Comments on: Public Education and Socialization

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:48:17 +0000

Homeschooling was a normal education option in those days, so I don't think they even considered it as something that needed promotion. AS time went on it became less prevalent due to more public schools. The government was looking how to educate the masses, and when doing that, the conveyor belt (everyone educated pretty much the same way, in a public school system) was the best option. I don't think the government was looking at the most optimal type of education for people so much as the need to educate more people. As well, for future workers, they needed some education, and this was a way to get it.

As far as anyone I mentioned, particularly leaders, I think they were more interested in getting the country running (at least the founding fathers).

But research it. It is interesting to learn about.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:39:12 +0000

The point is we don't know they considered homeschooling as the ideal way to set up an educational system.

If they did consider such, and I am suggesting we don't know, one could argue they have made efforts to make it more so. Homeschooling is a much more viable option today than it was 20 years ago. There is a lot more governmental support (financial, recognition, etc), and more universities and colleges are accepting home schooling education as sufficient enough to meet entrance requirements. I can't say that any of these things are a direct result of any effort of the persons Mary listed above however.

By: rick

rick — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:28:35 +0000

I don't believe it's a question of jurisdiction, it's a question of clout.

If they had, in fact, felt it was the ideal way to set up an educational system, it's my opinion that they could have made more efforts to make it so.

That 'the government', whoever that is, is looking to marginalize a better system of education (that being homeschooling' in some sort of grande act of manipulation is a bit beyond the pale, once again in my opinion.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:12:36 +0000

Rick, we both know that is not a question we can answer. Unless we have records as to their reasons for not promoting one type of education, then we can only guess at their intent. That being said, education is not a federal responsibility, so none of the politicians listed would have had direct influence in setting provincial/state curricula. But I believe I already said that.

By: rick

rick — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:54:03 +0000

Ok, I'll ask it the long way :P

If the best politicians who were home-schooled were to be elected to positions of power (which those listed were) why did they not make more concerted efforts to make allowances for more people to be schooled in the manner that they, themselves, were?

Or did they, in fact, determine that the system that they, themselves, were educated in was found to be wanting and, in turn, decided to promote the public system instead.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:46:30 +0000

Rick,

As Kim said. Really, if it interests you that much, I would suggest you put some research into it. I don't have time to give you a concise explanation, as I have too much on my plate right now.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 30 May 2008 22:07:17 +0000

First, I don't think Mary claimed they were all the politicians ever homeschooled. Second, I do not believe prime ministers and presidents set provincial/state curriculum.

In short, your comment doesn't make any sense. ;-)

By: rick

rick — Fri, 30 May 2008 22:03:54 +0000

"Because of the government."

But you just listed all of the politicians who were home-schooled. Are you saying these people didn't want their own people to do it the way they did it?

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:12:10 +0000

I should say homeschooling doesn't teach for any one type of future, whatever it may be. It's meant as a type of learning that fits best for a family or child.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:10:58 +0000

Because of the government. You would have to study the history of education to get a clear picture of it, but the government started setting up schools to get everyone an education (started out alright) and so the current style of education where everyone is trained in the bare minimum to prepare them, number one for a job, and then for some, a career (better paying job)became more prevalent.

No, there aren't, but then technical positions are a more recent phenomenon. Though you could put the Wright brothers in that category as well, I would think.

No, you will find all sorts these days. Homeschool doesn't stick to any one type of education, but hopefully it creates thinkers who can do a myriad of things and lead out in their own field, whatever that may be. That's my personal goal anyway, I can't speak for all homeschoolers.