Gayle in all things for our children we have to have the freedom of choice. Look at what happens when our freedom of choice is taken away, say by a husband who says "we will homeschool" think of Andrea Yate's children if they had been in school the day their mom listened to her voices. Now there is homeschool, children burnout, put those kids in public school poster children! Homeschooling like Public schooling obviously isn't for everyone. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (Nubians) (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

The reason many public school teachers/administrators are against homeschooling is because if the schools were truly customer-driven (market forces instead of laws requiring attendance), a lot of them would lose their jobs because they would have to justify the amount of their paycheck by how well they perform their jobs like people have to in the private sector.

As to the "education" of teachers being better than homeschooling parents, maybe if you have a doctorate, I can see that, but many teachers have only a BA or a BS, and one would be hard pressed to see a teaching credential as more difficult than say, business management or any other four-year degree. Even if you were to pick up a separate credential, it is still not rocket science, or medicine.

I have also unfortunately seen some real stellar examples of "dedication" (a lot of teachers seem to put themselves in the category martyrs (overworked and underpaid) for some reason).

We met with a teacher and the principal (right after school, of course not during school) because of some questionable financial issues (she was the "fundraising queen" of the school). Some monies had been collected for one charity, and for some reason it was going to another charity, and DD raised some questions. First words out of the principal's mouth were: "Thank you Ms. Teacher for staying late past your normal time." Hellloooo! That's part of your "vocation" (or job, however you choose to look at it), to meet with parents, and not during the school day. When did teaching become an "eight and out the gate" job?

Same with the parent conferences--they used to be held on an "as needed" basis--now the children are cheated out of their education (by minimum days) so the teacher can do school-wide conferences "on the school's time". Parents often have trouble taking time off from work, so the conferences never take place, which means a lot of wasted time.

Are there good teachers out there? Yes. Should good teachers fear homeschoolers? No--they know what the public schools are truly like, and if there were no public schools they could still prosper--places like Sylvan Learning Centers are making money hand over fist.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 25, 2002.

Julie, Not all public schools & teachers are as great & 'professional' as you portray. Our now 23 yr old son was in 3 different public schools during his grade & middle school years. In All those years NO ONE noticed that he was dyslectic instead telling him in front of his peers that he was stupid & could only look forward to a factory job!! I had tried to explain nicely that he seemed to be misspelling his words & switching letters but they acted like I was crazy. By High School I had decided that if I didn't step in he wouldn't get an education. We did use a curriculum program- state mandate but revised it enough to keep him excited & interesed. Besides the curriculum, we took field trips & did alot of science & math experiments I had to go back to 4 & 5th grade work in some areas since although the public schools had given him C's & B's he couldn't do the basics I won't lie & say it was all rosy; I am not the most patient person & it took alot for him & I to make it work. I am proud that he graduated with a 3.73 gpa and is on the Deans List in college. He has declared a Political Science Major & has proven the public schools wrong but even better he proved to himself that he wasn't the stupid idiot they called him all those years ago. If you work in a large metropolitan area maybe all your teachers have masters degrees, but in the school systems our son attended, due to a shortage of teachers ANYONE with a bachelors degree could teach the classes. Before you condemn those of us who want the best for our children it might be wise to ask what type of training the teachers in the schools our kids attend have. Gayle, good luck; I understand your frustration but if you give it another try & are successful there is no feeling like seeing your kids do well in college & life and you know you were a big part of it. Blessings, Kathy

-- Kathy Aldridge (delila48@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

JOJ As far as what a student is taught in school, it varies from school to school. As much as you would like evolution taught there are as many or more who would choose not to have it taught. I was a biology major and still feel that it is as much of a leap of faith to believe evolution as it is taught, as it is to believe the Bible, but I choose the later.

Nothing has been "proven to my satisfaction", ie.that evolution is true. There are many major holes in the theory. The original basis of evolution, the big bang, is ridiculous. It states that there was this gob of stuff that had been in existence forever, and all of a sudden it went wild and created the universe. My question that no one has ever answered is where did the stuff come from in the first place, and since it had been there forever why did it suddenly change to create the universe, why didn't it just stay the way it was???

Many other things are taught in public school that majority of people do not want their children exposed to. Condoms 101, boy everybody should learn that in third grade. Political correctness 210, fit in or be shunned by those in authority and all your peers who have been pressured into accepting the current, politically correct beliefs.

"Political correctness, at its core, is intimidation" David Kupelian

I took a foreign language in college, now I can not speak enough of it to do me any good. It was a total waste of my time and money, because I had NO INTEREST in the subject. They say it is for a more rounded education, I think it is so they can hire more professors. If you have an interest in that sort of thing fine, but don't shove it down everyone's throat.

I have to agree that there are some people who think that their way is the only way, but I fell the vast majority of homeschoolers that I know are not in that category.

I fail to see what is incorrect about saying this country is Christian. The vast majority of the population is indeed Christian, and you would be hard pressed to say that the founding fathers did not base the country on Christian principles. Read their writings, it is so obvious.

This debate can and will probably go on forever. The choice is up to the individual. We as parents are responsible for our kids. We are responsible to God, ourselves, and our country. It is a big responsibility, but who better than a parent to carry out this task??

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

Lisa Lombardi could have been correct in describing an individual homeschooler but seems blinded (hate for her sister?) or separated from reality when she stated that the 1st ammendment guaranteed freedom from religion (what a crock!) and denied the historicity of the US as (once) a Christian nation.

-- charles (cr@dixienet.com), March 25, 2002.

Overall, this has been a very interesting discussion. Obviously, we all have different opinions. Heather, I support your right to your own opinion, and your having said "This is the exact reason that we WILL homeschool!" is very revealing about your state of conciousness. I do hope you will be able to allow your children to have their OWN opinions of life, the universe, and everything, someday, rather than trying to program them to view the world with your personal perspective.

I do get a bit tired of people hassling each other about grammar and spelling on these forums. For instance, Phil in Kansas tells Julie, "my wife helped you with your GRAMMER and spelling, if I'm not mistaken! Phil, if you insist on being onerous, perhaps you should ask your wife for some remedial English yourself!

I went through public schools, back in the "old days", and had a pretty good education. I learned a lot in spite of the public school curriculum, however, since I was way above average, and had to sit there sneaking bookreading while waiting for the class to catch up on most lessons.

I agree that there are plenty of good public school teachers, and also some really bad ones. The school unions really need to clean up their act, and stop giving rotten teachers the same protection as they do the good teachers. It's very counter productive to force the schools to keep these bad apples!

On the other hand, I personally would be very happy and proud to pay more in school taxes (and I am paying property taxes on five houses, btw, and have no kids in school any more) if these taxes would go to hiring a couple of aides for each classroom. This would presumably free up the t eacher to teach to smaller groups of kids who are at similar levels.

Hi, Sheepish, I like your suggestion, "I think it would be quite interesting if this forum were still around in maybe 10+ years and folks could post back re: how each way (homeschool or public school) worked out for their children's learning and development"

Some of us can fast forward ten years-that is, we can already tell you how our kids' education worked out for them, as they are all through with school!

My kids were all public school educated. The oldest went to school in Texas, and got an excellent education. He's always been a real self starter, though, so I can't say he's a good indicator of what the school system itself was like. I also only had him summers, and never got involved with his school after the age of four, so I can't comment on his teachers, etc. He's a veterinarian, now a regional director of a huge pharmaceutical company's veterinary medicine division, and loves his work. He's what you'd call a very successful person, and is for the most part very happy with his life.

My second son (a step son) also was public schooled. I was never all that thrilled with the schools he was in, and efforts to improve things didn't work out well either. He got only a moderately good education, if you consider the "standards" which define it. On the other hand, he learned a lot from me and his mom about real life issues, and he's a very well adjusted kid. He finished U of Oregon with above average grades, and after spending a few years travelling around the world, between carpentry jobs, he is now the director of the local Boys and Girls Club. He is absolutely perfect for this position, as he's smart, creative, a born leader, and loves kids (and they love him--every where we go, we get kudos from community leaders about him and thanks from parents of club members.

My daughter went to all the same schools as my son. She was way too "popular" for her own good, ran with the sosh's and the jocks. Her education (again by the normally accepted "standards" was very poor. She dropped out of school, went straight into a community college for two years, (she's really quite bright. Like me, she was bored to death by the school work, and was almost constantly in trouble for disrupting class, after finishing her assignments) kind of dropped out for a couple of years, running with a REALLY bad crowd. But when she was about nineteen, she turned her life around, got a job, got married, went back to school part time, progressed from fast food clerk to modelling agency staff to modelling agency director, and recently changed jobs to working for a title company. They are already talking about promoting her in that job.

In retrospect, Sheepish, if I had it to do all over again, I would probably home school the kids two or three days a week, or maybe two or three months per school year.

ON the other hand, if the schools would put more aides, or more teachers into the classroom, where the kids could get more customized education, I'd probably let them handle it all again.

Just a little aside: we did keep the kids out of school whenever we wanted to, when we felt there was a chance they could learn more doing something else.. Like when we took all three of them to Mexico for a month, riding on third class trains, third class buses, staying in the hotels the locals used, rather than tourist hotels. This type of thing was very eye opening for them. It gave them a close hand look at how some of the rest of the world liives, in a way no schoolbook ever could. We'd also take them travelling or hiking or rafting or whatnot, regardless of whether they would have to miss school, as they were able to catch up in about five minutes, usually. The school administration was frequently rather upset about the way we ignored their rules, but we persevered, and they eventually learned not to try to make us follow their rules.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 25, 2002.

Joj - I never said I was going to "program" my children - you said that. And, if you are concerned about my "state of conciousness," then be concerned with the public school system - I'm a product of it! ;)

-- heather (h.m.metheny@att.net), March 25, 2002.

ONe other point. If parents spent half as much time with their kids, whether it were teaching them, or simply talking to them, or playing games with them, as t hey did watching television, the kids would do a lot better in school imho.

If the kids were not placed in front of a TV for hours every day, the kids would do a lot better, as well. IMHO.

I agree with Julie: we taxpayers love to whine about how "bad" the public schools are. That way, we don't have to look inward.

I actually think one alternative to homeschooling might be as simple as letting the kids go to public school, but keeping the TV off, and giving your kids a lot of quality time AFTER school. Also, if you can manage to maintain the same open communication between you and your kids that you start out with when they are little bitty guys, all the way until they are adults, you can maybe stay on top of the temptations they will come in contact with in school, and help THEM make good decisions, rather than trying to make the decisions FOR them!.

As far as which is "better", well I would sure HOPE that home schooled kids would score higher on tests, if the parents are teaching them what they need for the tests. after all, one on one is bound to be better than one on thirty! (this is only in regards to standard tests, though, as there are lots of other things to consider)

God, I can't even keep up with this post, the replies are coming in so fast!

Bob, I feel for you, since "Nothing has been "proven to my satisfaction", ie.that evolution is true." I've already put in my time arguing this point, so I won't go into it here. I WILL say, however, that when you say, "We are responsible to God" you are making an untrue statement. If you want to believe that, that's fine for YOU. However, I am in no way responsible to God. Sorry, bud.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 25, 2002.

Heather, I apologize if I offended you with my choice of words. But I do feel that the word "program" is applicable to someone who chooses to restrict their kids to a "program" which excludes giving them the abilities to interpret all the different ideas to which they will be exposed during their youth, and also throughout their lives.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 25, 2002.

Lest anyone think otherwise, I did not use a Christian-based curriculum. It wasn't because I am against Christian education. We go to church for that. I wanted to give my kids an education that reflected Christian and secular ideas. My minister, by the way, helped me teach some subjects, such as electronics and history.

One more thing, I agree that we all should have freedom of choice. What a boring world this would be if we didn't.

-- Gayle in KY (gayleannesmith@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

I too apologize for any hard feelings. The Yankee in me loves a stimulating debate. If I could afford to, maybe I would have considered homeschooling, but that was never an issue. Thanks...Julie the horrible hehehe

-- julie (jbritt@ceva.net), March 25, 2002.

I am not exactly homeschooling my kids yet - the oldest is pretty young, so what education we do do is pretty unregimented. But we think about it, and I'm ambivalent at best. I think there are pluses and minuses to it. But what Julie says about leaving it to the professionals is silly - lets be honest, an education degree doesn't take a lot of brains or effort. I do not mean that there aren't a lot of smart, dedicated, wonderful teachers out there, but it isn't because they are so well trained or because the education degree gives them so many resources. I've taken ed classes, and I could have done well in them from a coma.

I do have doubts that parents can be all things to their children, but in the final analysis, my doubts are even greater about public schools. I think homeschooling is the best of a lot of bad choices - ultimately public schools are a force for the ideological state apparatus, and enforce values and processes I don't approve of, including conformity, unthinking obedience to authority, lack of critical thinking and anti-intellectualism. I teach at the University level (where there are also plenty of bad teachers as well as wonderful ones) and I find that in order to teach my students to think critically, they have to first unlearn a lot of the lessons that public education taught them.

-- Sharon in NY (astyk@brandeis.edu), March 25, 2002.

JOJ -

I never said that you offended me. I never said that I would restrict my kids in their "program" of education. I never said they couldn't be their OWN person.

You're simply assuming these things, because I said I will homeschool in reply to some interesting ideas you quoted from the Atlantic Monthly.

What cracks me up is people who think they know better than I what is best for my children. ("They will only speak this...they will only know that...they won't know this....and they'll think that...") I'm confused as to how Lisa Lombardi knows what's best!? Oh, that's right - she's probably a "professional." ;)

-- heather (h.m.metheny@att.net), March 25, 2002.

Gayle, have you given any thought to homeschooling 1 child at a time, or adding 1 child to the homeschool every semester to give you a chance of getting your feet under you? Are you trying to educate your kids with the same methods used in public schools? My grandma and my aunt were teachers in 1 room schools and I did 1st grade in a 1 room school and the methods are totally different from what is being used these days.

I think we all can relate to spring fever. On those beautiful sunny days, my kids are outside. Bookwork can wait until evening and the rainy days are all school.

Joe, that article you posted, states that particular parent was a "teacher trained" homeschooler. I assume that means the same training as public school teachers? The knowledge that is lacking in those kids is basically the same as the average public school graduate. The real question is, do those kids know how to get the information if they choose to pursue knowledge?

My oldest daughter is a product of public school. Her and her friends have a very limited knowledge of the real world and the most narrow worldviews of anyone I've met. Even though they were all model students in high school, real life and college life are finally exposing the deficits in their education and the School of Hard Knocks is not kind. Oh, the breakthrough that comes when these kids declare, "My teachers lied to me!"

My homeschool does not adhere to a grade level so my children can go as far as they want in areas that they are interested in while maintaining minimal standards in areas they have trouble with. My 12 year old is using college textbooks for English and and Biology, high school level Geography and 4th grade math. This would never fly in a grade restrictive classroom. As far as cultural sensitivity, she is way beyond her older sister and her peers because, as a homeschool kid, she can have friends born in Mexico and friends born on the reservation without the dog pack mentality of public school peer groups.

There are about 8 professional educators in my family, and every single one of them is supportive of homeschooling in general and very supportive and encouraging to my family in particular and the methods we use. I don't hold anything against professional educators for their career choices. There are many caring teachers out there, but the system is broke and until it is fixed, my kids will do much better at home.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 25, 2002.

Please don't say that teachers are not professionals. God knows it's not brain surgery, but I sure as the dickens am a professional. There are plenty of things wrong with public school, and there's nothing wrong with choosing to homeschool, if you are yourself sufficiently educated. But public education, for all its practical faults, is part of the American ideal. It provides a great service to the majority of kids in this country. There are more kids than you'd like to imagine that don't get to eat anywhere else. We don't have eight year olds begging or working. We require an educated populace to maintain a democracy. We all have a vested interested in the educational level of our fellow citizens, and thereby a responsibility to suppport and improve the local systems.

My two cents worth.

-- witness (kaitomas@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

Laura, that is the BEST IDEA!!! I wish I'd thought of it . I believe I'll do just that, starting next school year (or maybe this summer).

-- Gayle in KY (gayleannesmith@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

I (and others I'm sure) don't mean to imply that teachers aren't professionals per se, but it gets awfully tiring to hear others being put down for having a non-teaching degree (say business management, english, whatever). I have learned a lot from people who don't have any degrees at all--and all I care about is that they know their subject.

I also agree with the poster who said that you can learn all the minimum skills by age 13--there used to be a test called the CA High School Equivalency Exam, and it was written for a 7th grade education. I have no idea what grade level it is testing for now.

And Gary, about isolation--that can have some good points as well. I think it is a given that the longer you keep kids away from "bad elements" (smoking, drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, general bad behavior, etc.) the better the chances they won't be interested later on when they are exposed to them.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 25, 2002.

I am a 19 year old product of the public school system. To tell the honest truth, I hated most of high school, but I love that it has helped make me the person I am today. I had alot of great teachers and really respect the people who take it on! Public school, instead of making me into a conformist, as some suggest, helped me question assumptions and make my own identity, instead of just becoming what my parents would mould me into (although I have become a person they are very proud of and they wouldn't want me any other way). Don't think that I'm bashing homeschooling, when I have children, it is definitely something I will look into. I just think that trying to carve your children into your own strict ideals instead of letting them blossom into their own unique person can have somepretty rough consequences. Not that all homeschoolers do that! I have lots of homeschooled and homeschooling friends. Gayle, please don't feel that you are sentencing your children to a bad education or abandoning them by sending them to public school. At least you gave it a shot.

-- Elizabeth (Lividia66@aol.com), March 25, 2002.

I don't really have any extra input on the subject of homeschooling, but I have been scanning through all the responses here, and I just have to comment on the civility of everyone involved. I see lots of opinions, but no cussing or outrageous name-calling. Bravo!

-- Christine in OK (cljford@mmcable.com), March 25, 2002.

To Joj....that excerpt out of Atlantic Monthly caters to almost every stereotype out there about homeschooling, that it's the domain of severe ultra-right wing Christians who keep their children from "the real world". The sad thing is that people like you will believe it and not recognize this article" for the obvious hit piece that it is. Almost ALL of my homeschooling friends are Christians (BTW I am not) and none of them are as intellectually narrow as this article portrays them. No exposure to geology? Other cultures? Genetics? Give me a break. The bias from the author is palpable.

-- gita (gita@directcon.net), March 25, 2002.

Personally, I think "parents" are professionals! Who else knows what is best for your child and more experience?

Isolate the most important thing in the entire world - our children? Isolate them from drugs, kids toteing guns, terror, distruction, reduced self-esteme, stress, etc.??? You betcha!!!!

-- Karen (mountains_mama2@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

In answer to something Julie said, Parents not being in control of their children. Well, didn't the local, fedral and schools see to it that our rights to correct these,"Out of control children" were taken away.Excuse me if I'm wrong but don't the schools push the info on the children, " that if your parents spank you just tell us" You have played a big part in taking away those controls, and now we have several generations of disrespectful,selfcentered,uncontrolled adults now. Job well done!

-- KelleMT (kvent1729@aol.com), March 25, 2002.

Hi Joj, Vicki, and others:

I guess I'm just waxing nostalgic here, but I personally had the benefit of a *kind* of homeschooling in addition to a public school education. Since my grandmother and mom *were* teachers (ahem! that would be professional, especially if you consider that my grandmother had her masters degree in oh? the late 1920s?), they starting teaching me right out of swaddling clothes (okay, I'm not quite *that* ancient!). Anyway with preschool-type homeschooling, I already knew how to read and reason and was advanced enough to skip a grade right off the bat, etc., as soon as I hit the steps of elementary school. I can see how homeschooling could be beneficial!

I had some really excellent and also some really poor teachers throughout the K-12 years. However, my mom was also very involved with PTA and also with my homework after school (btw, she quit work from my wee age until I was in 8th grade, returning to teaching again when I was in high school). If I had poor teachers, so be it. My mom would help me learn more at home, anyway. My peers' parents (moms I guess...this was the '50s and 60s) were also involved in their kids academic lives, as well as our social ones).

I guess my point is that concerned parents actively participated in making public school (as an institution) a viable and vital part of their kids' lives; additionally, it brought the neighborhood standard up (*all* kids, even the poor ones, the ones with the drunken parents, the immigrants, etc.)...ALL kids had a chance to learn and succeed. It took a dedicated effort on every kid's parents' part to work within "the system".

What I see today are isolated events taking place at various folks' kitchen tables...homeschooling. Instead of making the *community* better by working to make public schools better, I see people saying "the **** with it. I'm going to teach my kids the way I want to. They deserve the best education I can give them!" Okay. I get that! But what do the rest of the kids in your county/city/town/rural route get? Marginal education so they can drop out and become marginalized citizens? Will they grow up and start a crack house next door to you? I don't see that as a way of creating better communities or a better nation.

I know that parents working all the time may have a hard time actively involving themselves in public school efforts, but hey, the homeschool folks seem to have some of that time. I don't have the answers, but I do wonder why we can't seem to get together anymore to resolve our community problems.

Just my $.02 (and change).

-- sheepish (the_original_sheepish@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

Sheepish, even people who homeschool are giving up something, whether it is extra income or time for themselves. As Amanda said in a very early post, being a SAHM is looked down upon by most people.

Then your post says (at least how I'm reading it, I could be wrong :) that the SAHMs should feel responsible for everyone else's kids too. I bet a lot of SAHMs (can also mean stay-at-home-men too!) get tired of being asked to volunteer for this, that, or something else, especially when the request is often accompanied by "since you're a stay-at-home-Mom you must have time to do this". Like SAHMs need to justify their role.

If people would take care of their own children, instead of hoping that some other child has a SAHM they can take advantage of, some of the problems in schools would take care of themselves.

Schools in the past used to run quite well without parent volunteers-- but this did not mean that parents were not involved in their children's education. On the contrary, while they might not have done the volunteer thing here and there, they did make certain that their own children were squared away. Too many parents don't even do that. Working outside the home is no excuse for teaching children basic manners and respect for adults. Although these days I would also teach children that NO ONE is to tell them to keep any secrets from their parents--I don't care if it is a teacher or their pastor.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 25, 2002.

Hey GT,

I'm not putting down SAHMs. My mom was one, remember? I pointed out how beneficial it was for me. They didn't have school volunteers then; the participation was extracurricular. The teachers were supposed to be responsible for teaching. The parents could provide lots of input. Kind of like our government is supposed to be: you know, elect someone to best represent you. If they don't, then elect someone else. Like school, like government...if everyone stays home taking care of their own business, how can we ever get anyone *good* to do the outside work anymore? (and please, we need infrastructure and providing for the common defense, etc., okay? I can't defend my farm from ballistic missiles all by myself, or pour enough concrete to make a road to the market...). I *get* that goverment isn't particularly good these days (!!!), but who else is responsible!? (okay, big money....) but theoretically, WE are the people. "We get the government we deserve." Or we get the schools we deserve...

My point is that *everyone* is responsible for everyone's kids (okay, I'm exaggerating). But no man is an island..or no SAHM is an island, whichever you prefer... ;-)

-- sheepish (the_original_sheepish@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Bravo GT! Bravo a bunch of other folks too :o). I'd like to add a bit to this. It aggravated me to no end that because I was a stay at home mom others automatically assumed that I was available for all kinds of things(free babysitting, running other peoples kids here and there, endless fund raising, etc.). I hear the excuse from parents all the time that they work full time. Well maybe they should have thought about that before they had children. Many times the parents that claim they can't cut down to part time jobs in order to better care for their children have lots of things they really don't need. Like tons of credit cards, extravagant houses, expensive cars, etc. Things are not necessary for a good quality of life. I could give those folks a lesson or 3 on reducing their expenses to meet their income....unfortunately most aren't interested. It all boils down to....I take care of the children that I bore. I didn't choose to give birth to other folks children. There is a moral responsibility that is incurred when you have a child. If you can't take care of that childs needs then you should do the responsible thing and adopt the child out to good parents. I'm all for improving our communties but expecting good parents to take time and energy away from their children to try and force bad parents into doing their duty is a loosing battle.

-- Amanda (mrsgunsmyth@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Sheepish, I guess we just disagree--I never did hold with "it takes a village...." except in cases where there are no parents, or the children were removed from the parents' custody. I don't think a lot of parents want other people telling them how to raise their children--I know I don't. I also feel that you can't learn to either lead others or even be a good team player without being able to lead yourself first. I do vote, because you can't complain about who's in office if you don't!

I hope I did not offend you--I certainly did not mean to.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 26, 2002.

"But public education, for all its practical faults, is part of the American ideal. It provides a great service to the majority of kids in this country. There are more kids than you'd like to imagine that don't get to eat anywhere else. We don't have eight year olds begging or working. We require an educated populace to maintain a democracy."

Witness, there are several problems with this statement. Public education is NOT part of the American Ideal. The Constitution makes no provision for public education and our federal or state governments have no business in the education of our children. It started as community based education and was taken away from local control and has gone downhill ever since. If the locals knew how to take it back from the teacher's unions and governmnet control, they would.

Public education shouldn't be a welfare feed the kids program. Those programs are already in place and don't need schools to administer them.

Yes we DO have 8 year old begging and working. Young kids hanging out at the video arcades trying to mooch quarters for games and sodas. Homeschooled 8 year olds work at chores at home.

We do not need an educated populace to maintain a a democracy because we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. We need an educated populace that knows our country is a republic and NOT a democracy. We need teachers that know the difference and can teach the difference.

I personally have nothing against public school teachers if they are sufficiently educated.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 26, 2002.

Kelle: I never had to physically beat my kids...I have always been smarter than that. If I did they should call for help. Please... would you like someone to beat you? Not that I will reply now cause this "ain't" the topic. Oh, I was never hit as a kid either.

-- julie (jbritt@ceva.net), March 26, 2002.

1. ADHD doesnt exixt, this is a new thing to provide more jobs to more people. My nephew was diagnose with it, my Sister in law, is a single parent. When I stay for vacations with my nephew, I make him to work in the yard paint the porch and hundred of other jobs around the house, my son have the same age, and both works their butt off when I viste, this boy never give any sign of hyperactivity or anything he is just a health boy that respect me a lot, I don't know if he love me, to tell you the truth, I think he doesn't. 2. Homeschooling its hard, its terrible! but is my other answer. When my neighboors kid went with us to a museum in Philly, one of the paintings that we saw was a human cuple having sex, this kids, 5-6 grader they didnt really know what was going on in the picture, my 4th grader son stood in front of the picture and stated " I know what are they doing, they are mating" and walked away, so simple so natural was him that I hug him a kissed him. Then I know that homeschooling its not perfect, but is our responsability, no the goverment, this is a Roseau idea, that the goverment should raise our children, well let me tell you that Roseau, that french intelectual had four children and give all of them to adoption!! I agree with you, but its our responsibility to raise our children, however you should make the desicion with your husband and God.

-- Ralph Roces (rroces1@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

I believe that folks who says that they are not their brother's keeper are missing something important. As a Christian (and I'm not wanting to start something else here), I see it my charge to try to help others. Whether I'm a working person or a SAHM, my neighbors ARE my responsibility. No one said anything about *telling someone else how to raise their kids*. People need to spend time working IN COMMUNITY to find out how things work. People do not mandate what happens to you. You are part of the solution. People who do NOT participate in decision making have to live with what gets handed down to them. If you don't like the laws, get involved. Fix them. Just my observation over 50 years.

And GT, no offense taken!

-- sheepish (the_original_sheepish@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Julie, I don't believe Kelle had any reference to "beating" a child - which, I am sure, is totally unacceptable to all of us. You mean you really believe it is "smart" not to give an out-of-control child a spanking? If so, then no wonder the kid is like that!

-- Karen (mountains_mama2@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

What kid? My kids are great...I don't spank them. I don't have too.

-- julie (jbritt@ceva.net), March 26, 2002.

Ralph, you have made a good point, although I do think that those diseases do exist, but they are 'way too often overdiagnosed.

The point I am referring to is that it seems to be more of a problem in children of divorced parents, and one parent says there is a major problem (usually the one who has the live-in custody), and the other either doesn't have one or it is a minor problem.

When a friend's child stays with him, not really a problem, as he is kept focused doing things, however, with mom it is a different story altogether because she lets him do pretty much as he pleases, he is on meds, etc. I have always wondered if there were any stats to back this impression up.

The schools ARE, unfortunately, telling people how to raise their kids, and that is why parents have a problem with it. Schools need to specifically tell the parents IN WRITING what they are teaching at the beginning of the year (not the day before a seminar on condoms, for example), and parents should be able to check off down the line whether they want their kids learning those subjects or not.

I still think that ultimate responsibility resides with the parents of children, and you can spend all your time changing the system for everyone else (who may not give a rat's derriere), or you can look out for your own, whom you do have some say in the matter with. Parents time is worth something too.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 26, 2002.

My 2 children have ADD (as do I) and trying to have school at home didn't work at all - in fact, it was a disaster. Once we started unschooling things went a lot better. I find textbooks to be extremely dull so we try to learn from the real world, or at least interesting books.

-- Bonnie (stichart@plix.com), March 26, 2002.

http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/articles/0302/25/EDI01.asp

Assemblywoman's bill would turn state schools over to the unions

FOR Jackie Goldberg, helping to destroy the Los Angeles Unified School District wasn't enough. She wants to ruin every other school district in California, too. The former member of the LAUSD board and Los Angeles City Council now serves as a state assemblywoman in Sacramento, where she is still the dutiful stooge of the powerful teachers unions.

Goldberg and a fellow Angeleno, Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, have introduced AB 2160, a bill that would allow teachers unions to negotiate classroom policies, like curricula and textbooks, the same way they currently angle for compensation and benefits.

If passed, the law would put unions, which are unelected and unaccountable to the public, on the same footing as elected school board members in shaping the fate of California schools. Curriculum would become merely another bargaining chip, like sick days, bartered and traded during the process of back-room, closed-door contract negotiations.

For the unions, power over classroom policy could make for mighty leverage at the bargaining table, which is great for them. But is it good for students and their parents?

The purpose of unions isn't to create laws or administer public services, it's to get the best, most lucrative deal possible for their members. But what's in the best interest of unions and their members isn't necessarily what's in the best interest of sound educational policy.

For example, part of the expanded powers that Goldberg's bill would give to unions is a say in the selection of outside evaluators who track the progress of underperforming schools. In other words, the unions representing school personnel would help decide whether a school's personnel is doing a good job -- an obvious conflict of interest.

The California Teachers Association, realizing how much it stands to profit from the law change, has sunk big bucks into a statewide radio ad campaign on its behalf. The union's disingenuous message is that AB 2160 is all about giving teachers more control over their classrooms.

Don't believe it for a second.

What Goldberg and her allies in Sacramento are proposing wouldn't give more authority to individual educators, but to the deal-makers representing them. It has nothing to do with empowering teachers, and everything to do with emboldening union bosses.

In the process, it would further remove parents from what goes on in the schools. While their children's future is negotiated at the bargaining table, they would be stuck outside, powerless to voice their concerns or make a difference.

It's time to put an end to Goldberg's one-woman war on quality education. The Legislature should vote down her proposed power grab, but that's unlikely as long as the CTA-backed Democrats remain in control.

It may be that all that separates Californians from even worse educational policy is Gray Davis, the "education governor." We'll see whether he lives up to his own billing. *********************************************************************

Sheepish, I cannot fix the schools and give my children a top education at the same time. Putting my children in their system then trying to change it would be sacrificing my children to the common good of the community. God laid out our priorities for us. God, family, church THEN community. Perhaps after my children are grown will I take on public schools. But then, that society has no value for women who choose to stay home and be a parent and teacher to their children.

As a stay at homeschool mom, I am on the speed dial of every latchkey kid for miles. I am the drop off center for kids too sick to go to school and every kid I know carries my toll free phone number and knows they can call me anytime from anywhere and I will come get them. We participate in afterschool programs and I counsel many problem kids. I am disturbed by what they have to put up with in public school. I am even more disturbed by the indifference of the parents whose kids have big problems.

-- Laura S. (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 26, 2002.

Laura, I totally agree with all of your posts. You took the words right out of my mouth!!

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), March 26, 2002.

Karen, Thanks, I did NOT mean beat your child, only to spank as a correction, in a loving, non-hostile way. The Bible says; " spare the rod and spoil the child" I'm glad for Julie that she's not had to disipline her children, as no loving parent takes joy in doing it. I too know of people who weren't spanked and that don't spank their kids. I'm only following what God's will is for our family. Our children are respectful, polite, converse well with kids as well as adult, are self sacrificing, trusting,loyal and love the Lord and seek to follow His will. I'm not saying you have to beat children, just give correction and reproof.

-- KelleMT (kvent1729@aol.com), March 26, 2002.

Why did Jesus tell the folks who asked Him about his mother and brother, answer, while pointing to his disciples, indicate that *they* are his mother and brothers and that anyone who obeys his Father in heaven is his brother or sister or mother? Why did Paul spend all that time visiting folks all over Eurasia? I thought community building was a major point. Or maybe it was just a guy thing.

If I were queen of the universe, I would hope that every kid had a loving mother, as loving as those of you who post here, are. I wish they could benefit from learning from you in a homeschool situation. And hey, I don't expect anyone to change the world, but maybe possibly just TRY to influence it. I know you are busy and stressed. However, consider (at least consider) that there are indeed folks out there who work and who also love their children, for whom public schools are currently the best answer. I know many people who work 40-50+ hours a week at paying jobs and STILL make time to participate in their children's education. It's not just the SAHMs that are doing double shifts...

The work of those improving their kid's public school experience ultimately benefit many. I understand the need to maximize your children's opportunities, but what would you say if you could do that....*and* improve other children's opportunities at the same time?

Public education is the one rising tide that can indeed lift all boats. But only if it's good public education. So how does it get improved/stay good if everyone wants to stay home and homeschool? If you don't care, are you prepared to live with the consequences...the kids next door manufacturing methamphetamines? The kids next door who steal from you? The kids next door that want your daughter to have sex? There have always been folks who don't take care of their children. But at least there used to be folks who cared about their community, including the poor and the downtrodden. Some of those uncared for kids made it out of their seemingly-doomed existences. And for those of you who think that writing about that makes me a communist, please re-read the Gospel.

I think we need to at least try. After all, it's never about "me and you"...it's only about "me and God".

With love (and I know we'll likely never agree on this),

-- sheepish (the_original_sheepish@Hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

I love your posts Sheepish. There is always that underlying current from homeschool moms that somehow they do more, are somehow better mothers, have made better choices etc. Homeschooling also includes, church, 4H, baseball, and all the rest. Yet public school moms must simply drop the kids at the door step and do nothing else. The reason this is always such a hot topic is because as homesteaders we have stay at home mom's simply because we live in such a way that we don't need the high maintenence of a second income. But....this also leaves these young women wide open for if the first income leaves, they and their children will be in poverty, with mom flipping burgers on welfare and the kids immediatly go back to public school, like all the millions of moms who live in the city and across America, where they have no choice but to use public schools. How many of you young mom's have enough money or could instantly get a job, who could also continue to homeschool, and pay all the bills next month? Would you not have to then put your kids back into public school? With every other marriage ending in divorce you certainly can't say "It won't happen to me". So like Sheepish said I do worry about my neighbors, and our school, I worry about the young women on this board. And Julie, take a reality check, because unless your children are in a plastic bubble (and then they are likely to be getting fingerprints on the plastic ;) no children are perfect, all need to be corrected, all mom's have bad days, all children drive their mom's crazy at times, it doesn't make you a bad mother to admit that, it keeps you sane. Super mom doesn't exsist. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (Nubians) (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

I don't believe "Supermom" exists either, and I don't think kids need to be chauffeured around (either by Mom or school) to tons of different activities. Exposed to different things, like sports or ballet or whatever, sure, but they don't have to be involved in every single one of them.

And there are cheaper ways to have certain experiences--for example, a lot of people have their kids in scouting ostensibly for the camping, and wind up getting wrapped up in all the other stuff that goes with scouting (uniforms, fundraisers, etc.) that they never bargained for. Take the kids camping yourself.

I'm not putting down scouting, Amanda :) or any other organized clubs, but one thing that bothers me is the almost (at least it seems that way) total reliance on cookie (or other product) sales, where the parents wind up doing all the work. I like to see fundraisers like car washes (say you offer to visit a medium-size business and wash every employee's car in the lot for a donation), where the members (the kids) learn about the relationship of work to money. I don't think they ever make the connection selling others' products. Standing in front of the supermarket is not the same thing as being sopping wet and dead tired from physical labor. I never go to car wash businesses (my car was scraped once by the machines and they had to pay (after I threatened them with small claims court) to completely repaint the bumper), so I'm not taking business away from anyone, but I will go to donation car washes.

Vicki poses an interesting question, bringing up divorce (and I would add sudden tragic death as well). To me the answer is simple, but often overlooked--insurance, which is cheap if you are young. Insurance on BOTH parents, by the way--the working spouse can often be overwhelmed by having to deal with things like finding good daycare, when the non- working ;) spouse had been taking care of it. I read a news article once that a Mom is worth $1 MILLION a year because of all the different hats she wears (and taking into account market rates paid for all the skills) like nurse, chauffeur, gourmet cook, teacher, maid, etc. etc. Makes you feel a bit different, doesn't it?

I wouldn't call myself a drop-off parent, but I also resent that teachers/school administrators who have decently paying jobs with good benefits often expect parents to in essence work for free. If I wanted to be in that field, I'd get a job in it. Schools DID work well before with drop-off parents, because the parents did take care of problems their kids caused, and the schools enforced discipline. If you feel you have to volunteer at a public school, I feel it is time to look at homeschooling, to save your time and sanity, if nothing else. If we were talking about a co-op school, where there were no paid positions, it would be one thing, but we're talking about an institution where people are paid (and pretty decently too) to do a job.

People have an obligation to look after their own family first, as Amanda so eloquently put it (although I was reading "I take care of the children that I bore" pretty late at night and burst out laughing ;). There are 'way too many people out there worrying about other people's kids and not their own, for my taste.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 27, 2002.