344
Social Media's Cringiest Conservative Is Running for School Board -- As a Democrat
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
344 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4549 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What statistics are you looking for? I do have statistics supporting the fact that homeschoolers as a general population outperform the average public schooler, academically (which is certainly one major argument of the previous user's concerns when referring to quality teachers).
And of course it goes both ways. I'm curious if those critical of homeschooling are using any sort of statistics to support their arguments as opposed to equivalent anecdotes and skewed perceptions based on news headlines.
Also, just curious: do you view the previous user's response to me a "rant" as well?
Put'em up. Got statistics? Show statistics. I don't care one whit about this argument (I homeschool my kid because I don't want him to get shot), but if you say your allegation is supported by evidence, provide the evidence. Which ones?: Yes. Let's see'em.
Isn't it amusing that nobody down-voted the user who replied to me attacking homeschooling, literally blanket calling everyone who engages in it child abuse without any merit and giving zero credible evidence or statistics, themselves?
I wonder, are you going to ask them for statistics?
And sure; merely a google search away:
https://www.thinkimpact.com/homeschooling-statistics/#:~:text=The%20average%20performance%20of%20homeschoolers,for%20students%20from%20public%20schools.
https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/
Edit: See? Down-voted for literally giving sources while zero has been given as a counter-argument in return and literally not one substantive counter-point or even an acceptance to have an honest conversation so far. Just ad hominems against me and anonymous dissent.
(If this is true that's very alarming) But a few lines later it reads:
There are plenty of other examples of contradicting statistics and strange grammar on this page, it makes me feel like it was written by someone homeschooled...
Considering there are kids who've gone through high school and done it in a third of the time or less, I seriously question how many substantive hours of engaged learning is actually occurring. Quality (and with it, engagement), not just quantity is all that matters. At the end of the day, isn't it more concerning to you that such amount of time is sufficient to outperform the average public schooler?
Edit: Moreover have you considered the fact that there is a 1:1 teacher ratio, and a teacher who has an invested interested in seeing their own child succeed? That the learning environment can be adapted according to that child's needs? That there is literally the aggregate of all human knowledge and online learning programs and homeschool co-ops and that homeschooled kids can utilize public school facilities and even join sports teams? Shit, I did theater....
Most critics don't. They only see the ones that make the news or people that "act" differently to them.
But is it 72% learn for 5 hours a week or 50% learn for 25-40 hours? Both can't be true.
Having a student teacher ratio 10x-20x greater than public schools one would hope that homeschoolers drastically outperform public school students, rather than just have marginally better academics. It's also worth considering that many families can't afford to have a parent teaching instead of working.
In my state, there are no reporting or testing requirements, and parents themselves issue highschool diplomas for their kids. With such lax rules in most states, how trustworthy can surveys even be about the academic performance of homeschoolers?
That's a fair point and without delving into which source this comes from in the article, my guess is they meant to say, "72% learn for at least 5 hours a week while 50% learn for 25-40".
But yeah that's fair. As I wrote from the start homeschooling is not without its downsides and definitely circumstantial. For example, if both parents are working full-time jobs, then it's probably not feasible in most cases. Either way, the general data does conclude that outcomes are better, which ultimately is all that really matters for the sake of this discussion.
In the state I lived most of my childhood, we had to do standardized testing like public schooled kids, and in addition be evaluated every end of year by a certified teacher who reviewed our learning materials (an end-of-year portfolio, basically).
In my later years, we moved to a state that like you mentioned has minimal requirements. This can of course be abused but also be a blessing under certain circumstances where an education be adapted to unique life situations.
Well your second link can't be trusted because it's from a biased source. Literally paid research by the home education group.
The first one is interesting in that it seems to be a hirable think tank. But, does at least seem to be pulling data from sources.
Now you did in fact supply sources more than the people you are arguing against but you started with emotional responses and then angrily stated that you provided resources elsewhere which isn't a great look and will build bias against you. So now you are facing a losing argument to pivot to "facts" late and with bias just makes it really hard to take your side seriously at this point.
Take a step back and let it go or start over. And know starting over is also gonna be uphill with the hole that's been dug. Sorry man. Humans are emotional at their core. All of us.
While I can understand taking with a grain of salt on a level of trust, the fact is, I've provided evidence and nobody here has been able to provide a modicum of evidence to the contrary yet. I appreciate your recognition of this. I think it's also worth pointing out that being biased does not preclude being right (e.g., a climate scientist could be considered "biased" on their case for climate change; but their evidence still strong.)
To be clear, I feel I responded to that user with an assertive, passionate response that was proportionate to the amount of substance and emotion they put into their own comments. I question if you gave a second look at what they actually wrote, what evidence they provided, and what "emotion" they brought to the table. I freely admit I'm passionate about this; but I also know for a fact that I know more on this subject-matter than any individual here that has replied to me. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but it's frustrating when you see the same tropes play out over and over again. As you can imagine, this isn't my first discussion on this topic.
So in the end I ask: to How should I have responded that would satisfy you and meet the equivalent level of detail the user I replied to gave (and was up-voted)?