![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
What a bizarre story...
And refreshingly free of abuse and/or mental illness. It's sad and horrible, but not nearly as bad as I expected from the title.
Moderator: Edi
I called it horrible because of their situation, and the mother being institutionalised.SAMAS wrote:It's kind a sad, but I wouldn't call it horrible. I really have to admire the guy for pulling through in a situation that probably seemed to him as hopeless, and raising a daughter so well like that.
May not have been the best option, or even a good one, but I have to applaud the man for suceeding at it.
It's quite true. Whenever the education system complains about something the government throws more money at it and does nothing does nothing to slve the problem. We used to be first in mathematis with much less funding while now slipping in the polls spending double or triple what we used to. (After you calculate inflation in)2000AD wrote:So one guy and a bunch of encycolpeida did a better job than most American schools (from what i've heard vented on the board) ?
Howedar wrote:Does this surprise you? How about if I replace him with a full-time individual tutor? Because that's basically what he was.
What the fuck do you think teachers are supose to be? Baby-sitters?Howedar wrote:I'll say it again.Howedar wrote:Does this surprise you? How about if I replace him with a full-time individual tutor? Because that's basically what he was.
These individuals are trained to be "experts" (at least thats what State liscencing is for). From what I read, the father hasn't recieved any special training in any field yet he managed to teach his daughter at a substancially faster rate then the experts... I think this obviously implies that the rate of teaching isn't fast enough and, quite frankly, if you look at the average high school you can see this reflected by the amount of time spent on bullshit activities.Howedar wrote:Are you really so goddamned dense that you do not comprehend why a teacher is better when working with one student than when working with thirty? Each of those thirty students have marginally different needs to be attended to, which means not all of the time in the classroom will be as beneficial as it could be for a given student. When there is but one student, their needs are addressed all of the time, completely.
It can (but need not) have anything to do with babysitting.
Keep in mind that that deals with averages. The average homeschooler may perform better on average than a public school student, but the average for public school student is skewed by the crowd of students for whom high school is system designed to keep them out of trouble for a few hours. However, a few years back and at least in Pittsburgh Public, the homeschoolers were doing better on standardized tests than the lower end of public school, but weren't doing better than middle tier students and were being utterly killed by AP students. In terms of students who actually take school a bit seriously, homeschool students tend to be strictly average.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I suspect this is part of why homeschoolers perform so well academically on average. They may be brainwashed into fundies while at home, but they're also actually learning. Or at least learning enough to utterly trump public school educated individuals who, apparently, learn far less by age twelve than can be gleaned from an encyclopaedia and the life experience of an adult.