Nazi Homeschool in Ohio: something for Gauleiter Ron DeSantis to explore

[Jarhyn]

Some public schools produce better results, some don't. Some private schools produce better results, some don't.

What exactly is your point?

That's there's nothing inherently bad about home schooling. But a child would probably fair better with home schooling, if it could be done, given the parental investment.

No, because most parents are not good teachers.

Even the people capable of being good teachers can't be every teacher.

I can't teach high school chemistry lab at home.

I wouldn't want to teach Biology 2 at home.

I don't think any child or parent wants anyone teaching Sex Ed at home.

Some.lessons parents are well aligned to give and some they are not.

 

[bilby]

No, because most parents are not good teachers.

It's rather strange that parents who would resile from performing an appendectomy on their children, rather than getting a surgeon to do it; and who would hesitate to represent their wrongfully accused children in court, rather than employ the services of a lawyer, are nevertheless convinced that they can adequately teach their children to a standard suitable for modern society.

These are the same folks who go out and buy a cup of coffee from a skilled barista, rather than make it themselves at home.

But then, it's only their children's futures. It's not like it's so necessary that it be done by someone who knows what they're doing. It's not as though it's a cup of coffee, or anything important like that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Which makes one wonder why you are shitting on public schools.

I'm simply pointing out that they are not inherently better than home schooling.

Since the OP is about Nazi home schooling, would you agree that public schools are inherently better than Nazi home schooling?

...crickets...

Who knows? If the parents give Nazi-like attention to detail for math, reading, and writing, those kids might perform better than their public school counterparts. But, yeah, teaching socialism to children might make them stupid and intolerant.

You do understand what children learn in school that is not part of the curriculum simply by being in class with their peers, don’t you? Like tolerance, compromise, and sharing. The list does go on: negotiating, empathy, etc. Maybe a dash of egalitarianism. Just a dash so as not to rouse the nazi in mom or dad. In short, they develop the social skills necessary to function in society. I think you might be confusing social interaction with socialism.
Now if you’re thinking a child can learn all this stuff via play (play with the right children, of course), well yes and no because play is not mandatory. If junior doesn’t get his way, he can always lash out or go home. But in school, when junior knows he has to interact with his peers five days a week for the foreseeable future, getting along with others and all takes on a bit of a compulsory aspect.

 

[Politesse]

No, because most parents are not good teachers.

It's rather strange that parents who would resile from performing an appendectomy on their children, rather than getting a surgeon to do it; and who would hesitate to represent their wrongfully accused children in court, rather than employ the services of a lawyer, are nevertheless convinced that they can adequately teach their children to a standard suitable for modern society.

These are the same folks who go out and buy a cup of coffee from a skilled barista, rather than make it themselves at home.

But then, it's only their children's futures. It's not like it's so necessary that it be done by someone who knows what they're doing. It's not as though it's a cup of coffee, or anything important like that.

Teaching is not, in general, regarded as skilled labor by social conservatives.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Teaching is not, in general, regarded as skilled labor by social conservatives.

That's likely because conservatives, generally speaking, see children as extensions of themselves, certainly not as individuals. Everything learned must be approved by the parent, like in the garden of eden fable. Children are not free to learn.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Spend money to get the public school functioning, from whatever jurisdictions can spare, or from state level funding if necessary, garnered from across all districts as a progressive tax.

A public school failing is a sign of not enough money, plain and simple.

Maybe it leaks out somewhere, maybe there is higher overhead for some schools, and in some, clear avenues to exit the district should exist -- assuming some large population of trouble makers there.

Who pays for it? The society that benefits from having everyone well educated.

No. The primary cause of failing public schools is parents/neighborhoods that don't care.

Throwing tons of money at the schools does nothing. Moving the students to better schools does nothing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Spend money to get the public school functioning, from whatever jurisdictions can spare, or from state level funding if necessary, garnered from across all districts as a progressive tax.

A public school failing is a sign of not enough money, plain and simple.

Maybe it leaks out somewhere, maybe there is higher overhead for some schools, and in some, clear avenues to exit the district should exist -- assuming some large population of trouble makers there.

Who pays for it? The society that benefits from having everyone well educated.

No. The primary cause of failing public schools is parents/neighborhoods that don't care.

Throwing tons of money at the schools does nothing. Moving the students to better schools does nothing.

It would be interesting if we ever found out what happens when a struggling school gets a bigger budget and is not run by administrators who hate the students they work for.

If the money is being misspent to convert the school into a prison, that's an allocation issue.

 

[Rhea]

No. The primary cause of failing public schools is parents/neighborhoods that don't care.

Throwing tons of money at the schools does nothing. Moving the students to better schools does nothing.

I disagree completely. Utterly.

Parental gaps/failures make the job of public education more difficult, and make it cost more money to overcome, but I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that throwing money at the school can rescue these children from inadequate parental attention.


Money in a struggling school district can:

• Increase the number of teachers to make classes smaller and more responsive to kids who need extra instruction
• Enable staffed homework clubs and afterschool enrichment to help both the lowest and highest ends of the achievement spectrum
• Enable buses and other transportation to help parents who cannot let their kids attend enrichment due only to transportation
• Provide for excellent food and on-site medical care for kids whose parents are not providing
• Provide parent help and workshops, including infancy and young child parenting training
• Increase guidance staff to provide more “parenting” to kids who are not getting it at home
• Enable outreach to community volunteers to help the school in place of parents
• Provide for 1:1 aides that enable mainstream classroom participation on a variable scale for students to help move them out of special programs as they progress.

ABSOLUTELY throwing money at it can help significantly. This is well demonstrated.

Our department at work has “adopted” a local school with lower income students to act as volunteer parents. We are on-call whenever they need a volunteer to help in a classroom (It’s clay day and we need someone to roll out clay, it’s art day and we need someone to mix paste) because the low income parents can’t take the day off work. We are on-call whenever they want a better something for the kids (we’re doing a school play, can you make us a set?) because the parents don’t have the income to have a gang of power-tool-wielding contruction who buy the wood and paint ourselves. We are on call for the read-aloud exercises, because the parents working 2 jobs don’t have time to listen to their kids read aloud every night, so we coe into the school and have the kids read to us in the hall. We provide rides if necessary, we provide coaches for the robot programs (and we provide the robots and take them to competitions).

ALL OF THIS could be accomplished for any school with a larger budget. It would be guaranteed and not dependent on a gang of 50 engineers who want to do something for the community.

And ALL OF THIS benefits society by turning the graduating seniors into better skilled, more resilient and more stable humans, who are likely going to parent better when they have kids. It is an incredible and necessary opportunity with a HUGE return on investment

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Spend money to get the public school functioning, from whatever jurisdictions can spare, or from state level funding if necessary, garnered from across all districts as a progressive tax.

A public school failing is a sign of not enough money, plain and simple.

Maybe it leaks out somewhere, maybe there is higher overhead for some schools, and in some, clear avenues to exit the district should exist -- assuming some large population of trouble makers there.

Who pays for it? The society that benefits from having everyone well educated.

No. The primary cause of failing public schools is parents/neighborhoods that don't care.

Throwing tons of money at the schools does nothing. Moving the students to better schools does nothing.

It would be interesting if we ever found out what happens when a struggling school gets a bigger budget and is not run by administrators who hate the students they work for.

If the money is being misspent to convert the school into a prison, that's an allocation issue.

The money was spent on the students--and did nothing. Likewise, moving students into better schools does nothing--it's not the schools!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The primary cause of failing public schools is parents/neighborhoods that don't care.

Throwing tons of money at the schools does nothing. Moving the students to better schools does nothing.

I disagree completely. Utterly.

Parental gaps/failures make the job of public education more difficult, and make it cost more money to overcome, but I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that throwing money at the school can rescue these children from inadequate parental attention.

Believing it to be so doesn't make it so.

We have a judge who ordered a billion dollars in spending on the inner city schools--which did nothing.

We have also tried moving poor students into better schools--which does nothing. Note that it's the same schools that are working for other students, the difference has to be in the students.

We also have Poland that had to rebuild it's entire educational system and did so as fairly as possible--yet the differences persist.

Money in a struggling school district can:

• Increase the number of teachers to make classes smaller and more responsive to kids who need extra instruction
• Enable staffed homework clubs and afterschool enrichment to help both the lowest and highest ends of the achievement spectrum
• Enable buses and other transportation to help parents who cannot let their kids attend enrichment due only to transportation
• Provide for excellent food and on-site medical care for kids whose parents are not providing
• Provide parent help and workshops, including infancy and young child parenting training
• Increase guidance staff to provide more “parenting” to kids who are not getting it at home
• Enable outreach to community volunteers to help the school in place of parents
• Provide for 1:1 aides that enable mainstream classroom participation on a variable scale for students to help move them out of special programs as they progress.

Perhaps there's some magic solution. If so, it hasn't been found.

ABSOLUTELY throwing money at it can help significantly. This is well demonstrated.

Our department at work has “adopted” a local school with lower income students to act as volunteer parents. We are on-call whenever they need a volunteer to help in a classroom (It’s clay day and we need someone to roll out clay, it’s art day and we need someone to mix paste) because the low income parents can’t take the day off work. We are on-call whenever they want a better something for the kids (we’re doing a school play, can you make us a set?) because the parents don’t have the income to have a gang of power-tool-wielding contruction who buy the wood and paint ourselves. We are on call for the read-aloud exercises, because the parents working 2 jobs don’t have time to listen to their kids read aloud every night, so we coe into the school and have the kids read to us in the hall. We provide rides if necessary, we provide coaches for the robot programs (and we provide the robots and take them to competitions).

You're talking about things to help parents who care, just don't have the time.

The inner city schools are bad because the parents don't care.

 

[Rhea]

Throwing tons of money at the schools does nothing. Moving the students to better schools does nothing.

I disagree completely. Utterly.

Parental gaps/failures make the job of public education more difficult, and make it cost more money to overcome, but I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that throwing money at the school can rescue these children from inadequate parental attention.

Believing it to be so doesn't make it so.

We have a judge who ordered a billion dollars in spending on the inner city schools--which did nothing.

Citation needed. I don’t believe that you have evidence that money spent on city schools to make them as well funded, per student, normalized for current level of student “does nothing.”


Note that I say “normalized for level of student,” because remediation owes the debt of under-served past. So you can’ have equal per capita spending on a school with 50% AP kids as you do on a school with 5% AP kids. The more behind the students the more funding they need.

We have also tried moving poor students into better schools--which does nothing.

Bullshit. I attended one of those schools and I call bullshit. Did you?

Note that it's the same schools that are working for other students, the difference has to be in the students.

Again, remediation is a debt that must be paid. Yup, it takes work to lift those kids.

ABSOLUTELY throwing money at it can help significantly. This is well demonstrated.

Our department at work has “adopted” a local school with lower income students to act as volunteer parents. We are on-call whenever they need a volunteer to help in a classroom (It’s clay day and we need someone to roll out clay, it’s art day and we need someone to mix paste) because the low income parents can’t take the day off work. We are on-call whenever they want a better something for the kids (we’re doing a school play, can you make us a set?) because the parents don’t have the income to have a gang of power-tool-wielding contruction who buy the wood and paint ourselves. We are on call for the read-aloud exercises, because the parents working 2 jobs don’t have time to listen to their kids read aloud every night, so we coe into the school and have the kids read to us in the hall. We provide rides if necessary, we provide coaches for the robot programs (and we provide the robots and take them to competitions).

You're talking about things to help parents who care, just don't have the time.

Nope, I am definitely not. I am talking about a school with kids who have parents of both types. Some of the kids in that school even have upper-middle class parents. It’s a bi-modal mix of relatively well off comfortable parents and abject poverty. There are parents who can’t and parents who won’t. And all of the kids deserve and benefit from the helping hand.

The inner city schools are bad because the parents don't care.

Not all of them, and for those that don’t, then YES if you throw money at it to do the work of the parents who don’t care, you can save those kids.

Why are you keen on punishing kids for what kind of parents they have? Are these throw-away kids to you?
YES throw money at making after school programs for them. YES throw money at feeding them. YES throw money at counselors and aides for them. YES throw money at giving them the best teachers. SAVE THOSE KIDS and make sure they don’t become parents who don’t care.

 

[laughing dog]

The money was spent on the students--and did nothing. Likewise, moving students into better schools does nothing--it's not the schools!

Really - no student's life was improved at all? Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that nothing was accomplished or is just another example of wishful thinking on your part?

 

[marc]

In putting money into schools, it is important to know what the money was actually used for. I've seen news stories of education administrators holding 'important meetings' at expensive restaurants. Sometimes that money is sent with the requirement that it be used for curriculums/testing/etc. that do not improve education. For example, Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' became very profitable for his brother Neil's company.

Of course waste and corruption tend to happen at the administrator level, but the blame gets put on the teachers, as if no one else is involved with education system at all.

 

[Gospel]

Great, now the Lil B - Swag like Ohio song is playing in my head.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ABSOLUTELY throwing money at it can help significantly. This is well demonstrated.

Our department at work has “adopted” a local school with lower income students to act as volunteer parents. We are on-call whenever they need a volunteer to help in a classroom (It’s clay day and we need someone to roll out clay, it’s art day and we need someone to mix paste) because the low income parents can’t take the day off work. We are on-call whenever they want a better something for the kids (we’re doing a school play, can you make us a set?) because the parents don’t have the income to have a gang of power-tool-wielding contruction who buy the wood and paint ourselves. We are on call for the read-aloud exercises, because the parents working 2 jobs don’t have time to listen to their kids read aloud every night, so we coe into the school and have the kids read to us in the hall. We provide rides if necessary, we provide coaches for the robot programs (and we provide the robots and take them to competitions).

You're talking about things to help parents who care, just don't have the time.

The inner city schools are bad because the parents don't care.

Don't care? Nothing like the judgmental conclusion by LP on people he doesn't know. There are parents in the inner-city that don't care. There are parents that do care but lack the skills to help. There are parents that do care but lack the time to help. There are single parents that are so over their head. Poverty creates several different reasons for students not to do as well. Hunger, unstable housing situation, unstable home situation, etc...

We do make arguments elsewhere for dealing with poverty, but often you just handwave it away, blah blah disparate outcomes, blah blah not the banks fault they abandoned inner city to invest in the suburbs where no one lived yet, blah blah.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In putting money into schools, it is important to know what the money was actually used for. I've seen news stories of education administrators holding 'important meetings' at expensive restaurants. Sometimes that money is sent with the requirement that it be used for curriculums/testing/etc. that do not improve education. For example, Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' became very profitable for his brother Neil's company.

Of course waste and corruption tend to happen at the administrator level, but the blame gets put on the teachers, as if no one else is involved with education system at all.

I think one other issue is that people are cheap. They demand 1st world education at a 3rd world price. People love to talk about waste, but typically education costs a lot of money, and that waste is small beans compared to the actual costs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The money was spent on the students--and did nothing. Likewise, moving students into better schools does nothing--it's not the schools!

Really - no student's life was improved at all? Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that nothing was accomplished or is just another example of wishful thinking on your part?

Wait, spending $1 billion didn't erase the consequences of hundreds of years of neglect and abuse? I guess we should just stop trying.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Citation needed. I don’t believe that you have evidence that money spent on city schools to make them as well funded, per student, normalized for current level of student “does nothing.”

You ignored it before.

And even if you actually need more to bring them to equal that doesn't mean that you would expect no effect from a major increase in funding.

It's anathema to the left to recognize that there are differences in students that school can't fix but that doesn't make the inconvenient reality go away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The money was spent on the students--and did nothing. Likewise, moving students into better schools does nothing--it's not the schools!

Really - no student's life was improved at all? Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that nothing was accomplished or is just another example of wishful thinking on your part?

Wait, spending $1 billion didn't erase the consequences of hundreds of years of neglect and abuse? I guess we should just stop trying.

When you spend $1B and produce no detectable result you should realize you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Rhea]

It's anathema to the left to recognize that there are differences in students that school can't fix but that doesn't make the inconvenient reality go away.

On the contrary, The Left (I need that CHILL font) readily recognizes that there are differences in students - and that they all benefit from not being abandoned. We don’t expect them to come out equal, but we expect to give them all the best outcome we can, unlike those who say the whole school should be left to rot.