TexasCHLforum.com

My hand has been slapped too many times this month to delve much into this conversation, so I'll just say this: it's because of stuff like this that my kids are now attending online public school. The curriculum is pre-recorded videos and power point presentations that to this point has been strictly what I would expect to be. I can monitor all teacher interaction. Thankfully I no longer have to worry about some whack job teacher indoctrinating my kids.

jmra wrote:My hand has been slapped too many times this month to delve much into this conversation, so I'll just say this: it's because of stuff like this that my kids are now attending online public school. The curriculum is pre-recorded videos and power point presentations that to this point has been strictly what I would expect to be. I can monitor all teacher interaction. Thankfully I no longer have to worry about some whack job teacher indoctrinating my kids.

jmra that's what it's come to for many people , I moved to our home now 13 years ago so my daughter would not have to go to school in a in a city . We live in a small community , she goes to a conservative small town school , they allow bible study , you can carry a pocket knife , low tolerance for trouble makers , corporal punishment , etc . If we had not moved she would be in private school or online . Our church has started a school for parents wanting to get their kids out of public school . Where there is a will there is a way .

baldeagle wrote:

mr1337 wrote:The scenario in question that I was talking about (the remark about throwing up) was said by a 5th grader, not a kindergartner. Not exactly a 'little child.' Not exactly someone too young to make decisions of their own.

I'm sure a lot of southern parents in the 50's HATED their kids being taught to treat African Americans as equals. And yes, some of these "indoctrination" tactics were probably used back then as well. Are we really upset that children are being taught equality and acceptance of people who live differently?

That's a really poor analogy. Teaching children equality is one thing. Exposing them to sexual education outside the home is something else entirely. A fifth-grader is 10 years old, on average. They have not even reached puberty yet. Exposing them to sexual ideas is perverted, no matter what those ideas may be. Teaching them that the black boy who sits next to them in school is the same as them, just a different color, is completely different from sexual questions, which are inappropriate until high school, if then. I happen to believe the school system has no business at all teaching children about sex. That's the parents' job.

Eh, I had sex ed in 5th or 6th grade. It's about the time that it's needed to teach them before they teach themselves.

And I don't think you need to have the birds and the bees talk with young kids just to explain alternative relationship statuses. I doubt people do that when kids accept the traditional marriage status. I agree that it's the parents' right to remove their child from curriculum they don't agree with, but I think sex ed is a critical piece of curriculum that should be taught to middle schoolers. Specifically teaching them about STI's and how to be safer. Then, leave the abstinence & religion conversation to the parents on what values the child should have. Anything less will just continue to perpetuate the teen pregnancy epidemic in the US. If you wait until high school to educate them, it's too late. Half of them are already doing it already by then, without the knowledge to protect themselves from the consequences.

Again, I know most people here are not going to agree with me, in much the same way as people wouldn't agree with me about guns if I joined a debate on an anti-gun forum.

What the kid said about throwing up was not offensive. If you think that is offensive, you are very very thin skinned and hypersensitive. No one should have a right not to be offended anyway. We are already seeing where that road leads. I would have said the same thing, not about issue of the teacher's lifestyle, but about the screwed up stories they were reading whose sole purpose is indoctrinating those kids into thinking her lifestyle is "normal".

Comparing it to racial strife of the past utter nonsense and shows a complete lack of knowledge of how some people were treated.

baldeagle wrote:

mr1337 wrote:The scenario in question that I was talking about (the remark about throwing up) was said by a 5th grader, not a kindergartner. Not exactly a 'little child.' Not exactly someone too young to make decisions of their own.

I'm sure a lot of southern parents in the 50's HATED their kids being taught to treat African Americans as equals. And yes, some of these "indoctrination" tactics were probably used back then as well. Are we really upset that children are being taught equality and acceptance of people who live differently?

That's a really poor analogy. Teaching children equality is one thing. Exposing them to sexual education outside the home is something else entirely. A fifth-grader is 10 years old, on average. They have not even reached puberty yet. Exposing them to sexual ideas is perverted, no matter what those ideas may be. Teaching them that the black boy who sits next to them in school is the same as them, just a different color, is completely different from sexual questions, which are inappropriate until high school, if then. I happen to believe the school system has no business at all teaching children about sex. That's the parents' job.

Exactly. I still remember being a 6th grader. I had no idea what homosexuality was. My cognitive abilities were still not fully developed. Sex and all its ramifications were beyond my understanding. My kids were homeschooled. We pretty much answered their questions as they came up, and they weren't asking questions about sex and homosexuality when they were 10 years old. But then, they didn't watch television unsupervised, and very little of that, and the programming at that time wasn't inundated with the homosexual agenda.

jmra wrote:My hand has been slapped too many times this month to delve much into this conversation, so I'll just say this: it's because of stuff like this that my kids are now attending online public school. The curriculum is pre-recorded videos and power point presentations that to this point has been strictly what I would expect to be. I can monitor all teacher interaction. Thankfully I no longer have to worry about some whack job teacher indoctrinating my kids.

Good decision. My boys were both homeschooled and they were far more educationally advanced than their public school counterparts. At one point my youngest wanted to go to high school and since he'd been homeschooled from day one we were going to let him make that choice. Funny thing is, all his friends who attended public school, and his Karate instructor who was a HS teacher, convinced him it was a bad idea. Instead we enrolled him in Community College classes so he could get some classroom experience before he entered UT.

My two Granddaughters were home schooled to get away from all the evils outlined in this thread.

Plus, they were far safer at home vs public school as the inmates run the asylum now...

mr1337 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

mr1337 wrote:The scenario in question that I was talking about (the remark about throwing up) was said by a 5th grader, not a kindergartner. Not exactly a 'little child.' Not exactly someone too young to make decisions of their own.

I'm sure a lot of southern parents in the 50's HATED their kids being taught to treat African Americans as equals. And yes, some of these "indoctrination" tactics were probably used back then as well. Are we really upset that children are being taught equality and acceptance of people who live differently?

That's a really poor analogy. Teaching children equality is one thing. Exposing them to sexual education outside the home is something else entirely. A fifth-grader is 10 years old, on average. They have not even reached puberty yet. Exposing them to sexual ideas is perverted, no matter what those ideas may be. Teaching them that the black boy who sits next to them in school is the same as them, just a different color, is completely different from sexual questions, which are inappropriate until high school, if then. I happen to believe the school system has no business at all teaching children about sex. That's the parents' job.

Eh, I had sex ed in 5th or 6th grade. It's about the time that it's needed to teach them before they teach themselves.

And I don't think you need to have the birds and the bees talk with young kids just to explain alternative relationship statuses. I doubt people do that when kids accept the traditional marriage status. I agree that it's the parents' right to remove their child from curriculum they don't agree with, but I think sex ed is a critical piece of curriculum that should be taught to middle schoolers. Specifically teaching them about STI's and how to be safer. Then, leave the abstinence & religion conversation to the parents on what values the child should have. Anything less will just continue to perpetuate the teen pregnancy epidemic in the US. If you wait until high school to educate them, it's too late. Half of them are already doing it already by then, without the knowledge to protect themselves from the consequences.

Again, I know most people here are not going to agree with me, in much the same way as people wouldn't agree with me about guns if I joined a debate on an anti-gun forum.

What you relate is merely an illustration of our decadent society and how social mores and constraints have deteriorated. It shouldn't be that way but the people in power are advocates of decadence. The fact of middle school children engaged in sexual activity is a sign of a society in collapse. I agree with you up to a point because the fact of social collapse presents a dilemma: if we ignore the reality it gets worse, but if we address the reality in the manner you suggest it endorses and facilitates the behavior and it also gets worse. So we're confronted with two choices, both of which make things worse. Given that both choices ultimately produce the same results my inclination is to choose principle.

Abraham wrote:My two Granddaughters were home schooled to get away from all the evils outlined in this thread.

Plus, they were far safer at home vs public school as the inmates run the asylum now...

I think it's an excellent choice, but I'm biased, having homeshooled our kids when the movement was in its infancy. When we started there was no track record for homeschool college admission and we had some concerns that have turned out to be unfounded. Our youngest never set foot in a public school until college and it hasn't been a impediment to admission at any school he's been interested in (he was admitted to Harvard law but declined in favor of a scholarship elsewhere).

MechAg94 wrote:What the kid said about throwing up was not offensive. If you think that is offensive, you are very very thin skinned and hypersensitive. No one should have a right not to be offended anyway. We are already seeing where that road leads. I would have said the same thing, not about issue of the teacher's lifestyle, but about the screwed up stories they were reading whose sole purpose is indoctrinating those kids into thinking her lifestyle is "normal".

Comparing it to racial strife of the past utter nonsense and shows a complete lack of knowledge of how some people were treated.

I ignored this point but it is a good point to make. Being "offended" has become little more than a tool for some people to stifle opposition. The "offense" standard reduces the bar to the lowest common denominator and empowers the heckler's veto.

I'm shocked by all of the homeschooling that is going on these days. Social interaction and interpersonal skills are some of the most valuable attributes in life and in a career. There are enough things (like social media) that keep humans from interacting like they once did. I can't imagine limiting a child's ability to learn how to get along with others in life.

I'm not bashing anyone that does and I understand some of the reasoning, but I wonder what the world is going to be like when all of these homeschooled kids have no social skills and are running the world in 30-40 years.

Yes, but if you're a white, straight male, you have no right regarding any subject qualifying you as a candidate to be offended, because hey, you're always the cause for all offenses, foreign and domestic...

Or, so the left would have you believe...

Only, minorities of all stripes, be they leftists or gay or whatever qualify for being offended.

TVGuy wrote:I'm shocked by all of the homeschooling that is going on these days. Social interaction and interpersonal skills are some of the most valuable attributes in life and in a career. There are enough things (like social media) that keep humans from interacting like they once did. I can't imagine limiting a child's ability to learn how to get along with others in life.

I'm not bashing anyone that does and I understand some of the reasoning, but I wonder what the world is going to be like when all of these homeschooled kids have no social skills and are running the world in 30-40 years.

I don't think you can find any evidence that children home schooled until college are less socially adept than their public school peers. I'd be very interested in seeing the data that backs up your assumption.

baldeagle wrote:

TVGuy wrote:I'm shocked by all of the homeschooling that is going on these days. Social interaction and interpersonal skills are some of the most valuable attributes in life and in a career. There are enough things (like social media) that keep humans from interacting like they once did. I can't imagine limiting a child's ability to learn how to get along with others in life.

I'm not bashing anyone that does and I understand some of the reasoning, but I wonder what the world is going to be like when all of these homeschooled kids have no social skills and are running the world in 30-40 years.

I don't think you can find any evidence that children home schooled until college are less socially adept than their public school peers. I'd be very interested in seeing the data that backs up your assumption.

There is plenty of data out there on either side of the argument, Google is your friend. One has to keep in mind that many advocating home schooling write much of it to defend their position. You need to look at articles that are unbiased.

It's admittedly anecdotal, but I see a difference in the people I grew up knowing that were home schooled.