Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » AT LEAST THE URL IS CORRECT

    Filed at 12:47 pm under by Tim Haas

    Wow, a flashback to 1985:

    Home schooling a small child stunts his emotional and psychological growth. It’s at school that a child learns how to communicate with his peers, respect those different from himself and to work as a team to accomplish goals. No, matter how loving and nurturing a home, it can’t replace a school as a crucible for social development.

    A dog that’s been confined to a kennel for years will not make a good pet and a child who’s been confined to his home during his formative years will find it extremely difficult to adjust to the real world. We don’t need any more Jerry Dalhmers and Paul Hills let loose on our society.

    After the Akron onslaught, I can’t even work up a sigh over this one.

    13 Responses to “AT LEAST THE URL IS CORRECT”

    Comment by
    Jeff the Baptist
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 1:23 pm

    Wasn’t the serial killer named Jeffrey Dahlmer not Jerry? The rest of it seems about as credible. Socialization is a concern, but honestly it is one most home-schoolers have a good handle on.

    Comment by
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 1:24 pm

    Um, retired racing greyhounds have been kenneled for 2-4 years, and make great pets, especially for families with children.

    The more I think about it, the more I think the “socialization” issue is a red herring. I have a two year old, and it’s pretty clear to me that one of my jobs as a parent is to “civilize” him — give him manners and teach him the behaviors that are acceptable in society. Why on earth should I give a major part of that instruction over to kids in g-schools that haven’t even been completely civilized by their parents yet? I certainly don’t let him work things out alone with the other two year olds he plays with – they’re closely supervised.

    I think homeschoolers actually have the advantage on socialization. Schools, with their ill mannered and ill behaved kids (cliques in kindergarten???), lack of adequate supervision, and classes that are rigidly segregated by age are the ones who should be explaining just what they can do differently to get kids appropriately socialized.

    Comment by
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 1:31 pm

    Sheesh. You can tell that he’s just spouting off without doing any research. When he says that most homeschoolers are religious zealots and that homeschooling stunts a child’s emotional development, he cites no source. I don’t think he spoke to any homeschoolers or even to any public school advocates for their opinions about homeschooling. And based on that he wants to criminalize something!

    Is he aware that private school teachers are not required to have teaching credentials either? Not in California, anyway.

    And unless Jeffrey Dahmer (I assume that’s who he’s referring to!) and Paul Hill (who’s that?) were homeschooled, he’s undermining his own argument.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 1:50 pm

    Well, according to this page, Dahmer was a g-school student. And Paul Hill murdered a doctor who provided abortions. I’m pretty sure that Paul Hill is not the same one who teaches at Stanford and has written about homeschooling and other education issues.

    Comment by
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 1:53 pm

    What a moron. But wait! There’s more:



    Obese Kids Are Less Violent And Less Likely To Get Pregnant

    By Robert Paul Reyes
    Oct. 19, 2004

    American children are fatter than ever before, but they are far less violent and far less likely to get pregnant, according to a recent government report.

    The Report on America’s Children, released by the National Institutes of Health and the Census Bureau, shows that fewer teens are giving birth, but the number of overweight children aged 6 to 18 has more than doubled since 1980.

    The reports says victims reported 17 violent crimes per 1,000 juveniles aged 12 to 17, or 413,000 juvenile crimes in total. “This is a 67 percent drop from the 1993 high and the lowest rate recorded since the national victimization survey began in 1973” the report reads.

    The report makes it clear that there is a definite correlation between fat kids and a plummeting teen pregnancy rate. Fat kids are much less likely to get laid. The government should combat teen pregnancy by opening its own chain of fast food restaurants. These fast food joints should be located next to middle schools and high schools.

    Fat kids don’t have sex and they don’t fight either. It takes too much energy to engage in fisticuffs, energy that could be more efficiently expended biting into a Big Mac, therefore fat kids are experts at employing diplomacy to prevent fights.

    Obese kids are a small price to pay for falling teen pregnancy rates and a drop in teen violence. If your 13 year old daughter is starting to flirt with the kid next door, encourage her to go to Burger King. If your teen son is getting into too many fights, drop him off at McDonalds for dinner every day.

    About the author Robert Paul Reyes: I am a columnist for the Lynchburg Ledger.

    Email: rreyes4966@aol.com

    Comment by
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 3:27 pm

    This is laughable. I gave the article a fisking at my blog. Wonder if there’s any job openings for him at CBS? They could use a reporter that has no idea what he is writing about.

    Comment by
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 7:59 pm

    hahahaha, the obesity article completely made me forget what i wanted to say about the other one. Oh well, guess I’ll go back to educating the new and improved version of the dalton gang. 😉

    Comment by
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 8:11 pm

    I remember back when my dsd was 7 years old. She stated that baby formula was healthier for babies than breastmilk. I told her that it was the other way around, but she continued to insist that she was right, criticizing me for continuing to breastfeed my toddler.

    Rather than letting it slide or even waiting until we were in private (we were in the presence of my mother), I piled the facts on her until she was forced to recant (I’m a midwife, so I had plenty of ammunition).

    Then I told her, “The reason why I’m hammering you on this is because there are some grown-up people who do the same thing. They get an idea in their mind on a subject they don’t know anything about, and they start telling it to everybody like it’s a fact, and they won’t believe anything different even if someone gives them real inf0rmation. And I don’t want you to grow up to be one of those people.”

    Maybe I saved the world from another Mr. Reyes.

    Comment by
    November 24th, 2004
    at 8:49 am

    If the premise is true….. then….

    There is an optimum standard class size and an optimum standard school size and an optimum standard town, village, and city size, etc….. Are these standards universal – across economic and religious backgrounds? Apperantly, the social background cannot be the issue, can it?

    How did small towns and rural schools ever turn out an educated child with an ability to socialize? There was not standard class size, some were combined with different ages present, and some are segregated based on age – which is correct?

    If the premise is true – what about the opposite. Exposing children to a wide range of other children and other childrens social and anti social behavior MAY result in crating a situation that is harmful to the child.

    What parts of society has all people the same age always socializing only within their age group?

    Schools (traditional), Nursing homes? retirees?

    I know in the workplace – a wide range of ages are present….

    So what is the social aspect of a traditional school – and what is gained or lost by not being in one? It is a hollow argument without basis….. Both within and external to the “school” people can learn to socialize or learn to be anti-social. It is not the sole factor and has not been shown to be the only cause and effect of social/anti-social behavior.

    Comment by
    November 24th, 2004
    at 9:44 am

    For what it’s worth, I emailed this clown and asked him what his sources were, how he did his research, etc. No response yet. No surprise there. Have a great holiday, everyone!

    Comment by
    Eric Holcombe
    November 24th, 2004
    at 2:49 pm

    I must admit, the site IS most appropriately named…

    Trackback from
    The Untergeek
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 4:19 pm

    Listening to Robert Paul Reyes: Not A Good Idea

    We’ll start with just a tiny little snippet: (Hat tip: HS&OES) Home Schooling; Not A Good Idea
    Home schooling poses a serious threat to our educational system. Laws should be passed making it illegal for parents without a teaching credential to home…

    Trackback from
    November 23rd, 2004
    at 5:59 pm

    It’s almost too easy

    Fisking this is so easy I almost don’t want to bother. But since I haven’t posted anything in two days…….