Teachers Union Opposes Virtual K-8 Charter School

theodp writes "'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,' said unimpressed Chicago Teachers Union president Marilyn Stewart of the Chicago Virtual Charter School, which will open to Chicago elementary school students this fall if approved by the state board of education."

Comments

But of course you can

[A beautiful mind]

First post!

(an essential skill...)

Re:But of course you can

[PunkOfLinux]

I'm a firm believer in the theory that teaching a kid "Well, that's what the real world is like," too early will end up essentially keeping the same system in place. Rather than say "Go with the flow, that's the way things are," I think we should be saying "If you don't like the way something is, then change it!" Schools place too much emphasis on obedience, without teaching kids anything about thinking for themselves.

Re:But of course you can

[RsG]

Couldn't have put it better myself. Where the hell are my mod points when I need them?

I went through the public school system; my younger brother was home schooled. Guess which one of us is the cynic? Saying he "wasn't taught what the real world is like" is a compliment; it's better not to see injustice as "normal", just because that's the way things looked growing up.

As a side note, he's become the more gregarious of the two of us. I'd say anyone who assumes you need public school in order to become socialized is either completely ignorant of what they're talking about, or else their cross section of "home schooled" kids are the previous generation of religious kids who were taken out of school by their parents.

Why not?

[Moraelin]

Why not? Back in my day, I sat all evening in front of the computer, and I learned all I need about functioning in society. Don't ninja-loot, don't let your pet aggro the whole room if you're a Warlock, get your shield from the vault before joining a raid if you're a Warrior or Paladin... err... ok, I see what you mean.

Not the best idea

[Mr. Underbridge]

As the article says, you can't learn social skills sitting in front of a computer. And some of the people here on slashdot prove that. However, this is Chicago, and the public schools there ain't so safe. The article didn't mention it, but for families whose choices are 1) Send their kids to public schools where they'll either become criminals or get beat up by them, or 2) Use this virtual school, well, I'd keep them home. A lot of people in Chicago home school because the private schools are very expensive and the public schools are terrible.

Re:Not the best idea

[Mr. Underbridge]

I think that you're too worried about the mere possibility of them becoming a bad criminal or getting beat up by them, when if they don't interact with kids of their own age then they're *definitely* going to become pretty fucked up.

Depends on the school. When you think "public school," you're probably thinking of the ones near where you grew up. In that case, dealing with the annual wedgie is no reason to pull the kids out of school. However, I think they may be much worse in Chicago than you might be used to. In many of these schools, violence is pretty much guaranteed. Now I'm definitely against home schooling - those kids turn out like complete losers way too often - but if your school has a statistically defined murder rate, I'll take the loser over the dead kid.

I think a much better solution to your problem is to instead try and clean up the schools and get rid of the little arseholes in there.

I'd have to agree with you, but the bleeding hearts in this country would never let that happen. To them, it's apparently better to subject 1000 kids to daily violence and a shitty education than to "leave behind" a few kids. Since that choice (getting rid of the arseholes) isn't available to parents, you have to get your kid away from the arseholes. Sometimes, some form of home schooling (or charter schooling) is the only real option.

Fortunately, the wife and I are very lucky, as we have good jobs that allow us to live in a very good area that has probably the best public schools (non-magnet) in the country. So, unless we pack up and move to Compton, our kids will never have to face that. But for parents who are not so lucky, it can be a hard decision when your kid gets beaten up everyday. Or when you start hearing about kids bringing guns to school. Or when your kid starts getting pressured to join a gang. Or when your 12 year old daughter starts getting hit on a little too strongly by convicted 17-year-old rapists. At that point, you do what you have to do to get them out.

Re:Not the best idea

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If kids attend classes online for fear of being shot at in the 'real' school, they're gearing themselves up for a life out in the 'real' world where they're just as likely to get shot.

Bullshit. The norms of the real world are nothing like the norms of a second level school. A second level institution operates in its own private sub-culture that is almost totally detached from reality. It's a morbid, almost fantastic perversion of the way the world normally works.

Do you have people in your place work work running around throwning pieces of half eaten fruit at you? Do you walk down the corridor past groups of senior members of staff and have them push or trip you over? Do you have to put up with people screaming, laughing and joking as you try to get work done? Are you prohibited by law from leaving if any of these things happen?

This kind of thing does not go on in primary education, or teritiary, or in the real world. It's a phenomenon peculiar to second level institutions only, and is the result of good intentioned efforts to educate teenagers by surrounding them with other teenagers with little meaningful adult contact.

People don't learn how to socialise in secondary schools. In most cases, they have to unlearn bad social habits they picked up there. If you want your child to learn how to socialise, have them socialise with adults more often.

Re:Not the best idea

[dheltzel]

Now I'm definitely against home schooling - those kids turn out like complete losers way too often

You need a bigger sampling. I home school my kids and and know dozens of other home school kids and not a single one is a "complete loser". In fact, they are (compared to both public and private schooled kids) much better socialized, better mannered, and better educated. When my oldest daughter was 10, she could hold an intelligent convo with an adult, and probably even teach them some algebra concepts, yet when she entered a private school in the 10th grade, she was immediately accepted socially among her peers (and the teachers). Her first semester at college she got a 4.0 and is on the student government. And I'm just as proud of my 16YO son, who clearly likes being home schooled, he's got a great job and a car he paid for, he's learning piano (his idea) and is very active in a number of teen groups, even leading some of them. So the idea of home schooled kids being poorly socialized is a complete non-starter. For every "loser" who you can find that was home schooled, I bet I can find a dozen in the public school system that are worse.

So your sample of home schoolers is obviously tainted. I respect your right to not home school your kids, but if you're going to argue that public schools produce better kids, you're going to need to fudge a lot of statistics. Maybe you could borrow some ideas from the MS "Get the Facts" campaign about how to twist statistics to your benefit.

The main reason that home schooled kids do so well on tests, in college, and later is life, is because their parents are highly involved. This is the same advantage that the cyberschools have and the reason that the teachers unions hate them (and home schoolers) so much.

Teacher unions are no different than the AFL-CIO, they exist to protect the jobs of their members and get them more money, their "concern" about the childrens education is just a pretext, like the auto workers union's "concern" about the quality of the cars they produce. Childhood education is just a product that they produce in order to make money for themselves. So, don't ever be surprised that they come out against anything that might reduce their control of education, they would suggest shutting down all private and parochial schools if they could get away with it.

Re:Not the best idea

[d3ac0n]

I think we need to keep in mind that Western-style schooling is a bit of an anomaly, historically speaking. It's actually MORE normal for children to spend more time at home with family than kids do today. Even throughout America's history, home-schooling and private-schooling were much more the norm than public-schooling.

I would posit that the public school system as it stands today is actually more HARMFUL socially to our kids than helpful. This is mostly due to the large class sizes, the overall lack of discipline and the lack of healthy student-teacher interaction. This is not something that is really "fixable" within our current structure. Teacher's Unions have too much power, and things are too centralized in a large and inefficient government beaurocracy.

Learning is a highly personal experience. It is something that should be done OUTSIDE a large social atmosphere where peer pressure and concern with social standing can take mental precedence over learning the material at hand. Also, by personalizing the learning experience, one learns self-assurance and the ability to work alone and self-start. These are CRITICAL skills in society today. Those in public schools who learn these skills do not do so BECAUSE of public schools, but DESPITE public schools.

We need to encourage the uptake of more Teleschooling and small, private schools, and get away from large, Socialistic beaurocratically run schools. It's in our kid's best interests.

Re:Not the best idea

[WhiplashII]

Since there are a lot of people asking, here is how schools work in Chicago:

There are 3 levels: Gifted, Magnet, and normal. To get into gifted, you have to test highly (they administer tests to 5 years olds, no kidding) - only 1 in 40 to 1 in 100 that apply get in. To get into a magnet school, you have to be lucky - it is a random lottery (about 1 in 10), though you can apply to any that you want (unfortunately, it is heavily weighted by race - so if you are white you are virtually guaranteed to be accepted into a school in an area of town that would literally get you killed). The normal schools are done by geography - and there is only one that you are assigned to. These are the school with guns+kids - even though you have to pass through metal detectors to get in.

Almost everyone that can afford it goes to a private school, or the magnet and gifted schools. So the normal school students self select for parents that don't care or are destitute. (If the parents cared enough presumably they would move into a better district, or at least lie!) If you look at the school statistics, what happens is that all the kids do just fine until about the 4th grade. Presumably, at this point some of the kids get into drugs and violence - the grades, test scores, etc. all take a nose dive (from everyone, including african american kids achieving near 90% - to the african american kids achieving less than 50% in one year).

Most of the information is available online - I actually know some of the people in the Chicago Public School system management, and they are good people really trying to get things fixed, but there is too much politics, too little parental involvement, and too little money.

Thanks for illustrating it

[Moraelin]

Thanks for offering the prime example of why us techies laugh at humanities students. Or at least at the utterly retarded types who spew such cretinous stuff as "Research simply follows the fad of the day." or "Science is 95% opinion then facts" or "What about astrology, the most rediculious of the sciences!"

Guess what, simpleton? Noone considers astrology a science nowadays.

Basically all you've told me is that you're exactly the kind of ignoramus we loathe: the kind that isn't just content to be an ignorant, but tries to drag everyone else down to his level. The kind who isn't just content to have no fucking clue about real science, but _has_ to bandage his ego by looking down upon those who do.

Tired of elitism? Well, that starts at home. Stop acting like an elitist idiot yourself. The whole "I'm so much better than you because I don't understand science" ivory-tower is what gets us techies to reply with elitism right back. Most of us can accept that not everyone has the inclination or in some cases the IQ for science. Sure. Society needs painters and plumbers too. But seeing an idiot trying to present his ignorance and idiocy as proof of superiority _will_ get a sneer from those who do understand why your arguments only betray massive ignorance.

Re:Thanks for illustrating it

[giorgiofr]

I am a humanities student AND a computer geek and I can attest that you are BOTH idiotic know-it-alls who think they're so much better than everyone else. How about you both go down your own road and mind your own business? How about you spend your time LEARNING what you like instead of convincing yourself that it's worth learning in the first place? If you were so sure of your superiority you wouldn't be arguing about it.

Re:But what about socialising?

[CdXiminez]

Social things learned in school:

Don't be smart around stupid people - they'll come and beat you up for it.
Avoid gatherings of other people - they'll beat you up because you 'looked funny at them'.
Don't speak to classmates - they'll chase you around the school yard for using 'funny words'.
Hate - it's difficult to learn to love people who chase you all the way home.

Should I go on?

I know, this doesn't go for everybody, but I can see that this on-line teaching will do some people a lot of good.

Re:Online Universities

[syntaxglitch]

There's more involved in a university environment than just the final degree. A lot of the value is in being surrounded by other intelligent folks and interacting with professors who know their stuff. In a middle school kids are forced to be there, so there's less benefit (if any) from peer groups, and we all know what happens when you have math or science being taught by someone whose only degree is in "education".

Actually, with all the potential for abuse an online program could have, as with home schooling, if someone comes from that sort of background and still knows their stuff (scores well on standardized tests, etc.) they're probably smarter and/or more self-motivated than someone with an equivalent score from a regular school.

It can work.

[rowama]

The summary quote is misleading. Before I actually read the article, I envisioned hordes of children sitting in front of computers operating some sort of computer based training s/w. If you read the article, the children are not just sitting in front of a computer. There is an entire support structure built around virtualizing the important aspects of their learning experience. The support structure starts with a parent who cares and continues with curricula, equipment, supplies, and facilities provided by the city's education system.

I know that homeschooling works, and works well, because my daughter is homeschooled. She scores very high on achievement tests. She is so socialized (outside of public school), we have to sometimes limit her socializing in order to spend non-educational time with her. When she started high school level curricula, we associated ourselves with an umbrella school for advise, transcripting, focused tutoring, etc. This took some of the anxiety off of us when we started considering college prep issues.

This Chicago effort appears to merge the homeschooling concept with oversight by the city's education system. This closely parallels what we have found to be a very successful combination.

so true

[Adartse.Liminality]

'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,'

That's so true it hurts
A basic element of learning-teaching is the teacher, who just can't be replaced, the kids need far more than data, need also affection, support, guidance and motivation, I find hard to believe a computer will provide much of it, not to mention that we might see physical problems later and probably conductual issues.

He and his mother say they look forward to building a better relationship through schoolwork.

A common lie, every teacher knows...that it might be true for a lil' while, but later: "ain't doin' your work".

don't get me started in the lack of arts, music and p.e.

Re:But what about socialising?

[cbelle13013]

There are plenty of other ways to socialize your kid beside sending them to school. You can have them go to Karate two nights a week, soccer two nights, piano/music lessons one night a week, and maybe an art class or two. Then it's up to you as a parent what your child learns, instead of some public school. Plus you'll actually meet the people teaching your child, as opposed to some 23 year old who just graduated and needed a job.

I don't think the homeschoolers of today are the same ones of 25-30 years ago. Most parents I know who intend to homeschool are not religious nuts. They just don't want their kids to go to government schools for obvious reasons.

Re:But what about socialising?

[syntaxglitch]

Uhm. Since when is school the only place for kids to socialize?

Not to mention, that a harmful social environment is potentially worse than no socialization at all. It's fairly easy for a public school to become a Lord of the Flies scenario, with a combination of kids who have to be there, a self-contained social structure with no goal or purpose, and administrators who don't care.

School is supposed to be for learning, anyhow. Let the kids socialize on their own time. Maybe if they actually taught kids things in school instead of "socializing" them, things would work better in the first place.

Put the kool-aid down.

[Shivetya]

And quit parroting the teacher union's crap they spew about home schooling.

Look, anyone can find examples of students both home schooled and public schooled and use that as reasons to support their side of the story. Fact is home school kids do just fine in society, many scoring far higher than their peers.

home schooling is villified by those who fear its results. Common methods include claims of lack of socialization with peers or religious dogma. Usually the "religious angle" is played out more up north than elsewhere.

You can expect similar arguments from the Teachers Unions and those who are held in its thrall to any advance in education which leads to a loss of their power and influence.

Yeah right.

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the same teachers that say, "you cant educate a child at home and expect him/her to get the skills they need to succeed in the world." Yet home schooled kids are far better educated than public school educated kids. Teachers unions will always go against anything that does not use them as the delivery system.

People want alternatives, Public schools suck, Teachers do not do their jobs, administrators do as little as possible to get by, the social atmosphere inside the school is very similar to that of a state prison. Middle School is simply 3 years of cruel punishment to kids and the public schools refuse to do anything to fix it.

Parents are seeking out charter and private schools in droves because of the poor quality of public schools, this is another step that allows the child a huge amount of educational freedom. Unsupervised, yes a kid would rather play than learn something that they would consider useless to them at that time. (Social Studies, English, Math) but with supervision a kid that understands math like it was her native language can accellerate way past everyone else including her teacher and get the education she needs. I remember being berated by a science teacher in school because I disagreed. I brough in a paper that proved that I was right and I was sent to the office for being a smart-ass. Teachers in schools hate it when they encounter a child that is smarter than they are and they lash out at those kids to get them back in line. When a kid knows far more about astronomy and astrophysics than the 8th grade general science teacher knows that teacher should STFU instead of telling the kid to STFU.

I am all for anything that eliminates the bad teachers, and that means upsetting the entire teachers union, so be it.

Private schooled kids are better educated.
Charter schooled kids are better educated.
Home schooled kids are better educated.
finally I will bet that computer schooled kids are better educated.
when compared to public schools.

It is a written in stone fact. only the fools believe otherwise.
Unfortunately, most of the poor can not afford the $200-$300 a month for their kids private school tuition.

Financial Interest

[CharlieG]

Just remember that the Union has a significant interest in opposing ALL charter schools. From what I can see, most teachers unions have never met a Charter School that they liked....

Wonder why? Is it the kids, or is it the jobs/pay of the teachers...

Teacher's Union in Canada

[roman_mir]

In Canada, the Teacher's Union uses its powers to hold this country hostage once in a while. Public school teachers are basically government employees, they get summers for vacations, they get benefits, above average salaries, and they often (just about every year) exercise their union powers on the people of this country. When they strike during the school-year, they are putting millions of families into really difficult situations - the kids have to stay home, someone has to be there or someone has to be hired or a parent has to stay home, if it is a single-parent family, then it is even more difficult (I have no kids, but I see this all the time.) The kids' education suffers, they have nothing to do during the strike, many of them can go to the streets and do whatever, join gangs maybe?

In Ontario, the provincial liberal government is gutless, they always cave in to ANY union, and so they just give away our money for no reason, and the unions know this and they take advantage of this even more than in the rest of the country. Teachers get more 'professional development' days (during business days) in Ontario than anywhere else it seems like and they don't really spend those days for any development, and this happens while in private organizations PD days are taken during weekends. Those who bother to show up for those days don't really learn anything new, or if there is anything, it is all about the administrative part. In reality, teachers have entire summers that could be dedicated to 'improvement' in their profession, but what they do, is get summer jobs and make even more money instead. (they earn all of their money in the winter, but those ARE the money for the entire year, but they get to work 2 jobs and make double during the summer, isn't that great for them?)

So whenever I hear that a teacher's union opens their collective mouths to say something, all I can think of is that the parents, the kids, and the rest of the society is about to get a shaft.

(Ontario, you have to wake up and fire this union, fire those teachers who are lazy and useless and get yourself into a better alternative deal.)

Re:Online Universities

[Shivetya]

you are kidding right?

Why should even some regular college degrees deserve respect? Countless colleges allow students to pass through the system with degrees simply because they excel at sports. Many pass on students who only get through sub-par course.

That college degree doesn't come with a grade point average, is a C student at your local state university going to do as well as someone with a higher average from an online university?

Besides, doesn't this smack of elitism? We still have cases where some degrees are worth more than others. Some colleges are looked down upon because in truth the education they provide is better. Why not discriminate based on the fact that applicant A's football team regulary hands your school's ass to it every year?

Education is what you make of it. Public education is no longer about turning out good students who are well balanced with the skills needed to enter the real world. Its a damn jobs program with a bunch of social engineering thrown in to convince kids that the government knows whats good for them.

Re:Agree Completely

[Lumpy]

As for those that say "you will be working at mcdonalds" ,
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure
where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or
an engineer.

translation : I'll be a manager at a McDonalds.

You do realize that the number of liberal arts phd's around big campuses is huge? I know of 2 people I was good friends with that went to University of Michigan and one has a PHD in political science, the other has a phd in Philosiphy and a phd in music history.

He is in line for tenure as well, 15th in line, in about 15 years he MIGHT get it but right now with some of the cuts made he works part time tutoring students and still lives in the campus housing and looks like a 38 year old gen-X hippie. He is a great friend, but still dreams of driving a bmw and living in the big stone house near campus (IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!)

That is the other path that can and will happen, when financial cuts come the "foofy" classes are the first cut. I can go to any resturant in Ann Arbor and get served by a myriad of Masters and Doctorate degrees.

It's more of an addiction to the campus and College lifestyle than seeking an education. Many of the career students in the wierder degree fields are there to fill their addiction.. IT exists everywhere though. RMS was a career student, and the IT building of almost any campus has some hermit that has several degrees but still lives there. (same for the physics and chemistry building as well.)

I'm just saying that going to be a professor is great, but dont bank on your tenure until you have it in your hand. With your education level you should know that trusting fellow humans is folly at best.

Re:Online Universities

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

If I were to hire an employee, I would disregard any degrees from online universities
 
This is of course rubbish. As someone who has been in the position of hiring I can say there are many factors to consider. To "disregard" a resume based on the university is a disservice to the company and candidate. In more senior positions the education section is almost irrelevant.
 
If we're talking junior technical positions (ie straight out of school) then you will be expected to take a test prior to any sitdown interview. Often that means dozens of candidates in a room with all sorts of diverse backrounds (English majors to CS grads).

Homeschooling

[FJ]

First, let me point out that I have a child who is homeschooling. He is in second grade, so we've only been doing this for 3 years. I was very cautious about this, but my wife really wanted to try it. Virtual elementary schools have been around prior to this. We looked at one when my son started first grade but decided against it.

The most common question we get about it is "what about social skills". A lot of people who homeschool make very conscious efforts to make sure their kids receive social skills. We are involved in co-ops, we do field trips with other homeschool kids, there are sporting activities, and he has other kids in the neighborhood. The best argument I heard about schools & social skills was this: teachers don't want you to be social during classes. When you were growing up were you allowed to talk in class? Of course not. You talked between classes and at lunch. Most of the social skills you received were not tought by a teacher but interaction with other kids. This can be gained outside of school too.

Yes, my son does behave different than some other kids. Some things are good and some are bad. He doesn't really understand that some questions are very awkward to ask in public, he tends to interrupt, and his patience isn't the best. On the other hand, he can talk to any adult much more easily than I ever could and he naturally asks questions if he doesn't understand something. When interacting with other kids I don't really notice a difference. He interacts with his public school & homeschool friends the same way and they play the same games.

Virtual schools have advantages & disadvantages except you get some outside support. Some parents really need that extra support because they don't feel comfortable being on their own.

The biggest benefits to non-traditional learning are the ability to go at your own pace and to change the teaching method if it doesn't work. When we started math with my son we got a really cool math program. It had blocks and videos as well as worksheets. It looked really great to me. He absolutely hated it. We tried for a few weeks and gave up. We switched to another program which had very bright and colorful worksheets but no blocks or videos. He responded much better to it and was able to learn the material much easier. Learning at your own pace is good for him too. There is no being "left behind". Until he understands the subject we don't go to the next.

That all being said, homeschooling isn't for everyone. Some kids just don't respond and need more structure. Some parents don't want the responsibility or can't be home to be the teacher. Even in virtual schools the idea isn't just "sit them in front of a computer and you are done". There is other non-computer stuff in any program I've ever seen. I can't comment on the quality of the Chicago program, but I'd imagine it is the same way. The majority of time isn't computer related. I'm sure it will be less flexible and less "go at your own pace", but that isn't necessarily bad because some kids really need the structure. It depends on the child.

Also remember that things change. The parent or the child may decide to go back to traditional schooling. People and situations change. You can always switch. All 50 states have laws permitting homeschooling. Some are more "interesting" than others, but they all allow it.

There is also one other myth I'd like to dispell. Other than social skills the second most common question is about religion. Not everyone is a religous zelot who homeschools. I'm not even remotely religious. Lots of people do it because they feel it is the best opportunity for their children and not to shelter or block their kids from the outside world.

By the way, another thing which helped convince me that it isn't a bad idea was the fact that a lot of homeschoolers are ex-teachers. You would be amazed how many ex-teachers there are doing this. Every ex-teacher I talk to says that public schools waste time and they spent the vast majority of their time on a few kids in a class.

Better to end up as Ralph, even Piggy than as Jack

[MikeRT]

When I read Lord of the Flies in high school, all of my problems with the public school system suddenly made sense. There is so little adult involvement in K-12 that it is almost like having no adult discipline and guidance. Kids actually **need** socialization around adults and they need it much more than they need "socialization" around other kids. Two kids by themselves teaching each other how to behave is like one blind man trying to lead another.

I don't know if you've forgotten this due to age or a glorified childhood, but little kids are often nasty and cruel toward one another. They need the guiding hand of good adults, not children. There is a difference between letting kids play together and actual socialization.

Re:A note to moderators

[WilliamSChips]

Um.. the only sure fire way not to be moderated in a way you don't like is not to post.

This is Slashdot, not Global Thermonuclear Warfare...

Re:Agree Completely

[everphilski]

How do you get the liberal arts student off of your doorstep? Pay him for the pizza.

Re:A note to moderators

[b17bmbr]

wish I had mod points. of course around here this gets modded flamebait, but you are 110% correct. I am a high school history teacher and am thoroughly disgusted with the treatment history gets in our textbooks. It is sanitized, whitewashed, and outright rewritten. Dianne Ravitch (hardly a right-wing ideologue) wrote a great piece a while ago titled: PC textbooks full of skewed history which details the way California (where I teach) purposefully uses history for every reason other than to teach about the past.

Public schools have failed precisely because they are not doing precisely what it is they are required to do. There are many solutions, not the least of which is to eliminate teacher unions (of which I am a member) completely. I can think of no greater conflict of interest than unions lobbying the state on educational issues. There is no concern for educational quality only what is in the teachers' best interests. In fact, I believe that public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. This is hardly an anti-labor/anti-union position, as public employees (police, fire, teachers) a) chose their profession b) have job security and c) serve vital roles which the market cannot remedy. Unlike say an auto manufacturer who has competitors, is accountable to shareholders, and has to actually market and sell a product, you have no real choice when you dial 911 or send your child to school.

The unions have been infiltrated with very left-wing ideologues and it has permeated every sector of education. Now, before people get upset, just think about those places where "intelligent design" has been adopted into the cuuriculum. Many want that no more than others want Heather has two mommies but it is exactly the same prinicple. I've always believed that privatization of schools is the ultimate answer. In fact, government should stay out of the schools, marriage, business, the internet, etc.

inside perspective

[mattavian]

Being a teacher I think I have a unique perspective on this. I'm sure that the online classes will work. Why? The students that are involved with the project are going to be the same ones that have parents that care and are active in their education. Time and time again I've found that to be the biggest factor in education. They would do better then the standard apathetic student sitting at home with a book and a candle. I feel bad for the teachers however, this may be the thing that takes the few students wanting to learn out of a classroom. Often these kids are the ones that make teaching worth it for many of us.

Re:A note to moderators

[IAmTheDave]

There are many solutions, not the least of which is to eliminate teacher unions (of which I am a member) completely. I can think of no greater conflict of interest than unions lobbying the state on educational issues.

I couldn't agree more. My parents, both members of the NEA and NJEA (New Jersey) are basically extorted into paying fees to an agency that hardly ever help in any way, and seem to spend more time lobbying on issues that have nothing to do with education (or the views of my parents.)

Please - this is NOT a push to start a flame war, so realize this post is NOT about abortion. However, at least with the NJEA and definatley with the NEA, for some reason, they lobby HEAVILY on pro-choice decisions in local and national arenas. While it not only confuses me (less aborted babies = more kids in school = more teaching jobs) it's totally outside the realm of anything to do with the education of children or what's in the interest of the teachers who are part of the union in the capacity of doing their jobs.

Teachers unions are so misguided and misdirected that they're almost completely useless. I know that they are certainly there for certain things like arbitration, but I feel that they evey shy away from conflict whenever possible, even discouraging teachers from filing grievances.

I'm rambilng. Point is, I agree with ya.

What is this, a Klan rally?

[sirrobert]

First of all, there are two categories here interacting to produce elements of a third category (as the idea is being structured):

1. Home-school kids vs. Public(/Private?)-school kids
2. Religious vs. Nonreligious upbringing.

These two are mixing to produce the category of behavior we're interested in:

• Socially well-adjusted vs. Socially ill-adjusted

I went to public schools my whole life (except for one year in a private school in 6th grade). In college and after, I have known several dozen people (between my age -- now 29 -- and younger -- 21-ish) who were home-schooled. Some of them were Christians, some were not. There were plenty of ill-adjusted homeschool people of both the religious and non-religious variety, and plenty of ill-adjusted people of the home-schooled and public-schooled varieties.

There are two types of disconnect among these groups that are being perceived as identical but are not. On the one hand, there is a social ill-adjustment by which a person is unable to interface with others in social situations due to a lack of exposure and a lack of instruction about social graces. On the other hand, there is a social disjunct arising from a desire to be separate from certain behaviours or experiences viewed as undesireable (profanity, pornography, lude speech, self-righteousness, judgementalness, prudishness, or whatever else they may perceive to be objectionable). In this latter case, the disjunct is often complementary; that is, those who would like to distance themselves from lude speech, for example, may not interact freely around those who use such speech, whereas those who do speak in a way they consider lude may not interact freely around those they consider prudish. In such cases, each tends to perceive the difficulty as coming from the other exclusively.

This is categorically different than the former sort of difficulty, in which there is no reason for the separation -- that is, it is not by choice on any level -- but it is for reason of inability.

Having said this, the cause of the former sort of person -- people who are unable to interact socially -- is parents who do not know how to socialize their kids or instruct them in social matters. There are lots of people who homeschool who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children, and there are lots of people who farm schooling out to the state who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children. There are lots of Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct there children, and there are lots of non-Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children.

The other difficulty is one of choice. It stems from Christians not wanting to be certain behaviors (whether from weakness or strength or whatever), as well as from non-Christians not wanting to be around certain behaviours (whether from weakness or strength or whatever). It stems from Christians not wanting to accomodate people (Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors, and non-Christians not wanting to accomodate people (non-Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors. Some parents -- Chrisitan and non-Christian -- pass on these preferences to their children, often passively, but sometimes actively.

The "loony" behavior to which you have alluded is the latter sort -- choosing things you consider ridiculous to choose (I know you do because you ridicule them by calling them "loony"). Going far down any branch of choice makes the decisions of those on other branches seem ever more peculiar (and I'm not one who is for "moderation at all costs" -- it seems to me we should do something all the way if it's worth it to us). I have a relative who always talks about "those damn Republicans" in such a manner as that he sounds as though he believes they are these impish wretches rubbing their hands together and plotting how best to destroy other people. I have a friend who seem