Home schooling

[justthebest]

who on this forum is home schooled bc being home schooled u can film 24 7

[Alasdair]

yo you learned about jesus riding dinosaurs instead of real stuff and also not by trained professionals and didn't socialise with peers HEH

[WesScog]

Not all home schools are religious based. The time I spent home schooling sure wasn't.

And I would often share classes with other local kids that were homeschooling, so I got plenty of socialization.

It actually wasn't that different from regular public school, except it was smaller, and I got to learn way way more since I got to move at my own pace.

I mean, I didn't homeschool only, I got my diploma from a public institution, but the time I spent homeschooling was by no means stunting to me.

[Alasdair]

you know why the mericans lost he war??

no fuckan sense of humour hat's why

[WesScog]

You tickle my fancy bone.

[snicket]

I was home schooled for like 8 years. I learned tons.
And I was NOT UN-socialized. But now I go to OFL, a charter school.... Same diference though. haha

[Fisherking]

who on this forum is home schooled bc being home schooled u can film 24 7

Somehow this post does not instill me with great regard for the educational prospects of homeschooling.

[HomemadePictures]

i used to be homeschooled (that wasn't religious-based), and i too got to socialize, and actually spend a lot of time on set of another independent film
so in a way, homeschooling got me interested in film

by the way Alasdair, i "laughed out loud" at your comment, because i've met people that sounded kinda like that before, :)

[GhostOfAllie]

I'm homeschooling after this year is over.

[bubblefax]

I'm home schooled but I do what wes did. I do a school with other local home schoolers so I get socialized.

I thought I was the only one though.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

parents should have the right to choose where their child goes to school. whether that is home school or else wise. I sure as hell know my niece knows more from what she has learned at home than at the local public school; and our public school is one of the best in state. She learned at home how to read; do math; Einstein's theory of gravity, the evolution of dinosaurs; and she's only in first grade. Her teacher gets mad because she is restless in class because she already knows everything that is being taught there.

I am not against public funding of education. But I am against public control of education. Each child should have an education allotment given and then the parents should choose where it is spent.

[Alasdair]

hahahahahaha your first grade niece does not know how gravity works in general relativity, you are making stuff up

make homeschooling illegal

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

hahahahahaha your first grade niece does not know how gravity works in general relativity, you are making stuff up

make homeschooling illegal

yeah; she does; she knows that a larger mass warps the space around it and makes other things flow to it. I showed her with some Christmas ornaments and it stuck.

[Alasdair]

babies know that shit falls down, therefore babies know Newton's theory of gravity without even home school!!!

[Fisherking]

I sure as hell know my niece knows more from what she has learned at home than at the local public school; and our public school is one of the best in state. She learned at home how to read; do math; Einstein's theory of gravity, the evolution of dinosaurs; and she's only in first grade.

Her parents taught her tensor analysis?

This is part of the reason a lot of people object to homeschooling: Without any sort of firm plan or curriculum, you're really just learning disparate facts. Presenting GR on a conceptual level without having learned Newton's gravitation, vectors and so forth seems utterly pointless to me. For all the valid complaints about schooling, I think 'working up' to more and more sophisticated science is a good thing: Start with basic atomism, move up to Rutherford's atom, Bohr's work and so on. There's something to be said for being on equal levels conceptually and mathematically.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

babies know that shit falls down, therefore babies know Newton's theory of gravity without even home school!!!

My niece isn't home schooled; but she learned that from me not her public school (which is one of the best in the state) her class is working on how to make change for a dollar and she is working on times tables with her grandmother (my mom) and understanding the warping of space is a bit different than realizing "things fall down"

[Alasdair]

she doesn't "understand the warping of space" if you just said "yo space is warped" anymore than babies "understand gravity" because they see shit falling down

fisherking put it more eloquently as usual

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

Her parents taught her tensor analysis?

This is part of the reason a lot of people object to homeschooling: Without any sort of firm plan or curriculum, you're really just learning disparate facts. Presenting GR on a conceptual level without having learned Newton's gravitation, vectors and so forth seems utterly pointless to me. For all the valid complaints about schooling, I think 'working up' to more and more sophisticated science is a good thing: Start with basic atomism, move up to Rutherford's atom, Bohr's work and so on. There's something to be said for being on equal levels conceptually and mathematically.

Her school has never even talked about gravity. I taught her not not the exact science of gravity; but that larger bodies affect the space around them causing gravitation. I started basic. But that basic thought is far more that her public school has advanced.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

she doesn't "understand the warping of space" if you just said "yo space is warped" anymore than babies "understand gravity" because they see shit falling down

fisherking put it more eloquently as usual

she understands that gravity is due to the warping of space due to the mass of the object. Maybe I misrepresented it. But she knows that larger objects create more gravity due to having a larger mass. And her public education has yet to even mention gravity. when I brought up the subject she didn't even know the word "gravity".

[Alasdair]

why on earth would you start with Einsteinian gravity rather than Newtonian gravity if you were trying to start basic rather than just giving her something she can regurgitate to impress people

I'm all for getting kids excited for science but you're selling her a bit hard don't you think

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

why on earth would you start with Einsteinian gravity rather than Newtonian gravity if you were trying to start basic rather than just giving her something she can regurgitate to impress people

I'm all for getting kids excited for science but you're selling her a bit hard don't you think

because Einsteins theory makes more sense than Newtons. Logic is the most important discipline in thought.

[Alasdair]

hahahahaha you really have no idea about gravity

[Fisherking]

I'm not surprised her school hasn't talked about gravity. You only barely start getting into some real maths and science by the end of high-school.

I think you're drawing too long a bow. Her parents told her about some basic scientific concepts. That's cool. That's what good parents are supposed to do. My dad talked to me about evolution and such things when I was young (which is always worth doing: It staves off the cancer of creationism and kids love all the diversity of animals and shit).

I think trying to talk about GR is a waste, however. I'm sure she can regurgitate it if you ask her, but you really don't have the facilities at that age to comprehend what, frankly, elludes most people for the reason that it's really hard to visualise (I'll admit I can't fully grasp it, as a maths major). Try to talk about Newtonian gravity, inertia, charge and so forth. They're important and interesting concepts that are a). more appropriate for a child and b). necessary to understand the 'sexy' modern ideas.

I always thought TV documentaries on black-holes and entanglement and all that popular science stuff was a waste for a viewing public who don't understand the foundations of these ideas. Pushing Hawking's ideas on black holes, for example, is pointless without understanding charge, entropy, etc. It's funny how they show off the infamous equation and handwave pretty much every term in it: Planck's constant? What's that? Boltzmann? Who? Note that they don't usually use the form in Planck units.

And if you think Einstein is more coherent than Newton, you don't understand Einstein.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

hahahahaha you really have no idea about gravity

What? are you trying to say that a bodies mass distorting space has nothing to do with gravity?

[Alasdair]

If you think it's logical to present Einstein's theory of gravity before Newtons then you have no idea how either work

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

I'm not surprised her school hasn't talked about gravity. You only barely start getting into some real maths and science by the end of high-school.

I think you're drawing too long a bow. Her parents told her about some basic scientific concepts. That's cool. That's what good parents are supposed to do. My dad talked to me about evolution and such things when I was young (which is always worth doing: It staves off the cancer of creationism and kids love all the diversity of animals and shit).

I think trying to talk about GR is a waste, however. I'm sure she can regurgitate it if you ask her, but you really don't have the facilities at that age to comprehend what, frankly, elludes most people for the reason that it's really hard to visualise (I'll admit I can't fully grasp it, as a maths major). Try to talk about Newtonian gravity, inertia, charge and so forth. They're important and interesting concepts that are a). more appropriate for a child and b). necessary to understand the 'sexy' modern ideas.

I always thought TV documentaries on black-holes and entanglement and all that popular science stuff was a waste for a viewing public who don't understand the foundations of these ideas. Pushing Hawking's ideas on black holes, for example, is pointless without understanding charge, entropy, etc. It's funny how they show off the infamous equation and handwave pretty much every term in it: Planck's constant? What's that? Boltzmann? Who? Note that they don't usually use the form in Planck units.

And if you think Einstein is more coherent than Newton, you don't understand Einstein.


I never claimed anything of the sort. I simply stated that although my nieces public school is among the best in the state, she has learned more at home than there. The thing I'm upset about is the very thing you propose, the fact that parents in the US have become disengaged from education; and only see it as a way to "get rid of" their children. If parents took a more active role in education and had a choice of where their child went to school I think that would be a benefit. I'm not trying to claim my I can teach my niece any better than a teacher. sorry if misrepresented again. My point was that if parents were engaged and had a choice in where their child was educated; ie charter schools where a parent can choose to send their child to a private school(usually for less cost than a public school) they should have a right to decide where their tax dollars go.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

If you think it's logical to present Einstein's theory of gravity before Newtons then you have no idea how either work

So, which is more logical? Things fall at a predictable rate because they always have or things fall at a predictable rate due the mass of the objects involved?

[Alasdair]

So, which is more logical? Things fall at a predictable rate because they always have or things fall at a predictable rate due the mass of the objects involved?

now usually I would politely explain where your misunderstandings lie but I don't think you're very interested in anything more than being as smug as possible, so I'm not wasting a gravity lecture on you sorry =(

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

if you have some other understanding of the realities of gravity than I've been privy to I am curious to know. knowledge is my pursuit. life is not worth living if one does not understand.

[Alasdair]

god you're smug

[Fisherking]

So, so smug.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

god you're smug

yes, I am. But I want any information you have on any contradictory views. If my views are wrong I welcome any logical evidence to prove so. Logic is my master.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

I don't claim to have any knowledge other than what I have gathered. If my understanding of gravitation is flawed I welcome correction.

[Alasdair]

Here's the quick and dirty explanation:

Newtonian Mechanics and Gravity are very good approximations of the universe at most scales

It's only when you're dealing with the very big or very fast that you need the precision of Einstein and it's much much more complex

To properly understand general relativity you're going to need to understand newtonian gravity as it approximates the universe so you know the basics of what's going on before you dive into the complicated mess of equations of GR

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

Here's the quick and dirty explanation:

Newtonian Mechanics and Gravity are very good approximations of the universe at most scales

It's only when you're dealing with the very big or very fast that you need the precision of Einstein and it's much much more complex

To properly understand general relativity you're going to need to understand newtonian gravity as it approximates the universe so you know the basics of what's going on before you dive into the complicated mess of equations of GR

ok. but newton's laws were "concrete" einstein added the mass of a body and it's effect on space

I understand all you say; but I still fail to understand where I am wrong in my understanding. I admit, I am not one for the math of the things, but I would like to know where my understanding is wrong.

[Alasdair]

ok. but newton's laws were "concrete" einstein added the mass of a body and it's effect on space


Einsteinian gravity is a whole new way of describing gravity that only collapses to Newton's laws as an approximation, it's not just an addendum

the math is way too complex to explain over a forum though as much as I'd love to scribble maths out

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

Einsteinian gravity is a whole new way of describing gravity that only collapses to Newton's laws as an approximation, it's not just an addendum

the math is way too complex to explain over a forum though as much as I'd love to scribble maths out

So; you are saying that Newton's theory posits that a larger mass causes a greater gravitational pull due to that fact that it affects the space around it (as Einstein's does)

[Alasdair]

gravitational pull isn't due to the distortion of spacetime, gravity causes the distortion of space time so it ends up being non-Euclidean as well as attracting other mass. GR predicts that gravity warps space time (which it does), that doesn't mean the warping causes gravity

[Fisherking]

No, Newton famously said that he didn't have a bloody clue (though he did 'fingo' more than a few hypotheses), just that he knew that bodies exerted forces on one-another.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

so the mass of the object does not cause the warping? and that warping doesn't cause gravitation?

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

No, Newton famously said that he didn't have a bloody clue (though he did 'fingo' more than a few hypotheses), just that he knew that bodies exerted forces on one-another.

my point that Newton had "concrete" rules which he posited because they had always been.

[Alasdair]

in GR gravity still works "just cause that's what we see happen", the description of what it does has just changed

so the mass of the object does not cause the warping?

yes it does because of its gravity

and that warping doesn't cause gravitation?


nope, other way around

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

in GR gravity still works "just cause that's what we see happen", the description of what it does has just changed



yes it does because of its gravity



nope, other way around

So what causes the gravity in the first place if it's not the mass affecting the space around it?

[Alasdair]

gravity does

how does mass affect the space around it? (hint: it's gravity)

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

gravity does

how does mass affect the space around it? (hint: it's gravity)

so gravity causes gravity?

[Alasdair]

yeah, just like electromagnetism causes electromagnetism, existence causes stuff to exist, and pi causes the ratio of a circle's circumference to a diametre to be pi

tautologies mate

your idea of gravity has the same flaw: why does mass affect space? just cause? there's eventually a "that's just how the universe works mate"

[Alasdair]

the universe just has built in properties, like planck's constant is planck's constant, and mass exerts a force known as gravity. That's just what the universe does! Gravity does not only exert an attractive force on mass, it also distorts space time predictably so it is non-Euclidean - that's what gravity does!

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

well; the alignment of electrons causes electromagnetism to exist, and no one has posited a reason for why pi works; but math is for the theory of language philosophers. But Einstein did claim to answer gravity. And all the reading I've done is that mass creates gravity; not the other way around.

[Alasdair]

Yes, mass does cause gravity, gravity is a property of mass

gravity distorts space time and attracts mass

But Einstein did claim to answer gravity

No, gravity still isn't complete - general relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other, which is quite irksome because they are both very good at explaining what they do! They still need to be combined into a quantum theory of gravity.

well; the alignment of electrons causes electromagnetism to exist

no it doesn't, electrons are electromagnetic regardless of their alignment

alignment of electrons is what causes electricity to exist, not electromagnetism

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

"It's a very abstract thing," admits Wei Cui of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but the idea is that heavy objects distort space-time much as a bowling ball would distort a sheet supporting it.

[Alasdair]

yes, they distort with their gravity

the curvature tensors are a function of the gravitational field and the gravitational constant, I know the math behind this

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

so; then there is no reason for gravity other than gravity?

[Alasdair]

gravity is a property of the universe, yes

this property causes space time distortion and exerts an attractive force on mass

what more do you want?

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

ok; then not only what I learned personally; but even more so that which I learned through public education is wrong. And I will look into this more. Although; what you have posited is less logical than my current understanding.

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

However; I feel we have gotten away from my original point, that parents should choose what education their children receive and not the government.

[Alasdair]

tell that to Einstein's field equations

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

tell that to Einstein's field equations

so is your point that I should have told my niece things fall down simply because they fall down rather than telling her they fall down because the earth has a larger mass than the things which are falling?

[Alasdair]

gravity exists for the same reason that circles are round, it's a property of the universe

things fall down because of gravity which is described by the laws of gravitation

gravity also distorts space time!

(also the earth does fall slightly towards things when they are dropped, it's irrelevant which has a larger mass)

[Pure Milk Genius Productions]

ok; tomorrow we will discuss this further. My understanding of the subject is not as great as it should be.

[Kaygee]

make homeschooling illegal

Yes, institutionalized, dumbed down, government approved brainwashing for everyone!

[JackLawrence]

School is much about the environment than the actual curriculum. There are many things to be learnt from being with hundreds of people you're own age than being at home. Not to mention the fact teacher's trained to degree level in individual subjects are better than some wack-job dad.

[WesScog]

That's once again generalizing about what homeschooling programs are like, and what public school programs are like.

I was plenty socialized during the time I was homeschooled, and all the other homeschoolers I know would often have class with other homeschoolers in the area, and oftentimes go on field trips together.

Also, you take an accepting position on the credentials of a teacher versus the credentials of a parent.

MANY of my teachers during my public education experience had absolutely no qualifications to be teaching (or at least teaching individuals at the level they were) many of my High and Middle school teachers had only qualifications to teacher elementary and pre-school, and held their job because there was simply no one better.

Many of them had no real credentials at all, and were filling the position simply because they couldn't find someone else with an actual degree.

Also, why do you automatically assume that everyone who homeschools has "wack-job" parents?

My parents are perfectly sane, and had backgrounds in education and instruction. Neither of them are "wack-jobs", and both of them taught me plenty. When I went back to public school, I performed very well academically without a lot of effort, High School was just extraordinarily easy, and provided me with little to no real intellectual stimulation.

Of course my experiences are not everyones experiances, and my personal testimonial proves NOTHING. BUT I believe that my experiences at least prove that Homeschooling is not a negative, and that not everyone who homeschools is some "wack-job".

[Hugo_Fuchs]

This is part of the reason a lot of people object to homeschooling: Without any sort of firm plan or curriculum, you're really just learning disparate facts.


Apparently you haven't seen the curriculum of most public schools.

The problem with the dummy-down theory of learning is that the kids have to re-learn the same things again and again, rather than going through it once. That's not to say that you don't need to cover more basic things before more advance things, just that some things are simplified too much.

Example: Most people from a public education still believe lift of an aircraft wing is achieved by the air having to go faster over the top than the bottom.:rolleyes:

What people should work on is a progressive system of learning. Another point is, as I showed my niece, that the only way to really learn something is to go over the wrong answers until you can understand it. I've had to fill in for people, the gaps left by public education, in a number of age groups. There needs to be several ways of explaining concepts, as what is obvious to me instantly, is mystifying to others.

Other things that I find annoying are: Spending more time on Cursive writing other than getting good at signing your name. Unless you're studying antique documents, the only thing people use it for is a signature.

History: should be taught progressively, perhaps in two part classes - 1) World History 2) Your Country History. They also need to get rid of some of the well proven distortions that are in the average books. :eek: We also should focus some on geography.

English - Spelling should be stressed more, and how to write well. Trying to make your children learn what is an "Adverbial participle" or "non-finite verb" before they can construct a simple sentence is just plain crazy. I see it alot now. I think that should be pushed more towards middle school / Jr. High rather than grade school. Reading should be encouraged but the content should be set by at or above X-level.

Math - Cover basics, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division. Make sure they get this, tables 0-9. Then you can show correlations of more complex things. Most people can understand algebra, if put into non-mathematical terms such as: Pay - taxes - bills - savings = fun money.

Science - cover the basic theories, both evolutionary theories and non-evolutionary theories. Non-evolutionary theories comes up most as one sentence: God created everything. Evolutionary theories are a bit more complex. Simple biology/anatomy. And later, once they have a good grasp of math, I'd go into physics. I'd probably touch on other areas, just not in-depth until later.

Social theory, government, community - good for all ages, just would get more complex over time.

Art & Music - both need to have time.

Phys. Ed. - I'd probably put less emphasis on sports and more on health, nutrition, general exercise, etc. Competitive sports are better left extra-curricular for those who excel at them.

I'd probably say that schools should invest in digital book readers, rather than having them lug way too much weight around as physical texts. They should be in a damned-difficult to damge water-proof case. I'd get cell-frequency jammers legalized to be operated in-school during testing.

Tests should be about a thousand questions and a program should pick 10-100 of those to randomly put in the test. Each question should be rated by difficulty. Since most tend to be multiple guess, I'd say that about 10 possible answers would be best.

Less general homework probably determined by testing levels. If you can ace the tests, homework on the same subjects is detrimental to learning. Curriculums should be designed to be less boring.

... I'm sure I missed a whole slew of things, but the point is: public schools, as currently designed, need a severe overhaul. I see more home-schooled people making progress while a great number of students who attended public schools are falling behind.

[Alasdair]

Example: Most people from a public education still believe lift of an aircraft wing is achieved by the air having to go faster over the top than the bottom.


this is an acceptable approximation for people who don't design aircraft or do anything involving fluid dynamics

in fact you have to learn this explanation first to properly understand the real explanation, you have to learn why the approximation is wrong

[Fisherking]

[Hugo's school curriculum]

Sure.

The problem with this is not with the assumption that curriculum is fucked (it is), but that you and you alone have solved it.

There are some pretty important complexities you've glossed over. You want art and music programmes? Where's the money coming from and can you get the teachers?