you can figure out a way to include *all* the
kids who don't attend public school - and not just the showcase
kids - then any attempt to conclude that home-schooling is
best for *all* kids is doomed to failure.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

... If you say that *all* the kids should be home
schooled, you are ignoring the simple fact that most kids
would learn zero at home if you relied on only the parents
to do the instruction.

Id have to disagree with you. I know a number of poorly educated
parents who have home schooled their children, and the children have
excelled.

OK, disagreement noted - but my strong suspicion is that
because you know these folks, chances are they're not in
the median catagory - ie, not representative of what goes
on most times.

And don't forget, I'm *not* equating income level with the
ability to teach kids. I've seen a *lot* of stupid
rich folks. They're going to teach their kids to be a)
rich, and b) stupid. Just my guess.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

But they aren't the ones arguing the case, Gunner. Read your blogs. They're
full of bitter, resentful malcontents who hate public schooling

They don't hate public schooling.

They just hate paying for it.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:29:55 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:39:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..


Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest
thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.


Interesting. I see Ill have to start paying a bit more attention to
your spin on subjects and see just how high your bull**** factor is.

Again.

It won't be hard, Gunner. Unlike you, I check my sources and I check my
facts. It's a habit of mind, the exact opposite of the one that would let
you post five references in a single message from sources you don't know,
with no effort to corroborate them at all.

Ed Huntress


http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/policy/1996_2.HTM
http://www.mosaicaeducation.com/paradox.html
In 1973, 60% of Americans thought their children were getting a better
education than they had received, while 20% thought it was worse. By
1994, only 42% thought children were getting a better education, while
51% said it was worse.

Nationally, all teachers - public and private - are 50% more likely
than the general public to send their children to private schools. In
the inner cities, 35-40% of public school teachers send their children
to private schools, in contrast to a mere 13% of the general
population.

71% of Americans grade U.S. schools below "C" and 54% give their own
schools a low grade as well, according to a 1995 Gallup poll.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News December 1996 quarterly survey of
2,000 Americans reported that the top concern was improving public
education, cited by 57% of respondents (tied with reducing crime and
well ahead of such former front-runners as the federal deficit (40%)
or protecting the environment (26%)).

In terms of public elementary and secondary education, average real
expenditures per student have risen for more than a century, to $5,825
in 1993 (the last year for which data is available from the U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics),
and real aggregate spending levels have increased steadily at about
10% annually over the last 30 years, to $231.5 billion in 1993. In
addition, over $24 billion is spent annually on private schools.
Although funding per student and absolute spending is increasing, a
smaller percentage of those funds is reaching the classroom.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?...iew&record=315

September 12, 1997

Libertarian Party asks: Why is Congress sending its children to
private schools in record numbers?

WASHINGTON, DC -- Public schools: They're good enough for your kids --
but don't expect a Congressman to send his kids there.
That's what a new study from the Heritage Foundation reveals -- that
U.S. Senators are four times more likely than average Americans to
send their children to private school, and U.S. House members are
three times more likely.

"Congressmen get a failing grade when it comes to confidence in public
schools," said Steve Dasbach, the national chairman of the Libertarian
Party. "When they get a chance to vote with their children's
education, they vote against government-run schools."

The Heritage Foundation found that only 14% of Americans send their
children to private schools -- but a whopping 50% of U.S. Senators do
so, and 34.4% of U.S. House members. (The survey measured Congressmen
who responded, and who have school-age children.)

"Congress thinks government-run schools are a great idea for your kids
-- but not for theirs," said Dasbach. "For members of Congress, the
three R's of education are not reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic --
they're retreating, requiring, and rejecting...

"Congressmen are retreating to private schools, requiring us to pay
for a failing government-run school system -- and rejecting the notion
that they're hypocrites for doing so," he said.

Ironically, noted Dasbach, those Congressmen who know the most about
government-run schools avoid them most fervently. A full 40% of the
members of the House Education Committee send their children to
private schools.

"And no wonder. They're in a position to see exactly how bad
government-run schools really are," he said. "The message from these
Congressmen is: We like the public school system so much that we'll
tax you billions of dollars to pay for it; we'll pass laws to mandate
standardized national testing and curriculums; and we'll increase the
Department of Education's budget every year. But we don't like public
schools enough to send our children there."

snip

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas


Gunner has been busy LOL

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not
either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I
shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more
whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." -- Abe
Lincoln

"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
...

snip

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas


Gunner has been busy LOL

He's got them all set up as keyboard macros, Mike. We sometimes see the same
ones several times in a month. g

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost exclusively
are not.

Actually, my older stepson suffers from a severe learning disability.
The public schools couldn't help him, and, once he hit junior high
school, neither could the small private school where his parents had
placed him. He was home schooled for a while, then went to a public
high school which seemed to have a suitable program. He got good
grades, there.

He's in college now, still doing well.

Different people choose home schooling for different reasons.
Obviously, a religious fundamentalist is going to provide a different
schooling experience than my wife and her ex (both mathematicians).
They're also going to be looking for different school placements for
their kids after high school.

As to "the general population" you can regard the kids of
dysfuncational families as largely excluded, as they don't usually
bother with the college boards unless they have a good chance of doing
well.

Al Moore

On 14 Feb 2004 22:08:33 GMT, (Bray Haven) wrote:

based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

Then why bother to read them... and why bother to respond to them...?
Greg sefton

Because you never know who else is reading, and may be taken in by
them.

Al Moore

On 14 Feb 2004 12:57:15 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...

How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner, you cut me up :^)!

The real question is, how many of the kids would wind up
selling crack on the streets all day, if homeschooling were
required of *all* parents!

I don't think anyone is saying homeschooling should be required of
anyone. Homeschooling certainly isn't for everyone. I think the main
point of the issue is that when there is an absolute monopoly on
anything, quality suffers. The American auto industry during the 70's
and 80's for instance. It wasn't until Japan came in with some real
competition that quality went up. The school system as a monopoly has
no incentive to improve quality only, as was the automotive industry,
a motivation to get more profits. How do you get more profits in a
monopolistic system? Easy, lower quality or raise the cost, or both.
Who can complain? No one. It's a monopoly.

There's no quicker or more effective way to get the attention of a
bloated bureaucracy than some real competition (yes vouchers). It
makes them look bad, an they can't have that!

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:39:18 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:38:58 GMT, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:17:05 GMT, "Siggy"
wrote:

Sounds to me like they had parents who gave a damn, encouraged their child,
and set a level of expectation that they personally followed up on. I
suspect that THAT is the common thread between home schooled children who
excel and public school children who excel rather than one educational
system vs. another.

Robert

Exactly. I live in the boonies, and there are quite a few
home-schooled kids in the area. Any talk of them doing better as a
group than public-school kids is just nuts. And it's easy to see why
if you look at the reasons many of the boonie parents don't send their
youngns' to school - 1. won't, or can't afford to drive them 15 miles
one-way twice a day to meet the bus. 2. don't want them to associate
with non-fundies....ever. 3. didn't go to school themselves, so don't
see the need. sigh Given the circumstances and attitudes, overall
success rates are bound to be pitiful.

When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne

I see a post full of assumptions. Where are the test scores of those
children?


I don't know.... same place as the soap and water? If they aren't
bathed, then it isn't likely that they're getting much of an
education. If the parents aren't too bright, it's not likely that
they're going to be teaching much. If kids aren't socialized, it's
unlikely that they're well adjusted. If officials don't have a way to
know that home-schooled kids live in their district, it's unlikely
that the kids have been tested. If the parents meet visitors at the
gate with a rifle, it's unlikely they'd agree to have their kids
tested. But hey, those are all just assumptions, and I'm sure that
you're about to tell me that a guy with a two dozen beer a day habit
*could* be giving math lessons in his shack, and his kids are
*probably* better off than if they'd gone to gasp public school.

BTW, who are you and what did you do with that other gunner who's so
fond of the "walks like a duck...." homily?

Wayne

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:01:08 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On 14 Feb 2004 22:08:33 GMT, (Bray Haven) wrote:

based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

Then why bother to read them... and why bother to respond to them...?
Greg sefton

Because you never know who else is reading, and may be taken in by
them.

Al Moore

That's probably true of at least one person on Usenet. (Although
somebody is bound to disagree, citing the lack of cites.) But the
rest of us just like to argue. :-)

Wayne

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:18:30 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:40:04 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:12:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Steve........................................ ..." wrote
in message news97Xb.171110$U%5.801034@attbi_s03...

As for the swipe at home-schoolers, the dark truth that the government
education bureaucracy wants to bury is that home-school kids as a group
accomplish better measurable educational results in an average three hours
per day than government schools accomplish in seven.


Always some kind of conspiracy, it seems.........

You sure the "dark truth" is that *nothing* is being buried, and all those
Christians calling for home schooling arent just putting up a smoke screen
to cover their own failings ???

How about some cites ??? This is *your* claim, after all...........

http://www.ericfacility.net/database.../ed435709.html
http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/29home.h18
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issue...schooling.html

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Nice to see that all of my kids did better than the average home
schooled kid. God only knows how they would have done if home
schooled. Cringe.
Sue

Didnt you post at one time you had a teaching credential?

Yes, I did and I do. There is good reason why I didn't use it. g
Sue


Gunner



Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "


Gunner



"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...

There's much more to it than that. The premises of public education date
back a little over a century. It was something that was necessary for the
public good.

Perhaps in your opinion, and in the majority's. But it was
just opinion, not fact. We need groceries, but there is no
reason to tax ourselves, set up free public grocery stores,
hire public grocery clerks and give away food to everyone
(while expecting those who want something different to
support the free public grocery stores while paying for
their own food). This is what we did about education, and
it is both expensive and ineffective. Education is a Good
Thing. Public education isn't the only way to get it.

The evidence is, it wasn't happening until we set up public education.
Ignorant people tend to think that what was good enough for them is good
enough for their kids. So we had millions of ignorant kids, who had ignorant
kids, etc.

It took a major social movement for free public education to take away from
parents their right to keep their kids ignorant, narrow-minded, and too
intellectually impoverished to govern themselves responsibly. What a loss,
eh?

Times have changed, and it's time to re-examine the premises.

The basic error in the model is the same as it always has
been.

And its basic virtue is the same as it's ever been. Without free public
education, we would be a nation of serfs.

The argument against free public education always has an element of
Spencerian Social Darwinism about it, which is an elitist philosophy that
basically relegates the poor to a doomed life. It was the most widespread
argument against free public education, popularized in the mid- and
late-19th century.

The trouble with public education today is that it is based a cumbersome and
antiquated structure of organization. But no alternative that diminishes or
demeans public education quite escapes the Spencerian nightmare. People at
the bottom wind up getting screwed, and we all suffer for it. There are
plenty of anecdotal examples of how things might be with a more
"competitive" education structure, but there is nothing in the anecdotes to
indicate the larger social consequences of withdrawing support from public
education on a larger scale.


But that's not what the argument is about. It's about an entrenched
bureaucracy in conflict with a philosophy of bitter, resentful
malcontents.
There is no real argument, in other words, because they aren't honestly
addressing the same things. Neither does either side acknowledge or
examine
the real premises of public education, nor their status in a changed
world.

I don't know anything about these "bitter, resentful
malcontents," but they may exist.

You ought to spend some time at board of ed. meetings, in towns where the
right-wing element is particularly vociferous. The air smells like burning
brimstone. g Around eight years ago I got an education in this when I
visited other towns' Bd of Ed meetings to make a report to my town's Bd of
Ed. Mama mia. Some of those people are unbelievable. They want the cheapest
education the state will let them get away with, and they'll tear the throat
out of anybody who tries to stop them. g

The entrenched public
education bureaucracy? Yes, they do seem to exist. (Where
I live, the entrenched public education bureaucracy just
tried to pass a bond election for obviously needed new
schools. They got their teeth figuratively kicked in by the
voters, so they are not quite as entrenched as they think
they are. We haven't heard much from them lately.)

I live in a town of 14,000 that passed a $23 million bond issue a few years
ago. We have some of the best-performing students around. I was deeply
involved in those things at the time, and I can tell which towns are on the
way up, and which are on the way down, by the way they handle school budgets
and capital-improvement referendums. It's an amazingly uniform pattern.

Oh, BTW, our real-estate values outperform the entire county around us. It's
because people clamor to come here for the schools. We pass some juicy
education referendums, and it shows.

Perhaps
both groups are as you describe. From what I've seen of
modern day public education, people have every right to be
bitterly discontented about it. At least home schoolers are
doing something about it instead of just bitching, like I
do.

"Malcontent" and "discontent" mean just about exactly the
same thing, but one SOUNDS worse than the other. It's OK to
be a discontent, but not a malcontent.

Yes, a malcontent usually is thought of as an all-purpose grumbler, who
finds fault with everything. It is Ok to be discontented. But a malcontent
is just a pain in the butt. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On 14 Feb 2004 07:16:01 -0800, (William) brought
forth from the murky depths:

I heard a comment from a rep of a private college, which matriculates a lot
of home-schoolers. Seems that Home Schooled kids do well in every j\subject
but one, which varies from family to family. (Meaning, the home schooled child
is most likely weak in the subject their parents are weak in: math, history,
cybernetics, etc.)


How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner

Hey! No Fair!!!

Public school teachers really aren't required to know actual subjects.
They concentrate in "education" theory and union dues. That might
explain a lot.

They do too teach. They teach diversity, self-esteem,
political correctness, and a whole lot of other very
necessary things to thekids who can't find the USA on
a map by the 8th grade...

LJ- whose niece was home schooled, did well, was able to
skip 2 grades, now taking pre-med classes at U.C. Itsa,
oops, Santa Cruz.


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:29:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
said:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families
are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost
exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics

Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

As in the case above. That one is self-evident. The people who home-school
their kids have enough going for them that one family member is capable and
can take the time. Kids from poor single-parent families don't have that
luxury, and they do correspondlingly badly in school. Those cites are all
over Christendom.

Ed Huntress


Here's one.
The owner of this yahoogroup:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a-survivalist
Her name is Denice and she is a single stay at home mother of 4 girls
who lives on close to $900 a month in child support with very little
state aid and she homeschools.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:41:33 -0500, North said:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:29:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
said:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families
are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost
exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics

Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed accordingly.

As in the case above. That one is self-evident. The people who home-school
their kids have enough going for them that one family member is capable and
can take the time. Kids from poor single-parent families don't have that
luxury, and they do correspondlingly badly in school. Those cites are all
over Christendom.

Ed Huntress


Here's one.
The owner of this yahoogroup:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a-survivalist
Her name is Denice and she is a single stay at home mother of 4 girls
who lives on close to $900 a month in child support with very little
state aid and she homeschools.

BTW, Gunner, you know her too, from Bax's group.

"North" wrote in message
...

Here's one.
The owner of this yahoogroup:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a-survivalist
Her name is Denice and she is a single stay at home mother of 4 girls
who lives on close to $900 a month in child support with very little
state aid and she homeschools.



A single stay-at-home mother living on child support...who homeschools...now
*there's* a model for a successful, productive society, eh?

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:47:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
said:

"North" wrote in message
.. .

Here's one.
The owner of this yahoogroup:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a-survivalist
Her name is Denice and she is a single stay at home mother of 4 girls
who lives on close to $900 a month in child support with very little
state aid and she homeschools.



A single stay-at-home mother living on child support...who homeschools...now
*there's* a model for a successful, productive society, eh?

Ed Huntress

Hey Man,
Please don't trash her. I know her personally and she is a fine
upstanding woman who happens to be poor. The schools where she lives
suck and she has taken it upon herself to give her kids a decent
education. Her kids are testing way above the national adverage.
I for one admire her. Not many people can handle all the work involved
in raising a family with little money and all the work that goes along
with homeschooling.

You asked for an example of a poor single parent that is succesfully
homeschooling their kids, I gave you a real life example. Feel free to
check out her group, get her email addy, and ask her yourself how she
manages to do it.

North.

In article , John Flanagan says...

I don't think anyone is saying homeschooling should be required of
anyone.

Are they, John? I think I understand you cogent argument
in favor of reasonable competition for 'eductation as
we know it now' but somehow I always come away from this
discussion (one which has gone on here many many times
in the past) with a sneaky suspicion.

Seems like the folks who push home schooling also invariably
push vouchers. I would take the homeschool types a great
deal more seriously if they said, 'look, we're more than
happy to contribute to the public education, but we feel
like we want to do better for our kids ourselves.'

I do know several individuals who are homeschooling their
kids, and in NJ and NY there are many many hurdles to
leap before this can be done. I have very short patience
with a government that prevents parents from doing this,
because it says they are running scared of the concept.

But when homeschoolers immediately jump on the voucher
bandwagon then it spoils the effect - basically it seems
like all they want to do is shirk paying taxes. And
if everyone is allowed to opt-out of school taxes, then
we get back to your original comment: in that case,
everyone *will* be required to home-school.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:03:43 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:39:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


Can you find any better cites?

I don't know. I haven't tried, nor am I likely to bother.

If I wasted my time researching every load of bull**** you post here,
Gunner, I wouldn't have time to take a ****. As I've said, the safest
thing,
based on a few statistical samples of things I have checked, is to
assume
that every quote of yours is complete bull**** and proceed
accordingly.


Interesting. I see Ill have to start paying a bit more attention to
your spin on subjects and see just how high your bull**** factor is.

Again.

Here's a perfect example. Just two messages ago, you said:

Is this why most teachers and politicians send their children to
private schools? Because they are bitter resentful malcontents?

Now you've quoted a pile of stuff, the last part of which addresses the
politicians issue.

If you check your figures, you'll see that your citations claim that
Congressmen and Senators, together, send 37% of their kids to private
schools [(435 * 0.344 + 100 * 0.50)/535], while you said "more than half."
As for the teachers, your citation is only about inner-city teachers, and
that number, too, is less than half. And the Heritage Foundation makes no
attempt, at least in this quote, to compare the figures for those two groups
with those of comparable-income families.

Correct. I was wrong. Only 37 % of our elected pols send their kids to
private school. What is the public figure? 1%.?
As to the inner city teachers..they are the ones handling the largest
percentage of single parent, or or troubled damaged kids are they
not?

The more money people make, the more they're willing to pay for advantages
for their kids. I don't know of a single public-school teacher who would
claim that a public-school education is as good as a good private-school
education. But a *good* private school costs a lot more than public schools,
unless the school is a religious one that squeezes every penny, that
underpays its teachers, and that doesn't have to account for much of its
capital costs because they come from church contributions.

So it's a meaningless crock, as much Heritage Foundation "data" is a crock.

Why would you say Heritage Foundation data is a crock? Why is their
data no good? Please amplify.

Gunner



"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:51:42 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


Post something and lets look at it.


Not my place, Gunner.

An individual made a claim, I asked for cites..........you stepped in
with
sites that were later debunked.

No, not debunked.

Perhaps not debunked, it just did not support the original claim.

A question was asked about them, that Im unable to answer, but I still
think the general tone of the results is correct. Ive seen various
stats given about Homeschooling versus public school education, and
the public schools used were upscale, "state of the art" schools in
areas not rampant with poverty and low income single parent familys
that produced similar results. I will have to hunt for and find them.


Which goes to show, all too often those with an agenda tend to
surrepticiously be comparing apples to oranges when the claims and
statistics are more closely examined.


While there is little doubt a devoted parent can often do quite well at
home-schooling, there is an separate demographic segment engaged in the
practice, these are the kids who do poorly enough in school the parents
are
forced to remove them from the system for their safety and to avoid legal
troubles with the authorities, due to truancy and like problems.

Wow..which schools are those? Its been my experience the little
*******s are simply put in "special ed" classes and promoted
regardless of their competence.


This was the Evergreeen School District, Clark County, Wa.

Specifically, the problem we had was the kids recieving marginal grades, and
then my daughter took to skipping classes on a regular basis.

Our biggest issue was safety, we could not have her at 15 years old
wandering over and sitting in coffee shops and that kind of thing.

We have laws in place here where parents are held accountable for their
children's attendance, if something is not done you will eventually find
yourself in front of a judge.


These children are simply not currently being included in the samplings
and
tests as far as I know.


Please note, much of my opinion on home schooling is in fact based on
personal experience, (we home schooled two of our own children for
several
years) and also upon the experience of others whom are friends or
relatives,
none of which ended up with students that excelled in any spectacular way
as
a direct result of their home schooling.


Did the experience harm them in any way? Were they as exposed to rape,
murder, MTV peer pressure etc etc as the public school children are?


The environment was little changed, except the peer pressure was dissolved.
Right about that age peer pressure is very influential on some kids, we all
likely realize this if we have raised kids past that age. In our case, it
worked out fairly well.

Our daughter completed high school and is now a 4.0 student at our local
communuty college, studying accounting.

Our son never finished with high school or even aquired a ged, yet is
steadily employed in the computer field--administers internet activitys and
inventory software systems and the like for a number of companys as diverse
as tire sales, ambulance companys and retirement homes.

Our youngest son has never been much of a problem with school, he is a year
early in college, at 17 years old and is doing very well............

He has been in public schooling all his life.g


Rather, I have a cousin who is a devout Christian, and for many years,
the
family took in foster children, she raised 12 kids in all, as I
recall.......

Several of them are in and out of jail frequently, and none of them to my
knowledge are in a field earning much over minimum wage, with exception
of
their oldest boy ( not a foster kid ) who is a Journeyman
Electrician..........

Ok. This means what?


Heh........you are always looking for meaning, even where there very well
might be none........G

Well, I might get in trouble for this, but I suppose maybe diversity in
genetics and random events might play a much bigger role in all this than
most of us care to admit. g

It certainly wasnt for lack of conviction and effort on the part of my
cousin those kids turned out to be mediocre achievers or even downright
failures, and so we are now left wondering what might have happened had they
gone to public schools instead, aren't we ???

--

SVL

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:17:57 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT did not prevent
Gunner
from posting to misc.survivalism the following:

"People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits.
Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling
associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested
homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two
Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home
schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general
population."

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile
points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test,
the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been
educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose
parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the
children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). "

I heard a comment from a rep of a private college, which matriculates a
lot
of home-schoolers. Seems that Home Schooled kids do well in every
j\subject
but one, which varies from family to family. (Meaning, the home schooled
child
is most likely weak in the subject their parents are weak in: math,
history,
cybernetics, etc.)


How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner


Obviously since they score lower in the overall test, they are weaker in all
of them. The fact is that the school systems in the United States have
their way of teaching. They won't change the way they teach either, even
though time and time again they have been shown that it is an inferior
approach.

In 1969, 1970, and 1971 I was involved in a grant study on improving the
way teachers teach eight grade English. The study was done at an 80%
African American school. This study went by the name of TelEng. A pre-
testing was done and it showed the average increase in English knowledge and
skill of the average eight grade English student was a negative improvement
using standard teaching techniques. A different program using videos,
delivering the same curriculum in an entertaining manor, and with an adult
to
student ratio of no more than 15 to 1 was able to consistently deliver a
full year and one half of progress in the knowledge and skills of students.
The keys to the success were both consistent quality of the material
delivery along with the adult supervision of follow up work.

Now I say adult supervision, not Teacher supervision. There were two
Certified Instructional Aide's (IA) and one Credentialed teacher in the
class of 45. A Certified IA makes only half again as much as minimum wage.
So this study was sent in and promptly buried. Both concepts that the
material could be delivered consistently with entertainment value, and that
a learning system that involved less Credentialed Teachers could not be
allowed to go on. This was with the San Diego City School system, in
O'Farrell Jr. High, South East San Diego for those that want to research it.

The environment of the school was that we had 3 rapes (one of which was done
to a teacher), several race riots, and a sniper was shooting at cars along
the drive to school. (Harsh to say the least.) And we still did better
than any other school in the tests.

Home schooling is in the same situation as the TelEng concept with the
exception they can't seem to kill it.

By the way, I am a Credentialed Teacher in Industrial and Machine related
Arts for grades 19 and 20 now and was a Certified IA back then working with
the Teachers to develop and record the core course material.

On 14 Feb 2004 15:36:44 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

But they aren't the ones arguing the case, Gunner. Read your blogs. They're
full of bitter, resentful malcontents who hate public schooling

They don't hate public schooling.

They just hate paying for it.

Jim

They just hate paying for shoddy and worthless goods. Most of those
good folks have complained and bitched for years about the declining
quality of education coupled to rising costs. This is the reason the
voucher systems came into play along with home schooling. The folks
got tired of fighting the various NEA clones and entrenched school
adminisitrations who believe tenure and Taj Mahal edifices are more
important than a quality education.

Can you honestly say schools today are better than those you went to?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas