Rew at Powerliberal read my post the other day, about the California ruling that, at the moment, looks likely to ban homeschooling in California…
…and she took exception.
Or disagreed.
Or…something.
Oh, she thinks she made a point…:
Whenever a profession sets up “credendials”, especially credentials administered by the government, the purpose is very rarely to promote a better professional service; it’s to constrict the supply of those professionals.
Mitch –
When you go to court, do you look for a lawyer who has passed the bar, or do you just grab that guy from down the street because he seems to talk real good?
Actually, the former is the only option I have. But I look for someone who talks real good, and knows something about representing whatever sort of case I’m involved in because – this may be shocking – merely passing the bar doesn’t make someone a good, or even a competent, lawyer. It merely means that someone has passed the bare minimum that the state licensing body says is necessary to be a lawyer.
Once you’ve found someone who’s passed the bar exam, that’s really just the beginning.
Stay with us, liberal kidz. The fun is just beginning:
When your children need surgery or break a bone, do you take them to the hospital, or just grab the knife or try to set it yourself?
Check out the statistics for people doing their own surgery, or representing themselves in court. Not good, right?
Check out the stats for homeschoolers. To continue with Robin’s comparision, it’s almost as if do-it-yourself surgeons achieved 30% lower mortality than board-certified physicians!
Of course, teaching kids is not surgery. One is teaching them, for the most part, to do and be things that one already is and does. You don’t need a piece of paper from the state to do that, for the most part. .
Some parents are smart and qualified enough to school their children at home.
And the state teachers’ union is the last body that should try to decide which ones they are.
A test is just to ensure those parents are the ones who do the teaching, not just any person who picks up a book and says “I’m teaching now.”
It’s only two sentences. And yet there are so many possible responses:
- The only difference between a schmuck who picks up a book and says “I’m teaching now” and a “Certified Teacher” is a piece of paper that says “I passed Theory of the Eraser 352 at UW Stout”.
- Like with lawyers, the piece of paper is meaningless…
- …only moreso, since there’s very little about a teaching certificate that implies any actual ability to “teach”things to “children”. And if you disagree, don’t come yapping to me; take it up with my dad, who taught for 40 years, and still teaches the occasional class at his town’s college Education program. It’s his opinion. Some people got it, and some people ain’t, and a state certificate has very little to do with telling the difference.
- Indeed, a teaching certificate’s main purpose isn’t teaching people how to teach. It certifies one can teach a big room full of kids. If you can’t see the difference between that and homeschooling, the sassy snarks pretty much write themselves.
- Would that the whole crew at MNMon – who took on the role of “journalist” with, if anything, vastly less preparation and qualification than the typical homeschool parent takes on their responsibility, and whose results are dismally less impressive, would apply the same logic to their own efforts.
- For that matter, where does this “official is better” “logic” stop? I mean, Rew and Smartie – shouldn’t you have your baby in a licensed daycare, right now? After a.., a test is just to ensure the right people do the child-rearing, not just any person who can create a zygote. Right? Where do you stop with this “logic”? (Hint: If the DFL absorbs the “Daycare Providers’ Union”, watch out).
- More seriously, who does Rew think is better at getting through to kids than their own parents? And if she thinks she knows all the answers now, give it about six to twelve years, and wait until the first know-it-all teacher tells her otherwise.
Let’s put it this way; if you engage any professional purely on the basis of a piece of paperwork, you probably deserve the results you get.
The problem, of course, is that with doctors and lawyers, you can pick and choose; in the public school system, what they give you is what you get.
Our daughter homeschools and does an excellent job (in ND, which is pretty restrictive. There is oversight and testing). Some thoughts:
1. Teachers present curriculum. Pure and simple. They may explain what is being taught and enlarge upon it (if they’re knowledgeable at all and not lazy).
2. Think back over all your teachers over the years. How many stick out in your mind as being qualified or “good”? I have two or three. Period. My kids had a science teacher (high school level) that would write the assignment on the board and then sit back and read the paper and eat snacks out of his drawer. My daughter said at the time that she could have taught the class at that rate. Parents “got involved” and tried to get rid of his worthless ass, but GUESS WHAT?! Nothing ever happened-he was going nowhere and the union was the reason. Kids graduated from here with a horrible science foundation.
3. Bottom line. All over this country, people are ignorant as all get-out (ask them geography or “recent” history questions). They know NOTHING…and they were “taught” by “qualified teachers”.
4. My kids are my business. The state would NOT interfere.
Medicine is a profession. law is a profession. Teaching is a job.
One of the criteria for a “profession” is a governing body that sets standards, along with a body of knowledge that is part of the canon of the field.
Teaching does fit the rough outlines of that description (in a way that journalism, for example, does not). The real question is, what does a teaching certificate tell us?
A medical license tells us that a doctor passes a threshold of knowledge to be allowed to treat people. Passing the bar means someone knows in pretty fair detail how the law works. So what DOES a teaching certificate mean?
I do know the answer, but I figured I’d ask to see if Rew pops up.
I would have to disagree when it comes to elementry teachers. You have a room with 30 kiddies in it and you have to teach them from a low starting point.
The best teachers I had were these old ladies who got their start in one-room schools. They were strict as hell….I think I spent more recesses sitting inside then going out…..but learned a lot from them.
Aren’t the three traditional ‘professions’ Medicine, Law, and Clergy?
Terry, you missed the oldest profession.
Correct me if I am wrong – but you do NOT have to be a lawyer to address the court. Anybody can, right? It’s just that the lawyers are supposed to know the case law and can figure out the loopholes better than an average John Q Public. If I am indeed correct, then the lawyer arguement in non sequitur to begin with.
And Terry – you forgot to list the “oldest” profession.
Actually, if you look at the law profession, you still have to choose carefully. For example, hiring a “lawyer” is VERY different from hiring a litigator and for an important task it’s like asking your general practitioner to do brain surgery on you.
Teaching is a skill. A professor often doesn’t have it these days since they’re judged more on grants and papers rather than teaching ability. This shows in particular for most education departments since the focus is coming up with the “new and improved” rather than finding out if it’s better than the old since professors get judged on publications.
Check out the GPA of your education department at your nearby college sometime to see what they think of the quality of educators. You’ll be amazed how well they think of themselves as compared to folks whose work is more rigorously evaluated.
You have a room with 30 kiddies in it
I’m not ready to stipulate that sitting in a room with thirty kids is necessarily the best way to learn.
“thirty kids” I agree, it should be no more than 24 *grin*
Nice job Mitch, I left my own comments over there before I saw your reply. My wife knows she may reach a point in some subjects where her knowledge is no long able to keep up, thankfully the coursework options will fill the gap or we can choose other options. That is the beauty of homeshooling, you can build your program to match the situation or child, plus we re-assess our situation each and every year.
Oh yeah, our #1 was reading at the age of four and is doing 1st grade math as a Kindergartner while #2 child, now 3, is already sponging up the math while she overhears mom do math with #1. What a horrible state of affairs! (I had to brag up my wife, thanks for tolerating.)
Colleen,
I know a person, now late twenties, whose parents lead the fight in ND to get the rights homeschoolers now have there. This guy remembers his trips to the capitol as a child and the whole bit.
Just Plain Angry: I can speak only to the law of Minnesota, which may differ from your jurisdiction; but here, you’re wrong.
A natural person who is a party to the case can address the court without a lawyer.
A natural person who is not a party to the case cannot address the court without either (1) being called as a witness or (2) being admitted to the bar.
A juridical “person” (an entity that exists only by reason of law, such as a corporation) cannot speak to the court, since it doesn’t exist. Its officers cannot speak for it, without being admitted to the bar.
A natural person cannot represent another person without being admitted to the bar. Unauthorized practice of law is a crime.
Minnesota provides very narrow exceptions for conciliation and housing court and for crime victim impact statements. Check the laws in your jurisdiction for differences.
.
In some ways, I would dare suggest that the practice of law and medicine may be harmed by the training. At certain times, I’m very glad the ER doctor has gone through those 24 hour shifts and 20 credit-hour terms in med school–it means that he hardly needs to think about what he needs to do to make sure I don’t assume room temperature.
On the other hand, I’ve also seen cases where those long shifts have simply selected people with a high tolerance for tedium and a low innate creativity–one wonders whether the tradeoff is worth it.
And teaching? Well, my great aunt entered the field in 1933 with one quarter of college, and managed to teach almost all of her students to read by the eighth grade. Today, teachers with 10x the resources and a master’s degree must confess that 20% of their high school graduates are functionally illiterate.
The correlation between teacher training and student results is, to put it mildly, negative.
Doesn’t Robin claim to be a journalist?
What are her credentials?
Well, she has a code of ethics that she follows about as well as Congresscritters follow theirs. And she’s about as independent from her funding source as most Congressmen, too.
Credentials? We don’t need no stinkin’ credentials!
Wow, nate, you must be a lawyer. You took six paragraphs to say:
If you’re not a lawyer, you can’t represent anyone in court but yourself.
The comparison of a teacher to a physician breaks down immediately when one realizes that a physician, after a bachelor’s degree, four years of medical school, an internship and three years of supervised work as a resident, must have achieved success. A teaching credential requires nothing of the sort.
Regards,
Ted
Cool, AC. Do I get a Rolex and a Beemer now?
.
nate, thanks for clear and concise clarification. It is always nice to hear an informed reply rather than a one-line OT snipe.
One other thought.
Robin is pro-choice when it comes to killing an unborn child,
but not when it comes to home teaching Algebra II.
Very strange world she lives in.
A non-juridical, natural person said: “nate, thanks for clear and concise clarification. It is always nice to hear an informed reply rather than a one-line OT snipe.”