toldailytopic: Homeschooling vs. Public schooling.

[Nathon Detroit]

If you want to be sure of your child's upbringing, isn't it rational to do it yourself rather than have random strangers do it?

Seems logical to me. :up:

 

[MrRadish]

Sure it is. Rationally, I know that these people who are family are more important than other people in my life, or people I don't know. If I had to save my child OR a stranger and I couldn't save both, I'd save my child.

What about you? If you only had one free hand, and could only save one person besides yourself, would you save your child/spouse/parent/etc. ?

Or a stranger?

I'd have an instinctive reaction to save a member of my family, but that would be a basically self-centred, emotional reaction to the circumstances. My family are important to me. That doesn't mean that they are more important than other people per se. In your hypothetical, it wouldn't be more moral to save a loved one, and if it were a choice between saving a family member or two people you don't know then I'd argue that opting for the former would be selfish and hypocritical.

That's not exactly what you said earlier. You said:

"More important" does not equal "siding with relatives in a disagreement even if rationally they know they are wrong."

I've often disagreed with relatives. They may be wrong. I may be wrong.

I was using siding with relatives in disagreements (between them and non-relatives) as an example of how people prioritise irrationally based on emotional ties with family members. I have come across many people who will defend a relative's words or actions even if it is readily apparent that they were in the wrong, merely because of a misplaced sense of loyalty.

As far as I'm concerned, this attitude and the notion that one has a moral duty to prioritise one's own family above others are manifestations of the same thing, which is the confusion between emotion and reason.

They're still more important than others.

What do you mean by 'important'?

 

[MrRadish]

If you want to be sure of your child's upbringing, isn't it rational to do it yourself rather than have random strangers do it?

What if you know that the 'random stranger' (or rather, trained professional) can do a better job of some aspects of it than yourself? Or if you have the humility to admit that there are valid and useful perspectives beyond those that you can offer?

 

[annabenedetti]

I'd have an instinctive reaction to save a member of my family, but that would be a basically self-centred, emotional reaction to the circumstances. My family are important to me. That doesn't mean that they are more important than other people per se. In your hypothetical, it wouldn't be more moral to save a loved one, and if it were a choice between saving a family member or two people you don't know then I'd argue that opting for the former would be selfish and hypocritical.

But that wasn't the choice I offered as example. It would have to be one for one in order for the hypothetical to make any sense at all, right?

I was using siding with relatives in disagreements (between them and non-relatives) as an example of how people prioritise irrationally based on emotional ties with family members. I have come across many people who will defend a relative's words or actions even if it is readily apparent that they were in the wrong, merely because of a misplaced sense of loyalty.

As far as I'm concerned, this attitude and the notion that one has a moral duty to prioritise one's own family above others are manifestations of the same thing, which is the confusion between emotion and reason.

But that's still not what you used originally to illustrate. You said "more important." Not more right. Which I addressed in my previous answer. It seems like you're so focused on making sure you don't cross from reason to emotion you're paralyzed on the line.

What do you mean by 'important'?

I gave an illustration in my previous.

 

[Lighthouse]

I was going to start with the pros for public school but I can't think of any.

I agree with Granite except that I'd actually add 'complete parental control of the curriculum' to the cons as well as the pros, and would also criticise homeschooling's potential lack of exposure to a wide range of other children (including ones of whom parents might disapprove) in unsupervised social enviroments.

At what point should children be able to socialize without supervision? And home school only lacks exposure if the parents never let the kids leave the house.

I also think that public schools are quite useful in that they can help teach children that their life and identity aren't totally oriented around their family, and that whilst obviously it's good to get on well with their relatives, they are fundamentally independent human beings who are also part of a larger community. Family is only one small part of one's place in society as a whole.

But family is the foundation of society and children can learn how society should work from their family.

Oh and it can also help to neutralise the effects of really awful parenting. I know parents who'd wreck the prospects of their descendants for generations to come if they were expected to educate their children.

Only because those parents went to public school in the first place; it's a vicious cycle.

Also, not all parents are qualified to teach their children, and they don't have the same type of socialization as in public schools.

Kids are usually smart enough to teach themselves if their parents can't. And there is also the option of bringing in tutors if necessary. Also, socialization does not require a school setting.

Also, homeschooling doesn't offer the electives courses that are available in public schools such as driver's ed, foreign language, etc.

Driver's Ed is a completely useless class and one does not need a class to learn a foreign language. Also they can take language classes in College.

Public schools have more to offer as far as curriculum, electives, sports, school activities, certified instructors and socialization.

Not necessarily.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to unsupervised time with other children, of which I believe the former outweighs the latter. How are the children supposed to learn individuality, a sense of personal privacy or a healthy peer-to-peer dynamic if they are supervised?

At what age should they be left unsupervised? And if they are unsupervised who tells them to stop when they are practicing unhealthy socialization?

I disagree. I find that people who put their own families first are thinking in a fundamentally egocentric way, because they're essentially saying that some people are more important than others simply because they happen to be related to them. Close families also tend to result in more insular ideas and beliefs, whereas if people are less constricted by familial pressures they tend to be more open-minded and prepared to reconsider their ideas in light of the alternative perspectives to which they're exposed.

Somebody needs a hug.

Yes, I put my own family first. Yes, my family is more important than others.

:thumb:

If you want to be sure of your child's upbringing, isn't it rational to do it yourself rather than have random strangers do it?

Amen!

 

[genuineoriginal]

There are both advantages and disadvantages to unsupervised time with other children, of which I believe the former outweighs the latter. How are the children supposed to learn individuality, a sense of personal privacy or a healthy peer-to-peer dynamic if they are supervised?

Children that are supervised in their interactions learn healthy peer-to-peer interactions. Children that are left unsupervised with other children learn unhealthy peer-to-peer interactions from the other children.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I disagree. I find that people who put their own families first are thinking in a fundamentally egocentric way, because they're essentially saying that some people are more important than others simply because they happen to be related to them. Close families also tend to result in more insular ideas and beliefs, whereas if people are less constricted by familial pressures they tend to be more open-minded and prepared to reconsider their ideas in light of the alternative perspectives to which they're exposed.

It takes a family to raise a child. It takes a village to raise an idiot.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I was using siding with relatives in disagreements (between them and non-relatives) as an example of how people prioritise irrationally based on emotional ties with family members. I have come across many people who will defend a relative's words or actions even if it is readily apparent that they were in the wrong

There is strength in family unity but your way leaves each person alone and weak.

 

[Stripe]

What if you know that the 'random stranger' (or rather, trained professional) can do a better job of some aspects of it than yourself?

Then you've done your homework and the person in question is not a random stranger. :duh:

Or if you have the humility to admit that there are valid and useful perspectives beyond those that you can offer?

Then you bring in those people as you see fit.

 

[Buzzword]

Excellent synopsis, Granite.

I've seen wonderful results of public schooling in mine and my wife's lives, and horrible examples of home schooling in my family.

As a non-parent, perhaps indefinitely, I can only speak as an outside observer, but this seems apparent:
To be a successful homeschooling parent, a certain level of financial security is required.

If both parents have to work full-time just to get by, there's no time (or energy) left to teach the child, or any money left over to pay for a tutor or even a babysitter while he/she does homework.

These parents (which, if the economic news is to be believed, are becoming a bigger and bigger majority) HAVE to trust someone else to teach their kids, and the number of people they have to trust just gets bigger as the kids get older.

 

[Lighthouse]

If both parents have to work full-time just to get by, there's no time (or energy) left to teach the child, or any money left over to pay for a tutor or even a babysitter while he/she does homework.

The problem with this is that such parents tend to take no interest, and do not participate at all, in their children's education.

 

[MrRadish]

But that wasn't the choice I offered as example. It would have to be one for one in order for the hypothetical to make any sense at all, right?

OK. Using the example you gave, it with be neither more nor less rational to save the person who was related to you.

But that's still not what you used originally to illustrate. You said "more important." Not more right. Which I addressed in my previous answer. It seems like you're so focused on making sure you don't cross from reason to emotion you're paralyzed on the line.

As I've said, I don't see how there are different principles at work when saying you're obligated to side with your family in a quarrel with others then when you're saying that you're obligated to put your family above others in dangerous situations.

I gave an illustration in my previous.

If so then I'm afraid I'm not finding it very clear.

At what point should children be able to socialize without supervision? And home school only lacks exposure if the parents never let the kids leave the house.

A certain amount of unsupervised social interaction around primary school age - five or so - seems like a good time to start, as it seems to be when children are just starting to be able to form their own opinions about things and are just beginning to understand the concept of alternative perspectives.

And I didn't say that homeschooled children wouldn't get any exposure to social interaction, I'm saying that the social interaction they would experience would be severely limited by parental preferences and by the circles in which said parents moved.

But family is the foundation of society and children can learn how society should work from their family.

I disagree. The comparison between society and family is rather a limited one in my opinion. You don't elect the head of a family, for example. Even more significantly, most members of a family tend to have roughly similar socioeconomic backgrounds and, in many cases, political and religious stances as well. Often, when a family member goes against these accepted norms, they are shunned by other relatives or at the very least pressured to reconsider their position and conform for the sake of family unity. This is an awful basis for a society.

Only because those parents went to public school in the first place; it's a vicious cycle.

:AMR: Sorry, are you actually saying that the only reason there are ignorant and small-minded parents is because of the public school system?

Children that are supervised in their interactions learn healthy peer-to-peer interactions. Children that are left unsupervised with other children learn unhealthy peer-to-peer interactions from the other children.

The very act of supervision adds an element of inhibition which, if present in most or all peer-to-peer interactions, is in itself unhealthy.

It takes a family to raise a child. It takes a village to raise an idiot.

How glib.

There is strength in family unity but your way leaves each person alone and weak.

There is strength in social unity but your way leaves each person insular and constricted.

Then you've done your homework and the person in question is not a random stranger.

No. They're, for example, a qualified teacher at a reputable school.

Then you bring in those people as you see fit.

Only bringing in those alternative perspectives that you consider 'fit' rather defeats the object of alternative perspectives, I feel... :think:

 

[Stripe]

No. They're, for example, a qualified teacher at a reputable school.

No? So they are a stranger?

Only bringing in those alternative perspectives that you consider 'fit' rather defeats the object of alternative perspectives, I feel... :think:

You think the best thing to do for your child is to have him taught things you disagree with? :AMR:

 

[MrRadish]

No? So they are a stranger?

They're not a 'random' stranger, they're a carefully selected, well-qualified one. That and many parents do in fact meet the teachers of their children during the child's education, and provision generally exists for children to move class if a particular instructor is causing major problems.

You think the best thing to do for your child is to have him taught things you disagree with? :AMR:

Yes! Or at the very least exposed to things you disagree with in a way that isn't biased by your own disagreement with it. You can acquaint them with the counterarguments yourself, but if a viewpoint is widespread and supported enough to justify being on the national syllabus then it's almost certainly worth a child getting a thorough education about it from both sides of the debate.

 

[Stripe]

They're not a 'random' stranger, they're a carefully selected, well-qualified one. That and many parents do in fact meet the teachers of their children during the child's education, and provision generally exists for children to move class if a particular instructor is causing major problems.

So what exactly is your issue then?

Yes!

:doh:

Or at the very least exposed to things you disagree with in a way that isn't biased by your own disagreement with it. You can acquaint them with the counterarguments yourself, but if a viewpoint is widespread and supported enough to justify being on the national syllabus then it's almost certainly worth a child getting a thorough education about it from both sides of the debate.

Moral relativism has claimed another mind. :kook:

I prefer to teach kids what is right.

 

[MrRadish]

So what exactly is your issue then?

I don't have an issue with children going to a school and being taught by teachers who their parents have met. Why do you think I have?

Moral relativism has claimed another mind. :kook:

I'll take tolerance over your hubris any day.

You know, I'd have thought you'd be glad I don't want to home educate any children I might have. This way I won't be able to brainwash them with my liberal socialist God-hating muslim-loving moral relativist propaganda, right? At least they'll meet some Christians... :chuckle:

I prefer to teach kids what is right.

I'd rather children had a fighting chance to be right about things about which their parents are wrong.

Unlike you, I don't automatically assume that everything I believe is absolutely 100% correct with no possibility for error or for being misinformed.

 

[Stripe]

I don't have an issue with children going to a school and being taught by teachers who their parents have met. Why do you think I have?

I don't. :idunno:

I'll take tolerance over your hubris any day.You know, I'd have thought you'd be glad I don't want to home educate any children I might have. This way I won't be able to brainwash them with my liberal socialist God-hating muslim-loving moral relativist propaganda, right? At least they'll meet some Christians... :chuckle:

:idunno:

Up to you. Perhaps they'll strike someone like me as a teacher.

I'd rather children had a fighting chance to be right about things about which their parents are wrong.

What child does not gain the ability to discover their parents' mistakes?

Unlike you, I don't automatically assume that everything I believe is absolutely 100% correct with no possibility for error or for being misinformed.

Nice work. You completely flattened that straw man.

 

[Granite]

Excellent synopsis, Granite.

Thanks Buzzword.

I've seen wonderful results of public schooling in mine and my wife's lives, and horrible examples of home schooling in my family.

My family was very lucky; many families we knew while home schooling were not.

To be a successful homeschooling parent, a certain level of financial security is required.

This much is certain. I was fortunate to have a stay-at-home mother; not everyone enjoys that situation. I was also fortunate enough to have a pair of very bright parents, but even their smarts had their limits, and they decided to stop homeschooling when, frankly, home education got above their pay grade (as it were). There's no shame in that, and it takes humility (or at least savvy) to recognize when you should and could let your kids out into the world.

If both parents have to work full-time just to get by, there's no time (or energy) left to teach the child, or any money left over to pay for a tutor or even a babysitter while he/she does homework.

Correct; that's the reality of 21st century living for many people. That's why I'm puzzled by homeschooling advocates who are absolutists. Look: just because it worked for you doesn't mean it'll work for everybody else (and, frankly, it may not have worked for some families as well as they might think).

 

[Buzzword]

The problem with this is that such parents tend to take no interest, and do not participate at all, in their children's education.

Yeah, because they're too busy taking interest and participating in FEEDING THE CHILD.

More and more families are finding themselves in the hole every month, even with both parents working multiple jobs.

When you can barely pay bills, and paying bills results in having to do without other needs, making use of public school is just a given.

If Mommy and Daddy can't buy little Jimmy the new socks he needs because the electricity's about to be turned off, where does the time and money necessary for homeschooling come from?

Correct; that's the reality of 21st century living for many people. That's why I'm puzzled by homeschooling advocates who absolutists. Look: just because it worked for you doesn't mean it'll work for everybody else (and, frankly, it may not have worked for some families as well as they might think).

Agreed.

 

[MrRadish]

I don't. :idunno:

Well that's marvellous then.

Up to you. Perhaps they'll strike someone like me as a teacher.

Perhaps they will. And if they did, my pleasure at the fact they were being exposed to perspectives very different from my own would outweight the annoyance I'd feel at you teaching them from a perspective which I didn't believe to be correct.

What child does not gain the ability to discover their parents' mistakes?

Insufficient unbiased exposure to alternative viewpoints certainly seems to stunt this capacity from what I've seen. It also tends to lead to crippling guilt problems relating to breaking away and making independent personal and moral choices, from what I've seen.

I prefer to teach kids what is right.

Unlike you, I don't automatically assume that everything I believe is absolutely 100% correct with no possibility for error or for being misinformed.

Nice work. You completely flattened that straw man.

If you aren't open to the possibility that perspectives that differ from yours might be right, then you're making precisely the assumption of which I accused you.