My point is that Joe is contrasting good family values vs the corrupting influence of money. The study shows that the families that home school have more money. Family incomes in this group were much higher then the median income of 1998 AND the Moms were able to stay at home AND Mom and Dad were more highly educated then the norm. So you are comparing a socio-economically advantaged population with the norm, then contrasing that with inner city kids that are motivated by money. Am I missing something here?
Ok if that was not enough Mr Attitude over Aptitude, who is so high and mighty about rejecting the achievement culture of public schools, is using a public school achievement metric in his argument.
Something is fishy and I don't think it is sole.
I have just a couple more points to make before going on to the next "Finding"... Not that
this one necessarily deserves so much attention, but just because I still have said points percolating in my mind...
To recap thus far (if I interpret the other comments correctly):
1. Joe sees fit to compare the incomparable, i.e., a socio-economically advantaged population with the whole student population, which includes kids from all socio-economic strata (btw, this is
exactly the strategy used by
some conservative charter school proponents to skew interpretation of school test results in their favor, i.e.,
they compare results with districts that include large urban districts instead of just their own, often more affluent neighborhoods).[/list]
2. Joe decries money-based incentives used by inner-city parents in an effort to better their kids' motivation to excel, saying, "this practice replaces the character quality of curiosity with the crass new value of personal gain." Geeeezzzz... Some folk can ill afford the "curiosity" when they are just barely surviving the economic gauntlet. For
shame that these parents should resort to gauche tricks in the hopes that their kids have a better life than they do.[/list]
3. Joe is using public school standards of comparison (i.e., standardized tests) to evaluate the relative strengths of a public vs. a home schooled education. These are, of course, but a small portion of the entire educational experience.[/list]
4. Joe cannot read or interpret data correctly. 'Nuff said.[/list]
Okay... Two more points:
5. The study Joe chose to cite may well be atypical. The demographics of the population in Lawrence Rudner's study would appear to be significantly different, on certain axes, than that found in a 2000–2001 Barna Survey of homeschooling parents. Wikipedia (
same article) summarizes those demographics as follows (italics as per original):
According to a 2000–2001 Barna survey,[61][62] home school parents are 39 percent less likely to be college graduates, 21 percent more likely to be married, 28 percent less likely to have experienced a divorce, and that the household income is 10% below the national average. Barna found that homeschoolers in the U.S. live predominantly in the Mid-Atlantic, the South-Atlantic, and the Pacific states. It found that homeschoolers are almost twice as likely to be evangelical as the national average (15 percent vs 8 percent), and that 91 percent describe themselves as Christian, although only 49 percent can be classified as "born again Christians." It found they were five times more likely to describe themselves as "mostly conservative" on political matters than as "mostly liberal," although only about 37 percent chose "mostly conservative", and were "notably" more likely than the national average to have a high view of the Bible and hold orthodox Christian beliefs.
One might even say that ... Joe seeks results to match his premise?
6. The reference to homeschooling in Joe's Finding #5 is not trivial. I imagine that home schoolers are, in fact, a significant portion of the target audience that
The Biggest Job materials are marketed to. Or, for that matter, the Hyde Foundation materials...
