On Apr 4, 12:43*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.

Ed Huntress
I do not think it makes any difference.

I do. Wanna' fight? g

Whatever. But you are not likely to change my mind. So what's the
point?




Meantime, based on the data, it takes 22 times as many teachers to teach a
given group of home-schooled students as to teach a given group of
publically educated students. That's pretty ****-poor productivity.


As far as I can tell public schools do not have productivity as a
goal.




Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
doing it for their parents.

Pure speculation on your part.

Absolutely, but certainly very likely. I doubt that most kids love
their teachers more than their parents.


They would not be as motivated to work as
hard for a teacher, even if it was a one on one situation.

See above.

Dan

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 00:43:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 7:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.

Ed Huntress

I do not think it makes any difference.

I do. Wanna' fight? g

The reason home schooling
gets such good results is not so much the one on one teaching. It is
because the average home schooled student comes from a family of above
average education who place a high value on getting a good education.

That's correct. Once you norm for educational achievement level of the
parents, all apparent advantages disappear.

In other words, it's not the home schooling, it's a matter of choosing your
parents wisely.

Meantime, based on the data, it takes 22 times as many teachers to teach a
given group of home-schooled students as to teach a given group of
publically educated students. That's pretty ****-poor productivity.

So the kids would do better than average even if they were in public
schools.

Right.

Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
doing it for their parents.

Pure speculation on your part.

If you research the ERIC database, or the journals, you'll find hundreds of
studies and academic articles about homeschooling. Look in there. You might
find something that's studied it.

They would not be as motivated to work as
hard for a teacher, even if it was a one on one situation.

See above.


Dan

I live on a boat in Phuket, Thailand, for much of the year and I see
quite a few kids cruising with their parents being "home-schooled".
The major difference I see, and I admit it is very possible that I
don't see it all, is that the kids learn all the answers. If Mom is
teaching and the lesson is to be able to name all the state capitals
in the U.S. then Sunny Jim doesn't get to go swimming until he can do
it.. No 90% correct, he's gotta name them all.

Now, problem solving may be a totally different story as, to be frank,
Mom and Pop may not be the most logical problem solvers and it is
probably difficult, or improbable, that they will be capable of
teaching the kids to research all of the possibilities and select the
most likely option, as they ands their friends don't do it.

Geography? Well the kids know where all the countries bordered by the
sea, on the route that they have taken but likely very little of the
history, economics, or language and customs of the various countries.

In short, home schooling as I've seen it is adequate and likely as
good as U.S. Public schools but is certainly not outstanding nor earth
moving.

Cheers,

John D.
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:05:43 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:07:33 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
That would, however, require the American public
to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their own shadow. That isn't
practical with all of the hype from every possible direction so it
will require that our politicians display a little courage, possibly
by falling on their own swords for the greater good.
snip
============
Even here there is no [quasi] logic applied. With the serious
problems of illegal immigration, drugs, and now narco-violence
spilling over our souther borders, why do we have troops
stationed everywhere in the world *EXCEPT* along the southern
border?

That's easy George.
The Latin gangs terrorizing places like Phoenix aren't wearing diapers on
their heads.
4th ID would be patrolling the streets from Mexico City north to the border
today if they did.

I still think my idea to parachute 10,000 naked menopausal Irish women each
with a bottle of single malt into Iraq and Afgahanistan is a winner. They'd
give a drunken Irish ass woopin' to anyone that didn't gouge out their eyes
and that would be the end of that.


I suppose that begs the question of what ARE you doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan? Or perhaps Why? And even more so, what do you hope to
accomplish?

Iraq I was relatively easy to assess, but Iraq II? Afghanistan?

Cheers,

John D.
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:04:10 +0700, John
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:05:43 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:07:33 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
That would, however, require the American public
to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their own shadow. That isn't
practical with all of the hype from every possible direction so it
will require that our politicians display a little courage, possibly
by falling on their own swords for the greater good.
snip
============
Even here there is no [quasi] logic applied. With the serious
problems of illegal immigration, drugs, and now narco-violence
spilling over our souther borders, why do we have troops
stationed everywhere in the world *EXCEPT* along the southern
border?

That's easy George.
The Latin gangs terrorizing places like Phoenix aren't wearing diapers on
their heads.
4th ID would be patrolling the streets from Mexico City north to the border
today if they did.

I still think my idea to parachute 10,000 naked menopausal Irish women each
with a bottle of single malt into Iraq and Afgahanistan is a winner. They'd
give a drunken Irish ass woopin' to anyone that didn't gouge out their eyes
and that would be the end of that.


I suppose that begs the question of what ARE you doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan? Or perhaps Why? And even more so, what do you hope to
accomplish?

Iraq I was relatively easy to assess, but Iraq II? Afghanistan?

Cheers,

John D.
(jdslocombatgmail)
================

There appears to be several parallel and overlapping rationales,
none of which appear to be particularly convincing to an outside
observer (or the general public). In no particular order:

(1) These "adventures" busy the giddy minds with foreign
quarrels, diverting attention from critical agenda items such as
meaningful financial [re]regulation and immigration reform;

(2) The sunk cost fallacy [Grandma called this "sending good
money after bad"] -- we have invested so much we must see it
through;

(3) "Cheap" oil [well head price only] in the case of Iraq,
mineral wealth and right-of-way for railroads, pipe lines and
considerable mineral wealth in the case of Afghanistan;

(4) Residual "Crusader" mentality, combined in many cases with
concern for the security of Israel at the expense of long-term
best interests of the American people;

(5) Psychopathic overly aggressive personalities, only a few of
which are in the military but infest the civilian branches, e.g.
BATF;

(6) Short-term economic factors such as economic stimulation and
diversion of manpower from the [un]employment pool.

(7) War profiteering, with huge political campaign contributions
to candidates from both parties from the profiteers.

It should be noted that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
likely future wars in Columbia, Venezuela, and Iran are all the
products of the gutless US Congress that refuses to include even
the most elementary precautions such as making the majority of
authorizations/appropriations bills non fungible, i.e. dedicated
to specific activities and acquisitions, which cannot be used for
anything else, if possible under individual criminal as well as
civil sanctions.

Another helpful step would be absolute [decreasing] limits on the
numbers of U.S. troops deployed or temporarily assigned [TDY] by
countries, which would require a Congressional Declaration of War
[NO B/S CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTIONS] to override, e.g.

country marine military Other
embassy attaches
guards
Afghanistan 100 3* 5
Albania 50 1 3
Algeria 75 3* 5
Andorra 25 1 2
....
Zaire 50 1 5
Zambia 50 1 5
Zimbabwe 50 1 5

* representatives of the Army, Navy and Air Force


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:13 +0700, John wrote:

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 00:43:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 7:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.

Ed Huntress

I do not think it makes any difference.

I do. Wanna' fight? g

The reason home schooling
gets such good results is not so much the one on one teaching. It is
because the average home schooled student comes from a family of above
average education who place a high value on getting a good education.

That's correct. Once you norm for educational achievement level of the
parents, all apparent advantages disappear.

In other words, it's not the home schooling, it's a matter of choosing your
parents wisely.

Meantime, based on the data, it takes 22 times as many teachers to teach a
given group of home-schooled students as to teach a given group of
publically educated students. That's pretty ****-poor productivity.

So the kids would do better than average even if they were in public
schools.

Right.

Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
doing it for their parents.

Pure speculation on your part.

If you research the ERIC database, or the journals, you'll find hundreds of
studies and academic articles about homeschooling. Look in there. You might
find something that's studied it.

They would not be as motivated to work as
hard for a teacher, even if it was a one on one situation.

See above.


Dan

I live on a boat in Phuket, Thailand, for much of the year and I see
quite a few kids cruising with their parents being "home-schooled".
The major difference I see, and I admit it is very possible that I
don't see it all, is that the kids learn all the answers. If Mom is
teaching and the lesson is to be able to name all the state capitals
in the U.S. then Sunny Jim doesn't get to go swimming until he can do
it.. No 90% correct, he's gotta name them all.

Now, problem solving may be a totally different story as, to be frank,
Mom and Pop may not be the most logical problem solvers and it is
probably difficult, or improbable, that they will be capable of
teaching the kids to research all of the possibilities and select the
most likely option, as they ands their friends don't do it.

Geography? Well the kids know where all the countries bordered by the
sea, on the route that they have taken but likely very little of the
history, economics, or language and customs of the various countries.

In short, home schooling as I've seen it is adequate and likely as
good as U.S. Public schools but is certainly not outstanding nor earth
moving.

Cheers,

John D.
(jdslocombatgmail)


http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp


.. Independent Evaluations of Homeschooling

1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was
released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers
Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the
average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to
37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when
analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers
who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than
students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new
homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile
compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored
between 86th and 92nd percentile. i

This was confirmed in another study by Dr. Lawrence Rudner of 20,760
homeschooled students which found the homeschoolers who have
homeschooled all their school aged years had the highest academic
achievement. This was especially apparent in the higher grades. ii This
is a good encouragement to families catch the long-range vision and
homeschool through high school.

Another important finding of Strengths of Their Own was that the race of
the student does not make any difference. There was no significant
difference between minority and white homeschooled students. For
example, in grades K-12, both white and minority students scored, on the
average, in the 87th percentile. In math, whites scored in the 82nd
percentile while minorities scored in the 77th percentile. In the public
schools, however, there is a sharp contrast. White public school eighth
grade students, nationally scored the 58th percentile in math and the
57th percentile in reading. Black eighth grade students, on the other
hand, scored on the average at the 24th percentile in math and the 28th
percentile in reading. Hispanics scored at the 29th percentile in math
and the 28th percentile in reading. iii

These findings show that when parents, regardless of race, commit
themselves to make the necessary sacrifices and tutor their children at
home, almost all obstacles present in other school systems disappear.

Another obstacle that seems to be overcome in homeschooling is the need
to spend a great deal of money in order to have a good education. In
Strengths of Their Own, Dr. Ray found the average cost per homeschool
student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is
$5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th
percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th
percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests.iv

Similarly, the 1998 study by Dr. Rudner of 20,760 students, found that
eighth grade students whose parents spend $199 or less on their home
education score, on the average, in the 80th percentile. Eighth grade
students whose parents spend $400 to $599 on their home education also
score on the average, in the 80th percentile! Once the parents spend
over $600, the students do slightly better, scoring in the 83rd
percentile.v

The message is loud and clear. More money does not mean a better
education. There is no positive correlation between money spent on
education and student performance. Public school advocates could refocus
their emphasis if they learned this lesson. Loving and caring parents
are what matters. Money can never replace simple, hard work.

The last significant statistic from the Strengths of Their Own study
regards the affect of government regulation on homeschooling. Dr. Brian
Ray compared the impact of government regulation on the academic
performance of homeschool students and he found no positive correlation.
In other words, whether a state had a high degree of regulation (i.e.,
curriculum approval, teacher qualifications, testing, home visits) or a
state had no regulation of homeschoolers, the homeschooled students in
both categories of states performed the same. The students all scored on
the average in the 86th percentile regardless of state regulation.vi

Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left
alone.

2. In a study released by the National Center for Home Education on
November 10, 1994. According to these standardized test results provided
by the Riverside Publishing Company of 16,311 homeschoolers from all 50
states K-12, the nationwide average for homeschool students is at the
77th percentile of the basic battery of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
In reading, the homeschoolers' nationwide grand mean is the 79th
percentile. This means, of course, that the homeschool students perform
better in reading than 79 percent of the same population on whom the
test is normed. In the area of language arts and math, the typical
homeschooler scored in the 73rd percentile.

These 16,311 homeschool students' scores were not self-selected by
parents or anyone else. They represent all the homeschoolers whose tests
were scored through the Riverside Publishing Company. It is important to
note that this summary of homeschool achievement test scores
demonstrates that 54.7% of the students in grades K-12 are achieving
individual scores in the top quarter of the population of students in
the United States. This figure is more than double the number of
conventional school students who score in the top quarter.vii

3. In 1991, a survey of standardized test scores was performed by the
Home School Legal Defense Association in cooperation with the
Psychological Corporation, which publishes the Stanford Achievement
Test. The study involved the administering of the Stanford Achievement
Test (8th Edition, Form J) to 5,124 homeschooled students. These
students represented all 50 states and their grades ranged from K-12.
This testing was administered in Spring 1991 under controlled test
conditions in accordance with the test publisher's standards. All test
administers were screened, trained, and approved pursuant to the
publisher's requirements. All tests were machine-scored by the
Psychological Corporation.

These 5,124 homeschoolers' composite scores on the basic battery of
tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile
points above public school averages. For instance, 692 homeschooled 4th
graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile
in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade
homeschoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading,
the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.

The homeschooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the
trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the
public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred
and eighteen tenth-grade homeschool students, as a group, made an
average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in
math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.

4. The Bob Jones University Testing Service of South Carolina provided
test results of Montana homeschoolers. Also a survey of homeschoolers in
Montana was conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute.
Dr. Brian Ray evaluated the survey and test results and found:

On average, the home education students in this study scored above the
national norm in all subject areas on standardized achievement tests.
These students scored, on average, at the 72nd percentile in terms of a
combination of their reading, language, and math performance. This is
well above the national average. viii

5. In North Dakota, Dr. Brian Ray conducted a survey of 205
homeschoolers throughout the state. The middle reading score was the
84th percentile, language was the 81st percentile, science was the 87th
percentile, social studies was the 86th percentile, and math was the
81st percentile.

Further, Dr. Ray found no significant statistical differences in
academic achievement between those students taught by parents with less
formal education and those students taught by parents with higher formal
education.

6. In South Carolina, the National Center for Home Education did a
survey of 65 homeschool students and found that the average scores on
the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills were 30 percentile points higher
than national public school averages. In math, 92 percent of the
homeschool students scored above grade level, and 93 percent of the
homeschool students were at or above grade level in reading. These
scores are "being achieved in a state where public school SAT scores are
next-to-last in national rankings." ix

7. In 1990, the National Home Education Research Institute issued a
report entitled "A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family
Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement." This was a
study of over 2,163 homeschooling families.

The study found that the average scores of the homeschool students were
at or above the 80th percentile in all categories. The homeschoolers'
national percentile mean was 84th for reading, 80th for language, 81st
for math, 84th for science and 83rd for social studies.

The research revealed that there was no positive correlation between
state regulation of homeschools and the home-schooled students'
performance. The study compared homeschoolers in three groups of states
representing various levels of regulation. Group 1 represented the most
restrictive states such as Michigan; Group 2 represented slightly less
restrictive states including North Dakota; and Group 3 represented
unregulated states such as Texas and California. The Institute
concluded:

...no difference was found in the achievement scores of students
between the three groups which represent various degrees of state
regulation of home education.... It was found that students in all three
regulation groups scored on the average at or above the 76th percentile
in the three areas examined: total reading, total math, and total
language. These findings in conjunction with others described in this
section, do not support the idea that state regulation and compliance on
the part of home education families assures successful student
achievement. x

Furthermore, this same study demonstrated that only 13.9 percent of the
mothers (who are the primary teachers) had ever been certified teachers.
The study found that there was no difference in the students' total
reading, total math and total language scores based on the teacher
certification status of their parents:

The findings of this study do not support the idea that parents need to
be trained and certified teachers to assure successful academic
achievement of their children. xi

8. In Pennsylvania, 171 homeschooled students took the CTBS standardized
achievement test. The tests were all administered in group settings by
Pennsylvania certified teachers. The middle reading score was the 89th
percentile and the middle math score was the 72nd percentile. The middle
science score was the 87th percentile and the middle social studies
score was the 81st percentile. A survey conducted of all these
homeschool families who participated in this testing found that the
average student spent only 16 hours per week in formal schooling (i.e.,
structured lessons that were preplanned by either the parent or a
provider of educational materials). xii

9. In West Virginia, over 400 hundred homeschool students, grades K-12,
were tested with the Stanford Achievement test at the end of the 1989-90
school year. The Psychological Corporation scored the children together
as one school. The results found that the typical homeschooled students
in eight of these grade levels scored in the "somewhat above average"
range (61st to 73rd average percentile), compared to the performance of
students in the same grade from across the country. Two grade levels
scored in the "above average" range (80th to 85th average percentile)
and three grade levels scored in the "about average range" (54th to 59th
average percentile). xiii

10. In Washington state, a survey of the standardized test results of
2,018 homeschooled students over a period of three years found that the
median cell each year varied from the 65th percentile to the 68th
percentile on national norms. The Washington Home School Research
Project concluded that "as a group, these homeschoolers are doing well."
xiv

11. Dr. Brian Ray, president of the Home Education Research Institute,
reviewed over 65 studies concerning home education. He found that
homeschoolers were performing at average or above average on test
levels. xv

12. In 1986, researcher Lauri Scogin surveyed 591 homeschooled children
and discovered that 72.61% of the homeschooled children scored one year
or more above their grade level in reading. 49.79% scored one year or
more above their grade level in math. xvi

1. In 1982, Dr. Raymond Moore studied several thousand
homeschooled children throughout the United States. His research found
that these children have been performing, on the average, in the 75th to
the 95th percentile on Stanford and Iowa Achievement Tests.
Additionally, Dr. Moore did a study of homeschooled children whose
parents were being criminally charged for exercising their right to
teach their own children. He found that the children scored on the
average in the 80th percentile. xvii

13. Statistics also demonstrate that homeschoolers tend to score above
the national average on both their SAT and ACT scores.

For example, the 2,219 students reporting their homeschool status on the
SAT in 1999 scored an average of 1083 (verbal 548, math 535), 67 points
above the national average of 1016. In 2004 the 7,858 homeschool
students taking the ACT scored an average of 22.6, compared to the
national average of 20.9.

According to the 1998 ACT High School Profile Report, 2,610 graduating
homeschoolers took the ACT and scored an average of 22.8 out of a
possible 36 points. This score is slightly higher that the 1997 report
released on the results of 1,926 homeschool graduates and founding
homeschoolers maintained the average of 22.5. This is higher than the
national average, which was 21.0 in both 1997 and 1998. xviii

II. State Department of Education Statistics on Homeschoolers

Several state departments of education or local school districts have
also gathered statistics on the academic progress of homeschooled
children.

Tennessee
In the spring of 1987, the Tennessee Department of Education found that
homeschooled children in 2nd grade, on the average, scored in the 93rd
percentile while their public school counterparts, on the average,
scored in the 62nd percentile on the Stanford Achievement Test.
Homeschool children in third grade scored, on the average, in the 90th
percentile in reading on another standardized test, and the public
school students scored in the 78 percentile. In math, the third grade
homeschooled children scored, on the average, in the 87th percentile,
while their public school counterparts scored in the 80th percentile. In
eighth grade, the homeschooled students scored, on the average, in the
87th percentile in reading and in 71st percentile in math while their
public school counterparts scored in the 75th percentile in reading and
the 69th percentile in math. xix

Alaska and Oregon
Similarly, in 1986, the State Department of Education in Alaska which
had surveyed homeschooled children's test results every other year since
1981, found homeschooled children to be scoring approximately 16
percentage points higher, on the average, than the children of the same
grades in conventional schools. In Oregon, the State Department of
Education compiled test score statistics for 1,658 homeschooled children
in 1988 and found that 51 percent of the children scored above the 71st
percentile and 73 percent scored above the 51st percentile.

North Carolina
In North Carolina, the Division of Non-Public Education compiled test
results of 2,144 homeschool students in grades K-12. Of the 1,061
homeschool students taking the California Achievement Test, they scored,
on the average, at the 73rd percentile on the total battery of tests:
80th percentile in reading, 72nd percentile in language, and the 71st
percentile in math.

The 755 homeschool students who took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
scored at the 80th percentile in the total battery of tests: 81st
percentile in reading, 77th percentile in language, and 77th percentile
in math. The remaining students who took the Stanford scored, on the
average, in the 73rd percentile in the whole battery. xx

Arkansas
In Arkansas, for the 1987-88 school term, homeschool children, on the
average, scored in 75% on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 6. They
out-scored public school children in every subject (Reading, Math,
Language, Science, and Social Studies) and at every grade level. For
example, at the 10th grade level public school children scored an
average of 53rd percentile in social studies, while homeschool children
scored at the 73rd percentile. In science, an area in which
homeschoolers are often criticized for lack of facilities, the
homeschoolers scored, on the average, 85th percentile in fourth grade,
73rd percentile in seventh grade, and 65th percentile in tenth grade.
The public school students, on the other hand, scored much lower in
science: 66th percentile in fourth grade, 62nd percentile in seventh,
and 53rd percentile in tenth. xxi

Arizona
According to the Arizona State Department of Education, 1,123
homeschooled children in grades 1-9, on the average, scored above grade
level in reading, language arts, and math on standardized tests for the
1988-89 school year. Four grades tested were a full grade level ahead.
xxii

Nebraska
In Nebraska, out of 259 homeschooled children who returned to public or
non-public schools, 134 of them were automatically placed in their grade
level according to their age without testing. Of the remaining who were
given entrance tests, 33 were above grade level, 43 were at grade level,
and 29 were below grade level. Approximately 88 percent of the returning
students were at or above grade level after being homeschooled for a
period of time. This survey was the result of the responses of 429
accredited schools. xxiii

III. Local School District Statistics on Homeschooling

1. In 1988, 30 homeschooled children in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
participated in the state-mandated testing program (Comprehensive Test
of Basic Skills) and scored on the average in the 83rd percentile for
3rd grade, the 85th percentile for 5th grade, and the 89th percentile
for 8th grade. This group of homeschoolers scored 20 to 25 percentile
points higher than the local public school students taking the CTBS in
1987. xxiv

2. In a 1980 study in Los Angeles, homeschooled students scored higher
on standardized tests than children in the Los Angeles public schools.
xxv

3. In South Carolina, the Greenville County School District stated,
"Kids taught at home last year outscored those in public schools on
basic skills tests." In that county, 57 out of 61 homeschooled students
"met or exceeded the state's minimum performance standard on the reading
test" of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. The homeschool
students' passing rate was 93.4 while the public school counterparts
passing rate was 83.9 percent. Furthermore, in math, the homeschooled
students passing rate was 87.9 percent compared to the public school
students' passing rate of 82.1 percent. xxvi

4. In Nevada, according to Washoe County School District's data,
homeschooled students scored higher than their public school
counterparts in first through seventh grade. All children were tested
with the Stanford Achievement Test, and homeschoolers consistently
scored higher in reading, vocabulary, reading comprehension, math
concepts, math comprehension, math and math concepts and application.

The most extreme gap between the public school children and the
homeschooled children was in the area of vocabulary. For example, fourth
graders in public school scored in the 49th percentile while the
homeschooled fourth graders scored in the 80th percentile.

Conclusion

These statistics point to one conclusion: homeschooling works. Even many
of the State Departments of Education, which are generally biased toward
the public school system, cannot argue with these facts. Not only does
homeschooling work, but it works without the myriad of state controls
and accreditation standards imposed on the public schools.




"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On 4/4/2010 3:27 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

heavy snippage of good stuff to get to the point...

It should be noted that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
likely future wars in Columbia, Venezuela, and Iran are all the
products of the gutless US Congress that refuses to include even
the most elementary precautions such as making the majority of
authorizations/appropriations bills non fungible, i.e. dedicated
to specific activities and acquisitions, which cannot be used for
anything else, if possible under individual criminal as well as
civil sanctions.


So, George, what do you think the US Congress feels about the
28th Amendment proposition?

If it were tied to an economic stimulus package, would they
pass it without noticing???





Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

John wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:05:43 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:07:33 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
That would, however, require the American public
to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their own shadow. That
isn't practical with all of the hype from every possible direction
so it will require that our politicians display a little courage,
possibly by falling on their own swords for the greater good.
snip
============
Even here there is no [quasi] logic applied. With the serious
problems of illegal immigration, drugs, and now narco-violence
spilling over our souther borders, why do we have troops
stationed everywhere in the world *EXCEPT* along the southern
border?

That's easy George.
The Latin gangs terrorizing places like Phoenix aren't wearing
diapers on their heads.
4th ID would be patrolling the streets from Mexico City north to the
border today if they did.

I still think my idea to parachute 10,000 naked menopausal Irish
women each with a bottle of single malt into Iraq and Afgahanistan
is a winner. They'd give a drunken Irish ass woopin' to anyone that
didn't gouge out their eyes and that would be the end of that.


I suppose that begs the question of what ARE you doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan?

Hemoraging people and money, at least as a nation.

Or perhaps Why?

Because some things are easier to begin than to end.

And even more so, what do you hope to
accomplish?

The stated goals have shifted like the sands but none of them show any
understanding of history.


Iraq I was relatively easy to assess, but Iraq II? Afghanistan?

At this point I think we are looking for a way out that doesn't look like
just walking away from our mess.


--
John R. Carroll

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 18:33:55 -0500, cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X
earthlink.net" wrote:
snip
So, George, what do you think the US Congress feels about the
28th Amendment proposition?

If it were tied to an economic stimulus package, would they
pass it without noticing???

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
==========
If this is the one you are talking about I don't see how it would
affect anything we have been discussing.

http://www.redstate.com/theancientma...ble-standards/
snip
Congress shall make no law exempting its members or their staff
in whole or in part from any other law, federal, state, or
municipal. All such exemptions are hereby declared null and void.

I’ve also had passed on to me another version that someone else
came up with, thus:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the
United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to
the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally
to the citizens of the United States.
snip
-----------

More rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:13 +0700, John wrote:

snip


http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp


. Independent Evaluations of Homeschooling

1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was
released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers
Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the
average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to
37 percentile points in all subjects.

There are dozens of such studies. The average is around 8 to 12 percentile
point advantage. All of the advantage disappears when you norm for parents'
education, race, and income.

All of it.

snip

Conclusion

These statistics point to one conclusion: homeschooling works. Even many
of the State Departments of Education, which are generally biased toward
the public school system, cannot argue with these facts. Not only does
homeschooling work, but it works without the myriad of state controls
and accreditation standards imposed on the public schools.

It works because it costs the economy something like $30,000 in lost
productivity for every capable worker who spends his or her time teaching
one or two kids. That works out to something like an extra $700,000 for each
average classroom. Again, normed for demographics, the result is roughly the
same each way.

The percentage of families with kids who have only one parent working is
approximately 30%. Among those who home-school, it's 60%.

In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.

--
Ed Huntress

18 months later, and still no hyper inflation?

The huge amount of cash out there would cause inflation if it were in
circulation.

The bailed out banks are hanging on to the cash, and buying treasury
bonds.

Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.

We the taxpayers are paying the difference.

What does it all mean?
Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
point of view.
We could look at life from the mosquito's and the rat's point of view
too, but I would rather just kill them.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.

We the taxpayers are paying the difference.

What does it all mean?
Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
point of view.

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?

--
Ned Simmons

snip
This looks like a good thread to post this.

In case you haven't seen this... (follow up on the vampire
squids)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ng_main_street

Looting Main Street
How the nation's biggest banks are ripping off American cities
with the same predatory deals that brought down Greece

MATT TAIBBIPosted Mar 31, 2010 8:15 AM

snip
If you want to know what life in the Third World is like, just
ask Lisa Pack, an administrative assistant who works in the roads
and transportation department in Jefferson County, Alabama. Pack
got rudely introduced to life in post-crisis America last August,
when word came down that she and 1,000 of her fellow public
employees would have to take a little unpaid vacation for a
while. The county, it turned out, was more than $5 billion in
debt — meaning that courthouses, jails and sheriff's precincts
had to be closed so that Wall Street banks could be paid.
snip


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?

--
Ned Simmons

Government financial intervention is the first order definition of
liberal behavior.

On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.



Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?

If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.

Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.

More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.

Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.


Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.


Things like that


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

"cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.



Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?

If the results are the same, then yes.


If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.

Then move to a better neighborhood. If you live in a place like that, you're
abusing your children. Furthermore, if you live in a place like that, the
chance that you're equipped academically to teach children is very slim.


Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.

For slow learners, it can be great -- if the parent knows how to deal with
slow learners. It's something in which my wife has a master's degree, so
don't get me started on the ability of untrained parents to teach.

In general, parents can teach well up to middle elementary school. If they
make a real effort, or if they're trained teachers themselves, they can go
beyond that. But not very far beyond, because it requires a number of
specialties to teach beyond 6th grade.

I don't know how much experience you have with home-schooled kids, Richard,
so I'm not sure what your basing your conclusions upon. There's good, and
there's not so good about it.


More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.

"Satisfactory control of subject matter"? Satisfactory to whom?


Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.


Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.

What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/5/2010 1:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?


Last time it was, "Parents should be responsible for their kids education."
But now "What do parent's know?".

Typical...



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.


Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?

If the results are the same, then yes.

If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.

Then move to a better neighborhood. If you live in a place like that, you're
abusing your children. Furthermore, if you live in a place like that, the
chance that you're equipped academically to teach children is very slim.

There are plenty of families who lack the ability to relocate.
And where to? Even the most affluent suburbs have gang problems.

I just thank god my kids are grown. If they were in school today, I'd
probably send them to a private school, or let my wife - or MIL - teach
them.


Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.

For slow learners, it can be great -- if the parent knows how to deal with
slow learners. It's something in which my wife has a master's degree, so
don't get me started on the ability of untrained parents to teach.

In general, parents can teach well up to middle elementary school. If they
make a real effort, or if they're trained teachers themselves, they can go
beyond that. But not very far beyond, because it requires a number of
specialties to teach beyond 6th grade.

I don't know how much experience you have with home-schooled kids, Richard,
so I'm not sure what your basing your conclusions upon. There's good, and
there's not so good about it.

More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.

"Satisfactory control of subject matter"? Satisfactory to whom?

Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.


Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.

What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?

The amount of resources available to home-schoolers rivals that
available to the best public schools. You can cookbook the whole thing
from online resources. I know people who are doing it. Any of the
parents who are home-schooling could get a state teaching certificate
easily, if they wanted to.

The kids get tested periodically against state standards, and they
excel.
Don't underestimate the ability and resolve of a motivated parent.

"cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 4/5/2010 1:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?


Last time it was, "Parents should be responsible for their kids
education."
But now "What do parent's know?".

Typical...

What do you mean "last time"? Are you referring to something I said? And if
so, what was the full statement?

Parents are indeed responsible to see that their kids get a good education.
If they live in a pesthole where education stinks and they have to worry
about guns in school, they should get the hell out.

And the abililty of typical parents to make a "better selection" of subject
matter than the curricula devised by the whole heirarchy of experts in
education is between nil and zero.

If you know of an exception, I'd love to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2010-04-05, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.

Actually, the "treasury bond" (I assume you meant T-bill) rate is
extremely low, at the moment, and is not the way for banks to make
money.


We the taxpayers are paying the difference.

What does it all mean?
Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
point of view.

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?


I think that we have several people here, who confuse proper economic
analysis and informed, impartial thinking with a "liberal point of
view". Bailing out banks is something that was started under the Bush
administration, and this is a course of action that did not have
practical alternatives.

i

On 2010-04-05, cavelamb "" wrote:
On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.



Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?

If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.

No knives, and guns, in a home schooling environment???

I am not really against home schooling, abstractly, but home schooling
is done in homes that are always full of knives and usually guns too.

As for beatings and rapes, it is a little harder to say, but I would
suspect that they also occur sometimes in home schooling settings.

Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.

That's good.

More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.

Agreed.

Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.

If the parents have time.

Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.

We live in an area with decent public schools, my older son likes
school and does well on tests, etc, so I see no need for home
schooling, but I can easily see how I would want to home school under
certain personal circumstances.

Home schooling also requires a parent who is apt to teach and knows
enough of the subject matters, which I would presume to be rare. I
would think that parents who choose home schooling are better at
teaching than the average person.

i

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move
anyone
ever made in education.


Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?

If the results are the same, then yes.

If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.

Then move to a better neighborhood. If you live in a place like that,
you're abusing your children. Furthermore, if you live in a place like
that, the chance that you're equipped academically to teach children is
very slim.

There are plenty of families who lack the ability to relocate.
And where to? Even the most affluent suburbs have gang problems.

To someplace safe. Don't cry to me that people are just stuck. I thought
this was a place full of people who believed that we're responsible for our
own lives and are free to move.


I just thank god my kids are grown. If they were in school today, I'd
probably send them to a private school, or let my wife - or MIL - teach
them.

Well, my son graduated from high school a few years ago. I wouldn't have
sent him to private school. And the houses in my immediate neighborhood are
mostly under 2,000 square feet. It's a nice place, but you don't have to be
affluent.

An "inability to relocate" is a lousy excuse.



Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.

For slow learners, it can be great -- if the parent knows how to deal
with slow learners. It's something in which my wife has a master's
degree, so don't get me started on the ability of untrained parents to
teach.

In general, parents can teach well up to middle elementary school. If
they make a real effort, or if they're trained teachers themselves, they
can go beyond that. But not very far beyond, because it requires a number
of specialties to teach beyond 6th grade.

I don't know how much experience you have with home-schooled kids,
Richard, so I'm not sure what your basing your conclusions upon. There's
good, and there's not so good about it.

More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.

"Satisfactory control of subject matter"? Satisfactory to whom?

Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.


Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.

What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?

The amount of resources available to home-schoolers rivals that available
to the best public schools. You can cookbook the whole thing from online
resources. I know people who are doing it. Any of the parents who are
home-schooling could get a state teaching certificate easily, if they
wanted to.

Again, the results tell the story. Normed for demographics, they come out
about equal. But it takes 22 home teachers to ACCOMPLISH what one
professional teacher accomplishes.

Look at the studies -- not the ones promoted by home-school advocates, but
the ones by professionals who know how to norm the results for parental
education level (the big one), income, and so on.


The kids get tested periodically against state standards, and they
excel.
Don't underestimate the ability and resolve of a motivated parent.

Great. One parent = 1/22 of a real teacher. Marvelous.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
18 months later, and still no hyper inflation?

The huge amount of cash out there would cause inflation if it were in
circulation.

More or less true.


The bailed out banks are hanging on to the cash, and buying treasury
bonds.

Yup. Building their reserves -- like conservative bankers have been
screaming at them to do.


Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.

Nope. The T-bill rate is in the dumpster. They aren't making money on
*that*.


We the taxpayers are paying the difference.

Nope.


What does it all mean?

It means that somebody loosened up banking regulations too much, allowed too
much leverage, and got too slack on levels of risk that financial
institutions can take.

Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
point of view.

That's not the "liberal" point of view. The liberal point of view is that
the non-bank banks should never have been deregulated in the first place.

We could look at life from the mosquito's and the rat's point of view
too, but I would rather just kill them.

Good luck. That's what happens when you go nuts with conservative business
and economic theory and create your own monsters in the process.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.

We the taxpayers are paying the difference.

What does it all mean?
Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
point of view.

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?

Last Tuesday, I think it was. d8-)

See messages regarding strawmen and looking for scapegoats on which to blame
one's own mistakes.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...


When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?

--
Ned Simmons

Government financial intervention is the first order definition of
liberal behavior.

So what's the first order definition of conservative behavior? Letting the
*******s cause the worldwide business/credit system to tank?

How do you run businesses with no credit, Clark?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:05:23 -0400, Ned Simmons wrote:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.

We the taxpayers are paying the difference.

What does it all mean?
Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
point of view.

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?


Since The Obamassiah took office.

Welcome to the Great Depression Part Deux



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move
anyone
ever made in education.

Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?
If the results are the same, then yes.

If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.
Then move to a better neighborhood. If you live in a place like that,
you're abusing your children. Furthermore, if you live in a place like
that, the chance that you're equipped academically to teach children is
very slim.
There are plenty of families who lack the ability to relocate.
And where to? Even the most affluent suburbs have gang problems.

To someplace safe. Don't cry to me that people are just stuck. I thought
this was a place full of people who believed that we're responsible for our
own lives and are free to move.

I just thank god my kids are grown. If they were in school today, I'd
probably send them to a private school, or let my wife - or MIL - teach
them.

Well, my son graduated from high school a few years ago. I wouldn't have
sent him to private school. And the houses in my immediate neighborhood are
mostly under 2,000 square feet. It's a nice place, but you don't have to be
affluent.

An "inability to relocate" is a lousy excuse.


Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.
For slow learners, it can be great -- if the parent knows how to deal
with slow learners. It's something in which my wife has a master's
degree, so don't get me started on the ability of untrained parents to
teach.

In general, parents can teach well up to middle elementary school. If
they make a real effort, or if they're trained teachers themselves, they
can go beyond that. But not very far beyond, because it requires a number
of specialties to teach beyond 6th grade.

I don't know how much experience you have with home-schooled kids,
Richard, so I'm not sure what your basing your conclusions upon. There's
good, and there's not so good about it.

More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.
"Satisfactory control of subject matter"? Satisfactory to whom?

Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.


Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.
What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?
The amount of resources available to home-schoolers rivals that available
to the best public schools. You can cookbook the whole thing from online
resources. I know people who are doing it. Any of the parents who are
home-schooling could get a state teaching certificate easily, if they
wanted to.

Again, the results tell the story. Normed for demographics, they come out
about equal. But it takes 22 home teachers to ACCOMPLISH what one
professional teacher accomplishes.

Look at the studies -- not the ones promoted by home-school advocates, but
the ones by professionals who know how to norm the results for parental
education level (the big one), income, and so on.

The kids get tested periodically against state standards, and they
excel.
Don't underestimate the ability and resolve of a motivated parent.

Great. One parent = 1/22 of a real teacher. Marvelous.

You are assuming all teachers are good ones, or the equivalent of your
wife. You ought to see what passes for teachers in the schools today.
You snatch your kid out of that class so fast he's have whiplash.

Ignoramus25832 wrote:

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?


I think that we have several people here, who confuse proper economic
analysis and informed, impartial thinking with a "liberal point of
view". Bailing out banks is something that was started under the Bush
administration, and this is a course of action that did not have
practical alternatives.

Sadly while the conservative view would be 'let them be hoisted with their own petard'
(sorry Shakespeare), I don't think GWB and his advisors thought conservatism was a suicide
pact. On reflection, I think GWB did the right thing though I was all for breaking the
stick off in their arses at the time.

Wes

On 2010-04-05, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus25832 wrote:

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?


I think that we have several people here, who confuse proper economic
analysis and informed, impartial thinking with a "liberal point of
view". Bailing out banks is something that was started under the Bush
administration, and this is a course of action that did not have
practical alternatives.

Sadly while the conservative view would be 'let them be hoisted with
their own petard' (sorry Shakespeare), I don't think GWB and his
advisors thought conservatism was a suicide pact. On reflection, I
think GWB did the right thing though I was all for breaking the
stick off in their arses at the time.

Something needs to be noted: "bailing out the banks" does not mean
bailing out bank shareholders. Shareholders in the nearly-failed
financial institutions, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and
Citibank got wiped out comlpetely or nearly completely. In other
words, they are doing as badly or nearly as badly, as if their
instutions actually went bankrupt.

The parties that really were "bailed out", were the holders of the
DEBT of those institutions. If, say, Citibank or AIG were not bailed
out, then holders of Citibank debt, or FDIC, holders of AIG insurance
contracts etc and the states that insure them, would not be paid.

While the jury is still out, it looks like the government was,
possibly, adequately compensated for the bailout money, by the stakes
that it acquired.

I do think that if the banking system was "allowed to fail", most of
us would live like Gunner now.

i

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move
anyone
ever made in education.

Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?
If the results are the same, then yes.

If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.
Then move to a better neighborhood. If you live in a place like that,
you're abusing your children. Furthermore, if you live in a place like
that, the chance that you're equipped academically to teach children is
very slim.
There are plenty of families who lack the ability to relocate.
And where to? Even the most affluent suburbs have gang problems.

To someplace safe. Don't cry to me that people are just stuck. I thought
this was a place full of people who believed that we're responsible for
our own lives and are free to move.

I just thank god my kids are grown. If they were in school today, I'd
probably send them to a private school, or let my wife - or MIL - teach
them.

Well, my son graduated from high school a few years ago. I wouldn't have
sent him to private school. And the houses in my immediate neighborhood
are mostly under 2,000 square feet. It's a nice place, but you don't have
to be affluent.

An "inability to relocate" is a lousy excuse.


Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.
For slow learners, it can be great -- if the parent knows how to deal
with slow learners. It's something in which my wife has a master's
degree, so don't get me started on the ability of untrained parents to
teach.

In general, parents can teach well up to middle elementary school. If
they make a real effort, or if they're trained teachers themselves,
they can go beyond that. But not very far beyond, because it requires a
number of specialties to teach beyond 6th grade.

I don't know how much experience you have with home-schooled kids,
Richard, so I'm not sure what your basing your conclusions upon.
There's good, and there's not so good about it.

More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.
"Satisfactory control of subject matter"? Satisfactory to whom?

Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.


Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.
What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?
The amount of resources available to home-schoolers rivals that
available to the best public schools. You can cookbook the whole thing
from online resources. I know people who are doing it. Any of the
parents who are home-schooling could get a state teaching certificate
easily, if they wanted to.

Again, the results tell the story. Normed for demographics, they come out
about equal. But it takes 22 home teachers to ACCOMPLISH what one
professional teacher accomplishes.

Look at the studies -- not the ones promoted by home-school advocates,
but the ones by professionals who know how to norm the results for
parental education level (the big one), income, and so on.

The kids get tested periodically against state standards, and they
excel.
Don't underestimate the ability and resolve of a motivated parent.

Great. One parent = 1/22 of a real teacher. Marvelous.

You are assuming all teachers are good ones, or the equivalent of your
wife. You ought to see what passes for teachers in the schools today.
You snatch your kid out of that class so fast he's have whiplash.

I see them almost daily. I've been deeply involved with the schools here for
over 15 years.

We have good ones. There are several elements to it, but the first thing is
to get the parents to care about education. If you don't have a lot of
parental involvement at your school board meetings, and I don't mean just
bitching about everything, you're going nowhere.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 5, 2:41*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you know of an exception, I'd love to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress

My two grandneices are being homeschooled. Parents are not average.
Father has a masters or phd. I think mother only has a AB, but might
have a masters. They are in Alaska where the state provides lots of
help to kids being home schooled. I am confident the parents are able
to make better decisions on subject matter than the education
bureaucrats.

Dan

On Apr 5, 11:36*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It works because it costs the economy something like $30,000 in lost
productivity for every capable worker who spends his or her time teaching
one or two kids. That works out to something like an extra $700,000 for each
average classroom. Again, normed for demographics, the result is roughly the
same each way.

The percentage of families with kids who have only one parent working is
approximately 30%. Among those who home-school, it's 60%.

Is your figures adjusted for demographics? I would think that higher
educated parents would have a higher percentage of only one parent
working.


In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.

--
Ed Huntress

Home schooling can be an excellent economic move. If one parent makes
about $100,000 a year ( Senior engineer wages ) then having the other
parent work is not much if any benefit. The alternate minimum tax
takes a lot of what is earned, and there are additional expenses as
child care.

Having both parents work when there are children under the age of ten
may be the stupidest decision.

Dan

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 05:42:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:43*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.
Ed Huntress
I do not think it makes any difference.
I do. Wanna' fight? g
Whatever. But you are not likely to change my mind. So what's the
point?
Meantime, based on the data, it takes 22 times as many teachers to teach a
given group of home-schooled students as to teach a given group of
publically educated students. That's pretty ****-poor productivity.
As far as I can tell public schools do not have productivity as a
goal.

This raises the critical question of "effectiveness" v
"efficiency," what the goals/objectives are/should be, who sets
these goals/objectives, what the baselines are, and how these
goals/objectives are measured.

Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
doing it for their parents.
Pure speculation on your part.
Absolutely, but certainly very likely. I doubt that most kids love
their teachers more than their parents.
They would not be as motivated to work as
hard for a teacher, even if it was a one on one situation.
See above.

Dan
==============

A critical part of the discussion is the meaning of "education."
It is a noun or a verb, a product or a process?

It is also well to remember there are several stages or levels,
as well as types of "education." The most widely used is called
Bloom's Taxonomy.
http://www.sos.net/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html and there are two
other educational domains besides the cognitive domain [affective
and psychomotor]
http://www.sos.net/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
http://officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm
http://officeport.com/edu/bloomq.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_Taxonomy

Bloom's most basic cognitive stage is "knowledge" (name, list and
identify). This is easily measured and implemented, and large
numbers of students can be "instructed" by a single teacher.
This is also the level stressed by "No Child Left Behind" as it
is the basis for the standardized multiple choice "objective"
tests.

The higher cognitive levels such as "synthesis" and "evaluation"
are much more difficult to teach/learn/transfer, and at this
point the maxim that most of what knowledge/skills/abilities we
use as adults is the result of observation and imitation becomes
fully operational.

Without specifying which domain and what level you are assuming,
this discussion is going nowhere.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:00:34 -0500, Ignoramus25832
wrote:
SNIP
Actually, the "treasury bond" (I assume you meant T-bill) rate is
extremely low, at the moment, and is not the way for banks to make
money.
SNIP
#1 This may not be for the banks at all, the banks being simply a
vehicle.

#2 You are forgetting the magic of fractional banking. For every
1$ in deposits the banks can make 10$ [or more] in loans,
particularly when the collateral is AAA rated as Treasuries
currently are. The treasury then loans the FRB a dollar to
repeat the cycle.

Every time you go through a cycle you multiply the nominal
"money" [and the return] by 10X.

1 cycle = 10X nominal Treasury interest
2 cycles = 100X nominal treasury interest
3 cycles = 1000X nominal Treasury interest
GT 4 cycles the lynchings/great cull starts.

THE "MAGIK MONEY MACHINE" IN OPERATION!!!!


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:08:05 -0400, Wes wrote:

Ignoramus25832 wrote:

When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?


I think that we have several people here, who confuse proper economic
analysis and informed, impartial thinking with a "liberal point of
view". Bailing out banks is something that was started under the Bush
administration, and this is a course of action that did not have
practical alternatives.

Sadly while the conservative view would be 'let them be hoisted with their own petard'
(sorry Shakespeare), I don't think GWB and his advisors thought conservatism was a suicide
pact. On reflection, I think GWB did the right thing though I was all for breaking the
stick off in their arses at the time.

Wes
========
There is a significant difference between rescuing the banks and
rescuing the bankers.

While the least bad alternative appears to have been propping up
the banks [they are still not "rescued"], there appears to be no
justification for not having mass executive terminations "for
cause" which negates the "golden parachute" clauses in most
employment contracts as part of the "rescue."

How many of the accountable bankers are doing time for fraud
and/or tax evasion? How many bankers are under indictment? How
many bankers got a bonus?

What possible motivation/deterence against causing another crash
has been implemented?


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 2:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you know of an exception, I'd love to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress

My two grandneices are being homeschooled. Parents are not average.
Father has a masters or phd. I think mother only has a AB, but might
have a masters.

Well, I'm glad you pointed that out, Dan, since my statement was about
typical parents. g

They are in Alaska where the state provides lots of
help to kids being home schooled. I am confident the parents are able
to make better decisions on subject matter than the education
bureaucrats.

That's great. Now, which of those college graduates is staying home to
fulfill the roll of maybe 1/10 of a high-quality, highly-paid private school
teacher?

And how old are your grandneices?

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 11:36 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It works because it costs the economy something like $30,000 in lost
productivity for every capable worker who spends his or her time teaching
one or two kids. That works out to something like an extra $700,000 for
each
average classroom. Again, normed for demographics, the result is roughly
the
same each way.

The percentage of families with kids who have only one parent working is
approximately 30%. Among those who home-school, it's 60%.

Is your figures adjusted for demographics?

Nope.

I would think that higher
educated parents would have a higher percentage of only one parent
working.

I would expect exactly the opposite.


In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.

--
Ed Huntress

Home schooling can be an excellent economic move. If one parent makes
about $100,000 a year ( Senior engineer wages ) then having the other
parent work is not much if any benefit.

Huh? So money doesn't count after $100,000? If you feel that way, and if you
have any to spare, it counts a hell of a lot to me, and would be much
appreciated. d8-)

The alternate minimum tax
takes a lot of what is earned, and there are additional expenses as
child care.

Dan, you're reaching, m'man.

Having both parents work when there are children under the age of ten
may be the stupidest decision.

Hey, if they're such capable teachers, have one of them work in their
child's school. That's how my wife got started.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 05:42:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:43 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.
Ed Huntress
I do not think it makes any difference.
I do. Wanna' fight? g
Whatever. But you are not likely to change my mind. So what's the
point?
Meantime, based on the data, it takes 22 times as many teachers to teach
a
given group of home-schooled students as to teach a given group of
publically educated students. That's pretty ****-poor productivity.
As far as I can tell public schools do not have productivity as a
goal.

This raises the critical question of "effectiveness" v
"efficiency," what the goals/objectives are/should be, who sets
these goals/objectives, what the baselines are, and how these
goals/objectives are measured.

The homeschoolers based it on standardized testing. Once those tests are
normed, the effect is zero.

I would expect a very large advantage for younger kids who are
home-schooled, because of the closer attention that can be paid to each kid,
but it doesn't happen.

--
Ed Huntress



Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
doing it for their parents.
Pure speculation on your part.
Absolutely, but certainly very likely. I doubt that most kids love
their teachers more than their parents.
They would not be as motivated to work as
hard for a teacher, even if it was a one on one situation.
See above.

Dan
==============

A critical part of the discussion is the meaning of "education."
It is a noun or a verb, a product or a process?

It is also well to remember there are several stages or levels,
as well as types of "education." The most widely used is called
Bloom's Taxonomy.
http://www.sos.net/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html and there are two
other educational domains besides the cognitive domain [affective
and psychomotor]
http://www.sos.net/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
http://officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm
http://officeport.com/edu/bloomq.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_Taxonomy

Bloom's most basic cognitive stage is "knowledge" (name, list and
identify). This is easily measured and implemented, and large
numbers of students can be "instructed" by a single teacher.
This is also the level stressed by "No Child Left Behind" as it
is the basis for the standardized multiple choice "objective"
tests.

The higher cognitive levels such as "synthesis" and "evaluation"
are much more difficult to teach/learn/transfer, and at this
point the maxim that most of what knowledge/skills/abilities we
use as adults is the result of observation and imitation becomes
fully operational.

Without specifying which domain and what level you are assuming,
this discussion is going nowhere.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Apr 5, 10:03*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you know of an exception, I'd love to hear it.

--
Ed Huntress


Well, I'm glad you pointed that out, Dan, since my statement was about
typical parents. g


How stupid can you be. Exceptions are always not typical.


That's great. Now, which of those college graduates is staying home to
fulfill the roll of maybe 1/10 of a high-quality, highly-paid private school
teacher?

And how is that relavant?

And how old are your grandneices?

See above.

Dan
--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 5, 10:52*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

..

I would think that higher
educated parents would have a higher percentage of only one parent
working.

I would expect exactly the opposite.

Why?


In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.

--
Ed Huntress
Home schooling can be an excellent economic move. *If one parent makes
about $100,000 a year *( Senior engineer wages ) then having the other
parent work is not much if any benefit.

Huh? So money doesn't count after $100,000? If you feel that way, and if you
have any to spare, it counts a hell of a lot to me, and would be much
appreciated. d8-)

It is not that money does not count after $100,000. It is that it
does not count as much. Well known economic theory. Sort of like the
first bite of ice cream is good, but by the time one has eaten a pint,
the desire for ice cream is greatly diminished.

And also we have a progressive taxation system. So earning $200,000
does not leave you with twice as much money to spend as earning
$100,000.



The alternate minimum tax
takes a lot of what is earned, and there are additional expenses as
child care.

Dan, you're reaching, m'man.

Have you ever paid the alternate minimum tax? I have. So I know what
I am talking about.

Having both parents work when there are children under the age of ten
may be the stupidest decision.

Hey, if they're such capable teachers, have one of them work in their
child's school. That's how my wife got started.


Teaching a whole classroom is more work than teaching two. So if you
need the money, it might be worth doing. But to work in school, you
have to travel to the school, either buy lunch at the school cafeteria
or take your lunch ( neither something I would enjoy ), keep regular
hours, put up with kids with bad manners, etc. If you think
teaching in a public school is so good, why don't you do it?

Dan



--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:40:51 -0500, cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X
earthlink.net" wrote:

On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.



Is that all that matters, Ed?

The economics of it?

If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.

Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.

Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.

More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.

Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.


Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.


Things like that


Richard, I think you are looking at home schooling with rose tinted
glasses and for elementary schooling you are probably mostly right but
what about Higher School? I took elementary calculus in high school,
admittedly an introductory course but are the average Mom & Dad
qualified to teach that? Geometry? Chemistry - got the Lab right down
the hall there? Physics? It is quite handy to have a "lab" of sorts
there too, at the very least a weight and a lever and a fulcrum.

In addition, I might comment, the high school I attended, in a little
pokey town in up-state New England, had a fully equipped woodworking
and machine shop and the "Industrial Arts" students learned pattern
making and machine shop theory and practice. They actually
manufactured, in a small way, band saws, wood plainers and jointers
and bench grinders, which were sold through local hardware shops. Not
everyone has a home workshop or is a skilled pattern maker to say
nothing of a master-machinist.

I suggest that rather then the all encompassing term "Home Schooling"
a bit more detailed description is probably needed. Home schooling
through 8th grade? Probably as satisfactory as Public school. Home
Schooling through Secondary School graduation? I would say, rather
doubtful. Home Schooling through Under-graduate degree? Home schooling
through Advanced degree?

Cheers,

John D.
(jdslocombatgmail)