by VorJack
I’m reading Robert Kunzman’s Write These Laws on Your Children, a collection of case studies about conservative Christian homeschoolers, and it’s got me thinking about the careful balance of rights and interests that come to play in homeschooling. Which is why this story jumped out at me from the Washington Times: Home-schooler ordered to attend public school
A New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school this week after a judge criticized the “rigidity” of her mother’s religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.
The ruling came down in July, and now I’m having problems finding anything about the case from a reliable mainstream source. Most of the reactions I’m finding are from Christian or homeschooler advocacy sources who are — not surprisingly — wringing their hands over the decision.
That said, it seems that part of the fight is a matter of custody and control. The parents are divorced but share decision-making authority over the 10-year-old girl and her education, along with a court-appointed guardian as mediator. The mother has homeschooled the girl since 1st grade, but the father now thinks the girl should attend public school. It now seems that the guardian is siding with the father for reasons that have to do with the girl’s religious upbringing. From the court order: “According to the guardian ad litem’s further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith.” (“New Hampshire Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school”)
The above article also has these telling anecdotes,
The guardian noted that during a counseling session, Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared “visibly upset” when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention. The guardian also noted that Amanda’s relationship with her father suffered because she did not think he loved her as much as he said he did due to the fact that he refused to “adopt her religious beliefs.”
It’s easy to spin this as an anti-religion ruling, which is exactly what the sources I’ve found are doing (Fox, WND). The judge isn’t helping matters with lines like, “[The girl's] vigorous defense of her religious beliefs … suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.” Assuming that’s not a misquote by the Moonie Times.
But it starts as a battle between divorced parents over the proper upbringing of their child. If we take the guardian ad litem at their word, the mother’s upbringing is giving the girl a narrow window through which to view the world. Regardless of the cause — religion, politics, neglect — this is a problem for the child. Robert Kunzman puts it extremely well:
We are all born into a culture that instills certain values, particular ways of understanding and evaluating the world around us. If we are to make those beliefs and commitments our own, rather than merely echoing what we are taught, we need to be able to critically reflect on out inherited way of life — not necessarily negatively, nor all at once. Philosophers since at least as far back as the Enlightenment have argued about what exactly it means to think independently in this way, but it generally includes awareness of other values, other ways of life, that might be pursued instead.
If both of the parents were in agreement, then the state would likely not interfere. But since the court must decide between two people with shared authority, the perceived harm that the mother is doing is enough to tip the scales in favor of the father. But it remains an explosive case.
The poor 10 year old girl was trying to witness. That amount of indoctrination should be considered child abuse. I bet the girl didn’t even now what half the stuff she spouted meant. The judge did right to get her out of there and have her meet people other than her mother; she could have been(And can still potentially be) very messed up later in life.
I was “witnessing” by 12, I know that. What a mess that was. But I don’t remember starting by 10. I was already heavily enough indoctrinated I know by 11 to get baptized with a very serious sense that I knew what this was all about.
German schools aren’t the best, but at least we have the legislated default position that children are to be made familiar with different worldviews and must have free access to education in a socially adequate manner. This principle excludes homeschooling altogether, except for special cases. Sometimes even our law caves in – there has been a case where a small group of cultists simply refused to send their children to school, even after being fined, so the court ruled that they would have to have an appointed observer attend their private ‘school’ sessions at their compound. Yay to fundies for causing society more expenses.
Felix, it’s a challenge to define “best”, but having hosted exchange students from Germany I can attest that even the “C” students from your system run rings around US students on many levels.
That might be in part because they still grade in Germany like you’re supposed to where C means average and is the average grade. Unlike in America where a B is supposed to be average. The way we’re trending in America it will soon be that an A- is average and B+ is tantamount to failure.
to clarify, when I say in America a B is supposed to be average I am referring to the mindsets of parents and students, not official school policies in most places.
I know in my school district they have artificially raised the percieved grades vs. national averages by making anything below 70 percent complete failure(most other places have 50% as the failure line from what I’ve read), and anything less then 90 seem like you are stupid. this pushes grade scores up without anyone actually needing to be smarter! what a great scam. I mean it kinda enforces that everyone thats not getting A’s feel like morons and tends to make them stop caring about learning at all, but whatever, we look really smart on paper!
Likewise, homeschooling simply does not exist over my piece of world.
Unfortunately, it’s the mother’s right to instill whatever insanity she wants in her child’s brain for as long as she is a minor and mom has custody, no? Shouldn’t Dad try to get custody of her?
It’s sad, though. Carrie comes to mind.
They had joint custody, which means that even if she lives with her mom most of the time, the dad has equal say in her raising.
Ah, gotcha.
Neither do here. Parents have to send their childs to school. Even when it is a private -mostly religious- school, the school has to achieve some standards so the kid has a minimum education garanteed.
I think the right of the childs to have a proper education is above the right of the parents to educate them. Of course, you could always indoctrinate them when they get home, but at least they are going to be able to eventually choose because they could see other options
I have never heard the problem stated like this before. It seems foundational.
Yeah, it seems to me like another fight between individual freedom and state power, but homeschoolers -willingly- forget to consider the freedom of their childs
I read this yesterday and came out of it with two quotes:
“(The child says her father’s) choice to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does.”
“…the attorney said, adding the mother had earlier agreed to allow the court to decide the child’s educational future. “There have been three counselors for this child and all have recommended public school.”
The mother agreed the courts could decide.
3 counselors say there’s a problem.
Religion isn’t just about spiritual beliefs in this case. It’s clear the mother is using religion to manipulate the child’s feelings towards the father.
I think the last point you made (about the manipulation of the child’s feelings toward her father) is an extremely important factor in the court decision to send the girl to public school.
So, having been home schooled from kindergarten until my junior year of high school, I’d like to point out that
a) this is by no means a typical case; homeschooling is very often a good option
b) this is by no means a sufficient justification to remove home schooling as an educational option
c) shockingly enough, there are times when courts and social services step in to deal with severe problems in a child’s family situation. While that is an unfortunate fact of life, it is true of children within conventional educational systems as well.
d) if you think that this mom wouldn’t be able to screw up her daughter’s life if she attended public school, you are mistaken. Someone above me mentioned Carrie. Carrie wasn’t home schooled, she just had a crazy mother.
I hope that this case is primarily about custody issues, because if the courts rule that multiple worldviews must be considered, there are going to be some people who want to teach ID again.
Why side with the Mom? The courts and counselors didn’t.
Ah, let me clarify b)
I was writing in a hurry…
b) this is by no means a sufficient justification to remove home schooling as a national educational option
And I only mention it because of the previous comments on the state of countries without legal home schooling options.
Sorry about that.
Can’t speak for JonJon, but I empathize with the mother and child.
1) Forcing the child into public school won’t eliminate her mother’s influence.
2) She doesn’t appear to be abusing the child.
3) Removing a child from his/her home can often be as traumatic if not more so than remaining in an environment that has problems but isn’t necessarily harmful.
4) Witnessing to a counselor is not grounds for removal.
5) A child reflecting the characteristics of her mother is hardly unusual.
6) Not being a pluralist does not preclude people from being good parents.
As a point of clarity, I’m not siding with the Mom. I don’t know enough about this case to say either way … just pointing out some reasons I think it’s possible to side with the mother over against the courts.
What a magnificent fire hazard.
1) The Goal is not to eliminate the mothers Influence.
2) The article is not about abuse.
3) Where did it say they were removing the child from their home?
4) The counselor didn’t say it was, What they observed, “Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared “visibly upset” when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention.”
5) Where did it say it was unusual?
6) (sesame street Count voice) Six! Six mighty straw men. Mu Ha Ha.
I read the article, and I realize that no one is trying to remove the kid. I was just listing the reasons why I can empathize with the mother and child.
I’m also not naive. It’s possible that this could be a first step toward removal; custody cases have a way of evolving like that.
The reasons why you empathize with the mother only bear a passing resemblance to the information in the article?
It must be more of that divine revelation we hear so much about.
“2) She doesn’t appear to be abusing the child.”
Seriously?
It’s pretty clear this child has been mentally abused and will have significant adjustments to make, if these are even possible.
Indoctrination with superstitious nonsense, let alone the clear intent to alienate this child from her father, is inherently abuse.
Trying to alienate the child from her father is a problem — but abuse?
(http://preventchildabuseny.org/aboutchildabuse.shtml)
The mother’s manipulation is despicable, but I don’t know if it actually qualifies as emotional abuse.
I’m not going around that other mountain again. Religious parents raise religious children. I’m thankful that we have that right as Americans, but I’m not going to debate it with you.
“Religious parents raise religious children. ”
Very true, and is in fact a right they have.
I just wish it hadn’t wound up wasting so much of my time. I know it could have been worse. I could have been raised by hardcore KKK members, and then had to shed not only the Christian superstition, but a giant pile of prejudice as well. I got off fairly light by comparison. But even so, I feel sorry for this girl.
“or the constant use of verbally abusive language to harshly criticize and denigrate a child.”
Being told that unless you believe, you will be unworthy of love and care and horribly tortured for all eternity doesn’t count.
because that isn’t a straw man…
It absolutely is NOT. My parents were never afraid to threaten me with eternal damnation to make me do/think whatever they wanted me to. When they found out that I had lost my faith, I received an entire volley of threats from hellfire to expulsion from the household (even though I had no money, no job, no driver’s license, and nowhere to go).
This child’s behavior is not indicative of someone whose mother has merely encouraged her to be religious. She has been very carefully molded and programmed to believe everything that her mother has taught her. Possibly combined with natural humanistic tendencies, this has created an incredibly zealous religious mind with an unhealthy fixation on converting others.
And she’s only 10, for goodness’ sake. She should still be figuring out her own worldview, not trying to push a particular one onto others.
Straw man? Wow, that’s the closest I’ve ever come to telling you to F*** off, Jonjon.
My mother’s first comment when I revealed my newfound atheism to her?
“You’re going to die.” *read: god is going to kill you*
Well then I apologize. I suppose it is possible that threatening someone with religious consequences falls under “the constant use of verbally abusive language to harshly criticize and denigrate.” It doesn’t say anything about blackmailing someone to be good with some sort of threat to their perceived soul, which is where I was going with this, but I guess it’s possible that saying that someone is going to hell is as abusive as telling them they are stupid and worthless. If that’s the argument, then that’s fine, and I’m sorry I didn’t ‘get it.’
“I guess it’s possible that saying that someone is going to hell is as abusive as telling them they are stupid and worthless.”
When it comes from someone you love and respect? Yes, just as abusive.
And the little girl in the article was displaying this power dynamic when she told her father that if he loved her he’d be the same religion as her. Many many parents have told their disbelieving children this.
Manipulation is most certainly emotional abuse.
6) Not being a pluralist does not preclude people from being good parents.
The joy of being an atheist is that you don’t have to also be a pluralist.
pluralist – someone who believes that distinct ethnic or cultural or religious groups can exist together in society
Uh, what? The only alternative to pluralist that I see is absolutist — are you an absolutist, cello?
@brgulker:
You say (point 2) that the mother doesn’t “appear to be abusing the child”.
I have to disagree. Not knowing them personally I can only write what it appears to be to me – and it appears that this mother is using religion to keep the daughter from accepting her father.
What the daughter says about her daddy not loving her enough is SERIOUS abuse imo… it’s totally unacceptable and should be remedied ASAP (by the mother ideally… but I suspect the mother is the ~cause~).
The only thing I am not convinced of in what you typed is that this obviously qualifies as emotional abuse.
But I agree, some type of intervention should happen.
Courts can be wrong.
Really? Shocking! ;)
“I hope that this case is primarily about custody issues, because if the courts rule that multiple worldviews must be considered, there are going to be some people who want to teach ID again.”
Why hasn’t the Discovery group thought of this before? Don’t fight to get ID in the science curriculum, but get it into class on worldviews. Brilliant
I too hope this is a custody battle, nobody, atheists included, want any infringement in this area, it goes against a little document called the bill of rights. Practically speaking though you’d have a tough time enforcing a law to end homeschooling as such. Most think of dominion movement for homeschooling but you also have the Amish and other such groups and I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a contingent that don’t home school for purposes other than religious ones.
So childs of some groups are condemned to have a narrow view of the world around them? Come on! Some of you were raised by pretty fundie parents, you think it is fair for you? And you have been pretty lucky – I mean, most of you have decided when you grew up on your own, but not all the people have even the tools to be able to do that.
What about social interaction with childs of their age? What about partnership and learning to work together? What about being used to accept the difference? Homeschooled kids have all the numbers to have a lack on their education.
And hey! Why need teachers to learn to do their jobs? Any parent without qualifications is able to do that…
I you school at home don’t you miss the social skills needed in life that develops during your school time when you sit in class with more students?
This once was a fairly big problem, but most people who home-school now hook up with home-schooling support groups which include other home-schooling children with whom they can socialize. Since the reasons people home-school are fairly diverse, the group of people who they end up hanging out with is fairly diverse as well.
No, Olaf is right. I’m sure those who attend homeschooling groups have it pretty good, but my siblings and I have been pretty cut off for most of our lives. Part of it is due to the cliquishness of our church, part of it is because of our parents’ health, and a lot of it is because we were discouraged from forming relationships with other people on the Internet (people outside our tiny bubble of faith). As a result, I have a tendency to “love ‘em and leave ‘em” – to hang out in a given place for a few months, then leave before I can get attached to anyone. I actually have to fight to keep myself attached to anything – be it a message board, an online game, or even a personal project – because, deep down, I’m afraid of getting too involved. I’m sure that part of that is my own personality, but I know that my mother’s good-intentioned warnings have played into it.
Not that I’m saying that homeschooling should be banned. I think that parents should have the right to school their children at home. Banning most homeschooling, but allowing religious exemptions, would be even worse – we would basically be punishing the only people for whom the practice would not be dangerous, while letting the high-risk parents keep doing their thing.
Like all dangerous substances, such as tobacco, homeschooling needs to be regulated. We need a system in place to make sure that kids are getting a proper education. An annual standardized test would do the trick, although that might be a pain to implement.
Like JonJon, I was homeschooled for several years, from 2nd grade through 9th grade. I enrolled in a public school (largely my own choice) in 10th grade. I like to think that I’m relatively well-adjusted and that homeschooling actually gave me a leg-up in a life.
I don’t know enough about this case to comment in detail on it specifically, but I can speak to my experience of being homeschooled. My parents did not isolate us; we had social networks through our church, family, and athletics (yes, homeschoolers have athletics). We were certainly raised to be Christians, there’s no doubt about it. The greatest benefit of homeschooling was that I learned to learn, that is, I learned to teach myself without depending too heavily on teachers/tutors. Heck, I basically taught myself Algebra. Furthermore, I learned priorities. Education first, play second.
But my parents also did it right. Homeschooling was actually school; we had strict schedules, completed all the assignments (including extra credit, which was not ‘extra’), and our work was reviewed each month by an accredited teacher. (Don’t judge all of us based on what you see in films such as Jesus People)
That said, going to public school when I did was the right choice. There are some things that can only be taught in a school, such as chemistry in a lab, etc., and my mom couldn’t teach me that which she did not know herself.
Finally, I’ll say what I’ve said before — I think public schools ought to tread cautiously when it comes to teaching, encouraging, or discouraging ‘worldviews’ (which here is being used to describe conservative Christianity). Being exposed to other points of view happens naturally in any school through peers — and that’s a wonderful, desirable thing for any person, regardless of creed, race, gender, etc.
Thanks for pointing out that this is really a custody case, Daniel.
I agree that this is mostly a custody issue, but I do think there are certain religious undertones here that may be at play. Just to play “devil’s” advocate for a moment, what if the mother was homeschooling the child in extreme radicalism, socialism or communism – or even, atheism? Would the court have made the same observations that the child needed a broader view? I’d like to think that it would not have made a difference, but I suspect that this is not the case.
Having said this, I agree with the final decision – the child seriously needs to be deprogrammed.
Are you seeing christian persecution here? Funny
Socialism is “extreme radicalism”? What a sad, backward country you must live in.
Here is a PDF of the ruling: http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KurowskiOrder.pdf
and godlessgirl has a pretty good posting on it: http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2009/08/jonathan-falwell-totally-misleads-his.html
I wasn’t home schooled, but my mom was very religious and that had influence on me. However, my dad was an Atheist and he would challenge her ideas. I was shown that critical thinking was out there and it did change my world view even as a public school kid. Having that other point of view meant that I never fell into the trap of Christianity as all true and learned to question. And while we were Methodists, my mom was a every Sunday, every holiday and read the Bible kind of person. When my Sunday School teacher said, when I was like 6, that dinosaurs were not as old as scientists said, and that they lived with people, I knew it was bull crap and that the whole Christian thing was garbage. I was 6. So that Atheist influence was already there, and that girl needs that in her life. She will never learn to question and will be unsuited to live in a modern world.
I’m not against homeschooling, but I do think all children have the right to proper education so they can reasonably compete with their peers.
Exactly. That is my objection to religiously-based homeschool as well. Especially if they fail to teach real science to their kids. The are putting them at a real disadvantage. But, hey, somebody has to work at Mc Donald’s, right?
That was low, LRA. I take personal exception to your ignorant slur.
Nope. That’s what happens when ignorant parents teach their ignorance to their kids. I’m sorry if you take exception to it, but it is true. Now, it sounds like your parents actually cared about science education for you, so this comment is clearly not directed at you.
And btw, don’t forget that I am a certified teacher and and ex-fundie. I know exactly what kind of crap gets taught in fundie homes.
So. you honestly think that your comment,
But, hey, somebody has to work at Mc Donald’s, right?
isn’t a slur?
Give me a break.
That’s where ignorant people work, isn’t it? So no, it’s not a slur.
Wow, hard to believe someone as intelligent and educated as yourself would say something like that and insist there’s nothing wrong with it.
Ummm, maybe you need to watch “Jesus Camp” again???
If I said something like,
Someone’s gotta do day-to-day construction work and landscaping, might as well be the ignorant, illegal hispanics!
Would that be okay just because it’s a fact that illegal, Hispanic workers do those jobs?
Or if I said something like,
Someone’s gotta sit in the back of the bus, might as well be the colored folk!
Would that be a slur — even though that used to be true in our country?
I’m implying that improperly educated kids are at a real disadvantage. I never said anything about any racial group. You are getting way too touchy over this. The fact is that ignorant religious parents teach their ignorance to their kids and it is a real problem.
McD’s can actually be a great place to work. You don’t have to be ignorant to work there — it can be a great career path as they have good benefits and ways to move up in the company.
But to the point: homeschooling can be just as effective, and even more effective than public school in terms of education for certain students. I was not homeschooled, but I wish I were — I would have gotten a better edu than at my private and public schools because of the way I learn.
Of course there are parents who are simply terrible at homeschooling. I’ve met them — their kids are undisciplined, awkward socially, and know very little outside of practical matters and religious history/theology/bible verses. But for every one of those, I’m willing to bet there are smart, disciplined, socially graceful homeschooling. I’ve met those too. (Unfortunately most of them are still brainwashed about science, but that’s not the fault of homeschool, it’s the fault of the parents & chosen curriculum.)
You are getting way too touchy over this.
Maybe, maybe not. But I’ve taken personal exception to it because I was homeschooled myself — and I was at a big advantage because of it.
And yes, it was absolutely a slur:
2. To talk about disparagingly or insultingly.
3. To pass over lightly or carelessly; treat without due consideration.
The only reason you won’t acknowledge it as such is because you’re ridiculing a group that you personally dislike.
Someone’s gotta work at McDonald’s (and make a lousy wage working bad hours, part-time); might as well be the godless atheists!!!!
That would be a slur, and you and a whole lot of others would be just as pissed off as I am for saying something so grossly ignorant.
If you say so. Maybe it’s just the fast food places around here. Also, I didn’t say all home school was bad. I said that homeschools in which the parents fail to properly educate their kids are bad. The kids can’t compete for good colleges/technical/trade schools which leads to good jobs if they think science is the devil.
While I agree with your point that ignorant parents should not home school children as it will lead to ignorant children – there is no question that you’ve slur’ed McD’s employees.
Truth doesn’t enter into this – you are insulting McD’s employees which are not ~all~ ignorant undereducated rubes.
(I agree with your stance on ignorant parents though).
Whatever. It’s not a slur. It’s an attempt to point out what I’ve been saying all along… denying children a PROPER EDUCATION will result in them being uncompetitive and ending up in a CRAPPY JOB.
Duh.
On the other hand, I had public edu and thought science was of the devil (at least the science that didn’t agree with young earth creationism).
Fine. If McD’s workers are insulted I apologize. Somehow I doubt they are sitting around reading a science blog though.
Maybe I don’t understand you because I’m so st00pid after being homeschooled.
Fine. If McD’s workers are insulted I apologize. Somehow I doubt they are sitting around reading a science blog though.
Wow … just … wow.
Oh for christ’s sake, br, I’m not talking about you. Get over it.
Now you’re just being self righteous.
In one statement, you implied that McD’s workers are all ignorant and lumped parents who are ignorant about science and their children into that same pile. And somehow I’m being self-righteous for calling you out on that.
Look, I was homeschooled — I know the experience as well as anyone here. And I wasn’t taught evolution until public high school. Frankly, my parents were ignorant about science — but it didn’t matter! My education was phenomenal everywhere else, and by the time I enrolled in public high school I was leaps and bounds beyond my peers (graduated 2nd out of nearly 300 students!).
I am absolutely taking this personally — because I lived the experience you are so quickly demeaning. You’re naively assuming that parents who don’t know science inevitably produce ignorant children and implicitly belittling them by claiming such children will be bound for minimum wage jobs. You’re absolutely dead wrong.
Yes, I’m reacting strongly — but I’m reacting that way because you’re directly insulting me by association.
@LRA
What do you say to a home schooler with a job?
Can I have fries with that.
;-)
Jabster,
What do you say to an atheist with a job?
Too bad you can’t take your money to hell where you will burn forever!!!
Do you see why what you said is insulting yet, LRA?
Once again, I point you to “Jesus Camp”. But really I’m getting tired of this. I’m entitled to my feelings on this matter and I’m sorry that you don’t like it. I want to see ALL kids get a great education so that they have choices in life. I’ve personally worked with kids whose parents rejected good education and this very much limited their choices in life. When I talk about homeschooled kids whose parents lack a proper education themselves, I get passionate about it. In order to teach a child in my state, one must have a college education in the specific field that they are teaching. I would expect no less for a homeschooled child. It’s great that your situation worked out, but there are plenty that don’t.
I’m not insulted. I don’t believe in hell.
@brgulker
It must be the way you tell them …
I’ve seen Jesus Camp multiple times, and what you keep ignoring is that I’ve lived an experience similar to that. Not as extreme, but my parents would share at least some things in common with the parents featured in the film.
And where am I now? Working at McD’s? How about my siblings? How about the over 30 families and their children who were involved in the local co-op? And what about the thousands of families who participate in the national homeschooling co-op?
I’m tired of it, too. And yes, you’re entitled to your feelings, and you’re entitled to free speech, which means you can degrade people who work for minimum wage and call them all ignorant. And you’re free to ridicule homeschooling all you want to. But when you do, the valid point that you make gets lost in the shuffle.
(But I still don’t concede that not accepting evolution puts you at a competitive disadvantage; you haven’t proved that at all)
It must be the way you tell them …
If I put it in all caps and link to a poorly designed website, do you think it would be insulting then?
BURN FOREVER HEATHENS!
It isn’t about degrading, it’s about choices. I want to see people have choices. And it isn’t about evolution, it’s about critical thinking. Not being a critical thinker does affect how people’s lives turn out, especially in their decision making processes.
Do you support choice for religious parents who choose to school their children at home?
Quit trolling for another victim opportunity.
Quit trolling for another victim opportunity.
Not for nothing (sorry, LRA), but I think brgulker has a legitimate beef, here.
Look, right now, I work as a receptionist at a hotel. That’s my employment. Am I qualified to do many other, more complicated, more sophisticated things? You bet. But the economy is in the gutter, and so that’s what I do to pay the bills. Now, do people automatically assume, because I work that job, that I am essentially a stupid wage monkey? All the damn time. It is insulting. And, FWIW, I would not call many of the people I work with in this low-wage job ‘stupid’, either.
To top it off (true story! :) , one of the smartest people I’ve known put himself through college working at McDonald’s.
And though people don’t like to hear it (because it jars with the way they think the world ought to work), having a working knowledge of and respect for science is simply unnecessary to be personally successful in most areas of human society. Most people will go through life not knowing the difference between a lepton and a quark and happily believe the world was sneezed out by God a short while before they were born and still go on to live productive lives.
So being brought up to believe that science is wrong does not mean that the result is a dysfunctional human…simply one that is bad at science. Occasionally that becomes annoying at the fringes, either when political policy depends on scientific literacy or when they attempt to force their way of thinking on others in public schools, but outside those areas it simply doesn’t come up that often. It is not “child abuse” or anything of the sort, and it certainly doesn’t doom the recipient to McJobs for the rest of their lives. (Not to mention that there is more to an effective education than just science. Far more.)
Well, ‘Nope, perhaps this is the last vestige of any idealism that I might have had from earlier in my life. I sincerely believe that a great deal of problems in our society could be solved if people were educated properly. That being said, ridiculous fundies with their anti-intellectual stance are a real problem for us, especially when the remove their children from having a chance at a decent education to teach them that a global flood and Adam and Eve actually happened. Yes, I think that being a productive and fulfilled human being involves being able to critically evaluate what one is being told is true. Sorry if you disagree with that but that is how I feel.
Yes, I think that being a productive and fulfilled human being involves being able to critically evaluate what one is being told is true. Sorry if you disagree with that but that is how I feel.
I don’t disagree at all that critical thought and evaluation of statements are crucial skills for being a ‘fulfilled human being’. What I *do* disagree about is that understanding science is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for possession of said skills. Many scientists (good ones) are uncritical in plenty of other parts of life. Many science-less people are, nonetheless, shrewd individuals.
I disagree. Science is the best way we have to understand the natural world. It is the best way we have question dogma by requiring strict standards of evidence. Prior to the scientific revolution, we lived by understanding our world as filled with the demon-possessed (psychosis), with sex as morally wrong and punishable by God (because of misunderstandings about STDs), without electricity, with people who ate certain diets (for lack of understanding about pasteurization or proper cooking methods). In fact science is the best thing that ever happened to people. If fundies don’t want to teach their kids this, then they do a real disservice to our culture. They set us back to the middle ages. I don’t want people like that to have political power over me, and I recognize that an ignorant person’s right to vote counts as much as mine. I live in a state where fundies want to dismantle science education. So, yes, I object to creating a significant population of people who can pool their votes to affect the education of the rest of the population. I object to the ignorati “schooling” their own children. If that is an unpopular opinion here, too bad. I don’t care about them, I care about the culture at large.
Science is the best way to analyze narrow and well-defined empirical claims about observable systems of variables when the number of variables are few or easily extracted from the system, especially when the conditions are controllable for confounding variables, and a protocol can be designed for accurately reproducing observational conditions (i.e. building experiments).
Most of life is not like that.
Over time, given repeated experiments, science is more effective than any method yet known of testing plausible explanatory mechanisms for observed phenomena. You will never catch me saying otherwise. :)
Most of your examples have to do with the *fruits* of science, not science itself. You don’t need to understand how a computer works under the hood in order to check your e-mail.
Well, we can disagree on this, but our society is becoming increasingly scientized. We are utterly dependent on technology as well. For these reasons, all responsible citizens should have at least a rudimentary understanding of science, in addition to the political reasons I listed above.
I agree that our society is becoming increasingly scientized. I agree our dependence on technology is approaching absolute. I agree that it would be mighty fine if all citizens were science-literate. I, personally, would do nearly anything (within the bounds of good taste and morality) to make it so if I had the capacity.
But it is not strictly necessary for any one person to know science.
Heaven knows it would be great if everyone were also economics-literate. And engineering literate. And math-literate. And, um, literature-literate. :) All these things are increasingly important to our society, our place in the world, our ability to build on what has come before. But none are strictly necessary for any one person to know. We are a society of highly-specialized creatures; this is necessary from an economic point-of-view if nothing else.
Would that we all were renaissance-people, but it is not to be.
“What do you say to an atheist with a job?
Too bad you can’t take your money to hell where you will burn forever!!!”
Only if you want to be laughed at for the next ten minutes.
Perhaps the fundamental difference here is this sort of criticism doesn’t mean anything to us.
Ty,
I know that. It was a totally and completely sarcastic comment.
When did UF become a science blog? I guess you must be pretty dumb, if you can’t tell the difference between religion and science, right?
“Unreasonable Faith: Reasonable thoughts on Religion, Science and Skepticism”
And obviously I’m not dumb. :(
And obviously I’m not dumb. :(
That is abundantly clear! :-)
Thank you Nope. *hug*
I wouldn’t put too much stock in Nope’s opinion. We’ve already established that he’s stoned most of the time.
This man, he doesn’t know when he’s beaten! He doesn’t know when he’s winning, either. He has no… sort of… sensory apparatus…
Aw, Ty! Don’t rib me too hard!!! :P
I wasn’t aimin’ at you, little darlin’.
LRA relax. Brgulker seems quite determined to play the victim. Let him.
Lets all just say poor baby. awwwwww.
@Sunny Day
That’s the problem with home schoolers — no sense of humour.
It’s spelled h-u-m-o-r …
Nope it’s definitely *spelt* humour. If you invent the language, you get to decide what’s right and wrong regardless of what some of the more uppity colonies think …
Spelt? Isn’t that a grain? Or a fish?
You Brits and your wacky language. You’re lucky we came along and fixed it for you.
I think the fish is smelt…
@VorJack
@VorJack
English in general is screwed up, British English just more so. It would be nice to adopt some Americanisms into our language (some of which have already happened) so at least it’s now ok to use jail and not gaol but you have to remember this a country that still likes to use imperial measures because they’re better which I think translates as yes we know it’s rubbish but we don’t want to use that French system oh and who won the war and we had a Empire so we must be right! Saying all of this you still pronounce oregano wrong and and saying spelled instean of spelt just sounds weird to me.
Hey Jabster, stick to what you guys do well: beer and Dr. Who. Leave everything else to the real countries.
Dr Who, as in the show that thought casting Sylvester McCoy in the lead role was somehow acceptable? What short memories you have.
Oh and you forgot our other great asset — inventing sports that everybody ends up being better than us at. That’s where we lost a trick from the US. Always invent sports that no one else wants to play and you’re bound to be the best at them!
I agree with LRA, giving a good eductation as a parent is very damned hard to do.
Unless the parent is a professional teacher, it is hard to learn a child mathematics, science, biology, physics, foreign languages, English….
Also I think the child will lack the social skills needed to when it starts with a job and have to learn to operate in group with no dedicated help from the boss.
LRA,
What percentage of jobs would one be ineligible for as a direct result of not accepting evolution (which is what I’m assuming you mean by being ignorant of science)?
I’m guessing, but I’m guessing an infinitesimal jobs in our country depend on accepting or rejecting evolution.
So, how does not having a thorough understanding of evolution destine someone to a minimum wage job?
Further, please prove that everyone who works at McDonalds is ignorant.
I never said evolution specifically. I said science. When one fails to understand science, and specifically the scientific method, a chance a learning critical thinking goes out the window. Our world in increasingly complex in what is required of us in various career paths. I just don’t want to see anyone stuck in a minimum wage job.
What about philosophy? What about Math? What about history? What about sociology? What about anthropology? What about theology? What about linguistics?
Do you think any of those topics can lead to critical thinking? Or, does science have the monopoly on it?
I said “a chance” as in one of the chances (an important one). Yes there are other critical fields. Don’t know that I’d necessarily include theology in that, though. And fyi, sociology, anthropology, and certain aspects of linguistics are all sciences.
Theology can absolutely lead to critical thinking, but I didn’t qualify it properly — Academic Theology is the kind I had in mind.
There’s all ways politics …
Ha! Yes. How is it that fundies that want to destroy public education end up on school boards??? :)
To JonJon and BR:
Here is one of the reasons I find a certain segment of the homeschooling movement to repugnant– Cynthia Dunbar:
http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2008/12/state_education.html
She is on our state board of education and she thinks that public schools are a “tool of perversion” (she homeschooled her own kids). She also (incorrectly) insists that our country is a Christian one (completely ignoring the Deist writings of many of the founding fathers), and that there should be a biblical litmus test to lead this country. Further, she supports the teaching of the pseudo-scientific bullcrap known as ID in our science classrooms. So, you see, my vitriol stems from the fact that there is a political threat to having people ill-educated.
This is the group I oppose. If you are part of this group, then I oppose you. If you are not, then I don’t. If you want to be offended, too bad. I don’t appreciate ignorant people like Dunbar attacking things they don’t understand for far-right neo-theocrat political gains.
LRA,
I’m sorry if I overreacted. You seem like a very intelligent young woman who’s doing a lot to make the world you live in better. I applaud you for that.
I took exception to what you said because it’s very close to me personally. I’m a day removed from that now, and I realized I was hostile toward you. I apologize for that tone.
I still don’t agree with you, as you don’t with me, but that disagreement doesn’t justify the way I chose to express it. I’m sorry for that.
I appreciate that. Yes, I too can be quite blunt and come across as rude myself. I’m sorry about that. I really want to fight for quality education for everyone. It is of utmost importance to me and I fight tooth and nail for it. I even worked for a year with gang kids in an attempt to level the playing field. It frustrates me to no end to hear stories in which children are taught false information which may cause problems for them in the future. Our kids are our most precious resource!
I retract my statement about ignorant people working at McDonalds. Apparently there is a Hamburger U:
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/work/burgeru.html
It’s also been certifed by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to offer practical qualifications to A* Level standard.
LOL!
That’s actualy true …
A slippery slope.
You think that one day an Atheist homeschooling parent will be forced to send their kid to public school so they can be, “exposed to other worldviews?”
If the kid starts saying things like, “Daddy doesn’t love me because he believes in God,” then yes, get the kid out of that house. I’d also like to slap seven kinds of snot out of the parent, but that’s another matter.
I’ll be honest, I think our best bet for raising a crop of young atheists is to hold on loosely. We’ve seen too many of these kids who were raised in strict Christian households rebel by becoming angry atheists. I don’t really want to see the flip side. Let’s make sure the kids see and hear a wide variety of perspectives.
This, “Let’s make sure the kids see and hear a wide variety of perspectives,” attitude is ugly. You’re implying that homeschoolers chain their kids in the crawlspace. Some crazed homeschooling parents do keep their children from leaving the house (except for church) or watching tv, but absolutely not the majority.
You’re also assuming that most kids raised in strict christian households will become angry Atheists. Some do, as a rebellion, but when they get over being angry, they, “find god.” They were never Atheists in the first place, just angry christians pushing their parent’s buttons. And it amuses me that so many people consider an Atheist parent too strict if they don’t allow their children to be brainwashed by attending Sunday school with their neighbors or family members. It stops being amusing when it could potentially lead to a court case forcing christianity or public school onto Atheists because someone else doesn’t like their lack of religion. If you force this parent to send her kid to school, then it can swing the other way just as easily.
What everyone fails to understand is that there are homeschooling laws. In New Hampshire, the parent must keep a portfolio of the child’s work. The child is either tested once a year or has to be evaluated by a certified teacher and this is reviewed annually by the district superintendent. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/193-A/193-A-6.htm
We’re also suppose to now pretend that we didn’t know anyone in public school who was a crazy fundy, who was always going on and on about god and church and dressed funny and you just knew they had something wrong with their heads. Yeah. NOW you remember that girl in the baggy dress that went down to her ankles and the long hair? And her 16 brothers and sisters, all as wacky as she was? Right. Going to public school is not going to save her from her crazy upbringing.
This, “Let’s make sure the kids see and hear a wide variety of perspectives,” attitude is ugly. You’re implying that homeschoolers chain their kids in the crawlspace. Some crazed homeschooling parents do keep their children from leaving the house (except for church) or watching tv, but absolutely not the majority.
IMO, Jesus Camp is a big part of this problem. People who’ve seen that film now associate homeschooling with what they’ve seen in the film.
“Yeah. NOW you remember that girl in the baggy dress that went down to her ankles and the long hair? And her 16 brothers and sisters, all as wacky as she was? Right. Going to public school is not going to save her from her crazy upbringing.”
But it might give her a chance at a much needed escape and a chance to realize not everyone believes in the same screwed up crap.
You’re implying that homeschoolers chain their kids in the crawlspace.
No, I’m not. Nor do I think there is anything in my wording that would lead you to infer that. The statement was a direct reference to the case under discussion, where one parent is using her religious influence over the child to alienate the other parent. Let me be clear: that is bad. It would still be bad if the parent with custody were an atheist saying, “They love Jesus more than they love you.” It would still be bad if the parent were using race, politics or whatever. In these cases, I would generally support siding with the other parent as to the child’s education. Depending on the situation, I might support reversing the custody arrangement, but I hope that I’m never in a position where I have to make such a decision.
You’re also assuming that most kids raised in strict christian households will become angry Atheists.
You’re leaping from ‘too many’ to ‘most.’ They share a few letters, but otherwise they’re quite different.
Let me try being clear again. I’ve dealt with several teenage atheists who are simply rebelling against dad. Some of them go back to church, some of them don’t. Whether they do or not, I don’t really care for this type of atheist. Even one is ‘too many’. There are good reasons for being an atheist, but because your father wouldn’t let you go to the movies isn’t one of them.
But I also don’t support being that dad either. I feel that as atheists we should let our kids ‘see and hear a wide variety of perspectives.’ I might even suggest that we take Robert Price’s advice, and when religion is discussed say, “this is what I think, but other people believe differently.” I say this for two reasons: because I agree with the Robert Kunzman quote I used, and because I don’t want to create any ‘angry theists’.
Alright, folks, let me say this once: I have nothing against homeschooling. I don’t believe there was anything in this post that is hostile towards the homeschool movement. In the region where I live there are a large number of ‘unschoolers’ – liberal homeschoolers who want individualized education. I have many friends among them. I have never even seen “Jesus Camp.”
I think that education is a big and messy subject, and I’m glad that there are a number of different answers. I am aware of the diversity within the movement and – thanks to Robert Kunzman – even within the conservative Christian homeschool movement.
I don’t have children. I don’t want children. My wife’s opinions on child rearing involve flogging posts and bear pits.
That is all.
I am both a homeschooling mom (secular) and a New Hampshire resident. NH has one of the most lenient Homeschooling laws in the country which tells me that this is primarily a custody issue. The state minds its own business when it comes to homeschooling as long as your kids are evaluated annually by a certified teacher and they are keeping up.
I homeschool my 7 year old twins for personal reasons and the fact that the school systems today focus primarily on test scores and attendance rather than actual learning due to NCLB. I see this every day when my 17 year old comes home from her public High School. Kids aren’t learning anthing except how to take standardized tests. Its sad.
and while I agree the majority of homeschoolers are religious fundamentalists, not all of us ARE! Its become a nasty stereotype and I have to defend my decision to take charge of my children’s education on a daily basis and I’m sick of it. Stories such as this dug up by the media only perpetuate this stereotype. believe it or not…there are Atheist homeschoolers out there. We’re rare but we exsist and stories like this one put our right to educate our own children at risk. I cringe everytime I see a story like this.
that being said, I do feel sorry for this child. She is obviously being “brainwashed” by a loon of a mother and I agree with the father to get her into a public school setting to be around ..dare I say it..normal people. He should also fight for custody if he thinks there is such emotional abuse going on. Just putting her in school won’t solve this problem. She needs to live with her Dad for a while.
just saying…
I homeschool in Florida for the same reasons you stated, for educational reasons. We have the FCAT and even the teachers complain that they don’t teach anymore, they just prepare for the test all year. Personally, I decided in high school that no child of mine would go to a Florida public school. I had just moved down here from St. Louis and the schools were 2 years behind. They actually moved me up a couple of grades because I was such a, “genius.” Funny, I was a C average kid up north.
Since then, we’ve had exchange students so I know just how good these, “A,” schools are (and they should be ashamed). It’s amusing that the student arrives and tells me how I should send my kid to public school, then halfway through the year says, “he could take advanced classes and be ok,” and by the end of the year totally agrees that homeschooling is the right answer.
If you are a member of any secular homeschool groups, let me know. And if not, maybe we should start one, LOL, or at least talk to each other once in a while. I like where your head is (cringing at articles like this, stereotypes, etc…) and feel exactly the same way.
thank you cinnamonbite. :) Its nice to know there are others out there like me.
As a single mum who homeschools her kids and “teaches” atheism (i.e. tells them the truth) I find this pretty terrifying. We do discuss world religions from a cultural and historical perspective.
Cinnamonbite’s post is exactly what worries me.
My ex-husband is always looking for ways to get the kids into school and if he manages to find a nail to hang his “she’s not letting them explore their faith” hat on then I’m screwed as are my kids.
The amount of education that kids get in schools these days is laughable. I am constantly amazed by the stupidity of the vast majority people in North America (yes, I live here and no, not you guys). The local school here is still teaching that Pluto is a “proper” planet and the science teacher had never heard of Ceres.
Honestly, why would I put my children into a system that dumbs them down? My children’s friends who are in school have a great working knowledge of Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers (*headdesk*) but can barely read and have no clue about anything beyond parroting the curriculum. It’s pretty pathetic.
“Honestly, why would I put my children into a system that dumbs them down?”
Absolutely.
I don’t think you have anything to worry about as you mentioned you do discuss other religions with your kids. This case, I think, has really been distorted in the news. I think that just reading your paragraph there are some key differences:
1) The mom in the case was more than likely homeschooling to “protect” her kid from non-religious people and those from other religions. It’s more of a way to control her: who she becomes friends with and what she thinks, than about a good education.
2) You talk about other religions from a cultural perspective. Some homeschoolers (of the fundamentalist type–I am in no way generalizing to all homeschoolers or even all fundamentalists) don’t talk about other religions unless they can find a way to insert John 14:6 into it.
3) Your kids probably aren’t being alienated from their father based on his/their religion/lack thereof. I really think that this case is based mostly on the father being unable to parent his daughter because of the religious hold the mother has on her. They agreed to joint custody, but the mom isn’t considering anyone’s viewpoint but their own.
Judges in general don’t like to change a child’s circumstances. They like to see as much continuity and stability in the child’s life as possible through the upheaval of divorce. Something must be drastically wrong in order for a court to require a major change in circumstance.
Does LRA ~really~ believe that there aren’t any college science majors working at McD’s to get through college? Does she think that you can’t have an interest in science and work fast food? Very strange…
You are astoundingly rude LRA… While I agree with most of what you’re saying you don’t seem to understand that insulting a whole group of people (McD’s employees in this case) is rude and counter productive!
Well, I’m sorry if my blunt comments (which are really observations of the world I live in) come across as rude. I’m not the most politically correct person all of the time. I do have a passion for kids getting a great education and have spent years toward that endeavor. I get upset when I see a kid denied that.
I’m sure we’re quite similar in our beliefs… and ~un~PC comments (like yours) don’t actually offend me in the slightest. I’m very difficult to offend (and haven’t ever worked in fast food anyway), but can see why your comments might offend some.
You’re welcome to keep making those comments though (free speech and all that), but understand that people may take offense… (to be honest I laughed at your comments, and Jabster’s joke too. Sometimes you have to just laugh…. HINT to brGulker).
The rabbit trail on McD’s is ridiculous. People use McD’s as an idiom all the time as the place where you’ll wind up working if you don’t get an education. McD’s is honest employment, but how many kids do you know grow up saying “I want to flip burgers when I grow up!” Not much to aspire to. Most people work at McD’s as a last resort, not because they want to.
*Says the public school unemployed educated college grad who would work at McD’s if they would hire me. But here is something else, too: a lot of fast food places won’t hire college graduates because they know they are looking for something else, are way overqualified in their jobs, and they would have to pay them too much to keep them past the time it would take to train them. So that plays into the point LRA was making, too. Incredibly smart, McDonald’s career employees (as opposed to college students making a buck over the summer and have no desire to flip burgers their entire lives) are the exception, not the norm.
Oh, and PS, my homeschooled college-dropout brother works at Sonic, not McDonald’s. So there is a nice proof of the point, even though I don’t agree with the original one that the majority of homeschoolers are disadvantaged. Public schools are not without their problems, and I have noticed that the advantages/disadvantages of each school option often cancel each other out in one way or another.
I really don’t think homeschooling is the problem – in fact, in many cases it provides a better education.
The problem is UNqualified parents and fundy parents that reject science. THAT is a problem, not home schooling per se.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along.
Laura,
Do you know of any research to back this up? Because my experience and every homeschooler I knew was that we were far ahead of the curve:
even though I don’t agree with the original one that the majority of homeschoolers are disadvantaged.
I said I don’t agree with the original POINT. The point was that they were disadvantaged, and I didn’t agree with it.
I do, however, think that many homeschoolers are so used to the general public picking on them that:
1) they take every small slight and run to hell and back with it, and
2) I have noticed a general attitude of superiority amongst the homeschooling crowd. I don’t think it’s entirely their fault; like I said, there are many misconceptions about homeschooling, and in the arguing against those wrong perceptions, points that make homeschooling better than public school come out and are capitalized on. But public school kids don’t need to sit around and feel good about how they go to public school because public/private schooling is mainstream.
And quite frankly, you fit those characteristics quite well. It is insane how much debate you have instigated over McDonald’s. Way to make people believe that homeschoolers are smart and mature. :D
*Both of my brothers were homeschooled, so I am very familiar with homeschool culture.
I wasn’t trying to dispute you; I was just curious if you were aware of any research that has been done, because you seem to be in the know about homeschooling. I’m unaware of any such research, and I’d be greatly interested in educating myself about it (homsechooling myself, even?)
I have noticed a general attitude of superiority amongst the homeschooling crowd
I’m not saying your experience was wrong, but mine was completely the opposite. I was made fun of constantly by neighbor kids for being homeschooled. And I got picked on like crazy in public school until my peers realized I could help them with their homework.
And quite frankly, you fit those characteristics quite well. It is insane how much debate you have instigated over McDonald’s. Way to make people believe that homeschoolers are smart and mature. :D
Does the :D indicate sarcasm?
I took it personally, I realize that.
But that’s because I’d lived through the experience — and I still don’t think LRA has even a fundamental understanding of homeschooling, because she’s recommended Jesus Camp to me time and again as if it were the standard by which to judge all homeschooling.
Not all!!! Some! Good grief, you haven’t read anything I’ve posted have you???
I’ve read everything you’ve posted in response to me.
You’ve recommended Jesus Camp to me as a place to look in support of your claims, and you’ve referenced your worked with families that resemble those in the film. That’s what you’ve said about your experience of homeschooling, and given what you’ve implied and what you haven’t said, it seems to me that you’re understanding is defined and thus limited by that movie (and your experiences which reinforce the film).
You want kids to have a good education (I agree), and parents who school their own children without degrees in those fields don’t qualify to teach, and they shouldn’t qualify, else they’ll end up flipping burgers and asking folks if they want to super-size that.
I disagree, because my experience tells me that you’re wrong. As does the experience of every homeschool kid I grew up with (and went to college with). So, no, I don’t think you have a very complete picture of what homeschooling actually is.
Enough. I’ve said repeatedly that there on ONE segment of homeschooling I object to. The rest are fine. I think my reasons are clear enough and I’m tired of your persecution complex.
brgulker has a persecution complex — can’t say I’ve noticed!
It’s not the first time he’s pulled this stunt and it won’t be the last.
There’s lots more where that came from …
What do you call a home schooler wearing a suit?
The defendant.
my favorite UNpc joke at the moment is:
Q: What does michael jackson love about 28 year olds?
A: That there are 20 of them!
**** thank you thank you… I’ll be here all week…… *******
Offensive …. but funny.
This came up on a message board I’m on last week. I dug HARD and found an article that, while still Christian, was more about the facts as opposed to outrage. It gave me the impression that it had a lot to do with the father not being religious while his ex-wife had too much influence over the daughter’s religion because of her homeschooling. The father felt like he was being alienated (and that’s a VERY key point) because of their religious differences. I think it’s quite possible that, in context, the comments about witnessing the guardian ad litem made had more to do with mentioning that the evidence agreed with the father that religion was isolating her from her family and peers to her detriment.
I was homeschooled.
It is my opinion that homeschooling is an inadequate and often harmful method of educating a child. I believe that homeschooling should be completely outlawed, except in circumstances where the child’s parent (or private tutor) is duly credentialed by the same standards as actual public school teachers.
As a former home-schooler (raised by young earth creationist fundies) who’s not in a chemistry PhD program I’ll chip in with my anecdotal evidence :-). I was shortchanged pretty drastically because of my homeschooling experience in my opinion. I wouldn’t have done much better had I the same parents and gone to public school though either. I have an almost impossible time focusing (I’ve been told I need to be tested for adult ADD, but have only recently become eligible for insurance so I don’t know how that’ll turn out); but since my parents don’t ‘believe’ that things like ADD or ADHD could possibly be a chemical issue, even “had” I been in school and been diagnosed with ADD there wouldn’t have been anything done about it. Besides the liberal application of the belt that my father preferred.
I tried watching Jesus Camp. Too many bad memories of similar circumstances, I couldn’t finish it.
All in all, it’s my opinion that I’ve succeeded ‘in spite’ of my being homeschooled rather then ‘because’ of it. I have a friend who was homeschooled who’s parents weren’t nuts like mine and she did quite well in college. But, considering the number of people I know from growing up who’s kids are finally realizing that if they want to be competitive in today’s market that they need a college education. But don’t meet the basic requirements for entry (either not even having a GED, or Social Security numbers because their parents didn’t ‘believe’ in them, or just not being able to pass GED tests) and so have to take remedial classes (and struggle with those) just to get caught up to where they should be.
The only thing that I can say in favor of my parent’s chosen method of teaching was that they (to their regret) instilled a deep love of reading in me. So, things I never learned in classes they taught, I was able to either learn on my own, or was able to get when in college. I didn’t have the amount of trouble that some of the other kids I knew growing up have had.
Ugh. Really? You and BR and having the same problem understanding what I’ve said repeatedly. Ignorant, anti-intellectual fundies have no business educating their children. They have no expertise and cannot do an adequate job. How does that say anything about you or BR? I have said repeatedly that this objection I raise may not apply to you. Really, JJ I like you so please let’s not fight.
oops! Meant to post that to JonJon below.
What I actually object to is your assertion that a parent must have a degree in order to teach. You are free to take it back or not.
Calling me ignorant because my mother (who did not complete her college education, and would by your standards qualify as a religious fundamentalist) taught me instead of teachers at gang-violence filled schools in southern California simply will not be okay with me.
Will I admit that there are people who should not home school their kids? Yes, in a heartbeat.
Will I admit that the principle criteria for this distinction is education or religious backgrounds? Not a chance in hell. (At least, not unless we are prepared to use, you know, actual facts in this discussion.)
In my opinion, the most important indicator that someone shouldn’t home school their kids is if they have abnormally lax or strict disciplinary standards with their kids. Strongly rebelling kids aren’t great, and strongly controlling parents are worse.
I do not have any trouble understanding what you are saying. I know how to read. I disagree with what you are saying. Strongly. In addition, you are, whether you know it or not, impeaching my intelligence. I don’t take especially kindly to that, either.
No hard feelings, but everything you just said to me I either think is flat wrong, or extremely insulting. You don’t see how you are being insulting?
I’ve never once said anything about your intelligence. I have stated over and over that I don’t approve of ignorant people teaching their kids (ignorant = uneducated). I don’t approve of ignorant people (ignorant = uneducated) doing surgery on people, or building buildings, or doing other people’s taxes, or driving, for that matter. They simply aren’t qualified. If a parent can take a test similar to the ones I took to prove my ability to teach kids, then I’d have no problem with that, even if they weren’t fully college educated. You prove you know the material, you get to teach it. Otherwise, no. If you disagree and feel offended by my standards, then I apologize, but I’m not going to change my mind on this important matter because children’s futures are at stake.
Fortunately for many of us, your opinion doesn’t trump the law. You don’t get to take the rights of parents away just because those parents don’t live up to your standards.
Whether or not you realize it, sates have laws that regulate homeschooling. In my state, certified teachers had to review our work monthly (the laws have since been updated, but I haven’t followed closely).
Like JonJon, my mother didn’t have a college degree, but what she lacked in formal education, she more than made up for in her willingness to learn as much as she could, however she could, from wherever she could.
Not to mention that when I got to public school, the average class size was over 30; at home, what do you think the ratio was?
4 students : 1 child.
Look, I get that you’re passionate about education, and that’s admirable. But, you’re wrong about your opinion that parents need college degrees in order to homeschool their children. Be unwilling to change your mind in spite of any argument or evidence we might present; that’s your prerogative. But expect people like us who know the benefits of homeschooling from personal experience to fight you tooth and nail to preserve the rights of parents that you seek to steal away. Frankly, I think your perspective will lose.
“4 students : 1 child. ”
4 students : 1 teacher.
As I posted just above, my parents weren’t well educated and I am doing well in ‘spite’ of them rather than ‘because’ of them. I know anecdotal evidence isn’t good evidence; but, unlike JonJon my background makes me think that parents ‘should’ have a degree in order to be allowed to homeschool. I slipped through the cracks because I loved to read enough that I read and learned what my parents didn’t bother to teach me. So on testing I ‘looked’ like I was doing well; I don’t have an eidetic memory, but I have a very good one such that I was able to learn/remember what I read that wasn’t part of my schooling (and some of which had my folks known ‘what’ I was reading they’d have thrown a fit), and do better on testing then the ‘schooling’ I had should have allowed for.
So, I’m quite in favor of requiring parents to be teacher certified. It was my experience that the homeschoolers *I* knew were always telling themselves how much ‘smarter’ their kids were than the kids who went to ‘public school’ (always said in a very disgusted tone). Even when I knew people from church who were my age and doing much more advanced math/science classes than I was having. Yet, in the homeschooling community I was raised in? I was thought of as one of the smarter kids. So there were elements of self-delusion going on thinking that somehow kids that were being homeschooled were being given an advantage. Yet, I don’t feel that I started out with the same basic education I could have gotten even at a poor rural high-school. Science labs? Hah. I never had a science CLASS, except for what I read on my own. Sure my folks taught what ‘they’ thought was science. You know. . . Things like going to hear Kent Hovind. . . Good ‘quality’ science education there.
LRA, I have to tell you that I am having trouble seeing your side. You are directly impeaching the education of several people here with your private beliefs about education. (Some of which don’t even particularly seem to be true; a history professor in a small public school might be the athletic director, not someone with any higher education in their field at all.)
Sorry to respond over here, but I was at class and missed the longer discussion with brgulker.
I resent your assertion that my parents are ignorant. I resent the implication that I was dealt a terrible setback by the education that you scorn.
You can quite easily say that you are obviously not directing your comments at me, but unfortunately, that doesn’t change their content. If I say that people with darker skin than mine are ignorant, it doesn’t make me less bigoted if I apologize and make specific exceptions when confronted with contrary evidence, but dismiss this evidence as an anomaly for everyone who does not get explicitly argued for.
You don’t have to respond to this if you’re tired of the discussion, but I cannot for the life of me bring myself to be un-offended right now.
Robert Kunzman now has his own take on the story through the Beacon Press blog . It looks like he’s got more information than I do, and he’s probably the most informed commentator right now.
Ultimately, this case is an argument about the purposes of education, and the best means of achieving those purposes. Conservative Christian homeschoolers don’t apologize for their intent to “write these laws on their children”—they believe this is their God-given right and responsibility. At the same time, I’ve yet to meet a homeschool parent who says she doesn’t want her children to learn to think for themselves and make their beliefs their own. The parents I spent time with recognized—and were continually challenged by—the tension of encouraging such growth while also instilling an underlying foundation of Christian beliefs and commitments.
Outsiders often perceive conservative Christian homeschooling as a straightjacket of conformity, where kids have to toe an ideological line without the opportunity to consider other ways of being in the world. But I’ve also encountered many public school students who rarely, if ever, bring a critical eye to their own way of life, their understanding of the world. Perhaps for some kids, whether homeschoolers or conventional schoolers, the capacity to step back and critically examine the culture and belief system in which they were raised won’t really develop until adulthood. The open question, of course, is what types of educational experiences beforehand will make that eventual self-awareness more or less likely.
He hit the nail on the head.
I homeschool my kids, but not because I have a religious motive…..only because the public schools in Las Vegas are absolute shit. We’re full of illegal aliens’ children who wind up becoming the only english speaking party in the ENTIRE household. It’s the influx of illegal alien kids that are flooding the education system and dropping teacher performance and grade levels. It takes a lot of money and time to teach English to the otherwise uninclined. It’s a drain on the system. The money is just not there.
We’re full of illegal aliens’ children who wind up becoming the only English speaking party in the ENTIRE household.[...]It takes a lot of money and time to teach English to the otherwise uninclined.
Color me confused.
Confused about what exactly? The money required from the limited funds available to teach ESL in the public schools? It’s a very real problem, You can call it racist or whatever helps you sleep at night. If you’ve got an english speaking student in the public schools in nevada, funding is taken away from your kid to accomodate the kids who are not primarily english-speaking.
What would you prefer? Not teaching people English? That doesn’t seem like much of a solution.
If the US liberalized immigration laws, those students you mention would be children of tax-paying adults, thus paying into the system. If your problem is with illegals, make them legal. Solves the problem as easily as complaining about ESL funding, and doesn’t require xenophobia, to boot.
You have no children, this is clear….you also have no experience with Nevada’s education system. The fact that you say ‘U.S.’ means you probably don’t even live here. The situation is much more compex than I can relate here, let alone relate to someone who it does not apply to. Calling people xenophobic is weak, and inappropriate. You say ‘make them legal’ as if that’s an easy option…most of the illegals avoid that at all costs. Ask the illegals to become legal and see what sort of response you get. Absolutely teach people English…but when it’s only taught to the children who then bring it home to the parents who have no desire to actually exert the effort, you’re dealing with a catch -22.
You have no children, this is clear…
Correct, but hardly relevant. I have *been* a child, which is just as qualifying.
…[y]ou also have no experience with Nevada’s education system.
True. On the other hand, I have tons of experience with the Rhode Island education system, which has large ESL classes and a large immigrant population.
The fact that you say ‘U.S.’ means you probably don’t even live here.
What an odd assumption. I am a natural-born US citizen.
The situation is much more compex than I can relate here, let alone relate to someone who it does not apply to.
Try. It can’t be *that* hard. What are the problems? What have been the attempted solutions? What motivates the major players in the situation?
Calling people xenophobic is weak, and inappropriate.
According to you, there is a ‘flood’ of illegal immigrant children, who are ‘uninclined to learn English’ and ‘dropping teacher performance and grade levels’. They’re ESL programs are ‘taking away money from other kids’.
Short version: It’s all their fault. Them. You know, those people who aren’t like us?
How is this not xenophobia?
You say ‘make them legal’ as if that’s an easy option…
It is easy. It’s called ‘amnesty’. Last time it was tried, in ’84 by Reagan, four million formerly illegal immigrants became tax-paying citizens. Overnight.
…most of the illegals avoid that at all costs. Ask the illegals to become legal and see what sort of response you get.
I work in the hotel industry, so trust me, I know more than a few illegal immigrants. They would *love* to be able to become Americans, if for no other reason than to stop looking over their shoulder and live honestly. Oddly enough, they all learned enough English to communicate. It’s kind of a survival skill in an English-majority country.
Absolutely teach people English…but when it’s only taught to the children who then bring it home to the parents who have no desire to actually exert the effort, you’re dealing with a catch -22.
So your solution is give up? Besides, I don’t grant your premise that the parents “have no desire to actually exert the effort”. How do *you* propose that parents who at best speak English as a second language help teach their kids English? That makes absolutely no sense; it has nothing to do with effort and much more to do with simple capacity. Would it make sense to argue that a parent who didn’t know calculus whose kids were taking calculus simply weren’t “trying hard enough” if they didn’t know how to help their kids with their studies?
This is why ESL classes are essential, by helping to create a generation of immigrant children who speak English proficiently.
I love your simplified accusations about my statements. If it was the way you present it, there’d be so many answers and no problems whatsoever. Typical . You at least made me chuckle. :)
I love your simplified accusations about my statements.
They were direct quotes, after all. I mean, some districts have a large immigrant population and very little trouble (such as the one I attended), while others (including, apparently, yours) have a great deal. Could it be that the problem lies not with the presence of the immigrants, but rather with the competence of the school administration? Or poor priorities and budgeting on behalf of the town/city government? Or a general tax burden not consummate with the expected services? You focused like a laser on what you considered to be “the problem”, which is those darned illegals and their kids clogging up the works. And you demurred completely on explaining the “complexity of the problem” you claimed exists.
If it was the way you present it, there’d be so many answers and no problems whatsoever.
Of course not. Every policy has problems and difficulties. But at least I have evidence backing my assertions, e.g. one of the elements of a possible solution has been tried before nationally and had positive results. All you have presented thus far is un-backed assertions such as “they don’t want to become legal” and “they are uninterested in learning English”, casting an entire group in fairly ridiculous blanket statements.
A great deal of the resistance to liberalizing immigration law here in the US does have to do with concerns of cultural shift away from what is understood to be the Anglo-Saxon norm. A hundred years ago, the notion of “average Americans” eating pizza and celebrating St. Patrick’s Day would have been politically blasphemous; such as it is today with Hispanic culture. To say that xenophobia drives a great deal of the debate is neither inaccurate nor controversial. Americans have *always* struggled with issues of national cultural identity, due to the circumstances that have led and continue to lead to our ever diversifying demographic makeup.
To have anxiety about cultural identity and feel xenophobia is completely understandable. It is not (and I pointedly did not call it) racism. But to not call it what it is (i.e. xenophobia; the fear of the other, or the fear of becoming or being affected by the other), is to do a disservice to the conversation: when “they” and “them” become casually identified as the root of most problems, generally speaking something far more complicated is actually going on.
“All you have presented thus far is un-backed assertions such as “they don’t want to become legal” and “they are uninterested in learning English”, casting an entire group in fairly ridiculous blanket statements”.
In the state of Nevada, it’s absolutely true that the # of illegals who want to assimilate is very, very low..
I know you’d like to be able to sit back and call everyone xenophobic (a really popular term with you), however, this is not the case. I have no problem with cultures melding into whatever may be the culture here…being american indian myself. I can assure you that our state financial problems, as is true with most states in the u.s., are related to illegals and their use of the systems at their disposal.
I’ve been closely involved with my own children’s school districts. You can tell me the school districts are xenophobic all day long. Approach them with that. The hospitals and the welfare systems and the schools are plugged up with ‘illegals’. There’s no way of presenting it to you (apparently) without sounding xenophobic.
Again, I’m speaking from a definite experience here in MY state. You can choose to infer whatever you choose. When I speak about the conditions in my state, you cannot argue. Disabuse yourself of that. The Nevada school district is 70% hispanic, which puts a drain financially on the ESL system. Why? Ask them. You seem to think the funds are available. They are not. It’s not my opinion. You’re trying to make this a personal argument.
Well that just settles it, he used the word “absolutely true”, first.
“In the state of Nevada, it’s absolutely true that the # of illegals who want to assimilate is very, very low.. “
I know you’d like to be able to sit back and call everyone xenophobic (a really popular term with you), however, this is not the case.
Everyone? I said that your statements seemed xenophobic in the sense that I defined it, and also that the debate generally is driven in large part by xenophobia. If it is not true in your particular case I apologize. It is demonstrably true about the argument at large, and I make no apologies for pointing that out.
I have no problem with cultures melding into whatever may be the culture here…being american indian myself.
This is the logical equivalent of “I’m black, so I cannot possibly be racist.” You may not be xenophobic, but this is not exactly “evidence”.
I can assure you that our state financial problems, as is true with most states in the u.s., are related to illegals and their use of the systems at their disposal.
Facts? Figures? There are approximately 101,000 illegal immigrants in Nevada, or 4.2% of the population. You are telling me that 4.2% of the population (not all of whom even have kids in school) is somehow such a drain on heath and human services in your state (and many others) that the state is broke because of it.
That’s absurd. It may *seem* like a bigger problem because of personal experience, which is why anecdote and direct experience are not what scientists call “evidence”. What is the causal mechanism for 4% of the population “clogging the system”?
There’s no way of presenting it to you (apparently) without sounding xenophobic.
Sure there is. Present evidence. It’s so simple. If you contend that states are broke because of illegal immigration, provide a statistic that shows the % drain of annual budget of illegal aliens in each area you claim. What % of hospital services do they consume? How exactly do they collect welfare benefits? What % of the school budget is dedicated to ESL?
Correlation is not causation. Anecdote is not evidence. You made a claim, you back it up. That’s how you convince someone without seeming “xenophobic”. If the facts are on your side, and you can explain the causal mechanism, you win!
. When I speak about the conditions in my state, you cannot argue. Disabuse yourself of that. The Nevada school district is 70% hispanic, which puts a drain financially on the ESL system. Why? Ask them. You seem to think the funds are available. They are not. It’s not my opinion. You’re trying to make this a personal argument.
What I cannot argue is whether or not those are your experiences. What I can argue about is what those experiences indicate objectively. The facts & figures do not support your perception, so I can infer that your perception is not reflective of the situation.
Especially when you start eliding distinctions.
Your original argument was that “illegal immigrants are clogging the system” and using as evidence that “Hispanics are 70% of the district.” If the illegal immigrant population is 4.2%, and the state Hispanic population is 20.1%, either the most profoundly statistically unlikely confluence of events are occurring in your corner of Nevada, or your perception is distorted by your perspective. Either way, the second statement does not evince the first in any way, nor support your argument that illegal immigrants are responsible for ESL program inflation.
As a descendant of Hispanic immigrants, I appreciate you pointing out the xenophobic racism in Injun Trouble’s posts.
My great grandfather came here, learned english, and ranched or picked fruit to make a living. My grandfather built bridges. My mother picked fruit to help her family make money. I once ran a 150 million a year company that employed over a hundred people. I later helped start a company that still exists and employs several dozen people.
Injun, you have no idea what those people are doing, or where they or their children will end up. I could have come from a line of slackers going back twenty generations, and I’d have still been a net gain for the country.
Here’s the thing: you don’t get to decide which people are of value, and which are a drain. Because you don’t effing know.
Here’s the thing: you don’t get to decide which people are of value, and which are a drain. Because you don’t effing know.
Couldn’t be put simpler, or better.
Where did Injun Trouble go? Lol.
Probably someone who googles for mentions of home schooling.
Right on.
“I can assure you that our state financial problems, as is true with most states in the u.s., are related to illegals and their use of the systems at their disposal”
I think that’s a common lie everywhere. Not only has Elemenope given you some statistics (around 4% of illegal people) about Nevada, but…
If that’s the problem the solution is easy: give him the citizenship and they will pay the taxes.
Moreover, illegal people is probably working in the US. There are employers who are paying them far less than they will pay to a US citizen, thus they are having a benefit. How are those employers helping to fund your state?
Not to mention:
Each illegal alien is buying goods with their wages, and thus paying sales taxes.
Each illegal alien is living somewhere, most likely paying a landlord, who uses that rental income in part to pay property taxes.
Nearly every local jurisdiction in the US gets its tax revenue from only two sources: sales tax and property tax. The vast majority of illegal aliens do not earn enough to have to pay income taxes if they were legal, and so that’s a non-issue. The only tax that illegal aliens are truly “skipping out” on is the payroll tax, for social security and medicare. And they don’t qualify for either of those services anyway.
Not to mention the fact that illegal aliens can’t really report you to OSHA. So illegals are often employed – through a screen of a contractor company – by companies who have some dangerous or disgusting job that needs doing.
If the illegal aliens were chased out, the company would have to pay several times more to make the job safe and pay employees enough to justify the work.
I ran a large manufacturing company in LA. I know for a fact we had a number of illegal aliens working for us. But we fulfilled all of the legal requirements of the I-9, and all of those people had papers.
Which means we took out payroll taxes from them. Taxes that they would never ever receive future services for. I mean, what do you think the government does with money it receives that it can’t apply to a current social security number? Give it back?
As a group, recent immigrants and illegal aliens pay just as much of their income in taxes as anyone else in their bracket does, and receive very few of the services those taxes support. How are they a drain, again?
Ty you’re confusing people with facts. They are ILLEGAL ALIENS. That’s all that needs to be said. Anything more and people might have to use their brains.
Related to the Story:
This seems to me a custody issue. There is no proof of abuse, only spoken statements.
My Opinion:
I don’t like home schooling, but I don’t think people should stop just because I disagree with it.
That said there are many places I wish there could be more outside influence on the people that do home school. There is seemingly nothing to prevent me from teaching my children at a very early age that our view is the only right one. The biggest problem I have with homeschooling is that it has a tendency to group people together who already agree and enhances the effect of groupthink, all those home schooling parents only hanging out with others of the same or similar opinion. When outside influences are not let in you not always but very often end up with very zealous people. I think it is the lack of outside influence type of home schooler that is the problem. All of this comes to the point of a double edged sword if you ask me. We allow home schooling and we can end up with some pretty ignorant children. At the same time we can allow home schooling and end up with people that are better educated than those in public schools. Society has to settle on somewhere in the middle. What does annoy me about home schooling is the fact that there is nothing to stop somebody who doesn’t have even a high school diploma from mis-educating their children. This may differ from state to state but I think it’s stupid when willful ignorance is taught as something to value and the kids are not always given all the facts. I have friends who have been home schooled but they later decided they needed to know more about the way the world works that mommy or daddy didn’t teach them. Unfortunately some will never learn critical thinking. This where I agree with LRA though: anti-science views hold society back and those who don’t develop critical thinking skills will unknowingly limit their own choices and some still will go on to either force their views on others through getting on the board of education or other such political power, or they will end up home schooling their children into their limited-choices-ignorant and sometimes vicious point of view.
Note: this is not the outcome of all home schooling.