Another article on the inadequacies of parents to teach their children
I had a fascinating piece (and I mean that in the most sarcastic possible way) on the NEA (National Education Association) website pointed out to me today. It's yet another mind-numbingly conformist list of the standard canards on the woeful inadequacy of un-trained parents to teach their own children (all of the anti-homeschooling articles have the same arguments), and the untold damage that accrues to the little tykes because of the lack of "professionals" to teach them.
I've made it quite clear the high regard I have for good teachers, and there are a lot of them out there. I want to re-iterate that again. I know many people, including my parents, that gave years of their lives to education, and did a phenomenal job. If all teachers were like them, the home-schooling movement would be much, much smaller. That said, all teachers are not like them, there are many bad teachers and horrible schools, and home-schooling is not going away...
Home Schools Run By Well-Meaning Amateurs
Schools With Good Teachers Are Best-Suited to Shape Young Minds
By Dave Arnold
Really, that says it all, right there in the headline. Of course, there's no self-interest involved when the NEA criticizes home-schooling, oh, nosirree. The NEA, you know, is only interested in the welfare of the children!
There's nothing like having the right person with the right experience, skills and tools to accomplish a specific task. Certain jobs are best left to the pros, such as, formal education.
There are few homeowners who can tackle every aspect of home repair. A few of us might know carpentry, plumbing and, let’s say, cementing. Others may know about electrical work, tiling and roofing. But hardly anyone can do it all.
Same goes for cars. Not many people have the skills and knowledge to perform all repairs on the family car. Even if they do, they probably don’t own the proper tools. Heck, some people have their hands full just knowing how to drive.
So, why would some parents assume they know enough about every academic subject to home-school their children?
Let's turn that around - why would anyone assume that a parent WOULDN'T know enough about "every academic subject" to home-school their children, at least through high school? Weren't most of them educated by "trained professionals?"
You would think that they might leave this -- the shaping of their children’s minds, careers, and futures -- to trained professionals.
Wow. There's the money quote, right there. "Leave ... the shaping of their children's minds...to trained professionals."
A simple question, Dave - what if I don't like the shaping that those trained professionals are doing?
That is, to those who have worked steadily at their profession for 10, 20, 30 years! Teachers!
Because we all know that there are no rookies or drunks or incompetents or pedophiles in the public schools. And if there are, it's easy to identify and remove them.
Right.
There’s nothing like having the right person with the right experience, skills and tools to accomplish a specific task. Whether it is window-washing, bricklaying or designing a space station.
At this point in time, I start to wonder - "is this serious? Is my leg being pulled? He's comparing teachers to window-washing and bricklaying in terms of experience and training required?" But no, it's on the NEA website.
Certain jobs are best left to the pros. Formal education is one of those jobs.
Because?
I guess we're not going to get a because. It's argument by assertion.
Of course there are circumstances that might make it necessary for parents to teach their children at home. For example, if the child is severely handicapped and cannot be transported safely to a school, or is bedridden with a serious disease, or lives in such a remote area that attending a public school is near impossible.
But what about the trained professionals? Should parents be allowed to live "in such a remote area that attending a public school is near impossible" or should they just be forced to move?
The number of parents who could easily send their children to public school but opt for home-schooling instead is on the increase.
Pretty scary, n'est-ce pas?
Several organizations have popped up on the Web to serve these wannabe teachers. These organizations are even running ads on prime time television. After viewing one advertisement, I searched a home school Web site. This site contains some statements that REALLY irritate me!
I know what that's like...
“It’s not as difficult as it looks.”
The “it” is meant to be “teaching.” Let’s face it, teaching children is difficult even for experienced professionals. Wannabes have no idea.
Right. Because reading and addition and subtraction are much harder to teach than speaking and toilet-training and eating and walking and being polite and sharing and ...
The fact is, before any child comes near to one of Dave's "trained professionals," he or she has been home-schooled for years in many and varied life-skills. Parents are teachers, and they're teachers right from the start, "trained professionals" or not.
“What about socialization? Forget about it!”
Forget about interacting with others? Are they nuts? Socialization is an important component of getting along in life. You cannot teach it. Children should have the opportunity to interact with others their own age. Without allowing their children to mingle, trade ideas and thoughts with others, these parents are creating social misfits.
Yawn.
If, in fact, someone ever said "forget about it" about socialization, they were dismissing it as a concern, not as a "goal." The canard is that socialization is taking place when children are herded together to sit quietly among others of their own age. There are two key points to make about "socialization:"
- When people talk about "socialization," they're talking about learning behavior, human interaction. Who do you want 5 year-olds learning behavior from, other 5 year-olds? Or adults?
- It does not have to take place in a classroom. Socialization takes place whenever children are in contact with other human beings. It takes place at church, it takes place in Sunday school, it takes place at the YMCA, it takes place on the playground. It takes place at sporting events, at museums, at birthday parties and play dates. The fact is that socialization takes place at schools only because children are there, not because it's the best place for socialization to take place.
If this Web site encouraged home-schooled children to join after-school clubs at the local school, or participate in sports or other community activities, then I might feel different. Maine state laws, for example, require local school districts to allow home-schooled students to participate in their athletic programs. For this Web site to declare, “forget about it,” is bad advice.
Maybe they meant "forget about it" in the sense of "don't worry about it - you can socialize your children just fine without putting them into the public school system."
When I worked for Wal-Mart more than 20 years ago, Sam Walton once told me: “I can teach Wal-Mart associates how to use a computer, calculator, and how to operate like retailers. But I can’t teach them how to be a teammate when they have never been part of any team.”
And, of course, the only way to be a part of a team is to be institutionalized starting at age 6, right?
“Visit our online bookstore.”
Buying a history, science or math book does not mean an adult can automatically instruct others about the book’s content.
This is a true statement. So is this: "Getting a Masters of Education degree does not mean an adult can automatically instruct others competently." As anyone who's been through the public schools is well aware...
Another Web site asks for donations and posts newspaper articles pertaining to problems occurring in public schools.
It’s obvious to me that these organizations are in it for the money. They are involved in the education of children mostly in the hope of profiting at the hands of well-meaning but gullible parents.
LOL! The NEA, of course, doesn't profit at all by keeping kids in the public schools...
This includes parents who home-school their children for reasons that may be linked to religious convictions. One Web site that I visited stated that the best way to combat our nation’s “ungodly” public schools was to remove students from them and teach them at home or at a Christian school.
I’m certainly not opposed to religious schools, or to anyone standing up for what they believe in.
Unless they believe in home-schooling...
I admire anyone who has the strength to stand up against the majority. But in this case, pulling children out of a school is not the best way to fight the laws that govern our education system. No battle has ever been won by retreating!
What if I don't want to fight a battle? What if I just want to raise my children? Why do I have to sacrifice their upbringing in a pointless quixotic battle to change the public schools?
Don’t most parents have a tough enough job teaching their children social, disciplinary and behavioral skills?
Doesn't that job get tougher when they have the public schools "shaping" the minds of their children?
They would be wise to help their children and themselves by leaving the responsibility of teaching math, science, art, writing, history, geography and other subjects to those who are knowledgeable, trained and motivated to do the best job possible.
Again, the NEA has a fiscal interest in perpetuating the stereotype that all teachers are "knowledgeable, trained and motivated to do the best job possible," but that doesn't make it so. Just as in every other walk of life, there are good teachers, teachers who are talented and motivated. There are also a lot of mediocre teachers, who'd like to do a good job, but just aren't very good at it, despite the fact that they may know the subject matter. There are teachers who just don't care - they like the hours, the long summer breaks and the fact that it's tough to get fired. If you get the right teachers and the right school, it can be a great experience. There are a lot more iffy situations out there, however, than great ones.
But the really amusing part of this particular article shows up down at the very bottom:
(Dave Arnold, a member of the Illinois Education Association, is head custodian at Brownstown Elementary School in Southern Illinois.)
There's a wonderful (possibly apocryphal, possibly not) Einstein anecdote that goes something like this:
Albert Einstein was traveling the country, lecturing on his theory of relativity at various colleges and universities. As he didn't drive, he had a driver who accompanied him. At one point the driver made the comment to Einstein that he'd heard the lecture so many times that he could give it himself. Einstein, musing on the fact that no one at the next school knew him, told him to go ahead - they'd switch places.
So Einstein sat in the back of the hall and listened as the driver delivered the lecture flawlessly, and even handled some of the questions from the audience. But then someone asked a question that he hadn't heard before. Thinking quickly, he responded, "that's so easy that I'm going to let my driver answer it."
That's what's basically happening here. The anti-homeschooling arguments are so stale that the NEA is letting the custodian make them.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a custodian, or that he isn't entitled to his viewpoint. But it's still rather amusing to see someone whose entire livelihood comes out of tax revenue and is dependent on enrollment numbers talking about home-schooling as if he weren't personally dependent on people not taking their kids out of the schools.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NEA or its affiliates.
Right. Because all big organizations put opinion columns on their websites that don't reflect their views. Please...
Update: Others addressing this piece -
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Comment?
<< Home