Perform or be gone.

Without commenting on the schools themselves, I can imagine it might not be that easy to perform having to watch over your every word, lest some crazy accuse you of propagandizing.

JC, I don't get what the issue is with the resolutions. You should be able to home-school a kid (the quackiest of quack ideas),

Yes, no elitism here. First you sneer that people don't care about education, and then you sneer at those who care so much that they actually want to take responsibility for it.

and still be able to use public school facilities and personnel for extra-curriculars?

The issue is that it's hard to see what on earth business it is of the teachers' union whether home schooled kids participate in extracurricular activities. The only conceivable reason they would care is because denying home schoolers the ability to participate is a way to discourage home schooling -- and the only reason they care about that is to protect their funding and their jobs. Which is despicable.

Of course, that's the moderate position from the educational establishment; a common position is to try to outlaw home schooling entirely, as California arguably does.

Should they be able to home school some classes, and public school the others, too?

I don't see why not. They pay the same taxes as everyone else. Obviously one has to make sure it isn't too much of an administrative burden for a school district, but certainly by the time a student gets to high school, he's likely to have an individualized schedule anyway, so as long as he supplies his own transportation, it shouldn't be a problem.

You don't think a person who studied political history is inherently more likely to try to impart their political beliefs on others than a guy who didn't?

No, and the notion is silly.

The idea that teachers are out there en masse trying to "impart their political beliefs" on students is nothing more than a paranoid bugaboo that is itself deleterious to education.

Without commenting on the schools themselves, I can imagine it might not be that easy to perform having to watch over your every word, lest some crazy accuse you of propagandizing.

Not to mention, fairly and objectively assessing performance is quite difficult, if not impossible. See E-X's excellent post #1166. I mean, is Bruce Bochy all of a sudden a terrible manager?

Not that I care about this particular sub-issue one way or the other, but the counterargument seems to be that these parents can trust public school football coaches, but not public school history teachers. Apparently Satan's reach extends only so far.

Yes, Andy, because all home schoolers are crazy religious fanatics. (Why, they're almost the Al Qaeda of parents!)

The counterargument is more likely to be that they can trust public school football coaches to do their jobs, because public school football coaches are judged on results and thus don't get to keep their jobs no matter what, the way public school history teachers do. (And football coaches don't get to make the excuse that the kids weren't prepared at home or have bad practice habits.)

The counterargument is more likely to be that there's actual discipline on a football team, the way there isn't in history classes, and so misbehaving kids don't get to ruin it for everyone else. (That's only partly the fault of teachers; it's more the fault of liberals generally, who pass incredibly stupid laws like IDEA to make school discipline impossible.)

The idea that teachers are out there en masse trying to "impart their political beliefs" on students is nothing more than a paranoid bugaboo that is itself deleterious to education.

Perhaps, but it is not your place nor mine nor anyone elses to force that belief on any parent. In this society, parents are free to chose the method of their children's education. We only need require that the child is taught to a minimal acceptable standard. A parent can have any number of reasons to choose why to not send their child to a public school, and no one has the right to judge and scoff at their reasons.

I think everyone misses the biggest problem in schools: Students often don't care. You can't teach a child who doesn't care, and people capable of making otherwise apathetic people care about something are few and far between. Schools can only serve as a place where people who want to be educated can become educated, and they succeed at that 99% of the time. I don't know anyone who really wanted an education who felt the schools themselves let them down. Sure, there are really shitty schools that even fail to aid enthusiastic students in their quest for an education, but the falling test scores are as a direct result of more and more people not caring about their education.

Issues like merit pay for teachers and more accountability would cause changes in a very small fraction of teachers, and I still haven't seen a proposal that would be fair for either issue.

Yes. Home-schooling your kids doesn't get you out of paying your taxes for the schools. It's like saying that if you have a postage meter at home, you're banned from going to the post office for anything.

That's absurd. The kid isn't a student at the school. And if extra-curriculars aren't limited to students, any taxpayer paying for the school has an equal -- indeed, a superior, since the kids aren't paying -- claim to be admitted to the same activities. Somehow, I don't think the chess club or the French club would be quite the same if it were open to the general townfolk.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Presumably there's a reason the taxpayers are forced to pay for extracurriculars for school children -- that we think it benefits the children in some way which ultimately benefits "society" [sic]. (If that isn't the case, then there shouldn't be any extracurriculars at all.) Presumably there's a rational basis for drawing a line between children and adults in having the government provide these services. But there's no rational basis for drawing a line between children being educated by parents and children being educated by teachers. To the extent it benefits children/"society" to participate in French club, it benefits them/us even more if home schooled kids are included.

Adding adults would both strain the budgets and drastically change the experience. Adding home schooled kids would do neither.

The idea that teachers are out there en masse trying to "impart their political beliefs" on students is nothing more than a paranoid bugaboo that is itself deleterious to education.

They're not doing it in an organized fashion, but if you don't think a lot of teachers do it, you're showing off an incredibly narrow view. And I'm not saying that it's simply a leftist thing, there are no doubts that there are teachers out there trying to spread their rightist views. It's something I would find despicable from my child's teacher, even if the teacher was spreading my libertarian beliefs.

It boggles my mind that a good basic public education is a left/right issue, and I believe it is not so in most of the developed world. The left (generally) sees a good basic public education as the right of every child. The right (generally) sees a good basic public education as necessary for the efficiency of the national economy. As it happens, both reasons for supporting the system are in my view valid and this should be one issue where bipartisanship should prevail.

We have had provincial governments in Canada which see the public education system as some kind of threat or a waste of money, so the American predicament is certainly not unique.

Yes, no elitism here. First you sneer that people don't care about education, and then you sneer at those who care so much that they actually want to take responsibility for it.

I don't know that it's elitist, and I know I'm not "sneering," but I know a quack idea when I see it.

There's a reason education has been conducted among a community of student peers for centuries. Shucking that model because of the daffy conceits of the overcommitted is silly and there's no reason not to say so.

The issue is that it's hard to see what on earth business it is of the teachers' union whether home schooled kids participate in extracurricular activities. The only conceivable reason they would care is because denying home schoolers the ability to participate is a way to discourage home schooling -- and the only reason they care about that is to protect their funding and their jobs. Which is despicable.


Well, I barely follow this thing, but it took me less than a minute to figure out the obvious reason, which is that they're there to teach the commmunity of students -- the people they interact with outside extracurriculars -- and don't want to complicate an already difficult mission by admitting those not part of the community and especially those who have affirmatively rejected the community. They'd then have to deal with, among other complications, the non-members being treated as outsiders by the other kids and all that entails.

That's some pretty low-hanging fruit, but there you have it.

They're not doing it in an organized fashion, but if you don't think a lot of teachers do it, you're showing off an incredibly narrow view.

And if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, they'll flunk ya!!

Without commenting on the schools themselves, I can imagine it might not be that easy to perform having to watch over your every word, lest some crazy accuse you of propagandizing.

Yes, we wouldn't want them to be accountable (there's that word again) for what they say. I have to watch every word I say in my job. If I anger my clients, I'm risking my job. If I anger my boss, I'm risking my job. If I'm BSing with co-workers and I offend somebody, I'm risking my job. That's accountability. That's the world the majority of the country lives in. Until teachers are willing to accept it, they'll continue to get, and will deserve, little sympathy.

You're exactly right, Dan. It is hard for children to have the perspective on their education that makes learning about factorials or inferences worthwhile. Teaching middle school math, I try to convey two ideas for motivation: 1) the individual skills may not have a great deal of real life applicability, but they teach you logical skills that will help with any decision making process you undertake, and 2) your grades and test scores were chosen as measures of your academic abilities by schools at every level, so you have to participate in the system in order to succeed. A minority accept this reasoning, but it is better than nothing.

I'm ambivalent about merit pay (and the ongoing discussions of accountability). I agree that teachers need to be objectively measured in some way. On the other hand, my school spent 36 out of 180 school days this year administering standardized tests (20 freaking percent). The curricula developed over time by some of the most wily and creative veteran teachers have been eroded down to redundant vanilla. I see educational opportunities for student engagement and development of critical thinking skills squandered every day. Until we get better at testing critical thinking and problem solving (the skills that schools are most responsible for teaching, and those most important in real life), more testing is nothing more than more lost time.

I also agree that home school should be allowed and encouraged for worthy home-schoolers. But there has to be some sort of standardization of the teaching (not curriculum). Parents should have to pass a basic aptitude test, akin to what a teacher has to pass (trust me, these tests are NOT excruciatingly difficult). They can teach what they want, but we should know in advance that they are actually able to teach.

Perhaps, but it is not your place nor mine nor anyone elses to force that belief on any parent. In this society, parents are free to chose the method of their children's education. We only need require that the child is taught to a minimal acceptable standard. A parent can have any number of reasons to choose why to not send their child to a public school, and no one has the right to judge and scoff at their reasons.

Since they're raising kids who will be my co-equals in self-government, I have every right to judge and scoff at the way the kids are educated and the reasons behind that decision.

Well, I barely follow this thing, but it took me less than a minute to figure out the obvious reason, which is that they're there to teach the commmunity of students -- the people they interact with outside extracurriculars -- and don't want to complicate an already difficult mission by admitting those not part of the community and especially those who have affirmatively rejected the community. They'd then have to deal with, among other complications, the non-members being treated as outsiders by the other kids and all that entails.

I would characterize this as "too bad, so sad." I don't care if it complicates matters, it's what right. Do you believe that people of extreme political views should also be prevented from the exercise of free speech because the things they say complicate things?

They're not doing it in an organized fashion, but if you don't think a lot of teachers do it, you're showing off an incredibly narrow view. And I'm not saying that it's simply a leftist thing, there are no doubts that there are teachers out there trying to spread their rightist views. It's something I would find despicable from my child's teacher, even if the teacher was spreading my libertarian beliefs.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying so what if it does. A teacher not being of the same political persuasion as your kids is no reason to do anything, if she's otherwise a competent teacher.

Since they're raising kids who will be my co-equals in self-government, I have every right to judge and scoff at the way the kids are educated and the reasons behind that decision.

The same applies for private schools, but banning those would be met with quite a bit of opposition. If radicals raise their children to be radicals, their role in government is likely to be as marginal as their parents'. It's one of the relatively functional trappings of democracy.

Yes, we wouldn't want them to be accountable (there's that word again) for what they say. I have to watch every word I say in my job. If I anger my clients, I'm risking my job. If I anger my boss, I'm risking my job. If I'm BSing with co-workers and I offend somebody, I'm risking my job. That's accountability. That's the world the majority of the country lives in. Until teachers are willing to accept it, they'll continue to get, and will deserve, little sympathy.

So, if the opinion of a professor angers someone, they should risk their job? Doesn't that actually destroy any sort of openness to ideas?

Well, I barely follow this thing, but it took me less than a minute to figure out the obvious reason, which is that they're there to teach the commmunity of students -- the people they interact with outside extracurriculars -- and don't want to complicate an already difficult mission by admitting those not part of the community and especially those who have affirmatively rejected the community. They'd then have to deal with, among other complications, the non-members being treated as outsiders by the other kids and all that entails.

Hogwash! I coach little league, and my 12 kids are spread amongst 4 schools. My son spends as much time with his friends who go to two different schools as he does in school itself. No one has affirmatively rejected anything. Again I ask, why do you hate children? Why would you deny a child access to charcter building activities merely to punish his parents who made a ridiculous (your position) choice?

There's a reason education has been conducted among a community of student peers for centuries.

Yes. the reason was that a highly industrial society needed someplace to store the children during the day so both parents could work in the factory.

And if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, they'll flunk ya!!

After the Thomas confirmation, I had a teacher that seemingly spent 15 minutes of every class ranting about how Thomas's views were wrong and stupid. A year earlier, I had an aggressively pro-life teacher.

I couldn't have cared less for or against Thomas at the time or abortion at the time, but don't you think it's a problem for kids out there to be intimidated by their teachers? Most 16-year-olds are going to fear a bad grade a lot more than being true to their personal beliefs.

Not that I care about this particular sub-issue one way or the other, but the counterargument seems to be that these parents can trust public school football coaches, but not public school history teachers. Apparently Satan's reach extends only so far.

I'm sure parents of home-schooled children are more worried about the history teacher indoctrinating their children in values that they do not share than are worried about football coaches indoctrinating students on how to run a screen pass.

To me this isn't a one-sided issue. The home schooling parents seem to want to have it both ways. And if it's all about "values," it's not any less logical for them to enroll their child in English but not History, or one History class but not another. In this case the "extracurricular" label on football seems more a matter of convenience than substance.

OTOH the problem I see with banning the home schooled child from sports, etc., is that by doing that you're essentially punishing the child for his parents' political ideology. And no matter the virtue of the overall point about not letting parents cherry pick the public schools' offerings, it just seems smallminded on the schools' part to take the parents' actions out on the child.

By doing this, all you're accomplishing is reinforcing the parents' decision to cut the child off from interaction with other children who don't happen to share his own parents' particular set of "values." From a standpoint of both general social policy and the child's future, that seems pretty shortsighted.

I guess I just don't see the logic in decrying a parent's choice of cutting their child off from social interaction from 9 to 3 (or whatever), and then reinforcing the child's social isolation by extending it through the rest of the day. No matter what the logical justification may be, in practice it seems mostly just spiteful.

Again I ask, why do you hate children?

Again I ask, what the * are you talking about?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying so what if it does. A teacher not being of the same political persuasion as your kids is no reason to do anything, if she's otherwise a competent teacher.

I'm not saying that a teacher not being of the same political persuasion as your kids is a problem, I'm saying that a teacher that propagandizes their political beliefs while being an authority figure is.

I guess I just don't see the logic in decrying a parent's choice of cutting their child off from social interaction from 9 to 3 (or whatever), and then reinforcing the child's social isolation by extending it through the rest of the day. No matter what the logical justification may be, in practice it seems mostly just spiteful.

Right. If the major problem someone has with homeschooling is that it allows for polarized belief systems and extremism, bringing those children into contact with "mainstream" kids would temper that development somewhat.

Again I ask, what the * are you talking about?

You are adamant about denying benefits to children because you disagree with the choices of their parents.

I guess I just don't see the logic in decrying a parent's choice of cutting their child off from social interaction from 9 to 3 (or whatever), and then reinforcing the child's social isolation by extending it through the rest of the day. No matter what the logical justification may be, in practice it seems mostly just spiteful.

I think the hope would be that the parents would see that, and abandon the silly notion of home schooling. Failing that, I suppose I'd reluctantly allow the parents to cherry-pick, while sympathizing with the teachers/coaches that have to teach/coach them.

Demanding to use the school facilities when your kid isn't even a student is selfish beyond belief.

I couldn't have cared less for or against Thomas at the time or abortion at the time, but don't you think it's a problem for kids out there to be intimidated by their teachers?

It's human nature, Szym. Most adults that are put in charge of children and are expected to form them in some way use intimidation as a method to induce compliance. Some kids knuckle under, some kids tune it out and some kids rebel.

That which does not kill you makes you strong.

The counterargument is more likely to be that there's actual discipline on a football team, the way there isn't in history classes, and so misbehaving kids don't get to ruin it for everyone else. (That's only partly the fault of teachers; it's more the fault of liberals generally, who pass incredibly stupid laws like IDEA to make school discipline impossible.)

I think the counterargument is that the kids on the football team are there because they want to be, not because they're forced to be. It's a lot easier to teach kids who want to learn, whether it's football or math.

That which does not kill you makes you strong.

Even polio?

sympathizing with the teachers/coaches that have to teach/coach them.

Again, it's all speculation on your part. I coach kids from the local public school, the local charter school, the local religious school, and 2 home schoolers all on the same team. There is no conflict, no burden, and one would never know that these kids didn't all attend the same school. You are making way, way to much of the supposed "burden".

Most adults that are put in charge of children and are expected to form them in some way use intimidation as a method to induce compliance.

My most effective educational skill is my 6'5, 205 lb frame. My best teaching friend is a jacked former athlete who wears size S polo shirts for exactly this purpose.

You are adamant about denying benefits to children because you disagree with the choices of their parents.

Form clubs with the other homeschooled kids.

It's human nature, Szym. Most adults that are put in charge of children and are expected to form them in some way use intimidation as a method to induce compliance. Some kids knuckle under, some kids tune it out and some kids rebel.


True, but I think that's more of a discipline issue - I don't see why teachers need to intimidate students when it comes to the teacher's private political beliefs. I used to do a lot of private tutoring and I never felt the need to try and spread libertarian propaganda.

My most effective educational skill is my 6'5, 205 lb frame. My best teaching friend is a jacked former athlete who wears size S polo shirts for exactly this purpose.

Doesn't work for everyone! If I was a teacher that wore a size S polo shirt, I think I'd get a lot of "Mr. Szymborski, why do you drink too much?"

Hogwash! I coach little league, and my 12 kids are spread amongst 4 schools. My son spends as much time with his friends who go to two different schools as he does in school itself. No one has affirmatively rejected anything. Again I ask, why do you hate children? Why would you deny a child access to charcter building activities merely to punish his parents who made a ridiculous (your position) choice?

Little League isn't a school activity.

Demanding to use the school facilities when your kid isn't even a student is selfish beyond belief.

All I can say to this is that you are incedibly misguided. The facilities exist to educate and develop all children in the area. Most of society supports it. No one I know, besides you (and of course, I don't really know you) opposes it. It is entirely logical and fair to the children who are supposedly to be served. It is only the teacher's unions who, for reasons similar to yours, oppose it.

Doesn't work for everyone! If I was a teacher that wore a size S polo shirt, I think I'd get a lot of "Mr. Szymborski, why do you drink too much?"

I'm not in favor of corporal punishment per se, but if a teacher was allowed one free, uh, "punishment" per year with a student in the first few weeks of school, it would have tremendous effects the rest of the year. Coercive or not, it would make students pay attention, raise test scores, decrease silly misbehaviors, and possibly increase the net safety of the school by scaring kids out of fighting with each other, coming to school high, and starting fires in the building (which are common problems in my school).

Even polio?

Even polio.

True, but I think that's more of a discipline issue - I don't see why teachers need to intimidate students when it comes to the teacher's private political beliefs.

They don't see it that way. They see it as imparting crucial information that might otherwise slip through the cracks.

Criminy, just read this thread and see how annealed everyone is to their particular beliefs, diametrically opposed as they may be to someone else's.

It boggles my mind that a good basic public education is a left/right issue, and I believe it is not so in most of the developed world.

The idea that every kid should get a good basic public education isn't a left-right issue.

There was a time not so long ago in America when we had a great public primary and secondary education system, comparable to that of any country in the world. For generations we educated American children just fine without any help whatseover from the McGovernite New Left.

Then once the public school system came under virtual total control of the McGovernite New Left, they decided to "fix" something that wasn't even remotely broken, and after they broke the system themselves they decided to blame the wreckage on everyone else (parents are their favorite target of blame), and now they naturally strenuously resist any effort to try and undo the damage they've done.

I guess I just don't see the logic in decrying a parent's choice of cutting their child off from social interaction from 9 to 3 (or whatever), and then reinforcing the child's social isolation by extending it through the rest of the day. No matter what the logical justification may be, in practice it seems mostly just spiteful.

I think the hope would be that the parents would see that, and abandon the silly notion of home schooling. Failing that, I suppose I'd reluctantly allow the parents to cherry-pick, while sympathizing with the teachers/coaches that have to teach/coach them.

The bottom line for me is rather simple: Schools should be about teaching children, both in academics and in social skills. And two or three hours a day of exposing a child to children from a broader variety of belief systems is almost always going to be a step in the right direction.

And it's also true that many parents home school their children up through the elementary and intermediate level, and then enroll them in a public high school, having safely (in their view) inoculated them at a critical formative age. I think that this speaks to the hope you raise above, even though I'd be reluctant to label all home schooling as "silly"---sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, and to make a call like that I'd have to know the particulars.

I have to say I find Andy's and SBB's comments infuriating, but telltale evidence that they've abandoned the goal in favor of ideology. The goal in all schooling is to educate the student. You've both raised bugaboo issues like "Satan" and "selfishness" but not addressed the issue of educating the student at all. It's been assertion on top of assertion.

The goal of homeschooling (which I don't do), private and public schooling is to educate the child. The parents have a right to educate their children as they see fit. States that don't recognize that right restrict a fundamental and critical liberty.

In many instances, people educate their children at home or in private schools b/c they don't share the values of the public schools, that's true and undeniable. In many other instances, they opt for those options b/c they feel the public schools are deficient, and don't educate children well enough, and by every metric, the homeschooled kids outdo their peers. There are obviously explanatory variables in that that matter, but in terms of achieving their goals, there's no question they're doing that.

One knock against them is that old saw about "socialization." So, many homeschooling parents, desirous of achieving socialization, have turned to the schools their taxes pay for seeking "socialization" through plays, sports, whatever. B/c of your ideological commitments, you assume things like hypocrisy regarding values ("Gee, I'm clever, and I wonder how come they can take the football coach, but not the history teacher! Gotcha! [Oh, but I abhor gotcha politics in debates, btw, especially when directed at my fav pol].") or selfishness ("How dare they demand something back for their money?"). Sheer nonsense. Unfortunately, it's nonsense not just on a baseball blog, but the NEA is peddling: it's punitive - punish the students! Don't let them use our facilities! But they're not the NEA's facilities. They're mine and every other taxpayer's, and the teacher is my and every other taxpayer's employee.

If anything, if ideology weren't blinding you and self-interest not blinding the NEA, we'd all see how our republic would benefit from having the homeschoolers mix in any context.

Finally, SBB: your historical assertion about centuries of peer schooling is utter blather. For most of Western history, schooling was done in the home. "Peers" were brothers and to a lesser extent sisters. Students were taught by parents or tutors and usually in very small groups. Our entire model is a departure from a venerated tradition closer to the homeschooling model and one still entrenched at a POS school like Oxford U.

There was a time not so long ago in America when we had a great public primary and secondary education system, comparable to that of any country in the world. For generations we educated American children just fine without any help whatseover from the McGovernite New Left.

Then once the public school system came under virtual total control of the McGovernite New Left, they decided to "fix" something that wasn't even remotely broken, and after they broke the system themselves they decided to blame the wreckage on everyone else (parents are their favorite target of blame), and now they naturally strenuously resist any effort to try and undo the damage they've done.

It's tough to be both incomprehensibly vague and simplistic at the same time, but you may have achieved it. My school feeds into West Philadelphia High. Adding together the percentage of proficient reading students and proficient math students from grades 9-12, West is the 2nd worst HS of any public school in the 10 biggest cities in the US. I'm confident in asserting that this system qualifies as one of the "broken" ones. For a masters' education class I took, I had to write an historical ethnography of the school by interviewing students from different eras, looking through records, etc. I'm confident in saying that redlining, segregation, white flight, crack, poverty, de-industrialization (globalization and new service industries causing mass unemployment and despair), and the prison pipeline all had an effect on breaking this neighborhood. Perhaps McGovern's disciples had a role in it too, but I'm not sure what meta-causal power they had over Philadelphia. If you could clarify this fear/loathing in this particular instance, I would appreciate it.

And it's also true that many parents home school their children up through the elementary and intermediate level, and then enroll them in a public high school, having safely (in their view) inoculated them at a critical formative age. I think that this speaks to the hope you raise above, even though I'd be reluctant to label all home schooling as "silly"---sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, and to make a call like that I'd have to know the particulars.

You swayed me on not punishing the children (while still decrying the selfishness of the parents), but I'm curious to know the "particulars" that would distinguish "silly" home schooling from its opposite.

I'm thinking small town with a terrible school, mother of a kid, herself an ex-teacher teaching more than just her own kid in her home. Public school classrooms are only eight kids anyway, and she's teaching three.

Beyond that, I'm having a tough time, and in the situation where its a parent teaching only her kid, an admittedly impossible time, perhaps from want of imagination.

So, if the opinion of a professor angers someone, they should risk their job? Doesn't that actually destroy any sort of openness to ideas?

I was discussing the k-12 public schools, which is a different matter from university education, but my general answer remains the same. Teachers can have whatever opinions they want. But they should be accountable for their words on the job just like everybody else. If their employer, for whatever reason, decides they don't like what a teacher is doing in the course of their job, they absolutely should be able to remove them. I don't see how that'll impact openess to ideas in any significant way at the university level. Not that I've seen much evidence universities are particularly interested in openess to ideas.

You swayed me on not punishing the children (while still decrying the selfishness of the parents), but I'm curious to know the "particulars" that would distinguish "silly" home schooling from its opposite.

Why? I don't get the trouble w/this at all. I'll give you a for instance: How about when the mother believes she'll do a better job than the school? Why would it be silly then?

There was a time not so long ago in America when we had a great public primary and secondary education system, comparable to that of any country in the world. For generations we educated American children just fine without any help whatseover from the McGovernite New Left.

Then once the public school system came under virtual total control of the McGovernite New Left, they decided to "fix" something that wasn't even remotely broken, and after they broke the system themselves they decided to blame the wreckage on everyone else (parents are their favorite target of blame), and now they naturally strenuously resist any effort to try and undo the damage they've done.

I have a dream, that someday Joey B. will attempt to learn a few facts about the history of American education before running on like a six pack of the clap. I'm not saying that political correctness can't be a hindrance to education in many sets of circumstances, but to reduce the overall problem of education in this country to "McGovernism" is pure dope smoking.

You might, for example, look at the sort of pastimes the great majority of Americans seem to favor. You might examine our bestseller lists and the shows that inhabit the Nielson top 10. You might also study the statistics on out of wedlock births and broken homes. (These are "conservative" talking points, but that doesn't mean that they're not also germane.)

And then you can put on your blinders and pretend that all this has nothing to do with the state of our schools.

You can put "the left" in charge of our schools for 20 years, and then put "the right" in charge for the next 20, but unless you change the factors I list above, it ain't going to make a damn bit of difference one way or the other. The blunt truth is that while "we" may care about our own children's education, that pretty much is about it when it comes to our concern about schools.

I was discussing the k-12 public schools, which is a different matter from university education, but my general answer remains the same. Teachers can have whatever opinions they want. But they should be accountable for their words on the job just like everybody else.

Well, given that they already are accountable if they profess opinions and someone complains, then there is no need to change.

I don't see how that'll impact openess to ideas in any significant way at the university level. Not that I've seen much evidence universities are particularly interested in openess to ideas.

Really? I've seen tons of evidence that universities and professors are open to new ideas. Universities account for a very large percentage of new ideas, whether they be scientific ideas, new interpretations of history, philosophies, etc.

And it's also true that many parents home school their children up through the elementary and intermediate level, and then enroll them in a public high school, having safely (in their view) inoculated them at a critical formative age. I think that this speaks to the hope you raise above, even though I'd be reluctant to label all home schooling as "silly"---sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, and to make a call like that I'd have to know the particulars.

And pigeonholing all homeschoolers into the wacky religious right category is false. Many, probably most are, but there are a wide range of reasons for homeschooling. I have a friend who could best be described as a tree-hugging, anti-war, granola eating lefty liberal, and she homeschools her 3 daughters. Her main reason is that she rejects our society's rampant commercialism, and wishes to shelter her daughters, at least for a while (her oldest is 8) from their fellow second graders who all have cell phones, designer sneakers, and x-boxes, which they all bring to school daily. She doesn't want them exposed to coke and candy machines in every hallway, and the extremely foul language and rude behavior which trickles down to kindergarten these days.

I struggle with this as well. My 8 year old was crushed when he didn't get an x-box for Christmas like all his other friends did. My soon to be 6 year old daughter will be equally crushed next month when she doesn't get a cell phone for her birthday like some of her classmates have. But I chose to deal with those issues head on rather than trying to hide from them. But it is neither for me nor anyone else to judge my friends choice as wrong or misguided, or wacky.

The parents have a right to educate their children as they see fit.

No they don't. They don't have a "right" to sit in their home with their kids for eight hours a day and teach them crap.

I can't speak for Andy, but my views have nothing do do with ideology, much as some try to read one into my words.

If anything, I tend toward Joey's rantings as the core of the fundamental reasons behind the problem. Plus, of course, my belief that Americans don't really care about education as expressed above.

EDIT: It's more than a little telling that you had to tie in "private schools" and "homeschooling" into your defense of homeschooling.

Again, it's all speculation on your part. I coach kids from the local public school, the local charter school, the local religious school, and 2 home schoolers all on the same team. There is no conflict, no burden, and one would never know that these kids didn't all attend the same school. You are making way, way to much of the supposed "burden".

There's no burden. I agree completely, Misirlou, and my experience is the same. Currently coaching 8 girls on an AAU b-ball team, one of whom is homeschooled. None of the other girls care a whit. They're nearly all from different schools, the homeschooled kid is just like the rest (though she can't throw a decent chest pass).

Question regarding tenure for university faculty:

When one celebrates gaining tenure, is it really because they now express thoughts more freely than they had prior to gaining tenure?

I have severe doubts that there are significant changes in the exchange of ideas from an individual once they gain tenure.

Anyone with experience in that regard, please educate me if my suspicion is correct or way off base.

The parents have a right to educate their children as they see fit.

No they don't. They don't have a "right" to sit in their home with their kids for eight hours a day and teach them crap.

There is an implied qualification there, and that is the state should and does demand a minimal level of competence, and in all studies, home schoolers blow away their public school counterparts in this are. For those homeschoolers who fail to meet standards, the state does take action. so this objection is as invalid as your others.

And as I pointed out earlier, the minimum levels required are a joke anyway. My second grader is doing algebra and the state merely requires he know what odd and even numbers are.

No they don't. They don't have a "right" to sit in their home with their kids for eight hours a day and teach them crap.

I can't speak for Andy, but my views have nothing do do with ideology, much as some try to read one into my words.

If anything, I tend toward Joey's rantings as core of the fundamental reasons behind the problem. Plus, of course, my belief that Americans don't really care about education as expressed above.

Actually, they do have a right to educate their children and "crap" is just a way of making your argument look stronger than it is.

I "read ideology" into your words as an act of charity. They make no sense otherwise. You're spewing stuff that's flat false on top of assertions w/o any argumentative support. Your history of education assertion was false. Your assertion that Americans don't care about education is false. Have you noticed how much money Americans spend on schooling their children? How much private schools cost? Colleges cost? How parents will pay $20k/yr per kid on a private school on top of paying their taxes, a portion of which goes to public schools they don't use? Have you noticed how many parents volunteer at their kids' schools? How many pay into their HS and college alumni funds? Americans care about education and put their money where their mouths are constantly. You wish they didn't, b/c it would make your argument easier, but they do. B/c despite their care, despite their care as illustrated by their expenditures, they're getting a worse and worse product (unless they homeschool).

Why? I don't get the trouble w/this at all. I'll give you a for instance: How about when the mother believes she'll do a better job than the school? Why would it be silly then?

Because there's more to education at that stage in life than sitting at home with your mother for eight hours a day, no matter how great she is at multiplication tables.

And, while it's not necessary to the argument, the mother has almost certainly taken on the job for poliital/ideological reasons. If you're presuming politics leaks in to the teachings of school teachers who haven't, why shouldn't we make the same presumption in the mother's case.

Question regarding tenure for university faculty:

When one celebrates gaining tenure, is it really because they now express thoughts more freely than they had prior to gaining tenure?

I have severe doubts that there are significant changes in the exchange of ideas from an individual once they gain tenure.

Anyone with experience in that regard, please educate me if my suspicion is correct or way off base.

I'm a U professor who's disposed AGAINST tenure. It's ostensibly to guarantee academic freedom, but it doesn't quite work that way as guild pressures ensure academic conformity and the pre-tenure system requires you to keep your profile low.

In my experience, tenure becomes like a finish line. As a young scholar, you run like hell for it, less concerned for quality of publication than quantity. Then, once you get it, that enormous incentive is gone and you're virtually invulnerable. At my U, the provost floated the idea of installing a "post tenure review process" to provide a small measure of pressure on tenured faculty so they would keep busy. The Faculty Senate nearly revolted. The Provost backed down almost immediately.

I'm confident in saying that redlining, segregation, white flight, crack, poverty, de-industrialization (globalization and new service industries causing mass unemployment and despair), and the prison pipeline all had an effect on breaking this neighborhood. Perhaps McGovern's disciples had a role in it too, but I'm not sure what meta-causal power they had over Philadelphia. If you could clarify this fear/loathing in this particular instance, I would appreciate it.

This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. Just who is it that controls the city of Philadelphia anyway? It isn't conservatives and Republicans my friend. Philadelphia is a one-party city under the thumb of the left Democrat machine, and has been for as long as I can remember. Ditto Detroit and most of our other big cities, though New York City has come a long way in rebounding in the last several years since New Yorkers decided to get some sanity and save their own city.

The proof is incontrovertible everywhere you look that the McGovernite left ends up destroying everything it touches, blames everyone else but themselves for the problem, and then leaves it to others to try and clean up the mess they created.

Well, given that they already are accountable if they profess opinions and someone complains, then there is no need to change.

No, they are not. People who are accountable can be fired if they displease their management. I certainly understand why teachers are loathe to give tenure up, it's pretty much the sweetest gig going. But it's also a big reason why teachers get so little sympathy and respect from people outside their enclaves. And in truth, as long as they can hold their jobs as sinecures unrelated to performance and behavior, they won't deserve any.

I have to say I find Andy's and SBB's comments infuriating, but telltale evidence that they've abandoned the goal in favor of ideology. The goal in all schooling is to educate the student. You've both raised bugaboo issues like "Satan" and "selfishness" but not addressed the issue of educating the student at all. It's been assertion on top of assertion.

JC, sometimes I wonder if you ever even bother to read what I actually write. Like those ABC moderators, you're getting to be an expert at taking one tiny bit of what I'm saying and reducing my position to that, while completely ignoring much longer posts such as this:

The bottom line for me is rather simple: Schools should be about teaching children, both in academics and in social skills. And two or three hours a day of exposing a child to children from a broader variety of belief systems is almost always going to be a step in the right direction.

And it's also true that many parents home school their children up through the elementary and intermediate level, and then enroll them in a public high school, having safely (in their view) inoculated them at a critical formative age. I think that this speaks to the hope you raise above, even though I'd be reluctant to label all home schooling as "silly"---sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, and to make a call like that I'd have to know the particulars.

and this:

I guess I just don't see the logic in decrying a parent's choice of cutting their child off from social interaction from 9 to 3 (or whatever), and then reinforcing the child's social isolation by extending it through the rest of the day. No matter what the logical justification may be, in practice it seems mostly just spiteful.

Spoiling for a fight about trivial matters has long been a characteristic of many people here, but it's never been a trait I've associated with you. I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand this recent development.

In this case, I've been spending the past hour or so defending the home schoolers' right to participate in extracurrical activities, and you're acting as if somehow I'm hostile to the whole idea of home schooling. But here's a hot tip: I'm not.

For generations we educated American children just fine

Yeah, those segregated schools were just dandy

Why? I don't get the trouble w/this at all. I'll give you a for instance: How about when the mother believes she'll do a better job than the school? Why would it be silly then?

Because there's more to education at that stage in life than sitting at home with your mother for eight hours a day, no matter how great she is at multiplication tables.

And, while it's not necessary to the argument, the mother has almost certainly taken on the job for poliital/ideological reasons. If you're presuming politics leaks in to the teachings of school teachers who haven't, why shouldn't we make the same presumption in the mother's case.

I didn't make that presumption. I said, she thinks she can teach her child better, not that she's shielding them from something.

Because there's more to education at that stage in life than sitting at home with your mother for eight hours a day, no matter how great she is at multiplication tables.

Agreed. The school should let her daughter or son show up for gym, tryout for the play, and be the b-ball team's PG.

The proof is incontrovertible everywhere you look that the McGovernite left ends up destroying everything it touches, blames everyone else but themselves for the problem, and then leaves it to others to try and clean up the mess they created

Replace "McGovernite left" with "Neo-Conservative right" in that sentence and you have a good argument about American foreign policy under Bush

Question regarding tenure for university faculty:

When one celebrates gaining tenure, is it really because they now express thoughts more freely than they had prior to gaining tenure?

I have severe doubts that there are significant changes in the exchange of ideas from an individual once they gain tenure.

Anyone with experience in that regard, please educate me if my suspicion is correct or way off base.


I'm a U professor who's disposed AGAINST tenure. It's ostensibly to guarantee academic freedom, but it doesn't quite work that way as guild pressures ensure academic conformity and the pre-tenure system requires you to keep your profile low.

In my experience, tenure becomes like a finish line. As a young scholar, you run like hell for it, less concerned for quality of publication than quantity. Then, once you get it, that enormous incentive is gone and you're virtually invulnerable. At my U, the provost floated the idea of installing a "post tenure review process" to provide a small measure of pressure on tenured faculty so they would keep busy. The Faculty Senate nearly revolted. The Provost backed down almost immediately.

That's about what I expected. Thanks for the input.

There's a reason education has been conducted among a community of student peers for centuries. Shucking that model because of the daffy conceits of the overcommitted is silly and there's no reason not to say so.

Except that education hasn't been conducted that way for centuries. The current mass educational model is mostly a 19th century Prussian innovation, designed for producing good industrial workers and patriotic citizens to serve the industrial age military apparatus.

Before that, to the extent there was mass schooling, it rarely went past elementary school; the wealthy, who went onward, generally had private tutors.

Not that I care about this particular sub-issue one way or the other, but the counterargument seems to be that these parents can trust public school football coaches, but not public school history teachers. Apparently Satan's reach extends only so far.

That was the post I read. The post you just posted, Andy, was being written as I was writing mine. I couldn't have read that before it was posted, AFAIK. And tell me if I misread this? I thought it was dismissive and ideological.

Except that education hasn't been conducted that way for centuries. The current mass educational model is mostly a 19th century Prussian innovation, designed for producing good industrial workers and patriotic citizens to serve the industrial age military apparatus.

Before that, to the extent there was mass schooling, it rarely went past elementary school; the wealthy, who went onward, generally had private tutors.

Uh, counselor, you need to read my brilliant posts.

No, they are not. People who are accountable can be fired if they displease their management. I certainly understand why teachers are loathe to give tenure up, it's pretty much the sweetest gig going. But it's also a big reason why teachers get so little sympathy and respect from people outside their enclaves. And in truth, as long as they can hold their jobs as sinecures unrelated to performance and behavior, they won't deserve any.

I find it funny that you think teachers are given protection from firing, when they aren't. Just like anyone else, behavior and performance will get them fired, and just like anyone else, there should be known guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not. If you hit a kid, you get fired. If you can't teach, you get fired. This has always been true, and the only people that don't think it's true are those that have some motivation for believing otherwise.

And people don't give respect or sympathy to teachers because we don't really value education that much. If we did, we'd actually pay teachers something resembling the salary of a professional who went to college for 7 years.

I "read ideology" into your words as an act of charity. They make no sense otherwise. You're spewing stuff that's flat false on top of assertions w/o any argumentative support. Your history of education assertion was false. Your assertion that Americans don't care about education is false. Have you noticed how much money Americans spend on schooling their children? How much private schools cost? Colleges cost? How parents will pay $20k/yr per kid on a private school on top of paying their taxes, a portion of which goes to public schools they don't use? Have you noticed how many parents volunteer at their kids' schools? How many pay into their HS and college alumni funds? Americans care about education and put their money where their mouths are constantly. You wish they didn't, b/c it would make your argument easier, but they do. B/c despite their care, despite their care as illustrated by their expenditures, they're getting a worse and worse product (unless they homeschool).

Thanks for the utterly unnecessary dose of generosity.

The cost of schools has nothing whatsoever to do with how much people care about education. And yes, I've noticed how much private schools cost, especially for three year olds.

Nor, of course, does the amount of money going into college alumni funds have anything to do with anything. Once you back out the money that goes for (1) sports; and (2) making sure your kids get a fair legacy shake from the admissions board if they're bad students; and (3) getting your name on a building, most of it goes away anyway. That money goes for these things instead of actual education proves my point precisely.

Replace "McGovernite left" with "Neo-Conservative right" in that sentence and you have a good argument about American foreign policy under Bush

I agree. I find the hard left around here to have more in common with the hard right than either side would acknowledge.

Just who is it that controls the city of Philadelphia anyway? It isn't conservatives and Republicans my friend. Philadelphia is a one-party city under the thumb of the left Democrat machine, and has been for as long as I can remember.

Thanks for being more specific, but let's look at the particular instances to which I was referring.

Redlining- started as a post-war initiative under Truman, continued under Eisenhower. Part of the new left? Only if Nick Punto is a HOFer.

Segregation- To the best of my knowledge, the democratic political machine was not causally responsible for originating segregation in the city's public schools. George Wallace ran against McGovern.

White Flight- Predates the new left. May contravene many of their actions.

Poverty- Many causes. Can be traced to leftists and rightist. Closest so far to being the responsibility of the new left, but not definitive.

De-industrialization- deregulation came from and comes from the right. The party machine in Philly is buttressed by Big Labor, and as I recall, they oppose free trade agreements that ship out jobs.

Crack- Let's not go there. No definitive answers.

**Most important**- The Philadelphia Democratic Machine is NOT representative of McGovern's New Left. McGovern opposed machine politics, lost Daley's endorsement, enraged Muskie and Humphrey, and that's why he lost the election. I cannot stress strong enough- MCGOVERN AND HIS FOLLOWERS WERE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL MACHINE. PLEASE STOP CONFLATING THEM. IT IS DIFFICULT TO TAKE YOUR ANSWERS SERIOUSLY.

That's accountability. That's the world the majority of the country lives in. Until teachers are willing to accept it, they'll continue to get, and will deserve, little sympathy (#1213)

Well, teachers, and university faculty as well, are in fact accountable. Everyone has factoidal horror stories of college faculty who lecture from yellowed notes they first jotted decades ago, and there are certainly people who stagnate in schools and colleges, as there perhaps are in many industries. (The fact that there are some bad teachers is hardly an argument against job security for teachers; it's often linked to the assumption that corporations are full of lean, mean, perfectly honed professionals, which is sheer fantasy.) As Dan the Mediocre says, actual misconduct, dereliction of duty, refusing a teaching assignment, unethical behavior will in fact get you fired for cause even if you have tenure. Retaining tenure itself becomes a great incentive to get up and go to work in the morning. You would be surprised how many tenured faculty lose their jobs for various kinds of turpitude.

When one celebrates gaining tenure, is it really because they now express thoughts more freely than they had prior to gaining tenure?

I have severe doubts that there are significant changes in the exchange of ideas from an individual once they gain tenure

I have tenure in a university English department. I didn't become a different person when I earned tenure (13 years ago). My scholarly interests changed a lot, however. I had been working on poetry, prosody, and aspects of literary history like the reception of women poets. After tenure, I wrote books on baseball literature and children's literature, and moved into studying popular culture, as well as doing creative writing and freelance journalism. I realize you may well say, what a dilettante, lucky for some that tenure allows that freedom. But my approach not only became more popular, it became more political, in the sense that I felt a lot freer to explore topical controversies like racism, meritocracy, sexuality – and from a truly critical viewpoint, not just one that I thought would pass muster with peer reviewers.

So from my own perspective (and pace JC), the answer is yes, tenure allows more freedom, and I have seen it with many colleagues as well.

Would I be able to do any of this stuff without tenure? I doubt it. There is no teachers' union in my workplace. If there were no tenure, and I wanted to keep a teaching job, then realistically I would be forced into larger classes, greater workloads, have less control over my own work (and no chance to do scholarship, to keep in touch with my field). My "productivity" would be called into question continuously, and if someone else agreed to cover more classes for less money, I would be out of a job. Tenure (which entails, most places, predictable workloads linked to one's rank) enables university faculty, basically, to exist. My pay is very low compared to other professionals at my educational level and seniority, too – it isn't like tenure lets you luxuriate in lifelong riches. I could not send my kid to a private college, unless he could get into Stanford or Harvard or one of those that would treat someone of my income as effectively indigent.

Should teaching, at any level, be exempt from the "real-world" pressures to perform/produce or get out? It's a matter of what you want schools to be like. If you want schools/colleges that deliver some sort of standardized job skills and then emit "trained" graduates, then all you need are skilled teachers who can be pressured to produce more and more certified learning outcomes; squeeze them dry, fire their ##### after a few years when they start to earn a little more, and hire young graduates to replace them and be squeezed in turn. If you prefer to send your kids to schools with experienced teachers who have some idea of how to nurture and cope with kids, if you value teachers who devote lifetimes to gaining knowledge and figuring out how to motivate students to gain it, then tenure begins to seem like a good idea.

Let me invite us all to take a step backwards and cool off a bit. Presumably we all care about educating students. Let's look at the NEA's statement again:

B-75. Home Schooling
The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state curricular requirements, including the taking and passing of assessments to ensure adequate academic progress. Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.
The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.
The Association further believes that local public school systems should have the authority to determine grade placement and/or credits earned toward graduation for students entering or re-entering the public school setting from a home school setting.

I'm going to do a bit of parsing. I understand my biases, and they're there for all. I favor allowing the option of homeschooling as the appropriate gov'tal respect for individual liberty. I don't, however, homeschool and probably will send my kids to our local PUBLIC HS.

Line 1: The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience.

I find this phrase "comprehensive education experience" interesting. It suggests a few things to me, some of which I might agree with, and some of which are just slippery. It suggests to me a concession that in terms of "education" the NEA knows they've lost: the HS kids do better as a class on all the standard metrics. So, instead of claiming what they can't back up, they move to "comprehensive education experience," whatever that is.

Line 3: Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians.

Note the goal we all share, "educating children well" doesn't appear. If a family's HSing, and a cousin wants in, the NEA wants them out, whether or not the cousin will be well-educated. I can support something like this, however, as a just gov'tal limitation. The bearing of expenses is a rejoinder to those states that provide certain educational benefits to HSing (i.e., taxpaying) families, like computers, books, etc. This line is simply punitive: They took their kids out, then #### the kids - make the parents buy their stuff, and if they can't afford it, too bad. The goal (educating kids well) sacrificed to petty ideology.

Line 5: The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.

More petty ideology and self-protection. Why? Why shouldn't the kids be allowed? I agree w/Andy's rationale for at least one reason why they should be permitted to participate. Further, THESE ACTIVITIES ARE THE HOMESCHOOLERS AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSES. Their parents pay for them.

Not that I care about this particular sub-issue one way or the other, but the counterargument seems to be that these parents can trust public school football coaches, but not public school history teachers. Apparently Satan's reach extends only so far.

That was the post I read. The post you just posted, Andy, was being written as I was writing mine. I couldn't have read that before it was posted, AFAIK. And tell me if I misread this? I thought it was dismissive and ideological.

To the first point: I've made several posts since then, as have you. But you've never once acknowledged in any of those posts of yours that my position on home schooling is a bit less than the caricature you'd left hanging in the air. You still seem reluctant to admit this.

To the second point: It was the sort of tongue in cheek line I often use, and all it was meant to express was that there are parents---and likely more than a few of them---who see home schooling as part and parcel of their overall worldview, which sees secular society as---well, Satanic. Surely you know this. I wasn't putting any percentage figures on this, nor would I.

But as you can see from my subsequent posts (and as you should know from my general history here), I'm not "anti-religion," I'm generally in favor of "personal choice" in most social matters no matter what the ideological implications, and more to the point, on most matters I generally side with the individual versus the institution, whether that insitution is public or private. I don't like bullies, and in this case my line about "spiteful" in #1222 was a shorthand way of expressing that sentiment.

Bottom line again, JC: I am not your enemy in this fight.

Should teaching, at any level, be exempt from the "real-world" pressures to perform/produce or get out? It's a matter of what you want schools to be like. If you want schools/colleges that deliver some sort of standardized job skills and then emit "trained" graduates, then all you need are skilled teachers who can be pressured to produce more and more certified learning outcomes; squeeze them dry, fire their ##### after a few years when they start to earn a little more, and hire young graduates to replace them and be squeezed in turn. If you prefer to send your kids to schools with experienced teachers who have some idea of how to nurture and cope with kids, if you value teachers who devote lifetimes to gaining knowledge and figuring out how to motivate students to gain it, then tenure begins to seem like a good idea.

I think schools are like the former in the eighth circle of Hell.

Yes, exactly like tenured university professors. 100% job security leads to complacency and stagnation. Perform or be gone.

I'm not quite that ruthless, but the experience I had teaching at a couple of universities showed me that tenure did nothing positive, that I observed, for students. Most of the wrong professors were the ones getting tenured, and the ability to teach well seemed largely irrelevant. It was the grinds and bores who were willing to attend and organize endless meetings, to rack up points publishing pointless articles, and so on, that got the golden star.

On the other hand, turning all the power for hiring and firing over to administrators seems like a terrible idea. I'd therefore give most of the power to students, and allow administrators and teachers to function in a strong advisory capacity. From the left-wing conservative pov, opposing large government within schools/univerisities while practicing direct democracy and, in so doing, directly empowering and educating students in the joys of meaningful politics, what could be better?

Demanding to use the school facilities

that your tax dollars paid for

when your kid isn't even a student is selfish beyond belief.

Your kid is a student, just not one being instructed by the school district, but in any case, I don't know how on earth you got "selfish" out of that. What is "selfish" about it? I mean, to the extent that "selfish" just means "concerned with one's own interests," then it is -- but why is it more "selfish" for a home-schooled kid to join the French club than for a school-schooled kid to do it?

Is it "selfish" for someone who has books at home to go do research at the public library? Is it "selfish" to take the bus if you own a car? You seem to be making some sort of weird category error here.

Lines like this are a big part of why people don't take teachers seriously. EVERYBODY should have to worry about their job security, and the fact that so many teachers feel they should be exempt is offputting.

If you would actually read what you quoted, you could see that I was saying that it's damaging to students that EVERY teacher has to worry about losing their job in every administrative turn over.

I want accountability. I want people who hurt kids to lose their jobs. What I don't want is to strengthen the current system where we have arbitrary demotions and teachers are run off whenever we get a new principal who wants to promote and bring in their own cronies who know nothing about the kids.

Joey B and Andy,

Above and beyond the urban and family issues, there is a national basic education problem in the US, and it thrives in both Republican and Democratic states. Alberta is a doppelganger for Texas. Rich in oil and conservative politics. Yet, there is no comparison between the education systems of the two at the top, middle or bottom of the economic ladder, with Alberta's being far superior.

What surprises me most is how poorly the best American high school students do relative to the best of other developed nations on any number of measures, particularly in the maths and sciences. The sabermetric community has a particular vested interest in this!

As a teacher, I can understand feeling some sort of moral condescension or hypocrisy from a parent saying that their child is too good for the classes at the school, but not too good to use the facilities for recreational activities. It is similar to an overbearing parent requesting that their student be moved to another class because the teacher isn't good enough for her/him (after this teacher has undergone 4+ years of training and the parent has likely had none).

At the same time, I think teachers have to deal with this small indignity in the name of improving society. I think the utility of improving social development outweighs this personal slight.

That said, it takes no more than a moment of refelection to realize that, in context, "Senator Obama, does Reverend Wright love America as much as you do?" is hands down the most inane question in debate history.

Sorry, but the lapel-pin question will yield to no one in terms of base inanity.

I find it funny that you think teachers are given protection from firing, when they aren't. Just like anyone else, behavior and performance will get them fired, and just like anyone else, there should be known guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not. If you hit a kid, you get fired. If you can't teach, you get fired. This has always been true, and the only people that don't think it's true are those that have some motivation for believing otherwise.

So you think teachers are accountable because they can be fired for assaulting a student? Or for not showing up to work? You're just proving my point here about the sense of entitlement.

And people don't give respect or sympathy to teachers because we don't really value education that much. If we did, we'd actually pay teachers something resembling the salary of a professional who went to college for 7 years.

This has already been addressed in this thread. If we don't value education in this country, why do we spend so damn much on it? If we're going to be a nation of ignoramuses who don't value education, can we get some of that money back?

U.S. public school teachers have more in common with Teamsters than they do with professionals. Making money comes from taking risk and pleasing customers. Teachers don't have to do either of those things. Some choose to, but none are required to.

Your kid is a student, just not one being instructed by the school district, but in any case, I don't know how on earth you got "selfish" out of that. What is "selfish" about it? I mean, to the extent that "selfish" just means "concerned with one's own interests," then it is -- but why is it more "selfish" for a home-schooled kid to join the French club than for a school-schooled kid to do it?

Simple. And asked and answered, but I'll repeat anyway.

The parents are rejecting the community for most things, but demanding to be let into it for things of their choice. That's profoundly selfish.

Why not just go all the way? I want my kid to take history and civics from me, English from Tech, Math from Prep, play football at High and basketball at South?

Alberta is a doppelganger for Texas.

Culturally, but Texas has almost exactly 10x the population. Smaller nations are easier to control. Much easier.

Hogwash! I coach little league, and my 12 kids are spread amongst 4 schools. My son spends as much time with his friends who go to two different schools as he does in school itself. No one has affirmatively rejected anything. Again I ask, why do you hate children? Why would you deny a child access to charcter building activities merely to punish his parents who made a ridiculous (your position) choice?

Little League isn't a school activity.

And your point is what? Saying, "But that's different" about a situation without explaining in what meaningful way a situation is different is unhelpful for discourse. Why is baseball played via Little League different from baseball played via school, for socialization (*) purposes?


(*) You didn't use the word, but I assume that's what your argument is trying to say; it's one of the common myths about home schooled kids.

This has already been addressed in this thread. If we don't value education in this country, why do we spend so damn much on it? If we're going to be a nation of ignoramuses who don't value education, can we get some of that money back?

Because it would cost a lot less if we valued it more.

I love homeschooling. Anything that can get a student eight hours of individualized or small community instruction is awesome by me.

But it's a red herring. How much opportunity is there for homeschooling in most of the families in America?

I can turn a kid with heavy learning disabilities into a top performer who is tutoring other kids with an hour of individualized instruction in a calm environment per week in under a year.

I know that most kids aren't going to get someone as good as me, but as long as their some kind of minimum standards, they would probably get more than what I can give them in a class of 37 for world language.

However, where are you going to find the funding and instructors for homeschooling? Most of the struggling kids don't have anyone with higher education in their family in the first place.

The fact that someone just pulled out a small section of the NEA stance on a single issue that is irrelevant to the vast majority of students in the country and you all--some of the best minds in the society--spent this long debating it as if it's a central issue for educational progress is symptomatic of the larger problem-- most people aren't interested in education for "other's people's children" and those that are have no idea what the realities of the status quo are and therefore no idea of how to improve it.

Vouchers--> ????-->Success
Destroy the evil union--->????-->success
Homeschool a few kids-->?????-->success

These are not plans. This is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Until we change the fundamental way in which we look at and devalue education, nothing is going to change and we are going to have blood on our hands.

This has already been addressed in this thread. If we don't value education in this country, why do we spend so damn much on it?

Relative to other industrialized countries, we actually spend a lot less. And I'd be willing to bet that we spend less than we did 10 and 20 years ago after adjusting for inflation.

So you think teachers are accountable because they can be fired for assaulting a student? Or for not showing up to work? You're just proving my point here about the sense of entitlement.

And also if they suck at teaching. Believe it or not, teachers DO get fired for that. They get fired if they continually break the rules about being too political, or mocking various religions (or all of them). Teachers can be fired for any reasonable cause.

White Flight

I don't get this "white flight" thing. What exactly do you mean here? Are you implying that blacks and minority children would be getting a better education if only there were more white people around?

I'm not one to throw around accusations of racism, but I have to say this sounds a little offensive.

I think the hope would be that the parents would see that, and abandon the silly notion of home schooling.

My wife and I are smarter than any teacher, and care more about our family than any teacher. (I'm not accusing teachers of being uncaring; I'm saying that it's natural for a given parent to care more about his/her own kids than a stranger would.) And the student-teacher ratio is much better. Calling it "silly" is bizarre.

Obviously not all parents are competent to teach, particularly when one gets to more advanced levels of study of various subjects. (The same can be said for teachers, though.) And obviously not all parents have time to devote to teaching, although given the amount of learning that takes place in an institutional school day, it's not like it needs to be a full time job. But assuming that these caveats don't apply, why on earth would it be "silly"?

You've raised the issue of social interaction, but that obviously isn't a real concern of yours, since your only concrete policy proposal in the thread is to limit the social interaction of home schoolers; you obviously don't think kids actually need it. You just want it as a weapon against home schoolers.

Andy has explicitly made his prejudice clear: home schoolers are crazy religious people. You haven't, but I can't see any argument you've made to explain why you oppose it. Generally, the only reasons I've identified in the public debate over the years are (a) teachers protecting their jobs, and (b) prejudice against the "sort" of people who home school. Neither one seems worthy of you.

I don't get this "white flight" thing. What exactly do you mean here? Are you implying that blacks and minority children would be getting a better education if only there were more white people around?

I'm not one to throw around accusations of racism, but I have to say this sounds a little offensive.

Yes, Brown v. Board was deeply offensive to Joey B. Thank goodness it has been essentially overturned.

Relative to other industrialized countries, we actually spend a lot less. And I'd be willing to bet that we spend less than we did 10 and 20 years ago after adjusting for inflation.

Well, I haven't looked lately, but I think it depends on whether you count classroom spending only or administrative and outside consulting overhead which has blossomed. Beyond cultural change, that's probably been the most devastating change in education one that right-wing reformers continue to push.

White Flight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

Quick version: White vets return from WWII, get favorable mortgage deals from the government which were not granted to black people (not a debated topic, a fact of redlining if you want to do the research). People preferred owning to renting homes, so left for the places where these homes were available (which happened to be suburbs- Levittowns). As home owners left cities, their wealth appreciated while the renters lost wealth. Also, if all poor people are concentrated in one area, it tends to cause an increase in crime. There are many possible causes; I lean toward the economic one. In any case, it happened (look at any city, especially on the east coast) and has functioned as a de facto racial and economic form of segregation.

The fact that someone just pulled out a small section of the NEA stance on a single issue

No, I pulled out its entire resolution on the issue.

B/c I care about education so much, I used that resolution to show how petty and self-protective that union has become. I'm sorry, but that's the only way to describe that resolution. There's not a smack of concern about whether HSing is "right for some kids" or some situations, or anything like that. It's simply petty and punitive and backed by the NEA's attempts to pressure the Feds and States to enforce accrediting parents, w/drawing or w/holding funding for homeschooling instruments like books and computers, and to w/draw or w/hold services these people paid for. Please help me see that resolution in some other way, if you're able.

So from my own perspective (and pace JC), the answer is yes, tenure allows more freedom, and I have seen it with many colleagues as well.

Bob: Agree, in one sense. POST tenure you and I experience freedom. PRE tenure, as your own case shows, we do not. The system is whacked b/c it doesn't breed a culture of free inquiry, but a culture of conformity first, then tenure based on the record of conformity, then POOF! freedom! It's a strange and odd system that I find troubling.

Bob: Agree, in one sense. POST tenure you and I experience freedom. PRE tenure, as your own case shows, we do not. The system is whacked b/c it doesn't breed a culture of free inquiry, but a culture of conformity first, then tenure based on the record of conformity, then POOF! freedom! It's a strange and odd system that I find troubling.

I guess I interpret that differently. To me, it would appear to be a show that you know what you're talking about, then given tenure to develop your own ideas. Sure, there is seems to be a sense of conformity there, but it doesn't help a university to give tenure to a biologist who will then use his academic freedom to deride Evolution using arguments that clearly show he doesn't understand it.

Andy has explicitly made his prejudice clear: home schoolers are crazy religious people. You haven't, but I can't see any argument you've made to explain why you oppose it. Generally, the only reasons I've identified in the public debate over the years are (a) teachers protecting their jobs, and (b) prejudice against the "sort" of people who home school. Neither one seems worthy of you.

Is this wrong, Andy? I didn't post anything in b/w your comment I quoted and my quoting that. I was away. Since then, you've made the (good) argument that socially it's beneficial to let the kids participate, but have you at all nuanced your assertions that only Satan fearing folks send HS?

And, to go back to our argument about elitism, why are you and SBB so quick to characterize religious conviction in that way? Is that what contact w/multiple PsOV in public schools teach: to view people with deeply held religious views as nuts?

And, finally, about "caring" for education. If you're going to dismiss the billions of dollars Americans spend on education as irrelevant to exhibiting their concern, what could possibly count as evidence?

Because there's more to education at that stage in life than sitting at home with your mother for eight hours a day, no matter how great she is at multiplication tables.

The Wizard of Oz called. He wants his strawman back.

Apparently you can't tell the difference between homeschooling and chaining your kid to a radiator in the basement. Newsflash: homeschooled kids are not prisoners. It's not a cult where their communication with the outside world is cut off.

Besides, your argument is entirely nonsensical, as I already noted: yes, there's more to education than sitting at home with your mother for eight hours a day. For instance, there's