Public Teaching Vs. Homeschooling

[Kludge]

I notice people (with good reason) frequently attack public education around here, whether because they think they'll cram "bad" ideas in their kids' heads or it'll make the kid dumb. I personally think homeschooling is a good idea, but I think a much better idea would be to teach in a public school. It does take much more work, but the reward is exponentially larger.

Consider, the people who probably have most influence on your decisions are either enlightening or funny (usually a combination). I can list off some of my own major influences - Robert Anton Wilson, George Carlin, John Stossel, and a few teachers - and they've all made great impacts on our world. In the end, they're all just excellent educators. Given this, I'm interested in why more libertarians aren't attracted to teaching. We talk about what kind of jobs we can get promoting liberty and this seems like the most obvious. So long as you have an interest in communication, social studies, history, government, economics, or even English, you can spread ideas, earn money, and have the added ethical benefit (arguably) of the money coming from the government.

I've made no secret that I wouldn't be here if it were not for excellent teachers in my public school district. Were I raised by my parents, I would have never known who Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, or John Stossel are -- in fact, it was I who told them who these people are, and it wouldn't have happened that way if it weren't because I was subjected to many different thought-out, honest opinions in school. In English class, I was subjected to Ayn Rand, and in Economics, I was subjected to John Stossel. I so strongly identified with these two people that I became interested in their ideology, which eventually led to my interest in libertarianism, then Ron Paul, and now I'm here.

Primarily, I'm concerned that parents so determined to keep "bad" ideas from reaching their kids won't honestly present the other side of the argument - and without other opinions coming in during education, whether from other students or teachers, those kids will never be exposed to conflicting ideas and develop critical thinking. - And remember, the majority of the population is not libertarian, conservative, or even liberal as traditionally understood.

There are a few serious problems which could come of presenting only one side of the story - whether you're shoving libertarianism, social conservatism, socialism, or a religion down a kid's throat - it's possible you're going to leave them thinking everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, leaving them close-minded (indoctrinated). If they've only been given one side of the story, they'll also be unable to properly refute opposing views when they come up. -- And when they do realize you've been bullshitting them about what other people believe, they'll resent you and your ideology. -- But this hopefully isn't what most homeschooling parents do. I'm not trying to bash homeschooling, but I do want to make it clear how much better an option it is to have faith in what you believe and present the straight facts (and ALL the facts) instead of trying to sell ideas with one-sided education. We can see these problems crop up in adults, too, who have given in to narrow-mindedness and refuse to hear out differing opinions. Some will even shut off their minds just because a (D) or (R) appear next to the caption of a person speaking on TV. And when they're presented with logic - for example, "Do you really think people in the Middle East would want to kill us if we weren't killing them for decades, imposing our own values on them, and constantly posing a threat to their civilizations?" - they break down and ignore it.

It has to stop, and I think the best way to go about getting our own society ready for the change we want to bring is by keeping our kids' minds open. This can be done through homeschooling, but on a much larger scale through becoming public educators. Consider, the government wants to pay you to spread liberty, help kids think more critically, and learn what really has happened throughout history. Why pass that opportunity up?

 

[Peek a Boo]

Kludge-- I can appreciate the people who feel called to enter the public education system as instructors, but as a mom of 5 my first priority is to MY kids.

I have found the best instructional books for critical thinking/ logic via homeschool curriculum: homeschoolers certainly do *get it* -- and unfortunately it is very difficult to offer the public system as an antidote: the failure rates alone [much less the ability to accurately assess a statement/book/speech] are deplorable. oh- and there are pretty successful debate clubs in the homeschooling world too.....

I often tell people that the biggest problem with public schools is that even the BEST teachers are teaching w/ one hand tied behind their back and the other splinted to a board while having a rag stuffed in their mouth.

I think you answered your own question:

"And remember, the majority of the population is not libertarian, conservative, or even liberal as traditionally understood."

....yeah. "the majority" of the population has been successfully driven to apathy by the most widely used mode of education available: the public schools. the public schools have been guilty -- not maybe, no 'hopefully not', but HAVE done and ARE doing-- of providing the lack of viewpoints that you somehow picked up. Your public school experience was, by all available statistical analyses, in the minority.

But I'm not a certified teacher.
If you want to know more about why many great teachers won't teach in the school system, ask a succesful teacher:
John Taylor Gatto.

 

[teacherone]

thought you were a truant kludge.

 

[Romulus]

There are pros and cons to both. It largely depends on the school itself and how your kid responds. There's no one size fits all. I do agree with he sentiment of the OP that kids need to develop critical thinking skills along with logic and reason... A parent needs to be 100% involved if they are home or public schooled.

 

[CheezItsRule]

A Funny Take on this argument. Makes me laugh every time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-HL2sFX8RA

 

[Kludge]

thought you were a truant kludge.

I may have skipped half my senior year, but that don't mean I learned nothing.

There were plenty of useless classes I had to take since schools were disallowed from sending kids home early if they had all their required credits. -- And I skipped a lot before senior year, too. There's a lot of room for improvement - and it's also worth noting I'd get nosebleeds almost every day from social anxiety. Anyway - there's a void and it seems like potential homeschoolers would do well to fill it.

 

[moostraks]

Sorry this is rambling...

This type of "concern" is what has given us every social program and government interference we have in our lives. As parents when we choose to forgo educating our own children and participate in the government education option we give legitimacy to the right of government as opposed to parents being responsible for their children's education.

As a mother of eight I don't have time or interest in becoming part of the one size fits all education problem because you will only be able to teach what you are allowed to teach in a situation that involves a group of people with diverse backgrounds. The interests of the teacher/institution will take precedence over the concern for each individual similar to how restaurant food is to home cooking.

Institutional teachers do not have the parents level of love and concern for the final outcome. The level of responsibility for the final outcome are limited by the length of time the teacher/institution have to associate with their charges. Truly good teachers with the soul and love of the individual are really a rare gem and as our society has become more selfish and egocentric the capacity of such individuals to evolve in the current social climate is becoming even more unlikely unless they are groomed by people who love them and are intensely connected to them whose interest is for them to be nurturing and loving towards others. This would be quite difficult in a large group setting to occur, imo...

Not to mention which you seem to focus on one minute aspect of why homeschooling is chosen by some without an understanding that there is more to the situation than shielding one's children from detrimental beliefs put forth as facts. Many, if not most, parents don't teach in a vacuum. In order to propose why one belief is preferable to another you present opposing viewpoints (we do here that's for sure). Generally speaking most teach in their homeschool through a perspective of the needs of the individual and family as opposed to institutions which teach with a focus towards society's needs. The intended outcomes are different based upon the focus and the input of those choosing the curriculum and doing the teaching. Back to the cooking analogy it has to due with the ingredients used to make the recipe.

I had children to raise them not to give their care over to other individuals to raise as they see fit. Why should I go to school, foregoing the needs of my family, to raise the children of others who don't care to spend the time raising their own children and then spend my limited time with my children undoing the group think they have been ingesting all day? So that some group of people can make some determination as to what ideas they will formulate as proper diverse ideologies because it is for society's greater good??? You seem to also not consider the benefits socially to children not raised in age segregated herds. The effects of this type of teaching is creating a sense of distrust for those outside one's peer group. They simply are spending too much time within their own age related cliques with the government constantly fighting to expand the length of days and school years. In my opinion, this age segregation could be part of why there is such selfishness in politics for those outside one's peer group since it has been utilized for so long.

And then there is non-conforming educational activities. No board review and discussion is necessary to take an unconventional approach to teaching ideas with a focus on the needs of the student to synthesize the material. Class size is smaller and there is no room to hide in the crowd. The teacher spends a tremendous time with their students and knows all their likes and dislikes and how best to approach them. The strength of the family is improved through the intense involvement of the parent. This is more important to society making proper ethical choices then whether a student had ideas chosen by a board of educators working within the limitations of offending none.

So while your intentions may be well meaning that generally is how the road to hell is paved. You don't seem to be aware that there is well more to homeschooling than just limiting the poison fruit of the government being ingested by our children. People who homeschool based on one reason generally do not teach for long...

(I know this is long but these are the ideas that first came to mind, and is in no way reflective of all the reasons why my children are homeschooled...)

 

[Romulus]

Truly good teachers with the soul and love of the individual are really a rare gem and as our society

The same can be said with parents today too.

 

[osan]

I notice people (with good reason) frequently attack public education around here, whether because they think they'll cram "bad" ideas in their kids' heads or it'll make the kid dumb. I personally think homeschooling is a good idea, but I think a much better idea would be to teach in a public school. It does take much more work, but the reward is exponentially larger.

I take it, judging by your words, that you have not been a teacher in a public school?

I am an ex-NYC teacher. Back in those days (early-mid 1980s) conditions were a whole lot better than they are today, and they were plenty bad then. Today teachers are under far greater control. The concept of "academic freedom", such as it may have been in those days, has pretty much had the last nail driven into the lid of its coffin.

Are there explicit mandates that tell you that you cannot teach 'X'? In some cases yes, but generally there are not. There is something far more effective in place to keep you silent on anything not approved in the orthodoxy: academic standards. One-size-fits-all education has been perfected. Every year the teachers must toe a line of delivery that prepares students for their standard tests. If those students do not pass the tests, trouble ensues for everyone. When those standards are so unreasonably voluminous, the teacher finds himself with barely sufficient time to deliver the standard materials pursuant thereto. There is no time to discuss liberty or Austrian economics. None.

And if perchance an extraordinary teacher has an extraordinary class of students that allows for some time to discuss such non-standard items, let him beware that word of such talk getting back to the office could result in problems. Why is this so? Because educational law is generally written so broadly and vaguely as to be able to mean nearly anything in many cases. There are all manner of rules and regulations on the books of federal law alone that present some rather interesting hazards to teachers wherein they may lose their careers and possibly even their freedom if adjudged guilty of some of the infractions cited in the various laws under which they operate as pedagogues. This is not joke, either.

Given this, I'm interested in why more libertarians aren't attracted to teaching. We talk about what kind of jobs we can get promoting liberty and this seems like the most obvious.

Go right ahead and openly promote liberty from the classroom. Let us know from your prison cell just how well it worked out for you. Seriously, you can get into a load of trouble for doing such things. Going anti-government in government-run facilities is frowned upon by those holding the sticks.

So long as you have an interest in communication, social studies, history, government, economics, or even English, you can spread ideas, earn money, and have the added ethical benefit (arguably) of the money coming from the government.

Actually, no - you cannot and every year the noose tightens more around the necks of teachers. Some of my friends still teach in NY - one at Brooklyn Tech, and what goes on there, what passes as "education" is a sad, sad joke. It is horrible. Stuyvesant HS is the top high school in the USA and perhaps even the world. Even those kids are subject to the crimes of standardized testing and the rest of the litany of idiotic "educational" mandates.

It has to stop, and I think the best way to go about getting our own society ready for the change we want to bring is by keeping our kids' minds open. This can be done through homeschooling, but on a much larger scale through becoming public educators. Consider, the government wants to pay you to spread liberty, help kids think more critically, and learn what really has happened throughout history. Why pass that opportunity up?

You are hopelessly misinformed on this. The last thing government wants is to have you getting the kids to have open minds. You deliver the orthodoxy as presented to you and nothing else. Veer from the path at your own peril.

 

[teacherone]

great article here.

GERRY GARIBALDI
“Nobody Gets Married Any More, Mister”
Welcome to our urban high schools, where kids have kids and learning dies.

In my short time as a teacher in Connecticut, I have muddled through President Bush’s No Child Left Behind act, which tied federal funding of schools to various reforms, and through President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative, which does much the same thing, though with different benchmarks. Thanks to the feds, urban schools like mine—already entitled to substantial federal largesse under Title I, which provides funds to public schools with large low-income populations—are swimming in money. At my school, we pay five teachers to tutor kids after school and on Saturdays. They sit in classrooms waiting for kids who never show up. We don’t want for books—or for any of the cutting-edge gizmos that non–Title I schools can’t afford: computerized whiteboards, Elmo projectors, the works. Our facility is state-of-the-art, thanks to a recent $40 million face-lift, with gleaming new hallways and bathrooms and a fully computerized library.

Here’s my prediction: the money, the reforms, the gleaming porcelain, the hopeful rhetoric about saving our children—all of it will have a limited impact, at best, on most city schoolchildren. Urban teachers face an intractable problem, one that we cannot spend or even teach our way out of: teen pregnancy. This year, all of my favorite girls are pregnant, four in all, future unwed mothers every one. There will be no innovation in this quarter, no race to the top. Personal moral accountability is the electrified rail that no politician wants to touch.

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_teen-pregnancy.html

 

[Kludge]

I had an openly anarchist speech/English teacher who'd give us prompts on what I know now as Blowback theory, an anti-regulation Economics teacher who introduced me to Stossel, and another English teacher who introduced my to Ayn Rand. I'd guess the NY PS system is dramatically different from the rural-ish school district I went to. It was extremely Christian, but we still had a physics teacher who'd take every chance he could to disparage Christians (going so far as to mark on kids' papers which had "B.C." instead of "B.C.E."), and it was tolerated. My interest isn't in a city school.

I have not been a public school teacher. I've been considering it for a while and came very close to going down the path to certification. I wrote the OP somewhat in effort to convince myself, but I take your post as a challenge, Osan. Within a decade, I will be teaching at a public school. If it was how I experienced it, I will write a long story about it and make this a primary issue I have with libertarians. If it is how you say, I will give up on public education as a means to an ideal end and homeschool my kids.

 

[Peek a Boo]

moostraks hits the nail on the head: the vicious circle that would entail in a parent choosing to teach in school *instead of* teaching their own kids is logically insane. While some teachers have spouses that homeschool [thus fulfilling the best of both worlds from your insinuated perspective] the fact is that most homeschool families only have the mom doing the teaching while the dad does something non-teacher-ish.

Kludge, I will hearken back to my initial post and encourage any teacher that doesn't have kids of their own to fulfill a calling to teach in the school system. If you have your own kids, there's nothing keeping YOU from teaching in a school while your spouse homeschools YOUR kids -- lots of teachers do this. While I understand very clearly that the NEA resolves every year to disparage homeschooling, I also know that sometimes in some schools there's an exception [like you found] and it would be nice to see more of those. But unless you are able to teach in several different public schools over many years, you won't have a credible foundation for any articles you write about the school system....which is why I pointed to John Taylor Gatto. Read his work while you study for teacher certification.

good luck!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I may have skipped half my senior year, but that don't mean I learned nothing.

There were plenty of useless classes I had to take since schools were disallowed from sending kids home early if they had all their required credits. -- And I skipped a lot before senior year, too. There's a lot of room for improvement - and it's also worth noting I'd get nosebleeds almost every day from social anxiety. Anyway - there's a void and it seems like potential homeschoolers would do well to fill it.

That "void" can easily be filled by taking community/junior college class in the social sciences/liberal arts or perhaps local clubs and organizations. Nowadays, all the extracirricular content you complain is "missing" from homeschooling can be discovered independently. The point of elementary schooling (in any form) is an introduction and overview of various subjects. /end rant

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I had an openly anarchist speech/English teacher who'd give us prompts on what I know now as Blowback theory, an anti-regulation Economics teacher who introduced me to Stossel, and another English teacher who introduced my to Ayn Rand. I'd guess the NY PS system is dramatically different from the rural-ish school district I went to. It was extremely Christian, but we still had a physics teacher who'd take every chance he could to disparage Christians (going so far as to mark on kids' papers which had "B.C." instead of "B.C.E."), and it was tolerated. My interest isn't in a city school.

I have not been a public school teacher. I've been considering it for a while and came very close to going down the path to certification. I wrote the OP somewhat in effort to convince myself, but I take your post as a challenge, Osan. Within a decade, I will be teaching at a public school. If it was how I experienced it, I will write a long story about it and make this a primary issue I have with libertarians. If it is how you say, I will give up on public education as a means to an ideal end and homeschool my kids.

Why? Libertarians generally don't mind if those interested in public schooling have it. The primary objection comes in when paying for it and attending are compulsory.

 

[moostraks]

The same can be said with parents today too.

They rarely homeschool for very long if they even attempt to because the rewards of homeschooling are not often immediately realized. This also brings up a point regarding socialization. How can we expect it to be a positive social environment when those in a public school are being raised with so many others that are being warehoused by parents that don't want to be bothered raising them?? The situation becomes such that the peer group becomes ones family with the strongest ones defining what rules are to be obeyed and what values are acceptable.

 

[Kludge]

Amy's taught, too, and's expressed interest in teaching again, but in a private school. I think if I find a school district I'm comfortable with (quite possibly the one I graduated from not too long ago where I know the standards are high but the teachers fairly free), I'd like to have the kid(s) go to school there so Amy & I can both reach a wider audience - teaching 20-40 at once instead of 1-8. I understand and sympathize with both sides of the argument - I'm more sympathetic toward homeschooling now than I was - but I'm more set than ever on teaching in a public school, now, too. So, thanks everyone.

Why? Libertarians generally don't mind if those interested in public schooling have it. The primary objection comes in when paying for it and attending are compulsory.

I was referring to the argument in the thread -- libertarians homeschooling vs libertarians going into public education.

 

[moostraks]

I had an openly anarchist speech/English teacher who'd give us prompts on what I know now as Blowback theory, an anti-regulation Economics teacher who introduced me to Stossel, and another English teacher who introduced my to Ayn Rand. I'd guess the NY PS system is dramatically different from the rural-ish school district I went to. It was extremely Christian, but we still had a physics teacher who'd take every chance he could to disparage Christians (going so far as to mark on kids' papers which had "B.C." instead of "B.C.E."), and it was tolerated. My interest isn't in a city school.

I have not been a public school teacher. I've been considering it for a while and came very close to going down the path to certification. I wrote the OP somewhat in effort to convince myself, but I take your post as a challenge, Osan. Within a decade, I will be teaching at a public school. If it was how I experienced it, I will write a long story about it and make this a primary issue I have with libertarians. If it is how you say, I will give up on public education as a means to an ideal end and homeschool my kids.

Why is/would this be a primary issue for you with libertarians? Should people be forced to comply with compulsory education and forced financial support for the government option because this is the pet interest of some individuals who will also reap financial rewards by demanding its support by the general public? Also since you have no interest in city schools it seems you have some knowledge that they will not conform to your ideal in some manner so how in good conscience can you take this up when the majority who are schooled through public education will find themselves in higher density areas?

You want to be a teacher and find merits in the public field, enjoy. To each his own. If you have a positive experience in a rural school system more power to ya! However I fail to see how you could make a case for public education based upon such limited exposure to its effects. I have no problem with a public option for those who cannot or do not have the ability or interest to teach their own. They should pay to play and not hog tie the rest of us into supporting them.The school system could work out a means where the poor did janitor service or yard work or lunch counter or bus driver to pay but it is not at the expense of elderly, childless, and those not wishing to utilize their services. If more people will held accountable for their own children they would probably feel less inclined to pursue the public option as it does not produce the optimal results for the dollar value.

Good luck with your decision!

 

[Kludge]

Why is/would this be a primary issue for you with libertarians? Should people be forced to comply with compulsory education and forced financial support for the government option because this is the pet interest of some individuals who will also reap financial rewards by demanding its support by the general public? Also since you have no interest in city schools it seems you have some knowledge that they will not conform to your ideal in some manner so how in good conscience can you take this up when the majority who are schooled through public education will find themselves in higher density areas?

You want to be a teacher and find merits in the public field, enjoy. To each his own. If you have a positive experience in a rural school system more power to ya! However I fail to see how you could make a case for public education based upon such limited exposure to its effects. I have no problem with a public option for those who cannot or do not have the ability or interest to teach their own. They should pay to play and not hog tie the rest of us into supporting them.The school system could work out a means where the poor did janitor service or yard work or lunch counter or bus driver to pay but it is not at the expense of elderly, childless, and those not wishing to utilize their services. If more people will held accountable for their own children they would probably feel less inclined to pursue the public option as it does not produce the optimal results for the dollar value.

Good luck with your decision!

I'm not arguing in favor of public education - I'm arguing in favor of libertarians teaching in public school systems as a means to an ideal end.

I have a few issues with city schools -- more people (more security & scrutiny), one-size-fits-all plans from the districts forced on the individual schools, politicized school board elections... As well, I'd never want to live in a city and especially wouldn't want to raise a kid there. Anyone concerned with their kids' education but who don't/can't pay for private edu or stay at home should look into which public school best suits them, and I doubt they'll ever find that school in a city. Hopefully parents will care enough about their kids to at least move out of a city while raising them if possible.

And again - I'm not interested in making a case for public education, just having libertarians "infiltrate" it. I'm not trying to say it'll solve all our problems, or even any, necessarily, but it seems like an excellent way to mix activism with a job, especially for people without kids.

 

[moostraks]

I'm not arguing in favor of public education - I'm arguing in favor of libertarians teaching in public school systems as a means to an ideal end.

I have a few issues with city schools -- more people (more security & scrutiny), one-size-fits-all plans from the districts forced on the individual schools, politicized school board elections... As well, I'd never want to live in a city and especially wouldn't want to raise a kid there. Anyone concerned with their kids' education but who don't/can't pay for private edu or stay at home should look into which public school best suits them, and I doubt they'll ever find that school in a city. Hopefully parents will care enough about their kids to at least move out of a city while raising them if possible.

And again - I'm not interested in making a case for public education, just having libertarians "infiltrate" it. I'm not trying to say it'll solve all our problems, or even any, necessarily, but it seems like an excellent way to mix activism with a job, especially for people without kids.

I can sorta see your reasoning but the school system is structured so that the more who comply and participate with it the greater its strength and financial support. You really would be but a drop in the bucket of reaching others if you manage to get past the people in charge who will make the rules for your school system. Keep in mind that nearly all schools are teaching for the test in some way because with it is tied federal tax dollars. Until you become an insider I believe you are thinking there is more leniency than what you may find to be the case in actuality. I would ask those in the particular system you are interested in for an honest assessment of their experience in that regard since it is what really concerns you. Then I would accept that at any time the rules may change and unless you run the show you will be at their mercy.

As for rural life being better than city life that's not always the case either. Some of the meanest people I have met have been from the "sticks". Crude, rude, and selfish, nasty individuals. You also have city transplants who come for their rural utopia and bring their ideals with them. However now their vote is a lot less diluted. There are less people to blend in with so issues have a tendency to reach mammoth proportions like vicious neighborhood battles in the suburbs but you are more isolated. Drug manufacturing is also real popular in the country where it is less populated. So hate to be Debbie Downer but choosing country life for the children will depend more upon the proper fit with the specific community and location rather than open spaces breeding open minds and positive experiences. Yes, I learned this by experience and we made adjustments and decisions based upon them.

Again I hope it doesn't sound too critical. I really can only offer my personal opinion based upon years of positive and negative experiences and I venture a guess you are younger than I am. You will make your own choices and live by them whether the results are good or bad. I wish you the best of luck. Take your time and research all your options. Just don't be so anxious to prove others wrong because my experience has been when you dismiss the real life experiences of others to trumpet an ideal you often eat your words.

 

[Peek a Boo]

..... in a private school. I think if I find a school district I'm comfortable with (quite possibly the one I graduated from not too long ago where I know the standards are high but the teachers fairly free), I'd like to have the kid(s) go to school there so Amy & I can both reach a wider audience - teaching 20-40 at once instead of 1-8.

I recommend you read the book 'Best Friends Worst Enemies: understanding the social lives of children' before making a final decision. We homeschool primarily *because of* the rampant negative socialization that you'll find even at private schools: they essentially have daycare rules they have to aide by which aren't always conducive to keeping all kids truly safe in the long run [as shown by the INCREASED security necessary at each higher level of schooling]. I tend to challenge people to "read the school's Handbook and highlight all freedoms and liberties that you are voluntarily waiving to attend the school." Not only are YOU waiving parental rights, but you are waiving your child's rights. And we're not just talking dress codes.

While it is admirable to attempt to reach as many as possible, the beauty of the smaller class size of homeschooling is its ability to actually make the teaching *stick* and explore that alleged open-mindedness w/ in depth discussion. ALL teachers understand the benefits and desirability of small class sizes of less than 12 students. ALL of them. It's one thing to have a large assembly, but when you're talking about real *teaching*, size matters.