I will not live in a nanny state

[anniefee]

ETA: this was a gut reaction post, extreme perspective, explained in the comments. don't hate me.

I got this in my email this morning, from the local homeschool group:

ID State rep proposes financial benefits for parents that teach kindergarten at home.

Read more... )

Comments

[anniefee]

No, you're absolutely right.

This really could be a good thing. All your points (encouraging parents to stay home and focus on their kids, keeping kids home an extra year, etc.) are ones I considered and I think are valid and beneficial for all parties involoved.

The point I made about government handouts mostly stemmed from the ultra-conservative blogs I flip through, who are quick to cut down those who accept welfare but would see nothing wrong with accepting government money for education. It's essentially the same thing, to me, in that situation. They can do it on their own and know they should but would rather get paid for being a good parent.

Also, after reading your comment and reading the article again I got the impression that another contingency for receiving the money would be enrollment in a public first grade. The first time I read through the article and the link I thought any homeschooling family could apply for this funding, even if they had no intention of placing their children in public education.

My point for readiness evaluation was more on the side of the above paragraph and the things that need to be fixed in the school system. First grade readiness is no longer determined by knowledge of ABCs and 123s and a honing of fine and gross motor skills. When I was in first grade my reading level was considered to be third grade. Now, the third grade reading level is first grade and if you aren't learning to read chapter books you're behind. College aptitude is evaluated in seven year olds. I do think the kid should be observed at the end of the kindergarten year to determine where the strengths and weaknesses lie and what needs to be worked on in the following year.

Yeah, one of the reasons I want to homeschool is because I want my kids to enjoy learning and learn beyond textbooks and history papers. I want them to be interested in the world around them and be interesting people. I want my kids to be grounded in their moral and faith upbringing, but I don't want them to be freaky. What does freaky mean? :) That's kind of arbitrary.

Anyhow, I know I was taking this to the extreme.

[ly_tin_wheedle]

I've heard it said that there is no American interest group more powerful and insidious than the educational-testing industry. People make up standards, build up tests around them, convince schools that those standards will make their kids better, and sell their tests, regardless of actual results. I've been reading this book on probability and statistics for a few days now, and this is one of his favorite examples to use when describing how statistical analysis can be twisted or misunderstood.

Anyway, yes, that is how I read the article -- the funding is available only to families that wish to enter their children into public school; the test is therefore applicable only to those families, not to those which have no intention of enrolling their children in the state's system.

I also don't see anything wrong with government support of the individual when done in moderation and with an eye to improving the individual's eventual self-sufficiency. Social safety nets are, I think, unfairly demonized by the conservative, those who have never needed it, and those who have created a system for others to struggle in (frequently all three cases may apply to the same person). For instance, what would you do if David lost his job and had no prospect of getting another one for some time?

Look at it this way: in some cases, having a parent stay home to teach kindergarten represents at least some lost income. The stipend might provide a little breathing room for those families.

Anyway, yes, a bit extreme. That's ok; food for thought.

As far as the 'freaky' issue ... eh. I mean either kids who call themselves "WARRIORS FOR CHRIST" or who don't believe in wearing pants.

[anniefee]

I believe it. The testing gets more and more ridiculous and it gets to the point where you're wondering if what they're testing is stuff that's even necessary anymore.

I don't see anything wrong with governmental support for those who need it and stated so in my post. I really, truly don't. I don't know if we'd go on welfare in order to make it through a period of unemployment (mostly because David works for the government and there are provisions made for lay-offs and stuff), but I am grateful to know it's available. I completely agree with your demonizing of safety nets statement. A lot of conservatives out there drive me nuts because they have no concept of the world beyond their backdoor. These are, incidentally, usually the same who are 'militant fecundity' supporters, anti-pants, tell their girls they don't need college, and think doctors and lawyers and CEOs are over-educated and why can't we go back to the apprenticeship method of aquiring a highly-technical skill like our great-grandfathers?

I do have to add that it's been proven faith-based charities and other non-profits do greater good than any governmental program, from rehab to food pantries to childcare.

Also, I don't like the WARRIORS FOR CHRIST mentality. Did you know there are more examples of love, peace, and 'creating' (artisans, beauty, etc.) than there are warrior images in the Bible? I forget where I read that, but I thought that was interesting. I do know that in the Old Testament, when God was setting up the tribes in the desert and dividing the Israelites into different groups of organization, the artisans and skilled workers were number one, after the priests, and before the armies. It seems to me that creating and crafting and beauty and art are more pleasing to the Lord than armies and battles are.

We like pants very much.