In article <3EF5BA02.6070000@example.net>,
Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:


>Joni Rathbun wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Stuart Grey wrote:


<snip>

>> YOu might want to take that issue up with Mr. Bush whose NCLB act
>> requires those "slow witted" to perform at "highly intelligent"
>> levels within the next 10 years or so or else. You're right.
>> It's a stupid assumption.

>1) Bush was wrong thinking with the NCLB act. It was a purely political
>measure. I'm not going to defend Bush for doing stupid things.

It is stupid, but I do not think it is purely political.
His wife is a product of the schools of education, and it
is they who started the idea that all children of a given
age should be at a comparable educational level. In the 70
years or so this has been policy, only a few now seem able
to recognize the utter stupidity of it.

>2) The federal government has no business passing any laws wrt education
>in the first place. The constitution gives this power to the states alone.

Very definitely.

>> But it's not a stupid assumption to believe that those children
>> can learn and can lead productive lives. Or would you rather
>> we go back to the old way of doing things by excluding them and
>> institutionalizing them at even more cost to the taxpayer?

The old way at least tried to leave them at their level.
It is not at all clear that claiming that someone who
has difficulty reading has even an elementary school
education does either the person or society any good.

What about the case where a child whose not too well
uneducated mother complained about him not learning, only
to him being graduated from high school functionally
illiterate? Those who cannot learn as much should be
taught according to their abilities, not hindering others.

>Under the old way of doing things, the high school diploma meant
>something, and the high school drop outs took the lowest paying jobs.

>The present way of doing things, the high school diploma means
>nothing. Everyone gets one for showing up. The diploma that means
>something is the "college" degree. If you don't have a college
>degree, you get the lowest paying jobs.

Even most college degrees are weaker than high school
back then. It is not memorization and routine which
counts at this time; these jobs are largely going to
be done by machines. Rather, it is understanding, which
the teachers themselves seem not to have, which causes
it not only not to be taught, but to be discouraged.

>Is this better? Certainly not. In our rush to be compassionate
>we've screwed over the entire system. Now, to have a meaningful
>degree, you have to at least get an AA.

There are those now getting this who could not manage a
high school curriculum which requires thinking.

>>>Home schooling is far more effective and cost only a fraction of
>>>public schooling, which has become nothing but a liberal cesspool
>>>of indoctrination. We'd be better off if we just shut down the
>>>public schools and kept better libraries.

>> Home schooling is great. There are also some logical reasons why
>> it's working well. The majority of home schooling mothers have a
>> BS or higher. The home school families have an average income
>> of $50k. They watch very little television. And the average size
>> of the home school "class" is 2.5.

>> But it is anything but cost effective when compared $ for $. For me to
>> effectively home school my two children it would cost us at least $60K.

>All you have to do is buy a few books and a few
>supplies. Buy some text books that cost a couple of hundred a year,
>that's all. I did it for far, far less than $30,000/year.

>And since you have two kids, probably of different ages, it really
>doesn't cost much more than one child, as the books become "hand-me-
>downs".

>I could not find a curriculum that wasn't heavy on Christian religion,
>so I just looked at the required classes, and made my own. No big
>deal.

>> That's $30K per student not counting anything I might like to spend on
>> resources, materials, field trips, etc.

>You don't need all that. The hardest part to come up with for
>home schooling is your own TIME.

>If I, a single parent can do it on a limited budget, anyone
>can.

>> I wonder what would happen if public schools served mostly children
>> of the educated with $50K average incomes and no more than 3 students
>> per teacher....

>Shut them down and lower taxes.

I do not think that home schooling is optimal, but then the
public schools are BAD, even the "good" ones. There are
advantages in classes, electronic if needed, where there is
better guidance. This would also be cheap. But to what
extent are school buildings needed?

Meanwhile, allow parents to use whatever educational facilities
which can be found, and at least have partial payment for it.



--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558