Syndy/3 on 26/4/2009 at 12:00
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
But yeah, my point is more that kids doing stupid shit has less to do with the kids involved and more to do with adults basically being self-absorbed assholes.
I'm not so sure about that, kids from any kind of background can be brutal little monsters unfettered of conscience or remorse.
catbarf on 26/4/2009 at 13:30
Quote Posted by fett
I'll make you a deal:
Tell me one thing you use on a daily basis from Physics, Biology, Chemistry, or Geometry class that you learned in high school, and I'll hire private tutors.
I use physics and geometry extensively in writing code for programs. I also use probability and statistics in creating randomness in board games, videogames, and other simulations that require it. And that's on top of the coding experience I've gained from two classes in computer programming, one in robotics, and another I'll be taking next year in 3D modeling. I also know that, regardless of how I can apply these, I will be required to take several of them as classes in college, and having background knowledge will help.
And besides, learning just what you need to learn for your job and knowing nothing about history, politics, or how things work makes you a rather dull person.
fett on 26/4/2009 at 14:37
So in your specific job, you need to know those things, and you've obviously educated yourself accordingly. If you'll read the bulk of my posts, I've not said anything about excluding topics that aren't directly related to the child's intended career, but rather trying to tailor their learning toward the things in which they are naturally gifted and show aptitude for. At the same time, there is an obvious need for everyone to learn basic math and algebraic concepts. But it is a waste of time for a child who is drawn to the fine arts or history to slog through geometry or trig. Likewise, everyone needs a basic understanding of history and world literature so they can relate to the rest of the culture, but it's senseless in my opinion to force a kid who's gifted in natural science and physics to slog through Fitzgerald and Tolstoy.
My main gripe with public school is how it manages to cover a plethora of subjects in a very surface manner, yet fails to teach any single topic deeply. It's almost like education digest. My son will apply himself to learning every single solitary thing about the way a rocket works if given time. He'll learn the history of rockets, the science and math of rockets, and the political implication of the use of the first rockets. He'll read and write about them, build a webpage about them, and learn how to effectively communicate everything he knows about them to other people, if given time. And if I've taught him how to gain that knowledge himself, rather than spitting it at him from a curriculum textbook, he'll go far deeper into the topic than I would have imagined possible, or even had the desire to go as a teacher.
That doesn't mean he may not need a physics teacher at some point, but I think you're giving teachers way too much credit when you say there are things kids simply can't learn without a certified teacher at their side. Read the stats at the link I posted above - home schooled kids are doing just fine without teachers. They're winning scholarships, science, art, and writing competitions, and scoring higher in every subject offered by public schools than are public school students. The socialization argument is outdated as well, since these days the majority of homeschoolers participate in sports programs, and can even take band and choir classes at a local high school if they want to. It's up to the parents whether or not they take advantage of those things, but nevertheless, they are available, and public school isn't the only place they can be around other kids anymore.
catbarf on 26/4/2009 at 15:14
Quote Posted by fett
That doesn't mean he may not need a physics teacher at some point, but I think you're giving teachers way too much credit when you say there are things kids simply can't learn without a certified teacher at their side.
I think part of it is comprehension. What if you just don't understand how heat can radiate in a near-vacuum, or miss where the textbook passingly notes that entropy is a description, not a process? Someone who's been educated in the relevant subject for years will know the common pitfalls and be able to explain difficult concepts. If you're just reading from a textbook, can you do that?
I agree that a public school class is not going to go in-depth into what you want to study- but that's what college is for. If you feel that a subject is unimportant to your career or interests, then the default-level classes are suitable for gaining a basic understanding. I've found that my classes provide a very good foundation for fields of study, and a capable student can take higher-level classes that provide sufficient depth for having a good understanding of the subject. And by taking AP classes, I'm already taking college-level courses, which count towards college credit. It's not necessarily 'education digest', so long as you take levels of classes appropriate for your career choice.
Swiss Mercenary on 26/4/2009 at 16:14
Quote Posted by catbarf
I think part of it is comprehension. What if you just don't understand how heat can radiate in a near-vacuum, or miss where the textbook passingly notes that entropy is a description, not a process? Someone who's been educated in the relevant subject for years will know the common pitfalls and be able to explain difficult concepts.
Which flies completely out the window when the it's the PE teacher teaching Physics class.
catbarf on 26/4/2009 at 18:59
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Which flies completely out the window when the it's the PE teacher teaching Physics class.
Personally, I've never had a teacher teach something out of his area of expertise. Substitutes basically just hold the fort until the actual teacher can return.
fett on 26/4/2009 at 23:58
I guess our high school experiences were radically different. I had football coaches teaching most of my math and science and they did fuck all to help me understand it, probably because they barely understood it themselves.
Also, I'm not talking about schooling them all the way into and through college. College is for more in-depth classes, so they'll go to college. Based on the schools I attended (and I moved around a lot), I didn't learn anything from a teacher that I couldn't teach myself, or find out, especially now with internet resources and tutors, co-ops with certified teachers in these subjects, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that public schools are not the bastions of some secret knowledge guarded by folks with education degrees. It's the information age, and any parent who gives a rip can provide the same level of academic learning with the available resources. But they have to go get it, keep up with standards, and be objective enough to know when their in over their heads. There's a big difference in the way most homeschool parents react when they're in over their heads. The ones who are homeschooling to protect little Johnny from the ebils of evolution and girls is going to bury their heads in the sand. The ones who are doing it for the sole purpose of providing a more enriching education, will go get help, or even re-enroll the child in public school if necessary, because education, not just protecting the child, is the goal.
catbarf on 27/4/2009 at 10:19
Quote Posted by fett
The point I'm trying to make is that public schools are not the bastions of some secret knowledge guarded by folks with education degrees. It's the information age, and any parent who gives a rip can provide the same level of academic learning with the available resources. But they have to go get it, keep up with standards, and be objective enough to know when their in over their heads.
This. I agree wholeheartedly. I think, though, that you need to be
absolutely sure that you can provide the sufficient level of education, and understand the material involved- or hire a tutor if things get tough. As long as you can stay unlike the people you used as example in your post, I think you'll do fine.
jtr7 on 27/4/2009 at 10:31
It was my understanding that home-school teachers still have to test their pupils by state standards, and demonstrate effectiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if there are exceptions.
fett on 27/4/2009 at 12:44
They do. Unfortunately, in some states the test scores have no bearing on whether or not the parent can continue to homeschool. :confused: :erm: :erg:
