No matter how you try to spin it, removing words from standardized tests to find a least common denominator of words, the rich kids, inner city kids, and coal mining hick kids all understand is "dumbing down"

It is idiocracy.

HockeyDad wrote:

Suck? 👻

madaxeman wrote:

I'm familiar with idiocracy, and I think there is more of a danger of getting there with home schooling,

FuzzNJ wrote:

Now you're afraid of home schooling? Home schooled children would know the words regatta, catilion, and debutante and know how to spell them.

The government knows more about educating children than their parents do. Quite a concept.

HockeyDad wrote:

The government? No, trained and educated teachers do. The parent teachers of home schooled kids I have known either. I would venture a guess that the majority of home schoolers do so because of religious reasons also, so a strong science background wouldn't be foremost on the agenda. Perhaps these are the ditch diggers you were referring to?

FuzzNJ wrote:

The government? No, trained and educated teachers do. The parent teachers of home schooled kids I have known either. I would venture a guess that the majority of home schoolers do so because of religious reasons also, so a strong science background wouldn't be foremost on the agenda. Perhaps these are the ditch diggers you were referring to?

FuzzNJ wrote:

I home schooled my 2 sons for 8 years then they matriculated to the local school system. Both have excelled in the sciences. They were not home schooled for religious reasons, most home schoolers I know do it because of lack of faith in their local school systems. I venture I may have a better slant on this than you may. Of course there are plenty of "valid" surveys out there that would prove me wrong.

Methinks you are stereotyping here with limited actual data.

hank56 wrote:

Do you know any home schoolers that became ditch diggers? Your trained and educated teachers are the government.

You want to be kept. You want to be taken care of. You want European democratic socialism, education from government approved teachers and curriculum, and a dumbing down of standardized tests so everyone does well.

Even President Obama wouldn't buy into that American dream.

HockeyDad wrote:

No, I am not saying that kids are unable to understand those words. I stated very clearly that these words are not part of their upbringing, nor or they taught in their school. I would not have known what a debutante was because I never came across one growing up. I also clearly stated that it would not be just inner city kids, but kids in the mountains of West Virginia, or anyone else who is poor.

Should I call you dumb because you don't know how to speak Cantonese or is it better to assume you don't know it because you never were exposed or taught the language?

Horrified? Really? Lighten up. I'm attacked here every single time I post because of what I do. Here I make a jab and you are horrified? Ridiculous.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Well, boo hoo TG, really. What about post 19 where the dude says he's not a racist and then goes on to explain in detail and with stereotypical language the exact situation, I mean exact that anyone in their right mind would consider racist? If everyone is equal, as conservatives argue, why the hell would he not check either person, or check both? Why did the rich looking man have to be white in the scenario and the poor looking one be black? And he's sick and tired of people calling him racist and sick and tired of minorities moving ahead of him because of their race. It has nothing to do with him at all, he's being kept back because he's white.

So yeah, I poked at the job because it's not a highly skilled one. It's where most people feel the need to scapegoat. You have HD on this thread saying the world needs ditch diggers implying that if they don't know certain words, too bad, unskilled job. And papa, in this unskilled, or low skill job is being beaten down by the black man.

Scapegoating at it's most basic. You may look at it as looking down or stereotyping, it's brutally honest and based on truth. Simple as that.

FuzzNJ wrote:

The government? No, trained and educated teachers do. The parent teachers of home schooled kids I have known either. I would venture a guess that the majority of home schoolers do so because of religious reasons also, so a strong science background wouldn't be foremost on the agenda. Perhaps these are the ditch diggers you were referring to?

FuzzNJ wrote:

How were you able to do that? Did you not have a job?

Great for your kids, fantastic.

And I do have a study actually, a 2003 study where 72% of home school parents said that providing religious or moral instruction was a reason they chose to home school. Perhaps in your circle of home school friends, this wasn't an issue. Perhaps everyone in your circle also emphasized science and not creationism, and the other things mentioned earlier.

Thing is there is data, and I'm not stereotyping, I'm providing opinions based on facts that are readily available for anyone willing to read.

FuzzNJ wrote:

"matriculated", "stereotyping"


You speaking rich suburban talk?

HockeyDad wrote:

How were you able to do that? Did you not have a job?

Great for your kids, fantastic.

And I do have a study actually, a 2003 study where 72% of home school parents said that providing religious or moral instruction was a reason they chose to home school. Perhaps in your circle of home school friends, this wasn't an issue. Perhaps everyone in your circle also emphasized science and not creationism, and the other things mentioned earlier.

Thing is there is data, and I'm not stereotyping, I'm providing opinions based on facts that are readily available for anyone willing to read.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Well, boo hoo TG, really. What about post 19 where the dude says he's not a racist and then goes on to explain in detail and with stereotypical language the exact situation, I mean exact that anyone in their right mind would consider racist? If everyone is equal, as conservatives argue, why the hell would he not check either person, or check both? Why did the rich looking man have to be white in the scenario and the poor looking one be black? And he's sick and tired of people calling him racist and sick and tired of minorities moving ahead of him because of their race. It has nothing to do with him at all, he's being kept back because he's white.

So yeah, I poked at the job because it's not a highly skilled one. It's where most people feel the need to scapegoat. You have HD on this thread saying the world needs ditch diggers implying that if they don't know certain words, too bad, unskilled job. And papa, in this unskilled, or low skill job is being beaten down by the black man.

Scapegoating at it's most basic. You may look at it as looking down or stereotyping, it's brutally honest and based on truth. Simple as that.

FuzzNJ wrote: