Teens Loosing Touch With History

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
No surprises here as the Globalist Elite agenda continues to dumb-down the American populace. The socialist indoctrination begins in the NEA controlled government schools and gets worse as the years progress. This is a sad state of affairs, but of little shock to those who understand the agenda of the Elite...break down traditions, morals and re-write history to easier "sheeplize" the masses and make them easier to control.

Teens losing touch with common cultural and historical references

By Greg Toppo
USA TODAY

Big Brother. McCarthyism. The patience of Job.

Don't count on your typical teenager to nod knowingly the next time you drop a reference to any of these. A study out today finds that about half of 17-year-olds can't identify the books or historical events associated with them.

Twenty-five years after the federal report A Nation at Risk challenged U.S. public schools to raise the quality of education, the study finds high schoolers still lack important historical and cultural underpinnings of "a complete education." And, its authors fear, the nation's current focus on improving basic reading and math skills in elementary school might only make matters worse, giving short shrift to the humanities � even if children can read and do math.

"If you think it matters whether or not kids have common historical touchstones and whether, at some level, we feel like members of a common culture, then familiarity with this knowledge matters a lot," says American Enterprise Institute researcher Rick Hess, who wrote the study.

Among 1,200 students surveyed:

-43% knew the Civil War was fought between 1850 and 1900.

-52% could identify the theme of 1984.

-51% knew that the controversy surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy focused on communism.

In all, students earned a C in history and an F in literature, though the survey suggests students do well on topics schools cover. For instance, 88% knew the bombing of Pearl Harbor led the USA into World War II, and 97% could identify Martin Luther King Jr. as author of the "I Have a Dream" speech.

Fewer (77%) knew Uncle Tom's Cabin helped end slavery a century earlier.

"School has emphasized Martin Luther King, and everybody teaches it, and people are learning it," says Chester Finn of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank. "What a better thing it would be if people also had the Civil War part and the civil rights part, and the Harriet Tubman part and the Uncle Tom's Cabin part."

The findings probably won't sit well with educators, who say record numbers of students are taking college-level Advanced Placement history, literature and other courses in high school.

"Not all is woe in American education," says Trevor Packer of The College Board, which oversees Advanced Placement.

The study's release today in Washington also serves as a sort of coming out for its sponsor, Common Core, a new non-partisan group pushing for the liberal arts in public school curricula. Its leadership includes a North Carolina fifth-grade teacher, an author of history and science textbooks, a teachers union leader and a former top official in the George H.W. Bush administration.

***Reference article...

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080226/1a_bottom strip26.art.htm[/url]
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,194
Location
Pennsylvania
Thing is, the generation before this one (and the one before that) were almost as dumbed down. Now they are the teachers. There's almost no way out of this vicious downward spiral once it's set in motion.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
Why are they talking about Harriet Tubman and Uncle Tom's Cabin like those are important things to know about the Civil War? As long as kids know that some black person somewhere was involved in anything and what their role in it is, that's good enough?

The way out of that spiral is called 'home school.'Edited by: White Shogun
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,194
Location
Pennsylvania
Home schooling is great but only a very small percentage of kids are home schooled. Parents educated in the government schools for the most part arenot qualifiedto home schooltheir children. Affordable private schools are also a solution.
 

Menelik

Mentor
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,175
Location
Georgia
You know I teach high school history and I think I do a pretty good job of it. I try to get these teens interested in their past but the bottom line is if it wasn't on BET, MTV ect they, white, black whatever just aren't interested.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,194
Location
Pennsylvania
Here's the best solution:


The Plug-In Drug Redux
<BLOCKQUOTE>


.".. although you won't appear on any public wanted lists, the American Government will consider you a dangerous enemy if you try to start a movement for people to throw their television sets away... television is the Government's way to keep people subdued, illiterate and brainwashed and there won't be any thanks from them if you try to change it."
~ Andrew Taylor, UK, IT Journalist


.".. Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
~ From Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal, late 1st and early 2nd century CE</BLOCKQUOTE>


Removing the TV from the home is the only hope for people who still believe that living in a free society is possible. This is the critical issue when any discussing of the negative effects of television are to be considered. My previous article The Plug-In Drug appeared on this particular website as it is a place where I consider "free-thinking people" to gather. Nevertheless some readers criticized it using very curious and illogical arguments.


If you believe that our entire current political and social debacle cannot be attributed to the wide infiltration of television in all aspects of our lives, then you are truly blind. Television is the modern-day opiate of the masses, used by our rulers to provide us with the bread and circuses that keep our minds off the critical issues at hand.


Serious thought must be given towards television; how it came about, by whom, and for what purpose? Before anyone can make a fair and honest assessment as to the question "Do the benefits of television outweigh the negative effects for the average person or family as a whole," once again, I strongly say, absolutely and definitely they do not. Television is the modern day disease that is ruining our minds, bodies, family, and society as a whole. It is a monstrously gross understatement to say that there is no good argument that shows that the benefits of television outweigh the negative effects on a person, family, or society.


Our societies' political and social order has become corrupted by many things. But undoubtedly the main cause and culprit is television. Television is a root cause of crime, divorce, decaying morality, and poor health; and, even worse than public schooling, it is the harbinger of a poor education. I make the last claim because most people start their children's indoctrination through the use of television four to five years before public schooling ever does.


Before I continue to attempt to get people to recognize that they've been brainwashed and to make the effort destroy the television before it destroys them, I think a brief on the facts on how television came about is in order: Television was invented in the 1920's. Yet it sat unused for nearly thirty years. It wasn't until the end of World War II that TV became prevalent in our homes. When the war ended we had hundreds of thousands of soldiers coming back home to a country where there weren't enough jobs for them. Our women were no longer needed, nor wanted, in the factories making weapons. Readers of this site know that war cannot actually bring a country out of an economic depression. The government of the USA, along with major corporations, needed to keep their profits expanding; they needed a marketplace for goods. So how did they create one? They did it by dusting off the television and cheaply putting this technology into American homes. By doing this, they could control the message much better than radio or print ever did and create a need where one didn't exist before. Television is the child of advertising. A dumbed down populace is the child of television.


In darkened rooms, with all eyes fixated on a screen, conversation frowned upon, and outside noise muffled, people were made to relax, and then mesmerized. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American homes were shown the new lawnmower, the new kitchen gadgets, the new car, and the new tract housing all at the same time. Through the use of television, our government and major corporations could control what was shown to the public. Diversity was discouraged; not only was diversity in thought discouraged, but also diversity in the marketplace has been suppressed by television. How many small mom &amp; pop stores can afford to spend several hundred thousands of dollars on a TV ad? This situation continued and has led us to where we are today: In a society of Clear Channels and Fox TV's that are run by major corporations in bed with the central government through advertising for the sole purpose of controlling the message. And that message is meant to destroy the free market spirit, dampen free thought among the people, and crush rebellion.


To get off the point for just a moment, I believe that, in many ways, the so-called hollowing out of the American economy can also be attributed to television. The government and major corporations used television from the 1950's to the present to sell Americans products that we don't really need. They sold us an image and the idea that we had to "Keep up with the Joneses." Products that are truly needed for survival, such as basic foods, milk, eggs, bread, rice, meat, vegetables, etc., do not usually need advertising as, since they are needed for survival, they will be searched out by people.


In turn, this process means that corporations and advertisers need to always find new markets; there are only so many new cars that can be sold here in America. Few people will buy a new car every year. This, in turn, makes a situation where the corporations need to leave this country and find new markets. It is in these new emerging markets where they can sell Coca-Cola and gadgets. The advertisers prime those markets by using television to show those people what the "American Dream" - or whatever they will call it there - looks like and that dream is a new car, a new house, and new gadgets....


The corporations then must move their factories out of the USA in order to retain profit margins by selling products at lower prices in those emerging markets. This, in turn, allows for a higher profit margin on those same products that are sold back to the American consumer at a higher cost.


There are many arguments against television, so many that they cannot all be named here. So I will just point out a few.


Go back a few paragraphs to where I wrote: "In darkened rooms, with all eyes fixated on a screen, conversation frowned upon, and outside noise muffled, people were made to relax, and then mesmerized." Is there any reader who will disagree with this assessment on how television is generally viewed by the public? Doesn't everyone want silence when they watch their favorite TV show? Do they not relax and prepare for the so-called experience by readying their food, drinks and snacks? Many readers mentioned that they do not like to be interrupted while watching television. Is there anyone who can disagree with the situation concerning the watching of television that I have described above?


Consider this passage from Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander:
<BLOCKQUOTE>


I asked ... prominent psychologists, partly famous for their work with hypnotism, if they could define the TV experience as hypnotic and, if so, what that meant. I described to each the concrete details of what goes on between viewer and television set: dark room, eyes still, body quiet, looking at light that is flickering different ways, sounds contained to narrow ranges and so on. Dr. Freda Morris (former professor of medical psychology at UCLA and author of several books on hypnosis) said, "It sounds like you are giving a course outline in hypnotic trance induction."


Dr. Ernest Hilgard, who directs Stanford University's research program in hypnosis and the author of the most widely used texts in the field (said), "Sitting quietly, with no sensory inputs aside from the screen, no orientating outside the television set is itself capable of getting people to set aside ordinary reality, allowing the substitution of some other reality the set may offer. You can get so imaginatively involved that alternates temporarily fade away. A hypnotist doesn't have to be interesting. He can use an ordinary voice, and if the effect is to quiet the person, he can invite them into a situation where they can follow his words or actions and then release their imagination along the lines he suggests. Then they drift into hypnosis."</BLOCKQUOTE>


Now, if anyone were really honest about this, how could they say that the typical watching of television doesn't fit the same conditions necessary for hypnosis? Of course, some people will scoff at the idea that hypnosis is anything but Quack Science; for those I suggest researching the Department of the Ministry of Truth as described in George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four or Soma as referred to in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I suggest researching these two only if I can get those of you who still believe television is good or neutral to turn it off for a moment to bother to pick up and read a book.


The point of this is to show that television is a form of hypnosis. Hypnosis is described as "suspension of the critical factor" which expands on the idea of "increased suggestibility." A person who is hypnotized may accept statements as true that he or she would normally reject.


This may go to explain why Americans are often so ill-educated, uniformed, and uncaring about world events as well as events happening in their very own country since their main pipe of "knowledge" is an electrical device whose output is completely and totally controlled by the American government and its bed partners in the military/industrial complex. Since the fact that television is controlled by major corporations along with its prostitute Big Brother - and always will be, due to exorbitant costs - it should be self-evident that television is not neutral, is not a tool for the users, and, therefore, it cannot ever be reformed.


Do not confuse my message here. I am not an anti-capitalist. Capitalism and the free market, with all its warts, is still the best system man has ever devised, but I don't need to be homogenized to enjoy living in a free society. In fact, homogenization of thought is the very antithesis to a free society.


As I stated in my article (and confirmed by Marie Winn's book The Plug-In Drug) it is not what is on television that is bad, it is not the content that is damaging; it is the mere act of watching television that is harmful. Television is a displacement of time. It is a huge waste of time - in a hypnotic state - that implants other people's messages into the viewer's head. This makes for a bizarre state of "reality" where frequent television viewers no longer have the common sense to understand our world and true reality. One such reader made an absurd claim that "There is no scientific proof that watching television is harmful." The reader then went on to explain that scientists had not proven that digital images moving at 44.1kHz were harmful to the human eye. I won't go into it too much, but this kind of thinking is just plain ridiculous. Here's why:


Television puts people in a trance and offers up an alternate reality. People waste time watching TV and when they do, the time spent is time lost that could have been used for gaining real-life experiences. As Gary North once wrote, "Time is the only non-renewable resource." The utter notion that radioactive waves (lights) - in an unnatural color spectrum - flashing on a screen in front of someone for four to six hours a day, or more, every day, and that not having any negative effects on the human body or mind is ridiculous on the face of it. It would only take a person who has lost touch with reality and common sense, or one who watches too much TV to even consider that this practice could not be doing something, quite possibly very harmful, to the human body.


It has been obvious to most of the religions of the world for tens of thousands of years that the rays of the sun and the moon have effects on the human body and our earth. In recent years, even Western Medicine has figured it out and started using different spectrum of lights to treat many human ailments such as depression and jaundiced infants. Anyone who has ever had athlete's foot knows that white socks (yes, even white socks have a beneficial effect on certain wavelengths of light) as well as sunlight are quick cures for the ailment. Plants do not grow well under artificial lights. Light affects everything we do. The light of the moon can alter the oceans and the weather, as does the sun. It is certain and common sense that they can alter human moods. It is, quite frankly, imbecilic to think that prolonged exposure to the colored lights radiated from a television set is not harmful.


Or do some people need a million-dollar government grant to prove to them that this is so?


It is common sense that this cannot be good. The ones who fail to see that are like the type of people who need research to decide if mother's milk is better and safer than formula (as if a Nestle chemical concoction could possibly be better than a mother's milk for that mother's very own flesh and blood). That is a lunatic proposition on the face of it.


Get my point? People who watch too much TV lose touch with common sense and reality and this, in turn, leads these people to believing the most absurd notions. Of course, since only someone like Nestle would finance silly research like this, as well as buying million dollar advertising on TV to even bring it up, the people who are in hypnosis will easily accept the new "reality" provided for them by way of suggestion from television.


I've been accused of being a hippie and riding the bandwagon of the seventies by saying that television is bad for children (and that playing classical music is better than rock). To that I would say that I hope you'd read my articles more carefully and understand that I am an industry insider working in the mass media for over thirty years. Generally speaking, I make, and always have made, music-related TV and radio programs. I use this as my"authority." I do not need a ten-million-dollar government university research grant to show me what I have come to know through real-life experiences; that TV is bad and that classical music is better for small children than, say, rock, or hip-hop. Some others also have said that, by riding the bandwagon, I use this as justification to be able to brag that my child is gifted. Once again, the evidence of the damage caused by too much television viewing rears its ugly head; a cursory reading of the article I wrote would show that I never wrote what I am accused of. The Plug-In Drug speaks at length about how TV watching can cause people's ability to read and comprehend to atrophy. As I wrote, "The fact of the matter is that I reckon that, because my son watches no TV, he is actually normal. He seems gifted if only because the other kids have been made dumb because of television..." As far as my child being "gifted" due to not watching TV, I'd like to add that Richard Buckminster Fuller once said "there is no such thing as genius, some children are less damaged than others."


Another intelligent reader interestingly pointed out that, "Kids should be protected from TV with the same determination (that) protects them from child molesters. Come to think of it, viewing TV may be a form of molestation: A stranger attempts to distort a child's concept of reality, obviously without physical touching, but with carefully practiced psychological 'strokes' instead."


The television is one of the main root causes of all our problems. Bring up any subject and it can be pointed out how the television directly relates to the situation. Whether we are talking about the presidential run of Ron Paul and his campaign being ignored, and therefore, out of sight and out of mind of average Boobus Americanus or the sick state of American foreign policy, the television is, at the very least, the accomplice to the crime. It is the television that is being used as the conduit for propaganda and falsehoods that are making our society a society of ill-educated dimwits who know nothing, nor do they care to know, about the problems at hand. The television is giving the public the explanations of the problems in 15-second sound bites that are paid for by major corporations and their prostitute Big Brother; explanations that are controlled and designed to give a certain message. It is a message that is not to be discussed, interrupted, or confused.


If you wish to live as a free human being and wish that happiness upon your children, then throw away your television today. The television cannot be reformed. Don't believe me, read the books I've recommended here, and, after you do, if you still think TV is fine, then I hope you enjoy your "show."


Still, if you think what I have written is wrong, then as is your right, please ignore my warnings. I seriously doubt that any intelligent person could read the books I've mentioned and come to the conclusion that I am wrong. In fact, after reading and judging for themselves, I think most people would say that I am not enough of a hard-core anti-TV advocate. I do not write these warnings for the average person; I write them in the hopes that there are still a great many wise people around. Unfortunately, I fear that the average person is a lost cause; the grip television has on their lives is too great to ever be broken.





The central government, the controllers of the opiate of the masses, will give the average person all the freedoms they could possibly want. Just sit in darkened rooms, relax, shut out any interference, and bring snacks along. The Bread and Circuses are on air all day, every day, for their enjoyment with just the push of a button. What more freedoms could the average person want... or deserve?
February 25, 2008
Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers [send him mail] was born and raised in the USA and moved to Japan in 1984. He is the president of a mass-media production company and also runs a talent agency in Japan. He is now the Producer/Director/Co-host of Good Morning Garage, the most popular FM radio morning show in Tokyo. His book, Schizophrenic in Japan, went on sale in 2005


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers216.html
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Several years ago I read an issue of Readers Digest that reproduced an eighth grade graduation test for Indiana or Iowa shortly after the turn of the century. It was not easy. It did not include multiple choiceanswers. Can you imagine what testscores would be today without multiple choices? You should have seen what the students were required to demonstrate in order to pass the math testing which was very advanced by today's standards.In one portion, they were asked to translate a Latin phrase to English, French, and German.Yes, we have been dumbed down. Kids today think they are geniuses because they know how to place a condom on a vegetable and turn on a computer.They don't know where Canada is,let alone Madagascar.Ican locate Vienna, but couldn't tell you the longitude, and latitude. The kids in Iowa could.
 

Tom Iron

Mentor
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
1,597
Location
New Jersey
Bart,

The kids at that time were taught out of primer known as the McGuffy reader. There were four of them and they had others dealing with math and geography, etc. It was also very Christian based and stoped being used around 1910-15.

Tom Iron...
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
Outstanding insight gentlemen. It's so distressing to see the (intentional) fall of intellect and education in our society.
smiley18.gif
smiley19.gif
smiley7.gif


Don, you're right on the money...the "Sheeplevision" is largely utilized to dumb-down & spread Globalist propaganda. We limit our kids to a few hours (of select DVD or appropriate programming) a week. My wife does a great job of monitoring their TV time & ensuring they get exercise.I personally watch hardly any TV during the work-week (save an occasional football game or UFC event).On weekends I'll watch some UGA Bulldawg football (during the season), some MMA & maybe an old movie or documentary.I've made a point to cut way back on my "Sheeplevision" & will continue to do so throughout this year.

Tom, thanks for the insight on the McGruffy reader. I may try to dig some up original or duplicated copies(via eBay?) for my kids. The older generation leaned heavily on the Christian faith & its moral foundation. That's one of the key reasons we've declined so rapidly IMO...the Globalist Elite's relentless agenda of tearing down our Christian origins & influences. Ultimately, the Globalist Elite's master, guide & source of enpowerment(whether they directly know or acknowledge it) is Old Scratch himself.Edited by: DixieDestroyer
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Don, I agree about unplugging the TV. Home schooling is growing though, by leaps and bounds. I agree that some of the parents aren't qualified to teach well, but others are. I started homeschooling in 1986, in 3rd grade. All of my grandparents thought my parents were crazy for doing it, but I believe it was the best thing they could have done for me. My mother was (and still is)an elementary school teacher, and she did a really good job teaching me those 4 and a half years. She also home-schooled my younger sister inkindergarten and grades 9-12.
 

GiovaniMarcon

Mentor
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,231
Location
Westwood, California
Students -- and most people in general -- are complete idiots today, but if you point this out it makes you a bad person.



I think George Carlin (I don't particularly like him but anyway) said
it best: "Think about how stupid the average person in America is. Then
realize that half of all Americans are even stupider than that."


America pretty much lost its way by the middle to late 1960s -- women
and minorities were given the power they so richly didn't deserve and
they ruined the country.



But now that we're all dealing with the mess, white men are getting all the blame.



I guess it is white men's fault -- shouldn't have let go of the reins in the first place.
 

GWTJ

Mentor
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
796
Location
New Jersey
Don Wassall said:
Parents educated in the government schools for the most part are not qualified to home school their children. 

Don, I have to disagree with you. But I am curious as to why you don't feel parents are qualified to homeschool their children because they went to public school.

My wife and I homeschool our 3 children and are quite involved with the homeschooling community in N.J. We have been homeschooling since 1990. In our town, when people come to the board of Ed to ask questions about homeschooling, the school gives them our number.

Homeschooling your children doesn't require any special skills, any special schooling or any special anything. Every person on this planet who had a mom and/or dad learned more from them than any other person they will ever meet. So the idea of adding in the three R's and some other courses like science or history is no big deal to any parent who loves their kids and wants them to learn about more than how to put a condom on a banana.

It is a fact that homeschooled children outperform their public schooled counterparts right down the line when taking standardized tests in preparation for college. As much as 100 points on the SAT.

When I see homeschooling parents, I see the very best of what's left of the pioneering spirit that built this country. Most homeschooling parents have little money since the wife doesn't work or only works part time. They forego the second car and the bigger house on the better street to give more time to their children.

To talk to a homeschool mom is to learn about things like, refusing vaccinations, Homeopathy, breastfeeding, home birth, the benefit of co-ops, organic produce, no refined sugar, the Family bed, reading instead of TV and many other non mainstream ideas that were once common practice in this country.

Homeschoolers are also great fighters. Perhaps the best in the country at taking on the government and winning.

Government officials are at war with homeschoolers. There are over two million children being homeschooled in this country(with that number increasing every year) and that is a real threat to the government. Local Board of Ed. officials harass homeschoolers whenever possible and powerful government officials continue to attack homeschooling rights by trying to create new law.

When a government official tries to pass a law that infringes upon homeschooling rights, the HSLDA(HomeSchool Legal Defense Assoc.) sends out the e-mails and homeschoolers by the hundreds(or thousands) are in front of the Statehouse protesting. Government officials are smart, they try to quietly sneak these bills through and make it sound like these bills are harmless. But the HSLDA is well organized.

Joining the HSLDA costs $100.00 a year and there is a hotline for 24 by 7 help. So when DYFS shows up at your door because some low life neighbor makes an anonymous call about you, the hotline talks you through the process of dealing with DYFS.

I've said this many times. Put 20 homeschooled kids in a room and observe them and put 20 public schooled kids in a room and observe them. After about two minutes you will see that it is the public school enviornment that warps kids, not homeschooling parents.

I know i'm ranting, but most people just don't know how important homeschooling is if you want your children to be more influenced by your words than by the words of others.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,194
Location
Pennsylvania
GWTJ said:
Don Wassall said:
Parents educated in the government schools for the most part arenot qualifiedto home schooltheir children.

Don, I have to disagree with you. But I am curious as to why you don't feel parents are qualified to homeschool their children because they went to public school.


I didn't write that parents aren't qualified to homeschool their children if they went to public schools, I wrote "for the most part." Big difference. Most Americans are not well educated, but if say 100 million parents went to public school, then millions are still qualified to homeschool their children.


I'm all for homeschooling and have always supported it in my political endeavors.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Great post GWTJ! I will admit that not all homeschooling parents are great at it though. Now, with the use of VHS and DVD videos, some kids are left at home to "self school" and their parents just briefly go over their work at the end of the day. I think as the number of homeschoolers grows, the huge differences between the performances of homeschoolers and public school attendees will start to decrease somewhat. Still, I value my homeschooled years and thinkthat in most cases it is the best thing for the child and the whole family, if circumstances allow for it. Like I wrote above, I started being homeschooled in 3rd grade in 1986, when there were just a little over50,000 people doing it nationwide. I'm glad homeschooling isn't as stigmatized nowas it was then, even though it wouldn't be something that would keep me from homeschooling my kids. I am glad that my parents made that choice. Now some of my relatives who used to scoff at the idea brag about me when others ignorantly put down homeschoolers because of a perceived lack of social training.
 

GWTJ

Mentor
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
796
Location
New Jersey
Thanks Colonel Reb,

There aren't many things I know enough about to write a post that long.
smiley2.gif


I too, can feel the perception changing about homeschooling. I remember when my wife first brought up the idea. It was 1988 and I was stunned to hear it even existed. Now I defend it.

Don, I thought the point you were making was that there was something wrong with government schools in addition to not teaching kids very much. Maybe a reason I wasn't aware of.

My experience with homeschooling is that the more that homeschoolers network and share their knowledge, the more effective it is. Such as one parent who knows about computers having a class about computers for all the kids. This sharing of information really helps all the parents whether they are well educated or not.
 
Top