New Hampshire Court Deems Girl 'Too Christian'; Must Attend Government School

[Sten]

This is exactly why child custody issues before the court should be private.

We have no right what so ever telling that father what is best for his child, as he has no right to tell us what is best for our children.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Perhaps the parent is ....

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

All I have to go on for historical perspective is what my parents have told me.

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Children tend to learn things from their parents.

Maybe the court is addressing another type of conditioning.

What I remember most about the products of New Hampshire public schools was that the girls often had handy cups to spit tobacco juice into, the racial slurs a few would shout as they raced along in speeding vehicles, the fierce determination they brought to the Harkness tables to prove that they belonged as much as anyone, their unflinching loyalty to their friends, their make out sessions in library study carrells, and their snarky (but playful) whispering on the basketball court ("Go ahead, take the shot...be a hero!").

Then there was Nicole B. Her olive skin, flashing eyes, and winsome smile all made it obvious why her dad, a retired Marine, kept his sword over the mantle piece.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by afchic

How does she expect her daughter to cope in the "outside" world once she is on her own?

Exactly. This is the heart of the argument. No one, on either side of this, wants to see this child ill-prepared for the real world.

As a home-school mom, I'm suspicious of the way this girl is being educated. I also cringe, because stories like this give home-schooling a bad reputation among people who vaguely know what home-schooling is. This woman is also making it harder for the rest of us to educate our children without government oversight or interference.

There are a variety of reasons to home-school. This mother's reason happens to be religious, which muddies the waters still further. But bottom line, if that child is not being educated by her mother, she should be educated by a teacher.

-Susan

[dac]

This thread has sort of morphed from the court ruling to debate on home schooling.

When I was younger and dumber, I thought I knew everything. I felt that there was no way a home-schooled child could receive a proper education or the social skills necessary to be a productive member of society. Now, the closer I get to having school age children, the more that option appeals to me. I don't really have the money to put two kids in private school. Charter and magnet schools seem like a good option but those slots are always limited. What else is there? Public or home schooling. I constantly hear alarmist news reports about the school system here in SC on the radio - SAT average scores just dropped again.

I know there are plenty of great teachers, but from the outside point of view it looks like the deck is stacked against the teachers being able to do a good, caring job. What's a dad to do? Additionally, SC now has online "public" schools. I am a little more moderate than the lady in the original post though, I want my kids to learn to evaluate multiple points of view.

I feel like I could do a pretty good job of teaching my spawn about english 'n stuff.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by dac

I am a little more moderate than the lady in the original post though, I want my kids to learn to evaluate multiple points of view.

However...evaluation of multiple points of view may be facilitated by the use of computer mediated communication (CMC).

Let us suppose we want a truly inclusive group discussion. Some students may not be particularly articulate in English. In CMC, they have the time to frame their viewpoint, whereas in a traditional classroom their lack of fluency may cause them to avoid engagement with the group. In addition, CMC can contribute to deeper discussions than might be the case with verbal communication.

Here are a couple quotes:

The findings imply that writing for a group in the asynchronous environment facilitated reflection, metacognitive processes, and articulation of students' own learning. When responses to questions were made, students sought alternative responses that may have facilitated in-depth inquiry to the topic as well as enforced reflection and metacognition. Students recognized the importance of writing skills to understand, interpret, and implement the content knowledge. In assessment, "a focus on self-knowledge implies that students should have the opportunity to assess their own strengths and weaknesses" (Pintrich' 2002, p. 221). This type of student engagement enables learners to informally and actively assess their own learning.

Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.

Sproull and Kiesler (1986) indicate that computer-mediated communication (CMC) lacks the social context cues exchanged in face-to-face communication. These social context cues are transmitted through the physical environment, nonverbal behaviors, and each participant's social status. The absence of social cues tends to promote egalitarian and ninhibited behaviors in CMC. Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire (1984) found that group members using computers participated more equally than they did when they talked face-to-face. According to Van Gelder (1990), since some barriers common to face-to-face communication, such as race, physical appearance, and language accent are non-existent in computer-mediated interactions, a more egalitarian situation is created. Therefore, CMC users tend to be more uninhibited than they are in face-to-face situations.

Kelm (1992) indicates that using computer-assisted classrooms for teaching foreign languages creates a leveling effect in which the instructor merely becomes another participant in the discussion. Traditional turn-taking procedures are totally absent and participants say as much as they want and are never interrupted. During computer-assisted classroom discussion
sessions, students can read comments at their own pace, type their responses at their own leisure, and wait to send messages when they are completely satisfied with what they have written. In other words, a deficiency in individual fluency does not slow the general pace of the discussion. Participants of the discussion are never interrupted and sessions are designed
to encourage increased participation, therefore, the topics are always open-ended.

Yildiz, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2003). Exploring electronic forum participation and interaction by EFL speakers in two web-based graduate-level courses. Distance Education, 24(2), 175-193.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by nmap

However...evaluation of multiple points of view may be facilitated by the use of computer mediated communication (CMC).

Let us suppose we want a truly inclusive group discussion. Some students may not be particularly articulate in English. In CMC, they have the time to frame their viewpoint, whereas in a traditional classroom their lack of fluency may cause them to avoid engagement with the group. In addition, CMC can contribute to deeper discussions than might be the case with verbal communication.

nmap--

As ever, you provide food for thought.

I do have two questions.

1. Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?
2. Do communication skills developed via CMC transfer laterally from cyberspace to everyday life?

[dac]

I am, right now, enrolled in an online school in order to finish my BS because the DoD doesn't value experience as much as a degree [end rant]

Every class I take has a required number of discussion board posts. In theory, it is a great tool for online discussion and collaboration. What it actually turns out to be is an butt-kissing waste of time. Each student posts their first response to the professor's subject and those posts are generally worthwhile. Where it turns south is the required responses. Nobody ever wants to actually debate or discuss anything at all. All the responses are two sentences, and are summarized as: "That was a great post. I learned a lot from you." Some are as bad as "You did a great job with your citations."

I do have two questions.

1. Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?
2. Do communication skills developed via CMC transfer laterally from cyberspace to everyday life?

1. I feel that the purpose is to prepare students for the real world. I just don't feel the execution follows through.
2. Absolutely not. Exhibited most recently here by the new pink sarcasm font.

[Richard]

{NPRI article} Hmmm...Socialized medicine is getting some pushback from the people. The gov't responds by addressing school children.

As a West Euro FAO, History major, and second-career educator, everything I studied says the first kindergarten was actually founded by Friedrich Froebel around the early decades of the mid-19th Century - a time when Germany was not a wholly Prussian-oriented society as NPRI’s marketing manager Diane Alden would like readers to believe in her opinion piece - and was actually based on his ideas that children need to have play time in order to learn - that kindergarten should be a place for children to grow and learn from their social interaction with other children. Ms. Alden's ideas that kindergarten was developed as some form of nationalistic weaning of children from their mothers for a future of unquestioning servitude to the Prussian state [ala Nazism] is so far from the truth that it should be laughable - except for the dangers it presents in its misleading of those ignorant of History's lessons.

FWIW - the first kindergartens were actually established rather altruistically to help impoverished children and those who had special needs - not to defeat some future Napoleon - but to support those who did not fit the mold of established society - and actually paralled the many nurseries of the time which were run by philanthropically minded women to serve the families of the poor as Europe moved from a cottage industry society towards the first industrial revolution. Froebel's non-Prussian basic philosophic principles of free self activity, creativity, social participation, and motor expression are valuable components which exist functionally, with some modifications, in most of today's early childhood education programs. Froebel's philosophy basically supports the idea that - through systematic play - children are able to learn to discriminate, analyze, share and solve problems - not learn to goose-step or develop a zu befehl mentality.

And the idea that because "socialized medicine is getting some pushback from the people" it is somehow related to "the gov't responds by addressing school children" {about the importance of school in their achieving their goals} is - - which really causes me to have a bit of angst about the effectiveness of our educational systems (remember - it is a decentralized series of systems) and the dangers of the WWW's potential to misinform and mislead.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

nmap--

As ever, you provide food for thought.

I do have two questions.

1. Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?
2. Do communication skills developed via CMC transfer laterally from cyberspace to everyday life?

Those are good questions...and the best questions can be the hardest to answer.

First, what is the purpose of education? Frankly, I get the impression that the primary goal is to facilitate getting a job. In essence, this means that education should prepare young people for the workplace.

And what do I see, both in the workplace and elsewhere? Lots of communication through electronic devices - and relatively little face-to-face communication. The workplace, especially, seems to place a strong emphasis on communicating electronically. Due to costs, the trend seems to be toward more CMC and away from FTF.

Even when I go out to eat, I observe people talking on cell phones while ignoring the other people at their table. Or, they'll busy themselves with texting while avoiding any risk of real conversations.

So on question 1, I'm not sure. At one time, I would have said "real world, not cyberspace". However, when I consider how people seem to spend their time, I'm tempted by the opposite answer.

Now, on your second question...I don't know of any specific research on the subject, so this is a case of MOO, YMMV. I would suspect there is not a perfect transfer, since non-text elements of communication are an important element of FTF exchanges. A smile, a nod - even how far apart people stand - all matter in real life. On the other hand, the verbal skills developed in written communication can transfer from CMC to FTF. I guess my answer to this one is that there is some transfer, but not a perfect transfer.

Those aren't very good answers, are they? But at least they're sincere.

[Richard]

Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?

FWIW - I support Howard Gardner’s description of intelligence [learning] as posited in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind, which states:

“The ability to solve problems and create products which are of value in one’s own culture.”

Richard's $.02

[nmap]

Originally Posted by dac

Where it turns south is the required responses. Nobody ever wants to actually debate or discuss anything at all. All the responses are two sentences, and are summarized as: "That was a great post. I learned a lot from you." Some are as bad as "You did a great job with your citations."

I took an online course, and the outcome was much the same. I think students tend to do whatever produces the grade they want, and not much more.

To contrast, let's look at the present discussion. People from all over the country, with a wide array of backgrounds and interests, have come together to discuss a topic that's both interesting and important to the overall society. The present discussion, IMO, represents the potential such exchanges have. Getting it to happen within a course remains a problem.

Of course, I'm not at all biased in favor of online education.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Maybe the court is addressing another type of conditioning.

Exactly.
It's about who gets the primary influence during the early years.

My children ages 7,9, and 17 all excelled at reading despite dyslexic tendencies.
This had nothing to do with schooling.
My wife sat down with them and read books with them daily from when they could first sit up.
The 3 year old is starting to read.
The 19 month old is already fascinated with books.


FWIW, I am not against my kids experiencing the world, making mistakes, and learning from them.
I believe it is entirely necessary.

Starting at age 11, the oldest one was gradually given more room to make decisions and learn from his mistakes.

Upon turning 13, the deal was simple: I would not intervene unless he appeared to be in danger of being maimed or killed.
I would maintain control of my own property and if he wished to use it, it would be used in a manner consistent with my wishes.
Once he stepped off the curb, he would make his own decisions, and deal with the consequences.

He made many mistakes.
He dealt with the consequences.
He learned.

At the age of 17 years and 3 months, he was moved out and on his own.
He now demonstrates maturity beyond his years and is leading a content, fulfilling life.


The deal will be basically the same for the rest, allowing for some differences which occur from kid to kid.
BUT, until they reach that critical point somewhere between 11 and 13, everyone else will have the degree of influence which my wife and I deem appropriate.


Not all of us wingnuts can be pidgeon-holed.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

It's about who gets the primary influence during the early years.

My children ages 7,9, and 17 all excelled at reading despite dyslexic tendencies.

My wife sat down with them and read books with them daily from when they could first sit up. . . .
Starting at age 11, the oldest one was gradually given more room to make decisions and learn from his mistakes.

Upon turning 13, the deal was simple: I would not intervene unless he appeared to be in danger of being maimed or killed.
I would maintain control of my own property and if he wished to use it, it would be used in a manner consistent with my wishes. . . .At the age of 17 years and 3 months, he was moved out and on his own.
He now demonstrates maturity beyond his years and is leading a content, fulfilling life.

The deal will be basically the same for the rest, allowing for some differences which occur from kid to kid.
[BUT], until they reach that critical point somewhere between 11 and 13, everyone else will have the degree of influence which my wife and I deem appropriate.

Thank you for these revealing details about your family history, your approach to parenting, and your view of power.

This had nothing to do with schooling.

Agreed.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Thank you for these revealing details about your family history, your approach to parenting, and your view of power.

Your condescension is noted.
It sure is a good thing us dumb ol' truck drivers have access to such sage council.
It would be much simpler to say: now run along and let your betters discuss this important stuff.

Just say what you mean. I have thick skin.


Yesterday I was giving my 17 year old a ride and mentioned to him how satisfying it was too see him managing his life so well.
He responded with sincerity: "It's satisfying to do. Thank you for making it possible." (direct quote)

I'm sure this truck driver would have done better for his son if he listened to the latest psycho-babble from the public school.
After all, the public system has been producing a marvelous stream of self-reliant individuals lately.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Your condescension is noted.

You are in error if you think my previous comment reflects condescension on my part. I urge you to take responsibility for your own affective state.

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Just say what you mean.

Your comments speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

I have thick skin.

I disagree.