The NY Times has an interesting article on the emerging trend of Black parents teaching their kids at home.
I found some of the reasons given interesting:
Ms. Armstrong said she wanted her children to have a "moral Judeo-Christian
foundation" that public schools could not provide.
What a wonderful quote. I went to a public school where the whole idea that Judeo-Christian values might be a good thing seemed verbotten.
Another gem:
"You do what you have to do that your children get an excellent education," she
said. "Don't leave it up to the system."
What a great idea...self-reliance. Wonder if it could possibly work?
Of course there is your standard NY Times caveat:
But, in the long run, protecting their own children may even lead to worse
conditions for the vast majority of students who stay in public schools, and
that's a horrible dilemma.
Why is it a horrible dilemma? The only thing a parent can hope for is to protect their own children. To ask that every parent keep their kids in broken schools for the sake of more social experimentation is idiototic.
Additionally, why is there no evidence offered to reinforce the point? Why would parents taking their kids out of public schools make it worse for the other students? If anything it should be beneficial. Less pupils means that teachers can spend more time with those that need it. We are always hearing that teachers are "overwhelmed" (which I never bought) and that they need smaller classes. I know that some might say that it means less money for the schools, which is true, but that is because there are fewer students. Why not just stop graduating kids? If they all were forced to stay in school longer that would mean more money for the school. It is a non-starter argument.
The whole point of this part of the article is to plant doubt into a story that otherwise presents a very positive picture of American parents doing what every parent should do: lookout for their kid's future.
|