....are primarily from two camps. Those who think anyone who chooses to HS is either doing it for religious reasons, or they see it as a threat/insult to public education.

I understand the history of the first issue. I don't think it's relevant, or current. Even in the cases it is - if someone wants to take their child out on religious grounds - that's their business.

I think the second part has merit - but not in the way the antis would think. There are resources available to parents (and groups of parents) that were unheard of a few years ago. I was reading one poster talking about how San Francisco works extensively with the HS parent. The resources and support have not only become available to make HS work for the "traditional" HS student. They are there so that - in the right circumstances - HS can be more attractive to a "typical" student and parent.

And I think what a good part of what the antis are not hearing is this - is that there are "good democrats" and public school/teacher supporters who, given the resources available, will be opting to homeschool.

If faced with the same types of circumstances, would be clamoring for their right to hs.

There are two theories at work for the issues of the teaching profession. Let's call one "the current political climate". Duncan, NCLB, funding - all the usual suspects. If that isn't enough of a hurdle - tell teachers to do the impossible and then measure them on irrelevant info. Nice job - sign me up

This political BS gamesmanship ignores the true threat. Someone, somewhere - be it a charter, a Gates, a Home School group, or some other entity is going to provide a large number (like a mid-size city) of spaces for a hands on 1-15 or 1-20, technology advanced, all the bells and whistles education programming, for free. In a PUBLIC SCHOOL. And they will shut the doors, check the cell phones at the gate, and will tailor (because they have time and money) specific programs designed for small groups of students.

And the demand won't come from big business - it will come from parents. And you know what - it will work. Because when it comes down to it - I don't think anyone is going to choose principal over a better quality education for their kids.

And before I get flamed - I am in not suggesting this is what I want to see happen - but I do think it is going to be what happen. So if the primary goal is how to preserve the art of teaching, how can that possibly be done in today's environment?

And we can say "more money from the public" - but that will not get traction. It's not working now, and I don't see that changing in the near future. Society today will demand MORE for the SAME money. They get it everywhere else, why not in education? And the problem is the teachers are powerless to provide what we want them to provide. They would provide it if allowed.

Sometimes it has nothing to do with the quality of the school or the teachers. Sometimes it's just about it being the best possible learning environment for the kid. Teachers take it WAY too personally that one chooses hsing. There are as myriad reasons to hs as there are reasons not.

We should pay teachers more. Recruit the BEST and the brightest, which we are not doing. I'm not questioning the dedication of most teachers, nor even the "intelligence". But let's face it, the vast majority of school's top performers are NOT choosing teaching as a profession.

We need Smaller classes. Much smaller. Differentiation. More awareness and teaching ability to address learning differences, be they gifted, challenged, disabled, emotionally different, or any possible combination of these. It is mind boggling to me that I knew more about learning differences than damn near ANY teacher I ever met. Hell, the vast majority still have never heard of dysgraphia or dyscalcula, or time sense disorder or any of a dozen other differences that should be addressed. They don't know they exist. They don't recognize the symptoms. They don't know how to accommodate them. Because they're not being taught a damn thing about them.

The sad part is, even if they were and did know, the classes are too large and the resources to scarce to do a damn thing. But it would be nice if they recognized and understood the real issues instead of labeling a kid as a troublemaker or beh or ADHD...

Currently - I think it is more that people choose HS for the environment rather than the academics. At least it was for all those in my family who opted for HS.

The bigger issue in the near future - unless the challenges you mention in your third paragraph are addressed in public schools, parents will eventually look elsewhere for quality. And someone is going to provide that option. It will be in the forms of charters, public/private partnerships, or there will actually be a huge increase in homeschooling.

What will happen is that the "haves" - the people that can afford the time to homeschool (or some other option) will do it, and the situation at schools will get worse. Because the people that really care about education will have pulled their kids out.

who homeschool. They make it work.

Remember, you're not restricted to learning between the hours of 8 and 3. Some have school at night! Some tag team because the parents work separate shifts. Or grandma helps out watching the kids while mom works and oversees that the work assigned is completed. Or not. Hs'ing takes many many forms. And it's done by all types of people from all walks of life. I'm here to tell you that there was only two "very well off people" in our entire hs group. The rest of us were middle or lower middle class for the most part, with a couple of barely scraping by.

It's a misconception that hs'ing is only for the well off.

Charter schools - in their original intent - are marvelous things. The for-profit - which were in the minority - is killing the charter movement in the long run. It comes down to state and local law and who decides who gets to found a charter and the rules under which it operates. If the state is lax, then the program is going to be detrimental.

My younger son attended two marvelous - independent, locally founded, and run charter programs. That's the way they were intended. Small, local, experimental - or doing things the public schools were not capable of, or inclined, to do.

No doubt it's turned into "big business" for some - which is a damn shame. Because a good charter, run well, can positively impact not only the kids who attend, but the entire community. For example, the 2nd school my son attended was (also) a Spanish immersion program because the Public schools didn't think it was a "good idea". Four years after it's inception - and waiting lists a mile long - and a demand by the citizens for more, they instituted Spanish immersion programs in every district in the city, and started developing middle school programs (which my son now attends. Though quite frankly, I wish they had extended the charter to upper grades and he could have stayed there because the Charter did a superior job of teaching than what the Public school has designed. )

....I am going to leave the wrong impression.

In a nutshell - the number of people who choose alternative methods to public school is currently "X". Some of those are home schooled, some charter, any number of methods and any number of reasons. What I am saying is that the number "X", for many reasons listed below, is going to get really big really fast.

But let's be realistic - in general - if one parent can be home full time to teach, the option of homeschooling is more feasible. If a group of parents from one community can all stay home, and share responsibilities, it is more feasible. That is just reality. And those people are more likely to be more well off. It's not an indictment of them - it is just that is an option that is open to them. But for arguments sake - let's just say it is more feasible to the top 50%.

The bigger "X" gets, the more of the top 50% it will be, and the level of support for public schools then will make the current environment look tame.

As the education options available to parents grow, it will only increase the divide. Somebody is going to make current, targeted, specialized education plans available to parents, in a good, safe teaching environment. There may be a "homeschool" company that partners with a school districts or private universities. Or it will be charters, Gates, a quasi-gov't/private venture funded by Apple.

But it won't be from the public sector. Anyone who is holding out that hope is going to be disappointed.

In this day and age - people want options - and they will be provided them or they go somewhere else. This is what is happening to - and this is an important difference - schools. Let's pull the concept of "The Art of Teaching" out separately and put it aside

Name me one other profession than "schools" where the actual implementation looks as "old style" as it did 15 years ago. Accounting? Travel agent? Newspapers? There are huge changes coming - and there should be.

We have to give teachers the correct venues for them to work. And unfortunately getting from where we are now to where we need to be will not come from public funds.

will make the school you describe. And folks who want their kids to go there will *pay* for the privilege, and also pay taxes to fund crappy cut rate public prison schools for the poor. The rest of education will eventually be privatized, and tiered by income.

*That* is the blueprint. And the corporations providing that private education will be global. They are already waiting in the wings.

And people who pay attention to education policy know that many of the dysfunctional aspects of public schooling are that way because of government policy, and in my opinion, on purpose.

And as for the poster with delusions that "choice" will remain once the transition is fully underway, and that people will continue to be allowed to make their own little school, and tag team, and bring the neighborhood together to teach each others children -- dream on. You will attend an accredited school a/o use an accredited curriculum if you want your kid to get a foothold on the ladder, and you will pay a corporation for the privilege.

it's because I don't think that is the main factor at work here.

People will take the best affordable education option available. For some that will be to pay for it (as it is now). For some it will be free public education. What I am saying is that, like any service, if you aren't satisfied with what you are getting people will look elsewhere. And they will have more and more options to public education as time moves on. Quality homeschooling, charters, whatever it may be, there will be options. And one of the others I mentioned - a quasi gov't/private hybrid. Public education needs both an infusion of money and technology.

Someone will come up with the bright idea that teachers teach. That their art and their contribution to society is best served putting them in the right sized classroom and giving them the right tools to succeed, and removing the BS. If the public system will not do that, a private one will.

Public education over the next 20 years will undergo radical transformation. Or it will fail. And some of those transformations required will go against the grain of the principle of what we know today as "public education".

RandySF had a very interesting post on pulling his child from a public school. I believe it was for bullying but I cannot remember exactly. I'll try to search and add it here.

That delusional poster you reference is me. And it happens today all across the country.

education deform.

it will be taken away once they get what they want, unless you can pay the freight.

The delusional poster i referenced was not you.

homeschoolers in the same neighborhood acting as a collective - my bad

If that's not the case - I am not sure what you are referring to in your post.

hmm nice sharing, I would like people to read it is written

yes was a very informative talk