Courtship vs. Dating

[Elaine]

Originally posted by taoist
I can think of one simple reason why you might not have recognized some of the terms the geeky middle schoolers were using. They might not have been real terms, but still capable of interpretation by the speaker.

That's ridiculous. :down:

 

[taoist]

Originally posted by Elaine

:doh: [That we haven't been harmed by home schooling] is not surprising.

Considering that more than half of all marriages currently end in divorce, the fact that you are growing up with both parents is surprising all by itself. The emphasis in my earlier post was to direct your attention to those whose family lives are less satisfying than your own.

I'm perfectly satisfied with the way my parents have covered other religions, thank you. I don't want the "whichever's best for you," "all roads lead to heaven" view which seems to be so popular today.

Religious beliefs not individually chosen are meaningless. "Whichever is best for you" is really the only defensible criteria. "Heaven" is a concept restricted to the Abrahamic religions.

I point this out merely to show there is much wider scope to comparative religion than your parents have to date shared with you.

I, for one, would love to see some real proof of this. And, anyway, even when the teachers recognise it as a theory, it is often taught more as a fact.

Hmm. It's necessary to distinguish the differences and interrelationships between facts and theory. Creationists in my experience generally confuse the meanings of these terms.

Think of facts as concrete observations and theories as the abstract linkages that ties the facts together. Observations are indeed taught as facts, as they should be. The fundamental theory of biology that ties these facts togeher is called evolution.

In order for evolution to be taught as a proven "fact" it would be necessary that no further observations were possible. This will never happen. No scientist and no science teacher will dispute this.

I've studied both creation and evolution, and found evolution to seem utterly ridiculous. Yes, I am biased. I wouldn't want to approach anything from a completely objective view. Yes, the main reason why I and my sister are homeschooled is religious.

There is no room for bias in science. An objective view is the very foundation of science. Objective means independently verifiable. This is the fundamental difference between science based on empirical evidence and religious belief based on religious texts.

Any candidate for a fundamental theory of biology is utterly ridiculous if it cannot encompass at least as many facts as are tied together by evolutionary theory. Nothing less than continuous creation can possibly fit the bill.

Poly linked a CBS story recently that gave the top five reasons in a sidebar. While supporting religious beliefs is among the top five reasons for homeschooling, I don't believe it's given as the top reason.

Well, it doesn't put me at a disadvantage; my father has a degree in chemistry and math. I'm not studying geology. Physics ties in pretty closely with math.

Do you mean two degrees? Then you are indeed very fortunate.

Well, the Bible (that's our Christian holy book, Taoist :chuckle: ), would probably place such children under the care of the church.

You might be interested to know that most of the creationist arguments I've seen advanced by christians on TOL I've seen duplicated by muslims on Shiachat (where I post as Lao Tzu).

On occasion I'll take a post from one board and place it directly into a similar thread on the other. To make this simpler, I often speak in general terms when I'm referring to themes common to both the Qur'an and the Bible.

[That public schools are necessary for the majority of American children is] not the conclusion I have come to.

I'd love to see the empirical data you used to arrive at that conclusion.

Meaning you? Congratulations! :angel:

Yes, meaning me.

I have only one brother, the Rt. Rev. Bob who is married to Nancy, former head of the Deaconess Program for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, parents of Aaron (who's your age), Nathan and Joel (aka Huey, Dewey and Louie to Uncle Jesse.)

Nancy has more siblings than I can count, but I'm still their favorite uncle. Bachelor uncles are famous for spoiling nephews. Who am I to break an age-old tradition?

:devil:

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Zimfan
They do try not to teach bad morals. In fact, unlike parents schools are subject to very stringent standards. They can only teach those morals everyone in society agrees on( e.g. not cheating). If anyone disagrees with school policy on moral grounds and makes a big enough stink it often attracts national attention. Eventually someone will review the policy and a consensus will be reached.

Sometimes society agrees on bad morals...

Schools try to portray all religions in a positive way. They do this because they don't want to have a large affect on the religious views of the students. If they portrayed all religions as negative, they would be promoting atheism. If they portrayed them all as neutral, they'd basically be teaching that it doesn't matter what religion you choose, lthat ittle good or bad would come as a result of your decision. This would also promote atheism in a round about sort of way. By teaching them as mostly positive, children can feel good about whatever religion their family belongs to and the parents can rest a little more assured that the schools won't try to corrupt their children.

That's a good reason to homeschool. Actually, it would be better if the schools did not teach any religion at all than any of those alternatives you have mentioned.

I picked on kids who went to private schools because I know far more of them than home-schooled kids and I was a similiar situation. That is, surrounding your kids with children that think as they do morally. One sends a kid to a catholic or baptist school to learn catholic or baptist values and to keep them away from those who have different values. One often home-schools their children for the same reason.

My parents did not homeschool me to keep me "sheltered" and away from the influence of those with whom we disagree. I'm arguing with a Taoist right now.

:darwinsm: My parents never payed more than $100-$200 dollars a year for all those things. Do you know what an opportunity cost is? Even assuming the cost of school supplies was less for home-schooled children parents who home-school incur a cost equal to the amount they would have made if they were working during the time they instead spend teaching you. I can't think of a single profession where a parent wouldn't make far more money working during that time than the cost of supplies.

Do you really think school supplies cost the same as they did when you were in school?

This is because our society has decided that it is responsible for giving everyone should have a chance at the basic education needed to function in our society. The taxes are very low compared to the expenses and opportunity costs incurred by teaching them yourself. Also, without those schools it would be much harder for your parents to find the textbooks they need to teach you. Good textbooks are a result of the demand for standardization and stringent standards caused by the need of public schools to have the best academic resources possible. Thus, there would be even more costs, in both time and money, for finding good books without public schools.

My parents only use public school textbooks for one subject. Where do you get your information about home education supply costs?

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by lucybelle
I was both homeschooled and I also went to the public school.
After going through two broken engagements-
let me tell you- as the voice of experience-
dating=bad whereas courtship=good.

Good conclusion, rincess:.

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Christine
Hi, Taoist. I'm Elaine's sister, Christine. I, too, am homeschooled....

Go get 'em, sis!!:jump:

 

[taoist]

Elaine

That's ridiculous. :down:

Oh, please. I've been there. And it's not a put down. A student who's thinking about a topic she hasn't fully studied will quite often come up with her own term to describe something. A good professor will try to interpret what she's trying to say rather what she actually said.

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by Elaine
Sometimes society agrees on bad morals...

Not as often as some believe.

Originally posted by Elaine
That's a good reason to homeschool. Actually, it would be better if the schools did not teach any religion at all than any of those alternatives you have mentioned.

They don't really teach religion. The only time religions are mentioned are in social sciences. When a school teaches about history and culture it is necessary to mention religion at least in passing. They choose to focus on the positive aspects of each religion in order to avoid accusations of prejudice. As long as any child can receive a public education regardless of religion they need to avoid showing preference.

Originally posted by Elaine
My parents did not homeschool me to keep me "sheltered" and away from the influence of those with whom we disagree. I'm arguing with a Taoist right now.

But do you have contact with people who disagree with you at least 8 hours a day 5 days a week?

Originally posted by Elaine
Do you really think school supplies cost the same as they did when you were in school?

I AM in school. The only difference is that now I pay for my own supplies and yes it is about the same. Do you really think your family saves more money on school supplies than they could make if the parent teaching you worked while you attended public school? If not, your belief about relative cost is incorrect.

Originally posted by Elaine
My parents only use public school textbooks for one subject. Where do you get your information about home education supply costs?

I infer them from what I know about the cost of high school and college textbooks. I would expect special books for home-schooling to cost even more. They are produced in lower numbers and if they are of equal quality and have similiar production costs I suspect the firms that make them have to charge more. Tell me, if parents were required to educate their own children with absolutely no interference from the government how many do you think would be both willing and able to teach the higher levels of mathematics, biology, etc.? I would say the demand forr standardized and high quality textbooks would fall dramatically. With less demand less new research would be done and the quality of books would fall dramatically. Like it or not, there is a parisitic relationship between eduacational resources for public schools and home-schooling parents, with the latter leeching off of the former.

 

[taoist]

Christine

Hi, Taoist. I'm Elaine's sister, Christine. I, too, am homeschooled. I am sixteen and a junior. I hope you don't mind my responding.

Okay, we've got three wonderful girls now. Christine, 16, her sister Elaine (who's probably 13 from the way she responded to Zimfan's 14 guess) and ShadowMaid, who's said before she's in 8th grade, which is the other reason I figure on 13.

We all know Whippersnapper, I mean, Zimfan, is 20. To fill in the picture, I'm 44. Make fun of my age and I'll beat you with my cane, carved out of a dinosaur I kilt myself way back when I was your age.

I'm an informal kind of professor, you should feel free to call me Jesse outside the lecture hall.

Has anyone actually ever been harmed because their parents decided to homeschool them? I know that their are homeschoolers like Andrea Yates that murdered her children, but homeschooling was not what made her do that.

Harm is a relative thing. Holding back a student from her full potential is something I'd describe as harm. From what your sister tells me about your father, I think that's unlikely in your case.

Regarding Ms. Yates, it seems she hid abusive behavior by claiming to be a homeschooler. From what we've seen, I don't think she was actually schooling the kids. From what I know of child abuse, I think she would have abused them regardless, though probably not as severely as she would have had she known herself to be more publicly accountable.

Misconceptions? We get to see both viewpoints, which is more than most public school students get to see.

Creationism is not science and science is not a viewpoint. Your comparison is strained at best. One is based on supernatural belief while the other is based on natural evidence.

Really? Do you have any evidence to prove that evolution is not taught as a fact?

Facts are taught as facts. Theories are taught as ways to explain facts. Evolution taught as a fact is a contradiction in terms between fact and theory.

I would like to know how you define theory.

As my sister stated, we are homeschooled for mainly religious reasons. Yes, we are indeed creationists. However, this doesn't mean that we don't study evolution.

If you study biology, you study the facts on which evolutionary theory is based. To compare evolution with creationism is to ignore biology or to ignore most of the facts related to biology.

The following fundamental facts are simply not explainable via creationism.

• That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
• That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
• That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
• That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Most homeschooling parents that do not have a college education are sceptical about teaching their children such subjects as calculus, chemistry, and most of the other harder high school subjects. Fortunately, by the time the child reaches that age, he is able to do a good deal of school work on his own. If his parents still feel unconfortable with teaching whatever this difficult subject is, they might seek the help of a homeschool co-op or a correspondence program.

I have long been a proponent of major educational reform using net-based technology that would make independent study and individually structured programs far more common.

If their parents can't care for them, they would be as good as orphans. The Bible says the it is the church's responsibility to care for orphans. Sadly, most churchs today neglect this responsibilty.

If you followed Poly's thread on Ms. Yates, you're aware that I grew up without parents. Okay, I'm busted. I had personal reasons to bring up poor family situations as a counterpoint to universal homeschooling.

The church should take care of orphans? What, put some bedding up on the pews? No, thanks, I don't think so.

I firmly believe any parent that can read can homeschool. If they can't read, then they can learn right along with the child.

I'm convinced that the stability in your personal homelife makes you incapable of understanding the chaos in so many other homes that would make what you propose impossible.

Having seen what passes for grammar in common speech, I would not say that mere literacy is sufficient to qualify as a teacher. Illiteracy is an absolute bar. The other danger in the program you're advocating is that the student will be held back by the incompetence of her teacher.

(I might mention that though I attended public schools, I was on an independent study track from the time I was 13. I attended over 20 different junior highs. By the time I was your age, I was taking my classes at U of Arizona/Tucson. I'm nearly as innocent of what happens in public high schools as you are.)

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by taoist
I'm convinced that the stability in your personal homelife makes you incapable of understanding the chaos in so many other homes that would make what you propose impossible.

Parents divorced when I was still in elementary school. My father sent us as much money as he could but it wasn't enough.My mother was too busy feed my brother to home-school us. Even if she could afford to she didn't have the education to teach all of the classes we would need.

Originally posted by taoist
Having seen what passes for grammar in common speech, I would not say that mere literacy is sufficient to qualify as a teacher. Illiteracy is an absolute bar. The other danger in the program you're advocating is that the student will be held back by the incompetence of her teacher.

This is exactly what bothers me about people who claim that all parents should teach their own kids. Most parents I know aren't nearly qualified to teach. About 75% of adults in the U.S. don't have any sort of post-high school degree and the majority of those didn't pay much attention in school. I shudder to think of what would happen if there were no public schools for their children to go to. I thank God every day that I was able to go to a public school. I also thank Him that there are public colleges like the one I go to where I can afford to go on the rather low wages I'm paid.

Originally posted by taoist
(I might mention that though I attended public schools, I was on an independent study track from the time I was 13. I attended over 20 different junior highs. By the time I was your age, I was taking my classes at U of Arizona/Tucson. I'm nearly as innocent of what happens in public high schools as you are.)

I've gone to a public school every grade but the 9th. I was never coerced into violating my ethics. I was never told that my religion was inferior in any way or encouraged to lose faith. However, I was exposed to people of many different beliefs. I received an adequate though not great education. I was able to get some college credits through the school's AP program. I was prepared enough for college to have a 4.0 GPA my first semester. I do not regret going to state funded schools.

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by taoist
Elaine Oh, please. I've been there. And it's not a put down. A student who's thinking about a topic she hasn't fully studied will quite often come up with her own term to describe something. A good professor will try to interpret what she's trying to say rather what she actually said.

I know that's true. But it seems very unlikely that all of them would do it, and that none of the college kids would understand.

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by Elaine
I know that's true. But it seems very unlikely that all of them would do it, and that none of the college kids would understand.

I think Taoist is a professor. Maybe he's seen it happen before. I would think it more likely that they might not have really known what they were talking about. I've done that before when I've gotten a chance to speak with someone much more educated than I. Sometimes I make statements I believe to be true about things I haven't learned much about in order to bring up that subject and so cure my ignorance.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by taoist
Okay, we've got three wonderful girls now. Christine...Elaine...ShadowMaid...

I'm an informal kind of professor, you should feel free to call me Jesse outside the lecture hall.

:shocked: All you young adolescent girls, keep a gun in your purse at all times! A very insightful teacher of mine gave that advice to the girls in class. He went on to say - "Shoot twice. Once to get the harasser down on their knees, Second time to blow his brains out."

 

[taoist]

Zimfan;
I think Taoist is a professor.

taoist;
"Was" a professor.

Zimfan;
Maybe he's seen it happen before.

taoist;
Many times.

Zimfan;
I would think it more likely that they might not have really known what they were talking about.

taoist;
I would think it more likely Lucky8 couldn't remember it right.

Elaine;
... that none of the college kids would understand.

taoist;
Lucky was with a HS group.

Zimfan;
I've done that before when I've gotten a chance to speak with someone much more educated than I. Sometimes I make statements I believe to be true about things I haven't learned much about in order to bring up that subject and so cure my ignorance.

taoist;
Guessing right is never as instructive as flat out getting it wrong. Learning takes courage.

 

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by taoist
taoist;
"Was" a professor.

Zimfan;
Are you retired then ya antediluvian old man.

taoist;
Many times.

Zimfan;
I've seen it myself many times, though probably not as many as an old, decrepit guy like you.


taoist;
I would think it more likely Lucky8 couldn't remember it right.

Zimfan;
I think it most likely that Taoist is mocking us.

taoist;
Lucky was with a HS group.

Zimfan;
I probably should have mentioned that.

taoist;
Guessing right is never as instructive as flat out getting it wrong. Learning takes courage.

Zimfan;
Gaining right knowledge is always better than merely maintaining right opinion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is taoist getting his butt kicked by some teenage girls?

Not that I am surprised, it was just fun to say!

Go get'em girls!

 

[taoist]

Knight;
Is taoist getting his butt kicked by some teenage girls?

taoist;
Better butt kicked than butt kizzed. Besides, it'd take more than three of the cute little tykes.

Zimfan;
I think it most likely that Taoist is mocking us.

taoist;
Yup, you guessed it. It's all WA's fault.

 

[taoist]

Zimfan;
Gaining right knowledge is always better than merely maintaining right opinion.

taoist;
Sit down right here, grasshoppa, and learn at the feet of the master.

:ahso:

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by taoist
Christine Okay, we've got three wonderful girls now. Christine, 16, her sister Elaine (who's probably 13 from the way she responded to Zimfan's 14 guess) and ShadowMaid, who's said before she's in 8th grade, which is the other reason I figure on 13.

Actually, Elaine and Shadowmaid are both fourteen. Elaine is in the ninth grade.

We all know Whippersnapper, I mean, Zimfan, is 20. To fill in the picture, I'm 44. Make fun of my age and I'll beat you with my cane, carved out of a dinosaur I kilt myself way back when I was your age.

You don't seem old to me.

I'm an informal kind of professor, you should feel free to call me Jesse outside the lecture hall.

Are/were you a college science professor?

Harm is a relative thing. Holding back a student from her full potential is something I'd describe as harm. From what your sister tells me about your father, I think that's unlikely in your case.

The majority of homeschoolers help their children to excel to their fullest potential. Thanks to being homeschooled, I've had the opportunity to take classes not even offered at public school.

Regarding Ms. Yates, it seems she hid abusive behavior by claiming to be a homeschooler. From what we've seen, I don't think she was actually schooling the kids. From what I know of child abuse, I think she would have abused them regardless, though probably not as severely as she would have had she known herself to be more publicly accountable.

What exactly do you mean by being publicly accountable? Do you mean having the children attending public school, having Mom meet with a social worker, etc.

Creationism is not science and science is not a viewpoint. Your comparison is strained at best. One is based on supernatural belief while the other is based on natural evidence.

Natural evidence? Have you ever observed something evolving? Not from one bird to another bird, but from a bird to a completely different animal?

Facts are taught as facts. Theories are taught as ways to explain facts. Evolution taught as a fact is a contradiction in terms between fact and theory. I would like to know how you define theory.

Theory- A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data.

If you study biology, you study the facts on which evolutionary theory is based. To compare evolution with creationism is to ignore biology or to ignore most of the facts related to biology.

I have no problem accepting microevolution. There is a significant amount of evidence to back it up. It is macroevolution that I cannot accept. Not only does it contradict the Bible, but there is no evidence in favor of it.

• The following fundamental facts are simply not explainable via creationism.
• That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;

• 
  How do you know life appeared on earth over two billion years ago? The world isn't even a million years old.
  

  [*] That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;

  This sounds like microevolution. Again, I, and most creationists, have no problem accepting this.
  

  [*] That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;

  I believe all animals descended from animals of the same species, that the animal is. Birds came from birds.
  
  

  [*] That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Yes, I believe that an animal's surroundings can affect it. I do not believe that natural selection and evolution are the same thing.

I have long been a proponent of major educational reform using net-based technology that would make independent study and individually structured programs far more common.

Please understand that when I say correspondence school, I don't mean charter schools.

If you followed Poly's thread on Ms. Yates, you're aware that I grew up without parents. Okay, I'm busted. I had personal reasons to bring up poor family situations as a counterpoint to universal homeschooling.

While I have not been following the Andrea Yates thread, I did read somewhere else of you telling someone of your situation.

The church should take care of orphans? What, put some bedding up on the pews? No, thanks, I don't think so.

Haven't you ever heard of church-run orphanages or Christian foster care programs?

I'm convinced that the stability in your personal homelife makes you incapable of understanding the chaos in so many other homes that would make what you propose impossible.

The parent and child would be learning to read together. Despite the parent not being able to read, he probably is skilled in other areas of learning. It is doubtful both parents would be illerate.

Having seen what passes for grammar in common speech, I would not say that mere literacy is sufficient to qualify as a teacher. Illiteracy is an absolute bar. The other danger in the program you're advocating is that the student will be held back by the incompetence of her teacher.

Why would the child be held back? After I learned how to read fluently, I was able to do the majority of my studies on my own. Normally, I only need help in two of my subjects. If the child needed help, surely there would be a neighbor, relative, or another homeschooler that could be of assistance.

(I might mention that though I attended public schools, I was on an independent study track from the time I was 13. I attended over 20 different junior highs. By the time I was your age, I was taking my classes at U of Arizona/Tucson. I'm nearly as innocent of what happens in public high schools as you are.)

It's true, I have never attended public schools. However, my father was a public school teacher for well over twenty years.

 

[Zimfan]

taoist;
Better butt kicked than butt kizzed. Besides, it'd take more than three of the cute little tykes.

So it would take 4 cute little tykes?

taoist;
Yup, you guessed it. It's all WA's fault.

I'd say it's all Tye's fault.

 

[taoist]

Christine;
You don't seem old to me.

taoist;
Thank ya, darlin', but I'm still not giving you a ride on the motorcycle without ya put on that helmet. But I'll take your implied meaning and treat you as a young adult, if you wish. This will be less gentle than I'd treat your younger sister. I'm going to raise the standards for this discussion.


Christine;
Are/were you a college science professor?

taoist;
Mathematics is called the queen of the sciences. (University, not college; there's a substantial difference, especially when it comes to research.) I'm a pure math dude. Fun things like stabilizing transformations on embeddable projective geometries in infinite classes of algebraic codes over finite fields. I named them "Projective Design Codes." Think about treating functions like you'd treat numbers but with a few more operations than just addition and multiplication. After that, it starts to get interesting.


Christine;
The majority of homeschoolers help their children to excel to their fullest potential.

taoist;
Data, please. The word "majority" has a meaning. You've discovered their fullest potential via what methodology? You're employing a method of debate known as "argument by unsupported assertion." I don't believe the research has been done to support your position. I do believe it should be an active topic of research, especially as home schooling has become more popular.


Christine;
Thanks to being homeschooled, I've had the opportunity to take classes not even offered at public school.

taoist;
Well, that's wonderful. Most public school systems do have independent study courses available, though it takes a bit more paperwork. (I should know having seen more than my share of public school systems and independent study.)


Christine;
What exactly do you mean by being publicly accountable? Do you mean having the children attending public school, having Mom meet with a social worker, etc.

taoist;
Yes, both of those things, but mostly getting the kids out where they could be spotted by the local "nosy parkers" if you know that expression. I'm thinking especially of what could have been done to give Ms. Yates' kids a better chance. No guarantees, just a better roll of the dice. The social workers eventually got in, but by then it was too late.

Think in terms of those kids and tell me what you think could have been done better or differently. Personally, I think even the most minimal regulatory standard for home schools would have prevented the tragedy. The place wasn't clean enough to live in, let alone to study in. That particular case is profoundly disturbing to me. I could very easily put myself in their shoes. I know from personal experience how they must have felt.


Christine;
Please understand that when I say correspondence school, I don't mean charter schools.

taoist;
I know what a correspondence school is, some of my Navy buds enrolled when I was on board ship. There are a lot of charter schools in Chicago, but they vary vastly in quality in curriculum — everything from a school of the arts to the University of Chicago lab school.


Christine;
The parent and child would be learning to read together. Despite the parent not being able to read, he probably is skilled in other areas of learning. It is doubtful both parents would be illiterate.

taoist;
This is wishful thinking at best, a rose-colored view of the world. Illiterate parents are unlikely to be skilled in any area of learning. The odds of both parents being illiterate given that one is illiterate are naturally higher. Remove your doubts along with your rose-colored glasses and think about the cases as they truly exist.


Christine;
Why would the child be held back [by the incompetence of the teacher]?

taoist;
Two basic reasons come to mind.

1. The student is subject to wrong instruction
2. The student's instruction is interrupted by time spent instructing the instructor

It's usually a bad idea for the blind to lead the blind.


Christine;
After I learned how to read fluently, I was able to do the majority of my studies on my own. Normally, I only need help in two of my subjects. If the child needed help, surely there would be a neighbor, relative, or another homeschooler that could be of assistance.

taoist;
You've obviously never visited the inner city. Take my word for it, it's possible for an entire neighborhood to be dysfunctional.

The poorly educated tend to cluster in families. If one family member is a college graduate, then the chances are very great that other family members are as well. Conversely, if neither parent has been to college, the chances are very great that the children will not attempt college at all.

"Surely," your viewpoint is biased by your own environment. There are a lot of bad homes out there. Less than half are two-parent families. Far too often, the public school is the closest thing these students will see to a stable environment. Even inner-city gangs consider school grounds neutral territory.


Christine;
It's true, I have never attended public schools. However, my father was a public school teacher for well over twenty years.

taoist;
Does he post here as well?