How good is homeschooling? The people at the Friday forum believes it to be the best education a child can get. They believe it is more engaging and more efficient, where the student learns at a higher rate while learning to enjoy it. On top of these positives, there are no real negatives. They said the social aspects of home schooling is particularly not a problem, contrary to popular beliefs. While many of these arguments the forum said Friday was true, some of their points hold some problems.

Fist of all, it is true that homeschooling is probably more efficient than a regular classroom. Just think how good public education would be if there was 1 teacher for every 1-3 students. It would probably be much more efficient too. Because of this, home school education doesn't have to wait around for students of different learning speeds because not only are there fewer kids to account for. Also, siblings with similar genetic makeup and environment will probably be of similar academic capabilities, which would make for faster transition through material.

Also, it is also true that home school kids are more engaged and like school more. But why is this? Is it because the home school education is much better? Think about the kind of kid who gets home schooled. Is it the student with a poor home life and unintelligent parents? Usually not. It is usually the student who is from a good family; a family that is not only intelligent but a family that highly values academics. Why would a family that doesn't care about schooling take a kid out of school and teach them? When you then look at the students in pubic school that love to read and are engaged, it is the students with similar family lives and similar intelligence within the family. When looking at it like this, one would expect the home-schooled student to be high achieving in public school as well. Therefore, home school students make a homogeneous group. This means students that are home-schooled are not representative of the general population. Because of this, you cant compare the attitude, competence, or achievement of home schooled students with other student.

Is the social aspect of home schooling detrimental to the students? I think it depends on the perspective taken and the type of homeschooling. From my perspective, I believe the secular type of home schooling is not detrimental. I have known people from my school who were homeschooled but had many friends in public school. No matter where you go to school, neighbor children will become friends. I also knew some home schooled kids who were in extra-curricular activities at the public school. This seems like they are just regular kids.
However, I have also known home school kids from the religious type. The socialization aspect of this is much more different than that of secular. I know of parents of children who took them out of school because the kids at the public school were all bad and not good enough Christians. They disallowed their children to become friends with them; they could only befriend those of the highest piety. I think it is really hard to find "pious" 10 year old boys. Needless to say these kids did not have very many friends. As such, when they went to college, they had a hard time making friends and becoming involved with the students around them.
This is only my perspective. I see it as a problem because I have experienced having a lot of friends and I preferred that to having very few friends like I had before I went off to kindergarten. To home-school people, socialization is not a problem. Its not a problem because they haven't experienced the other side. To the religious family, they were better of for not having friends because they were better Christians for it. Because this issue is one of personal perspective, it is not really applicable in an argument requiring universal agreement.

As we see it now, home schooling is probably better quality education than that of public schooling. However, this is usually only true for those that choose to partake in public schooling. It would not be better education for everyone. For families that value and are involved in academia, public school will teach their children better. For families with poor parenting, home school would be much worse education than what the child would get in the public school.

So is homeschooling better or worse than public education? It depends. This is why it is inappropriate to directly compare and contrast between the two.

Is there a problem with teacher training?

I think the most efficient way to improve schools is to improve the training and ability of teachers. Many majors at college, especially biology and chemistry, are particularly difficult. It seems just about one in four incoming freshmen are pre-med or pre-dentistry or pre-vet ect. If all of these students were actually allowed to fulfill their dreams of becoming a doctor, I would be very nervous about going in for open-heart surgery. I only want the best of the best working on life or death issues that doctors must do. Because of this, it is important that the into to biology and into to chemistry classes at luther are "weed out" classes. In this way, hopefully many of the students who do not have the ability to perform at high levels will switch their major. Then only the smartest people are able to go to become doctors.

Is the Education Major like this? I don't think so. In fact, I know a couple people with less-than-adequate intellectual abilities to become education majors because they have been weeded out of 3 majors already. A friend from high school scored an 17 on his ACTs, which means he really has no business to be accepted into college in the first place. At Coe in Cedar rapids, he was weeded out of 3 majors because they were too hard. Because of these 3 majors, he was on academic probation. Not only did he became an elementary education major, he started geting over 3.5 GPAs and got on the deans list!!!!!! This person shouldn't even have been accepted into college!
I know another person at luther who is almost just like this.

My mother is a teacher, and she gets so mad when her school hires new teachers. They are mostly from Upper Iowa, which is a notoriously crappy school. These teachers who graduated from a horrible education program are getting the jobs at her school just because they are from postville originally. One of the new teachers diddn't even know alot of the educational terms used today like differentiated education, co-teaching, and the like.

I think it should be the Education Major that is weeding students out. Not every person who wants to become a teacher should be allowed to do so. Just like you wouldn't want even an average person doing surgery on you, why would you want a less intelligent person doing education on you or your children?

Of course the difference between being a doctor and and a teacher is about $100,000. That's why so many smart people want to become doctors. Since less really smart people want to be teachers, it is hard to weed people out and then have a shortage. However, if the teacher salary was increased, it would be good incentive to attract people that are pre-med caliber. If this was done, along with giving them a rigorous training program instead of one that anyone can graduate through, Education would be better.

If the issue is GPA or education quality doesn't predict who will be a good teacher, I would have to disagree. Of course this does not predict good teachers from one case to another, but few thing rarely do. However, I think if we looked at the GPAs and teacher quality over the thousands of teachers from the past half of a century, I would bet that the better teachers on average would be the ones that have high GPAs.

Im not sure why people have a problem with evolution being in schools. I talked about this alittle in a previous blog. Dr. maxfield did a good job of explaining that it is called the "evolutionary theory" not "evolutionary fact." What does this mean for people learning about evolution in schools? It means the same thing when you learn about how homo sapiens got to to the Americas? Did they cross a landbridge connecting Russia with Alaska? Did Egyptians come over on boats and thats how there are pyramids in central america? Was there Human ancestors here all along?

These are all theories, and I remember learning all of these reasons in ancient history in highschool. How silly would it be if my mother stomped into the school and screamed out the teacher for telling her about the theory of Egyptians coming over on boat. She would yell and say "we are a family that strictly believes in people coming from Russia!" In regards to human creation, we need to learn about all the theories. Learning about the theory doesn't mean believing in the theory.

Some say that, just like you cant express a certain religion in school, you cant express evolution-because evolution is a religion (atheism). I believe this viewpoint to be a little off base. The definition of Atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is not God." I will buy a coke for anyone who can show me that principle in an evolution textbook.

I think religion, but not God, should be in schools. Religion should be taught in the form of a cultural construct, no different than any other subject that might come up in a global studies/culture class. It should not be taught or discussed in the form of spiritual pursuit. If we approach in religion in this way, I dont think there would be much conflict in the issue.

When it comes to differences in religion, much of the difference comes from culture. I think religion should be learned by students in this context. For instance, if students are learning about China, The curriculum might be "The Chinese had historical dynasties, their main form of agriculture is growing rice, Their main form of religion is Buddhism and Confucianism. Buddhism originated 500 B.C.E and has these major beliefs: blah blah blah." The same can go for Christianity, Islam, Evolution, ect.

If taught like this, religion is nothing more than a culture aspect of one group of people or another, and really not that much different than wedding traditions or table manners. Why do People from India openly burp after a meal? why do people believe believe in nirvana? It's just part of their culture. If taught in this way, the theological debate of religion can be avoided, to a certain extent.

As far as Religious expression, I believe it should not be expressed in school. If done correctly as above, I do not believe this to be difficult. Should teachers state their religious stance to their students? After a lecture on Indian culture, would the teacher ever give their stance on how dumb it is that Indians burp to show their appreciation of the meal? No. Then why would A teacher give their stance on Christianity after some related topic came up.

Some students in the class said they would not have a problem expressing their views to students, saying "I have my views and I can tell them, and my students can take their own views." The problem with this is that the teacher is in a position of authority, and has unexpected influence. The point of teachers is to tell students information, and to have students believe them. I know electrons orbit around protons because somebody who is smarter than me figured it out and says its true. I know Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence because my High School history teacher told me he did. Why couldn't a student go home and say to his christian parents "Maybe Christianity isn't true, because my science teacher at school who knows alot about that stuff says it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint." If there ever comes an opportunity for a teacher to express his views about a subject about religion, they should say "it doesn't matter what I think, lets move on to chapter 2."

What about the present situations like saying the pledge of allegiance and praying after the football game? As my stance above, the pledge of allegiance should be taken as a cultural (American) tradition and not a christian religion. If you don't believe in God, or hate America, I'm sure you wont get in trouble for standing there like a bump on a log not saying it. But I think one must understand where you are (in America, whom is paying for your education).

I have been in other countries where christanity is not the preferred religion. In such contexts, I have been in situations where the majority was practicing religion I did not wish to partake in. I had to stand up and bow my head while somebody prayed to Allah for the meal we were about to eat. I relized I am in someone else's country (one nation under Allah) and i the guest will not about to go against those in their own land. I bowed my head and was singing a song to my self of something like that, no big deal. A man once prayed to Krishna for our safe return back to America. How awful it would have been for me to tell him I would prefer it if he would not do such a thing, As I think his religion is wrong. Again, I just stood there and daydreamed until he was done with his thing, then just move along.

In my opinion, Saying the Lord's Prayer after the football game probably shouldn't happen. However, I think this only because the coach or big-shot senior captian usually starts it, and they is in a position of authority (refer to above). However, people have been saying the Lord's prayer long before any of us went out for the sport. In a sense, saying the Lord's prayer is an aspect of HS football culture. My highschool football team said it after the game, and I remember if anyone really had a problem with it, they could just sit there like a bump on a log for 45 seconds and then life moves on.

Its like me being in different countries stated above. If I moved to Saudi Arabia in Highschool and played on the highschool football team (lets say they actually have one), I would put my money they would pray to Allah after the game. Wouldn't I be the stupid American who made a hissy fit about being forced to pray with the team. Or I could refrain from being the drama queen and just sit through it and daydream untill it was over, no big deal.
Maybe the strict society centered around Islam would punish me severely for not participating in the Religion against my values. Well that would be a sad story; But for all those in America, just thank the country you are in who doesnt force you into saying the pledge of allegiance or the football prayer. You can just sit it out! But dont make the people of America sit out as well.

This blog may seem contradictory of itself. I say religion should not be spiritually expressed in school, but one should not argue if people do it. In closing I say This: Religion will be less of an Issue if it is treated as a cultural construct and not one of spirituality. That being said, one culture may be the majority and dominate over others. No one is ever going to stop that. In that case, just be thankful that the dominating culture you are presently in is pretty lenient considering the rest of the world.

During class, it seemed that most were opposed to the idea of promoting chocolate milk in schools. These people brought up many fine points like 1. is it not as healthy as regular milk 2. the Decorah students were consuming more sugar than they needed to in one day 3. there is alot of extra sugar in chocolate milk. All these arguments add up to the big idea that chocolate milk is promoting obesity and unhealthy lifestyles in today's students.
The three points against chocolate milk are un-arguable. These three are all fact, and no denying it. We all know chocolate milk has got sugar; we all know its less healthy than regular milk. However, is this really a problem?

1. chocolate milk is not as healthy as regular milk. there are about 23 grams of sugar in chocolate milk. There are, however, 11 or 12 grams in regular milk. This is 11 or 12 grams of sugar more than a glass of water. Is water healthier than milk (technically yes). maybe we should just not have milk (or juice, which has about 20 grams of sugar in 8oz) at school at all...only water. The argument to this is that the sugar in regular milk is "natural sugar" this is in the form of lactose, which is basically the same chemically as sucrose, which is the extra sugar in chocolate milk. Both forms of sugar are treated the same in the body. Both are stored as glycogen in the muscles and turn into fat if not worked off within 48 hours of being consumed. In this sense, extra natural sugar is really no better than extra added sugar. My mother was recently diagnosed as pre-diabetic. This means if she does not control her sugar intake, she will become diabetic. My mother was sad "oh no!.. no more treats!" Actually, the doctor said candy and sweets were ok, but she needed to cut down on her complex sugars more. These are the sugars found in carb-loaded foods like bread (natural sugars). This goes to my next point.

2. The Decorah kids were consuming more sugar than they needed to a day due to chocolate milk. If a student is only supposed to have 36 grams a day, that means only 24 oz of milk.. no more! What if you want a glass of orange juice (20 grams of sugar). There is even about 5 grams of sugar in a serving of vegetables. If you get 4 or 5 servings of healthy vegetables a day, that adds up to 20 or 25 grams of sugar! (even if it is "natural" sugar). Not to mention the bread and grains you consume.

3. The extra added sugar in chocolate milk. Obviously children today are getting a lot of sugar. Chocolate milk is obviously a contribute. However, is this really a big issue in schools: too much consumption of chocolate milk that contributes to obesity? I don't believe it is. Back in high school, I bet many of the athletes consumed at least 200 grams of sugar (natural and added) a day. These people were also under 10% body fat. How? Because they got up and did something every single day. Earlier I stated Sugar is stored in muscles as glycogen for about 48 hours, then turned to fat. When you work out, this energy storage in muscles is the first thing to be used (about the first 30-60 minutes of a workout). If you workout past this point, you begin to burn off your fat storage. Therefore I argue promoting sugar-loaded in chocolate milk is only an issue in schools if students are not getting their recommended hour of play/exercise a day. When did child obesity begin to be an issue in this country? Was it around the same time chocolate milk was discovered or about the time color television, cable, and Nintendo were all invented? Decorah schools put the winning money towards wellness/health/exercise areas. If these areas flourish in Decorah schools, I believe all the chocolate milk consumption was worth it.

In the issue of "are liberal arts degree's too liberal" I would have to say that I think they are. It is important to be in a field you are interested and like, but I think some liberal arts routes are just too relaxed. I think a college graduate should take classes outside of their major field; they should know how to invest, how to do taxes, complex issues in the political and economics scene. I don't know any of these things. I learned history and some science, a foreign language and religion. This has developed me further and I think that is very important. However, from my liberal arts education, I now know how to carve Norwegian style fine handcrafts, I know how to play racquetball, and how to fly fish, And I know how to play guitar and do improve acting.
These are all good things for society, and I do think it is important for people to get outside of their box and experience other things, but not for school credit. If I want to learn how to play racquetball or play guitar, that's something I can do on my own.
Another issue about education if it is for the common good. Some say that being a music major is important because music is an important part of culture, and it develops us as better people. You can also get a job with a music degree, so why not? And then in that regard some say "If I cant get a job, its my own fault. I knew that was a risk going in to being a dance major."
What I don't understand is the difference between music/dance and basketball. People play music or go to concerts for fun; it is a past time. Dance is for fun, people go out on the weekends to dance. Basketball is also for fun, people do it for a pasttime. So why can't I be a basketball major? Why couldn't Carmello Anthony or Dwayne Wade have been a basketball major in college, they would have used their degree. Music majors graduate and get jobs as choral directors, why cant you major in basketball and become a coach. Who would make a better basketball coach, a history major or a basketball major?
The thought does sounds kind of ridiculus for giving out a bachelor degree in basketball, that is my point. But in the same perspective, I really don't think Theater/dance should be one eaither. If you like basketball, you go out for the sport and play it after class from 4:00 to 7:00 or whenever. If you are good enough, you might do it as a job someday just like everything else. I think maybe theater/dance, could be the same way. If you want to dance thats fine, take a dance class or club from 4:00 to 7:00 every night and maybe you can go do some performances on saturday afternoon at different schools. But should a dance major or basketball major graduate with the same degree as all of these difficult academic majors?

There is a lot of talk about achievement gaps. The talk is usually centered around gaps between cultures, races, and socio-economic groups. There is alot of evidence for this, but are these arnt the only issues in the equality conflict. Boys, especially in reading, are getting out scored by girls as well. The point of this blog is not to identify the reasons for this problem, but more on possible solutions.
Should we separate boys and girls into by class rooms? No, that would be just like saying should we split hispanic and white students into different class rooms or we should split black and white students into different classrooms. In actuality, I think that is more of the goal in urban settings, to have more equity in schools through diversity. Differential instruction sounds like a good idea, but teachers have been supposedly using that for years. We have to look at the data to find the correct solution.
Some people of the class today seemed like they opposed the notion of research-driven interventions in schools. I guess from a broad view "the data" looks like a bad technique because of the issues of standardized scoring and bias on tests. However, I would like to ask those opposed to data-driven action what they would rather use. Something that is not supported by research?? Would you take medication that wasn't supported in the Lab first? Probably not. Would you use a certain instruction book that hasn't showed quality outcomes in research? So why would you want to instruct in a way that has not been supported.
Standardized testing has caused some issues because no test is perfect. This makes it hard to make "no child left behind" a reality. In the issues of boys, you might find research that shows quality results for differentiated sex classrooms. I'm sure you can also find research that shows that differentiated sex classrooms don't work well. Obviously somebody is worng, or they are measuring different things, or looking at it a different way. But the solution is not to throw the data out. The solution is actually to create more data to continually find better answers.