Splintering our Education System based on FAITH

In case you are unaware of it, the fact is that homeschooled children generally do MUCH better overall than public schooled children. Existing religious schools have no problem with accreditation so I don't know what you are worried about.

Are you at all aware that the first universities in Europe and America were founded by Christians for the purpose of giving a specifically Christian education, that in fact they aimed to give future pastors a solid liberal education, that prayer and chapel service were part of the curriculum, that Bible was foundational? I'm talking Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Holmes. Are you aware of any of that? What kind of strange idea do you have about a Christian education anyway?

Poppycock. The students I hope Christian schools will start turning out could ace any exam on any subject and think better than the examiners.

Don't know if that's possible because the level of education in such a school would start attracting secularists anyway.

How about reading the essay by Dorothy Sayers I linked. Nothing you said is worth responding to. Invincible ignorance seems to be the standard of most posters at this website.

Your ignorance of the success of homeschoolers is remarkable considering that it is well known. There may be better articles than the following on the subject, I don't know. I did only a cursory search.

I'm not down on home schooling but these articles you linked to are sort of comparing apples and oranges as they are comparing home schooled to public schooled when a more correct (in my view) comparison would be to compare the home schooled only to public schooled students with highly involved parents. I'm of the opinion that parents that home school there children are more involved in their children's education then the average public schooled child's parents are. I think having parents highly involved in their childrens education, makes more of a difference than whether the student was public or home schooled.

The whole essay was intended to give a view of education that is completely different from whatever holmes is imagining, a picture of rigor in academic disciplines. The medieval curriculum of the Trivium and the Quadrivium is what she proposes, the Trivium being designed to give young children the tools for thinking and solving problems and communicating well, such as Latin, foreign languages, Logic, Grammar, Debate, upon which the Quadrivium later builds, which is particular subject matter. She covers a great deal of territory rather briefly, and the whole thing is relevant, I believe, to the subject of education in general, and it's a fun essay to read

I then asked if this would not result in the splintering of education based on all sorts of different beliefs, such that we'd have to allow flat earth belief, nonheliocentruc belief, Newtonian (vs Relativistic) belief, the Holocaust never happened belief, etc etc?

The Trivium is Elementary School, the Quadrivium roughly Jr. High to High School.

I guess you haven't had this conversation with Faith yet. She finds it unspeakably rude that you don't simply take her word for every assertion she makes.

One thing that has to be stressed and that is often overlooked in examination of Public School Systems is that the schools have no control over the quality of the raw materials they are forced to work with. Any non-public school system would be expected to do better simply because they have some control over the raw materials. The productivity and performance of students is not under the control of the teachers, it is the responsibility of the parents. If the parents are not motivated to prepare the raw materials, then the product that comes out of the school will be crap.

Yes home-schoolers do seem to test better as a group.That does not mean that people following the specific Curricula suggested by Faith (vague as it is) would do so.

I hadn't seen that, but my comments did accurately reflect the substance of conversations had in this thread. It was literally referred to as "rude" to challenge an assertion.

That basic commitment on the part of the parents goes a long way towards warranting the quality of the output. The simple fact that the parents have made a commitment to education, raised it to a level somewhat above universal daycare would likely increase the quality of the output product.

It's amazing but all the corroborating lines of evidence are like conspirators in a delusion. Evolution doesn't explain anything. The data is forced to fit it. And there are NO practical applications whatever. It is absolutely unnecessary to any of the practical business of science. It wastes time corroborating itself by multiplying delusion upon delusion.

The question begging is on the evolutionist side of this. Over and over I've been answered here by arguments that come down to nothing more than "Evolution is true because it's true."