SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nikita Bush's career as a public school teacher came to an end when she faced the decision of how to educate her own children. Having been told for years that American public schools would eventually get better for black children, the number of African-American homeschooling parents like Ms. Bush has doubled in little over a decade.
As Patrick Jonsson of the Christian Science monitor reports, studies show all kinds of public school problems disproportionately affect black children, and many parents have decided to take matters into their own hands. Even single parents are forming co-ops to make it possible to educate their children together outside of the public school system.
What do you do when you feel the system is failing your child and their education?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @11:20AM
The more intelligent people in this country have known for ages that the public schools suck watermelons through garden hoses. They sucked fifty years ago, and they've deteriorated since.
As an aside, I can tell you WHY they just deteriorate: GOVERNMENT! Schools are supposed to be locally run, not run from Washington, or San Antonio, or Harrisburg, or wherever.
But, anyway, we've known that the schools suck. Some black folks have figured that out, so it is necessarily a race issue? All I can say is, "WTF?"
Home schooling is a tough way to go, in case you didn't know. It's a lot of work. Before you even begin, you've got several governmental hurdles to jump. Then, you've got to do YOUR OWN homework on each subject, before you can start teaching the kid. Then, you've got to keep up with it. There isn't some magic moment when you've got it all figured out, and the teacher's job gets done without any effort on your part. For each child you're teaching, you've made a commitment of twelve years of hard work on your own part.
I respect anyone who makes such a commitment. MOST PARENTS can't even be bothered to help Junior with his math on the weekends.
So, this particular mother wants black history as part of the curriculum? That's cool with me. She doesn't expect me or my kids to conform to her ideal curriculum - just her own kids. WTF is wrong with that? I have emphasized certain things in my own kid's education. That is a parent's prerogative, after all. I don't make her kids study military and/or naval history, she doesnt' make my kids learn black history. Imagine that - LOCAL CONTROL!!
And, one advantage of all this local control, and parental prerogative is, my kid might figure out things that her kids can't, and at the same time, they have answers that my kids don't have. I see this as a "good thing". We don't need every kid in the country to memorize all the same data. We need kids capable of THINKING!!
What's that old saying? When everyone thinks alike, no on is thinking much? That's the American education system. No one is really thinking about what education is all about.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 22 2016, @12:25PM
I mostly agree with or at least understand your position although with all due respect your specific examples of naval history and black history are not ideal examples.
Traditionally the argument is made with these examples:
1) Sex ed, kids are supposed to learn this stuff, now the debate is do the parents do a bad job of it, or the schools give an ultra PC and clinical explanation, or the priest just sticks it in the altar boy as OTJ training or whatever. Who should tell the kids about insert tab A into slot B is a raging emotional debate. Also see, drugs, including tobacco and ethanol.
2) I find it completely unacceptable to launch young adults into the world with no idea of first aid or basic wilderness survival or ecology, and what works for my kids is the scouting programs, although the girl scouts is ... inadequate to put it nicely. My wife used to be a girl scout leader and I'd tease her that with respect to basic wilderness survival, the boy scouts require boys to memorize lists of what to do and what to carry and how to behave and how to start a fire in the woods, but the girl scouts merely learn how to put up a cookie stand and act cute until it lures in hungry cookie buying people to rescue them. Anyway my point is some/many parents get all out of whack about hating scouting, to the point of not wanting packs/troops associated with the school system, etc.
3) Somewhat more controversial for the crowd here is creationism, you have to realize that none of that scientific stuff matters on a practical level to maybe 98% of the population and after you accept that bitter pill, the only remaining component of the debate is "should we show loyalty to the church we've been attending every sunday for decades?" and oddly enough people pretend to be surprised when the answer is "Yes!". Note that creationism is a fundie evangelical thing, I have a lot of Catholics in my extended family and at least the Catholics are totally not into creationism, at least as fundies understand it. Another slightly off topic novelty is I've been to Catholic churches and prosperity gospel churches and one has an average age of 75 and the other has an average age of 25 so you get one guess as to the "future of Christian thought".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @02:15PM
A problem with the Boy Scouts is that they've discriminated against atheists and, if they continue to do so, should not receive any public money
I agree that it would be great to have some wilderness training, perhaps PE classes could skip kick-ball lessons for a few days.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Monday August 22 2016, @02:56PM
Has it occurred to you that attitudes of "public schools suck watermelons" and "government is the problem, is to blame", and your lone wolf kind of thinking of doing education yourself and refusing to participate, contributes to the problems?
1) Schools are not the ones ultimately responsible for why sex ed is so bad. That blame lies with society, with all the adults who are too squeamish, embarrassed, afraid, religiously moralistic, or whatever it is, to want to tell it all to the kids straight, and demand that schools not do so either.
2) Nothing wrong with knowing some basic wilderness survival, but let's face it, that knowledge is really not that useful to most people. You say "none of that scientific stuff matters on a practical level", but wilderness survival knowledge does? WTF? As to why survival knowledge isn't too useful, it's that it is utterly impractical for any significant portion of humanity to adopt such a lifestyle. There is not enough wilderness left for that. There never was enough wilderness to support several billions on that lifestyle, we've long since had to move to and intensify farming. Why not instead teach children what the ag business is like? Teach kids how to grow a veggie garden? Wilderness survival is a fantasy, a romanticized version of stone age hunter-gatherer living made much easier with a few choice modern gadgets and a great deal of knowledge acquired through that much maligned tool, science. If I was serious about some wilderness survival, I sure as hell wouldn't bother fishing with a rod, line, and hook, I'd use a net. And, starting a fire by rubbing sticks together? Bull! Use a frigging lighter, at least the sparker, or matches, or sunlight through a magnifying glass. If "be prepared" means that among other things you ought to have a Swiss Army knife on your person, then why not also a few other tools such as the aforementioned fishing net and magnifying glass?
3) Science does matter on a practical level. Science is our best tool for sorting out reality from dark fantasies inspired by fear and paranoia, so that innocent women are no longer accused of being witches, blamed for causing plagues or droughts or other mischief, and burned at the stake, virgins aren't thrown into volcanoes to appease mythical gods, and other uneducated and cruel follies. That some people can still buy into nonsense such as Falwell's ravings that 9/11 was divine punishment for being too tolerant of homosexuals, reinforces the importance of science education. We are completely surrounded by the fruits of our long quest to better understand the world, smart phones that use the electromagnetic spectrum for near instantaneous communication, engines and vehicles and roads that rapidly transport all manner of material vast distances and do all kinds of labor, but somehow people can overlook all that to wallow in silly fantasies about the paranormal, going for palm readings, psychics, astrology (Nancy Reagan *cough*), and of course, creationism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:02PM
You're missing a few points.
1) Sure, schools aren't the decision-makers on what sex education will look like. This is true. Who is? A government agency. You're really just proving his point that the government is successfully buggering schooling for everyone by trying not to offend anyone (and failing).
2) Wilderness survival is about a lot more than roughing it out in Alaska with a beard your axe couldn't cut. It's about knowing how not to be stupid when your car stalled out down a dirt road in Arizona. It's about knowing whether the snake that just bit little Jimmy is venomous or not - and if so, what to do about it (if anything). It's about things like recognising and treating hypothermia in someone you've just pulled out of a river. These are real, practical concerns today, and the fact that they happen to overlap with general wilderness survival skills makes that a coherent skillset worth teaching.
3) Sure, science matters. I'm all for that, both on a theoretical and a practical level, but for day-to-day decisions, I'd actually say that a foundational set of courses in philosophy might have more value. What the hell, get the philosophy of science in there as well, to help kids pick out hucksters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:38PM
3) Sure, science matters. I'm all for that, both on a theoretical and a practical level, but for day-to-day decisions, I'd actually say that a foundational set of courses in philosophy might have more value. What the hell, get the philosophy of science in there as well, to help kids pick out hucksters.
Not GP, and I'd agree that philosophy would also be a good thing, although the philosophy of science is science to a large degree.
But I'd argue that on a day to day basis, science is more important. What kind of light bulbs are going to save you the most money? Should you leave that meat out on the counter or put it in the fridge? Should you store it in an air tight container? Should you get your kids vaccinated? Are flush toilets and fresh water really worth the expense? Should you buy property in Florida with the expectation it won't be flooded in a century? Which is better to use for birth control, condoms?, the pill? , the rhythm method? How about for STD's? Should you wear seat-belts regardless of the legality? Bike helmets? Motorcycle helmets? I could go on all day, but you get the idea.
Science is so ingrained in our lives that we don't even think about it.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 22 2016, @06:29PM
but wilderness survival knowledge does? WTF?
Where I live, about ten months out of the year, "lost in a park" will kill you in a couple hours, days at most, if you're carefully unprepared enough. Or in an urban environment again most of the year you're in serious danger of heatstroke or hypothermia (often both the same day!).
You might be confusing dramatized reality TV survival (Anything with survivor in the title, Bear Grylls, anything with a fixed blade knife, etc) shows with what the scouts actually work on, which is more along the lines of "don't fall thru the ice into the river" "don't stick hand into fire" "don't work hard and sweat until you faint and die when its hot out and you have no water" "stay dry and out of the wind when its cold out" etc.
There's a pretty short list of things you don't go into the woods without, and established protocols for what to do when you get lost, none of which involve panic or any exotic gear (well, a safety whistle, map, and a compass aren't too exotic, and the implication is you're carrying the compass and map because you know how to use them... and WTF would you be doing in the woods without a map anyway?)
Even if you never "go out" you can get stranded in a car in a blizzard if you push your luck, has happened to me. Given enough blankets in the car and a MRE or two its more annoying than a serious danger, although there are idiots who manage to get themselves killed every year.
Science is our best tool for sorting out reality
If you actually learn it. If you're a low performer and just ritually repeating stuff for the multiple guess test, you've learned nothing. There's unthinking repetition not much more thoughtful than a parrot bird, then there's training level learning, then actual education. If the school isn't going to do much beyond trivial pursuit (What year is Darwin's birthday, 800-something 1800-something or 1900-something?) then may as well skip it and stick to creationism. I'm not a fan of it personally but I see the appeal if poor enough education is a given.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:19PM
Who cares? What does any of that survival nonsense have to do with academics (not that schools care about education anyway)? The situations you describe are wildly improbable, so I'll take my chances. We don't need less time spent on other things for this.
If you actually learn it. If you're a low performer and just ritually repeating stuff for the multiple guess test, you've learned nothing.
This I agree with. This is what schooling is all about at the moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:55PM
So, what are you referencing when you mention San Antonio and Harrisburg? Seems out of place to just throw a couple cities in there without some context.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @02:02PM
My bad - I meant the capitals of the respective states, and I screwed the pooch with San Antonio. I should have said Austin - the capital of the largest state in the country, and the largest school system. I just threw in another random state's capital, which you may have deduced if I got the first capital right.
Hey, I really know better. Sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @02:11PM
Ok, makes sense. Usually San Antonio gets ignored by the rest of the country unless someone is talking about the Spurs so I didn't make that connection. Austin being only the 4th largest city in Texas I guess it's possible to assume it's not the capital. Growing up in Texas I guess has given me the assumption that everyone knows Austin is the capital.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:04PM
Austin is not the capital of Alaska.
Maybe if we divided Alaska into three equal parts, Texas would be.
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Monday August 22 2016, @03:41PM
suck watermelons through garden hoses
Just to clarify, that's watermelon, not fried chicken, right? :p ;)