Back to the Beer

[Brad S]

Sure there are some odd home schooled kids, but they may well be odd even if not home schooled. I have a cousin that home schools his kids and yes they're odd. Excellent kids and students, but socially obtuse. Their parents are kooks. My 8 y/o girl and 7y/o boy were home schooled, but they participate in organized sports, ty kwan do, and church. When my girl was 7 and my boy was 6, they attended private school. They were learning so much so fast that I feared I'd miss the proper mix between academically sustained and over cooked so I thought I needed professional help. My girl was reading Moby Dick and the school wanted her to read from some "AR" list where they had tests for her reading. I had to say MD would be fine.

 

[Mrs.Greg]

About homeschooling................don't you think it socially holds kids back??? Most homeschooled children I have been around are well I guess odd is the word. I'm not at all for homeschooling I think school gives children a taste of the real world. As far off base as the real world is getting might as well be teaching the kids how to handle it and right from wrong when they are small...............just my thoughts.

Well here you go CRM...I totally agree with you on this one :shock: School is not only to learn acedemics,it also teaches social skills...how to deal with bullys{you'll meet them throughout your life}teamwork{Great job skill}Sharing,making friends,dealing with differences in people,dealing with adults that aren't your parents,different points of views,patience etc.JMHO

 

[RoperAB]

About homeschooling................don't you think it socially holds kids back??? Most homeschooled children I have been around are well I guess odd is the word. I'm not at all for homeschooling I think school gives children a taste of the real world. As far off base as the real world is getting might as well be teaching the kids how to handle it and right from wrong when they are small...............just my thoughts.

Well here you go CRM...I totally agree with you on this one :shock: School is not only to learn acedemics,it also teaches social skills...how to deal with bullys{you'll meet them throughout your life}teamwork{Great job skill}Sharing,making friends,dealing with differences in people,dealing with adults that aren't your parents,different points of views,patience etc.JMHO

Yeah well if they ever start pushing the gay life style or promoting liberalism in the Alberta public school we will be home schooling our kids.

 

[CattleRMe]

About homeschooling................don't you think it socially holds kids back??? Most homeschooled children I have been around are well I guess odd is the word. I'm not at all for homeschooling I think school gives children a taste of the real world. As far off base as the real world is getting might as well be teaching the kids how to handle it and right from wrong when they are small...............just my thoughts.

Well here you go CRM...I totally agree with you on this one :shock: School is not only to learn acedemics,it also teaches social skills...how to deal with bullys{you'll meet them throughout your life}teamwork{Great job skill}Sharing,making friends,dealing with differences in people,dealing with adults that aren't your parents,different points of views,patience etc.JMHO

Yeah well if they ever start pushing the gay life style or promoting liberalism in the Alberta public school we will be home schooling our kids.

I don't think schools will ever promote a sexual lifestyle myself. They might talk about it in the sense of say hate crimes or areas like that but it's a reality of the world some cases are making history.

 

[RoperAB]

I don't think schools will ever promote a sexual lifestyle myself. They might talk about it in the sense of say hate crimes or areas like that but it's a reality of the world some cases are making history.

Gov't Agrees to Mandatory Homosexual Curriculum


By Terry Vanderheyden and John-Henry Westen

VANCOUVER, June 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A homosexual teacher and his same-sex partner who launched a human rights complaint with the British Columbia government have settled with the Government of British Columbia. According to the homosexual activist who launched a human rights suit, homosexual issues will soon be a mandatory part of school curricula taught in classrooms throughout the province, without the ability of students or parents to opt out.

BC's Ministry of Education and Ministry of the Attorney-General agreed to review the province's curricula to ensure that the issue of homosexuality is included in all so-called 'social justice' discussions - such as those involving racial inequality and women's rights. The decision was the result of a settlement reached with Murray and Peter Corren, who launched their formal human rights complaint in 1999, which alleged "systemic sexual discrimination" in the classroom.

However, a key element in the Corren complaint was the attempt to ensure that the courses teaching positively about homosexuality are mandatory, and that neither students nor parents are able to opt-out. Speaking at the time of the launch of the human rights action, last July, the activists' legal council, Tim Timberg, said, "The second issue is there's an opting-out provision in the curriculum that where a subject is deemed to be sensitive, the school teachers are under an obligation to in advance advise parents that they'll be raising a sensitive issue in the classroom."

Coquitlam teacher Murray Corren told the Vancouver Sun today that the settlement will also make it more difficult for students and parents to opt out of lessons dealing with sexual orientation.

Attorney-General Wally Oppal said Wednesday that the province was indeed shaping a new 'social justice' course that will incorporate the homosexual issues. "I think it's a fair settlement," he claimed. "We listened to their [the Correns'] complaints and we decided there was some merit in what they were suggesting." Oppal added that he hoped British Columbians were a "mature enough society" to accept "that there is an understanding that there is a place for this in our curriculum."

A press release from the BC Government notes that in addition to revamping the provinces educational curriculum to ensure it "reflects inclusion" for the homosexual lifestyle, the province is commencing immediately to offer an elective grade 12 course on "justice and equality" which will address "sexual orientation.

Corinna Filion, spokesman for the Ministry of Education told LifeSiteNews.com that the agreement included provisions to bar some parents and students who had been opting for home education or other arrangements on topics of sexuality. While the province will still allow parents and students those alternative options when it comes to sex education (health and career courses), students will be forced to remain in classes dealing with sexual orientation outside of sexual education in spite of any objections students or their parents my have.

"For example in social studies if they are reading a book about same sex families . . . the policy (of allowing for alternative arrangements) would not apply," explained Filion.

A copy of the agreement was not available to reporters by press time.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
B.C. Gay Couple Seeks Mandatory Homosexual School Curriculum Without Parental Opt-Out
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071106.html

Starting at the kindergarten level
Documents Reveal Government Signed Over Control of Education to Homosexual Activists

By John Jalsevac

VANCOUVER, B.C., June 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A legal contract obtained by the Vancouver Sun under a freedom of information request has revealed that the province of British Columbia has granted homosexual activists Peter and Murray Corren an unprecedented say in the curriculum review that is set to affect courses from kindergarten to grade 12. The review is being undertaken in order to insert so-called LGBT issues into the curriculum, starting at the kindergarten level.

Wayne Ross, an education professor at the University of B.C. said that he was unaware of any similar contract in any other province that offered such unprecedented clout to a private party, giving them an "explicitly designated seat at the table in terms of curriculum development that's going to affect an entire province."

The province signed the settlement contract with the gay couple after the couple launched a human rights complaint in 1999 which alleged "systemic sexual discrimination" in the classroom.

When the agreement between the Ministry of Education and the gay activists first became public the Ministry mildly indicated that the province would be implementing a new Grade 12 elective course on social-justice and that "The Province will also establish a process and schedule to review the B.C. educational curriculum to ensure that it reflects inclusion and respect for the diverse groups that today make up B.C.'s population."

The contract obtained by the Vancouver Sun, however, has revealed that the province has agreed to give the Correns themselves an enormous amount of influence and personal involvement, not only in designing the Grade 12 elective course, but over the entire curriculum, from K-12. Although no one knows just what changes are going to be made, it is clear that they are going to be much more sweeping than the mere introduction of the elective course.

Murray Corren has indicated that the new K-12 curriculum should include, "Queer history and historical figures, the presence of positive queer role models -- past and present -- the contributions made by queers to various epochs, societies and civilizations and legal issues relating to (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) people, same-sex marriage and adoption."

Under the terms of the agreement obtained by the Sun the Ministry has agreed to meet with the Correns every six months until Sept. 1, 2007 to discuss the development of the new homosexual friendly curriculum. By August 1 of this year the Ministry has agreed to draft guidelines for the K-12 curriculum which will be handed to the pair of activists for comment. And under the contract the Correns will also play a vital role in designing the entirely new "social-justice" elective course for Grade 12 students.

Murray Corren has also said that stricter regulations preventing parents from removing their children from the classroom when homosexuality or other similar issues are being discussed, will also likely be introduced under the new curriculum. The Correns have long been fighting against the right of parents to discern when and how their children learn about issues pertaining to sexuality. Speaking at the time of the launch of the human rights action, last July, the activists' legal council, Tim Timberg, said, "The second issue is there's an opting-out provision in the curriculum that where a subject is deemed to be sensitive, the school teachers are under an obligation to in advance advise parents that they'll be raising a sensitive issue in the classroom."

The Correns have since sought to ensure that LGBT issues are removed from the list of "sensitive" issues.

British Columbia's independent schools, most of which are faith-based, have also expressed some significant discomfort with the changes to be made in the curriculum. Ministry officials have not yet made it clear whether the changes would also apply to the Independent Schools, which are normally required to follow the province's curriculum. One official offered the hazy assurance that "it's not anticipated that any change would impact the ability of an independent school to continue teaching courses from a faith-based perspective."



See the Vancouver Sun's coverage of the deal:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=223d5fea-2e50-4b1d-9678-f37850ca50cb&k=69470

 

[Northern Rancher]

Home schooled kids are only as weird or obtuse as the parents that teach them-several of our friends home school and like kids everywhere each one is his own individual. I've coached several too-I'd challenge anybody to spend a week interacting with a group of kids and be able to pick the home schooled kids from the others. It's like everything else in life it works for some and not for others. I live in the midst of a large native population in fact one reserve is our towns east boundary-booze is a problem for them just as it is for white people. I know just as many natives that are great citizens as are not so desireable.

 

[Red Robin]

Kids are a reflection of who they spend the most time around. If it's goofy parents, the kids are goofy. If it's goofy teachers, the kids are goofy. If it's goofy friends , the kids are goofy. If any or all of these are good influences, the kids are usually good. Not always true but it's a good rule of thumb.

 

[CattleRMe]

Kids are a reflection of who they spend the most time around. If it's goofy parents, the kids are goofy. If it's goofy teachers, the kids are goofy. If it's goofy friends , the kids are goofy. If any or all of these are good influences, the kids are usually good. Not always true but it's a good rule of thumb.

There is the kids that have normal parents that don't get them out and the kids are odd and socially stunted.

 

[Soapweed]

About homeschooling................don't you think it socially holds kids back??? Most homeschooled children I have been around are well I guess odd is the word. I'm not at all for homeschooling I think school gives children a taste of the real world. As far off base as the real world is getting might as well be teaching the kids how to handle it and right from wrong when they are small...............just my thoughts.

You are definitely wrong about this. The home-schooled kids in this area have come through with a firm foundation on which to build their House of Life. The bright side is that they haven't been subjected to the liberal doofy teachings that tend to be a part of public schools. :wink:

 

[IL Rancher]

One of my oldest friends was homeschooled until she was a freshman in high school and she was well adjusted, social and much better at communicating with adults than any of us school system kids who were in school from age 5-18 or whatever it was.. As with all things with kids what you get out of a system/style is directly related to what you put in.

 

[Red Robin]

Kids are a reflection of who they spend the most time around. If it's goofy parents, the kids are goofy. If it's goofy teachers, the kids are goofy. If it's goofy friends , the kids are goofy. If any or all of these are good influences, the kids are usually good. Not always true but it's a good rule of thumb.

There is the kids that have normal parents that don't get them out and the kids are odd and socially stunted.

I've never met any . I have however met several kids (big bunch) that came from good loving homes who while attending highschool got to spending too much time with the wrong crowd and went bad. Not only are they socially stunted , some are socially incarcerated or worse, in the grave yard. I have also known lots of good kids who , after a year or two attending college of "higher learning" lost their ability to think critically on most issues. I have also known a few personally , that smoked a little dope with the teachers in high school, partied with the female teachers at the lake in the summer , etc. I guess you think these things are ok maybe but to me they aren't.

 

[Red Robin]

While we're at it , why do they call it a public school when the public has very little say in the whole deal. It's a government school or might even be a union school but it's not very public.

 

[CattleRMe]

About homeschooling................don't you think it socially holds kids back??? Most homeschooled children I have been around are well I guess odd is the word. I'm not at all for homeschooling I think school gives children a taste of the real world. As far off base as the real world is getting might as well be teaching the kids how to handle it and right from wrong when they are small...............just my thoughts.

You are definitely wrong about this. The home-schooled kids in this area have come through with a firm foundation on which to build their House of Life. The bright side is that they haven't been subjected to the liberal doofy teachings that tend to be a part of public schools. :wink:

LOL Me WRONG......................NEVER! :wink:

 

[Northern Rancher]

So what about a situation where a homeschooled kid has parents that smoke a little pot-drink a little beer-maybe screw around a bit-trust me there's a few of those out there in the woodwork. There's no right or wrong to this deebate-my kids go to public school and are doing great-they have friends that are home schooled that are fine also. There's bad opennies on both sides of this fence unfortunately. Part of schooling is to teach people to think-it might sound pretty amazing but there are alot of teenagers that are very good at it.

 

[Soapweed]

So what about a situation where a homeschooled kid has parents that smoke a little pot-drink a little beer-maybe screw around a bit-trust me there's a few of those out there in the woodwork.

People with those qualities usually are the type that don't want to homeschool their kids. They would rather send the kids off to public school to get them out of their hair for several hours per day.

Most homeschooled children I have been around are well I guess odd is the word.

Kind of like Clinton trying to define the word is. :wink: This just depends on the definition of what a person considers odd.

Everybody is odd in their own way. God chose to make us all that way, because He didn't want everybody to all be alike. Just as an experiment sometime, try to think of who the "least odd" person is that you might know. This is also one of those exercises where there is no right or wrong answer, but it is a head scratcher. :???: :? :wink:

 

[IL Rancher]

Nah, NR is right about some of those homse school parents too. Some situations are goingt to be real good and some are going to be bad it is just as simple as that.... There are a some folks who shouldn't home school their kids and there are some that will do a great job.. My wife wants to at least hink about with our two kids but I am a bit reluctant about it.. We shall see, have another year or two to figure that out.

 

[Red Robin]

So what about a situation where a homeschooled kid has parents that smoke a little pot-drink a little beer-maybe screw around a bit-trust me there's a few of those out there in the woodwork. There's no right or wrong to this deebate-my kids go to public school and are doing great-they have friends that are home schooled that are fine also. There's bad opennies on both sides of this fence unfortunately. Part of schooling is to teach people to think-it might sound pretty amazing but there are alot of teenagers that are very good at it.

This is what I said to begin with. Kids are a product lots of times of the people they spend the most time with. I know some KKK folks that homeschool and the kids are wierd as they can be. There is always the exception. I agree there are great kids with both environments. I don't agree with Cattle R me when she said kids schooled at home are wierd. That is the point NR.

 

[kolanuraven]

All home schooling is bad. Whether you're ' goofy' or not.

Most parents ARE NOT qualified to teach and do not know the basic theories of education, Piaget, Skinner, etc....

There is also the lack of socialization with others. School is more than ' 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue"....it's the interaction between people that is the bigger goal.

You also have the discipline aspect to deal with....when are you the ' teacher' and when are you Mom or Dad??

As our collective world gets smaller every day....social skills are imperative. School and all it's problems and pleasures is just a micro version of the greater world beyond.

Some people should not have even ' bred', let alone educate their offspring in their shodow.

Homeschool= bad idea!

 

[Southdakotahunter]

I teach school post secondary (after high school) and can tell ya, the ones that are home schoold, the ones i have had anyway, are very bright, good students, good kids and have had no probs associating with others. most have been the best in the class. I would never do that to my kid but the ones i have seen have turned out wonderfully.

 

[Red Robin]

All home schooling is bad. Whether you're ' goofy' or not.

You wouldn't be stereotyping being a liberal would you...nah. I see you provide zero facts on which you base your opinion.

Most parents ARE NOT qualified to teach and do not know the basic theories of education, Piaget, Skinner, etc....
!

I hear countless teachers saying they can only do so much. It's the home life that the kid lives in that creates kids that want to learn. Again you provide no statistics or basis for your belief.

There is also the lack of socialization with others. School is more than ' 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue"....it's the interaction between people that is the bigger goal.

The interaction as you call it is your least valid point. Every kid has interaction. Some positive , some negative and I'd say controlling the exposure to negative interaction is a positive aspect for homeschoolers.

You also have the discipline aspect to deal with....when are you the ' teacher' and when are you Mom or Dad??

You've surely got to be kidding??? 30 students are better diciplined by a teacher than a couple by their mother or father?? You're a liberal elitist with a socialist world view. I'm not buying my friends idea that you're almost conservative.

As our collective world gets smaller every day....social skills are imperative. School and all it's problems and pleasures is just a micro version of the greater world beyond.

School is a environment that is very unsimiliar to anything in the "real world" . It's been a very long time since I had someone tell me where to go and what to do and grade me on my obedience. I do what I think it right, when I think it's right and no one benefits or suffers but me and my family. I havn't been exposed to drugs, peer pressure, gross arrogance, etc. since I graduated.

Some people should not have even ' bred', let alone educate their offspring in their shodow..

I agree and so do your liberal buddies

The Fertility Gap
Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply.
BY ARTHUR C. BROOKS
August 22, 2006

The midterm election looms, and once again efforts begin afresh to increase voter participation. It has become standard wisdom in American politics that voter turnout is synonymous with good citizenship, justifying just about any scheme to get people to the polls. Arizona is even considering a voter lottery, in which all voters are automatically registered for a $1 million giveaway. Polling places and liquor stores in Arizona will now have something in common.

On the political left, raising the youth vote is one of the most common goals. This implicitly plays to the tired old axiom that a person under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart (whereas one who is still a liberal after 30 has no head). The trouble is, while most "get out the vote" campaigns targeting young people are proxies for the Democratic Party, these efforts haven't apparently done much to win elections for the Democrats. The explanation we often hear from the left is that the new young Democrats are more than counterbalanced by voters scared up by the Republicans on "cultural issues" like abortion, gun rights and gay marriage.

But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.

The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative. Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today. As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation." It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation--in the Democratic Party.

Of course, politics depends on a lot more than underlying ideology.

People vote for politicians, not parties. Lots of people are neither liberal nor conservative, but rather vote on the basis of personalities and specific issues. But all things considered, if the Democrats continue to appeal to liberals and the Republicans to conservatives, getting out the youth vote may be increasingly an exercise in futility for the American left.

Democratic politicians may have no more babies left to kiss.

Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," forthcoming from Basic Books.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831