By Vorjack
This is a continuation of my review for Robert Kunzman’s Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling.
Getting Testy about Testing
For an atheist who’s only experience with Christian home-schooling is the movie Jesus Camp, this book may come as a surprise. Many of the families are open minded and flexible — but only up to a point. It’s clear that they all fall on the right side of the political and religious spectrum.
None of the families are exactly getting a NCSE approved education on evolution. The families use books like Eagle’s Wings: Considering God’s Creation (A Creative Biblical Approach to Natural Science), books which are laced with biblical quotes and which give the standard arguments against natural selection.
Pullquote: “We’re going to be opening up our Kingfisher History Encyclopedia and read about how people evolved thirty million years ago from a speck of dust or whatever”
While Kunzman spends only a few paragraphs talking about this problem — really, does anyone find the above surprising? — it’s one of the most frustrating things about the conservative Christian home-school movement. Evolution is at once very simple (“dead organisms don’t breed”), and at the same time very difficult to really understand. As evidence, I suggest looking at all the misunderstandings we see from commentators on the science blogs.
Since evolution is so easy to misunderstand or caricature, it seems important that kids get an accurate explanation at the outset. It doesn’t bode well when one parent promises to discuss evolution with their child by saying, “We’re going to be opening up our Kingfisher History Encyclopedia and read about how people evolved thirty million years ago from a speck of dust or whatever; those are not things from which I’ll shelter them.” (203)
It would be wonderful to see some standardized testing that would ensure that the child has received an accurate understanding of the principles, even if they do not accept them. This will happen the day Billy Graham Jr. french-kisses the Pope.
Throughout the book, Kunzman suggests standardized testing for basic things like reading and math. The tests would be method neutral, but give an assessment of how much of the basics that child understands. While at least one mother subscribes to a service that provides such tests, most are actively hostile to the notion of any regulation or outside group interfering in their education process.
Passing on the Traditions
Pullquote: “I want my kids to think like me, not because I’m perfect, but because I love God and I want to follow him.”
Most of us are good pluralists, and want our children to grow up and have certain basic things: health, happiness, stability, and a willingness to allow others to have the same. How they go about achieving those things is negotiable. While most of us feel that we’ve found a way that works, we’re usually willing to allow that other ways may work better for other people. In other words, there is no single right path to take in life.
Broadly speaking, most to the parents in this book believe that there is one right way. While they pay lip-service to allowing their kids to choose their own path, they adamantly ensuring their kids learn all about the single correct path. They make little or no distinction between education and upbringing; the child does not learn math at school and morality at home, but should get everything as one package. Home-schooling is a way of life, a seamless part of the the whole.
Here’s how one mother put it:
“I want my kids to think like me, not because I’m perfect, but because I love God and I want to follow him. [...] I want them to look and say, ‘Mom and Dad showed us how to know God; they’re not perfect, they screw up, but they showed us’ — and I want those beliefs to become theirs, obviously. (212)
Contrast this with Robert M. Price. On a recent podcast discussing atheist parenting, Price suggested that parents teach their kids their own religious traditions and beliefs, but say, “This is what I believe, but I may be wrong and many people believe other things for many good reasons. You have to figure out what you believe yourself.”
This conflict is at the center of the debate: how does the parent ensure that their child understands the “right” way, while still allowing them the freedom to come to their own conclusions? What is the dividing line between education and indoctrination?
Each of the six families in this book are still grappling with this question, each fitfully answering it as best they can. Kunzman admirably allows each family to tell their own story, while still evaluating each with the eye of a parent and an educator. He provides no solid answers, but the insight he provides is absolutely essential to the ongoing debate.
Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.
Okay, help me understand this… you are surprised that the majority (or even all) of the families in this book fall on the right side of the political spectrum? When that is who the author “targeted”? There should be no surprise for a person of your inteligence. It was his focus to “expose” what happens in Christian Homeschools. Like I said yesterday, “oooh, scary”. Which I still don’t believe, the author had his political axe to grind, and this book is just a vehicle for that axe.
What I don’t understand is why you believe it’s OK to indoctrinate children at the will of the government, but you find it terribly offensive to allow parents to teach what they believe.
Your statement above:
None of the families are exactly getting a NCSE approved education on evolution. The families
use books like Eagle’s Wings: Considering God’s Creation (A Creative Biblical Approach to
Natural Science), books which are laced with biblical quotes and which give the standard
arguments against natural selection.
Does the government REALLY have more rights to teaching my child than I do? If you agree that the government should have more rights to raising my child than I do, I think we need to have much larger discussion about the type of country we live in.
I do have to give you credit, you are one of the first bloggers I’ve read to suggest that evolution is “so easy to misunderstand”. And there are a lot of reasons that it is easy to misunderstand, although I’m sure you won’t believe me, we do explain the evolution story to our children and let them decide what is true or not.
We test our children every year, just so we can track their progress year-over-year, but also to see how much further ahead they are than their public school friends. Not to sound elitist, but there are many studies that show homeschool children are far superior scholastically, than their public school counterparts, here is just one such recent study (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082705.html). But we do the testing voluntarily, without any duty to, or demand from the government to share the information with the governent, just the way it should be.
Why are (people such as yourself) so threatened by homeschooling? Why do you choose to attack a movement that is wildly sucessful, versus public school which is an abject failure? Are you afraid that the U.S. may actually be a force again in the intelectual-world community? Do you want our country to continue to be the educational laughing stock of the world? Or is it something deeper, perhaps a deep realization that homeschoolers may actually be getting it right? One-on-one teaching really is the best way to educate, then families would have to re-evaluate their priorities and maybe even realize that their children are more important than making the 2nd car payment.
Oh, wait, we couldn’t have that. Driving a used Volvo, that would never do, what would the neighbors think?
Maybe the government could mandate that all families homeschool!
But that would out you and I at odds again, wouldn’t it?
Thanks for the spirited debate.
God Bless!
Okay, help me understand this… you are surprised that the majority (or even all) of the families in this book fall on the right side of the political spectrum?
No. The first sentence basically refers back to an earlier argument we had on the blog, where it seems that some folks were getting their understanding of the home-school movement via “Jesus Camp.” (or at least that was the accusation.) For those people, the families in Kunzman’s book are going to seem amazingly normal, if such a phrase can be used. With a few exceptions, most of the people interviewed were not radical domionists or apocalyptic nutjobs.
But that’s damning with faint praise. None of them are exactly going to set our little atheistic hearts aflutter with joy. They’re all creationists, for example, and none of them are going to support a strong wall of separation between church and state. Understand, there are plenty of conservatives – even some conservative Christians – who agree with us about these things. But they are not to be found in Kunzman’s book.
I hope that clears up the meaning of those three sentences.
Does the government REALLY have more rights to teaching my child than I do?
Did I say that they did? I’m confused.
Maybe the problem is the NCSE reference. That stands for National Center for Science Education. It’s a non-profit organization, not a government body. It’s disapproval has the same political force as a disapproving bunny.
So the question has nothing to do with a matter of rights.
what about the “compulsory” in compulsory education?
You spelled “intelectual” instead of intellectual. Sorry for pointing that out.
I don’t think the problem is wanting to teach at home. If I had a kid, I think I’d consider it, given the state of many schools out there. I’d want to make sure he or she was getting a well rounded education and come out of it better prepared than public school would be able to achieve. Classes really are too large to adequately serve a child’s needs, especially if it’s a kid that just doesn’t “get it” or whatever. By and large, I’m glad I switched majors. I really wouldn’t want to be a teacher these days.
The trouble is that well-rounded education. Are these kids learning all they should know about geology and history and science and the like? Are they getting the best information available, or just what their parents think is best based on their self-induced belief limitations?
I’m still trying to figure out why people think that teaching evolution is a non-negotiable aspect of a scientific education.
I was taught that evolution was just a theory, and that there were weaknesses in that theory. But, I was at least aware of the theory and its basic principles and arguments.
Personally, I’m glad to have accepted evolution as a fact of history, not just a theory. I find it incredibly interesting. But I’m trying to figure out if that acceptance has any tangible impacts on my daily life, and other than relieving some cognitive dissonance, I’m not sure that it has.
I guess what I’m trying to figure out is this: if evolution should be an integral part of education — and it’s obviously one of the primary objections that’s been raised against homeschooling in our debates here — shouldn’t there be some concrete benefits of teaching it?
Using myself as an example, I don’t think that I was any worse off, any less prepared, etc., for living a successful and satisfying life as a direct or indirect result of not being taught that evolution was a fact of history. Maybe I’m simply blind as a result of my experience.
What do you all think?
I’m still trying to figure out why people think that teaching evolution is a non-negotiable aspect of a scientific education.
That didn’t come out right. I don’t think we should take evolution out of public education. I was thinking more in terms of people who want to force people to stop homeschooling because they don’t teach evolution as a fact of history.
Evolution is one of the major supporting theories of biology, the science of understanding living things. Biology as a science supports many of the other large science such as antropology, psychology, sociology, etc. Failing to have a good grasp, let along any grasp at all, of the topic is big prerequisite to understanding science and the human experience.
You could argue so what? How does that make me any happier as a person. But you have to remember these individuals have a fundamentally flawed understanding of science in some of its most basic forms. They then grow up and begin to lobby for changes to science education not just for their children but for everyone’s children based on the fact that they didn’t get a correct understanding of science “but they’re perfectly happy anyway”. The reason that homeschoolers should be required to have to demonstrate a solid grasp of evolutionary science is because they don’t exist and live in a vacuum. They live in a social system where the can take their broken concepts and then affect and negatively impact the lives and education of others.
Well put!
Yeah, Siveambrai said my answer. People do have an impact on the world. Sometimes small, sometimes large. And their impact when they form groups is even more profound.
Right now, we have large groups of people negatively impacting our country with their attempts to get theology taught as science. That’s real harm.
“But you have to remember these individuals have a fundamentally flawed understanding of science in some of its most basic forms. They then grow up and begin to lobby for changes to science education not just for their children but for everyone’s children based on the fact that they didn’t get a correct understanding of science “but they’re perfectly happy anyway”. The reason that homeschoolers should be required to have to demonstrate a solid grasp of evolutionary science is because they don’t exist and live in a vacuum. They live in a social system where the can take their broken concepts and then affect and negatively impact the lives and education of others.”
This has been my *exact* argument all along!!!!
I object to homeschooling by principle because I think the right of the child to receive a proper education should prevail over the right of the parents to indoctrinate him. Parents should not be allowed to prevent their children from learning about a proven fact of nature which is essential to understand the universe, just because they don’t like what it implies, or what they think it implies (most christians in the world reconcile evolution with their faith).
And so it’s for politicians to decide what a “proper education” is, or did you have another authority in mind?
If you have a different way to get laws passed, I’d like to hear about it.
So, what a child learns is to be mandated by legislation?
The very fact that they have to be educated is mandated by legislation.
Yes, Aor, but the argument is about the content of that education.
So you have no problem with a politician forcing you to get your children educated, only with forcing them to be educated in any given topic?
What if someone thinks a proper education is no education at all?
Personally, I have no problem with there being a general requirement to be educated. But in my mind, this is somewhat akin to creating a general requirement to breathe air. By existing, by merely observing people and situations, people learn a great deal, such as how to speak their native language.
What I do have a problem with is a person or group of people arrogating the authority to dictate to others what an education should or should not contain. Society is free to come to a majoritarian consensus about what should or should not be taught, and these decisions ought to be reflected in whatever curriculum exists in the government-run school system. But society is not free to compel people to agree with its dictates beyond requiring people to directly harm one another or their property, and hence there needs to be a right to take one’s ball and go home.
Again you take a position that contradicts your other positions. If nobody has the authority to dictate to others what an education should or should not contain, then nobody has the authority to dictate that their education should contain anything.
People have every right to get together and come to general agreement about what they would like to teach, but they do not have the right to force others to follow their program. This is the basic difference between consensus and coercion, which I thought I expressed clearly, but apparently not clearly enough.
So the nation has the right to say that its citizens must have an education, but does not have the right to determine what an education is… which naturally means that they don’t have the right to say that such education must be ‘non-zero’ so to speak. You have no objection to goverment saying ‘you must be educated’ but you balk at them saying anything at all about what that education must be.
That is a common belief in libertarians who haven’t actually thought through the implications of their belief system. If they accept that a nation has the right to legislate education at all, then they must accept that the state has the right to set the guidelines on what defines an education and what the minimum standards of an education are…otherwise any given school can teach zero and take the tax money.
That might satisfy radical libertarians, but it sounds distinctly wishy washy to everyone else.
If they accept that a nation has the right to legislate education at all, then they must accept that the state has the right to set the guidelines on what defines an education and what the minimum standards of an education are…otherwise any given school can teach zero and take the tax money.
Uh, no.
Let’s say a government says “everyone must get an education!”. Fine, first principles. As I said, silly and redundant, but whatever; makes people feel good.
Then a government may say, “every school run by the government must meet certain criteria!” No problem.
What the government cannot ethically say is “everyone must [[either] attend government-run schools! [or] everyone must follow the criteria we have laid out for our government-run schools!]”.
They can do the first (symbolic) thing without necessarily implying the third one follows logically. They can do the second likewise without necessarily implying the third.
Nope, it’s for the experts in the respective fields to decide what a “proper education” is. I want well-respected scientists deciding the science curriculum.
“I want well-respected scientists deciding the science curriculum.”
if you want that you’ll have to skip out on elementary, middle, junior high, and high school and go straight to university.
Well, no because college professors write the textbooks for public school. IE Ken Miller wrote one of the most used biology textbooks for high school.
An expert in science will place undue emphasis on science education. An expert in American history will place undue emphasis on American history. An expert in English will place undue emphasis on English.
(Replace “will” with “might” if you like it better)
If I am an artist who gets science shoved down my throat, how is that helpful exactly? If I am a math kid who takes nothing but history, how is that helpful? The thing is, education means different things to different people. I don’t care how much time a school spends on science education, there is a 0% chance that every student they produce will go on to a career in science. The point of an education is to get a basic groundwork in a bunch of things, pick one, and specialize. An education is more helpful in today’s economic and academic environment if it is specialized to a degree, but specializing before you lay the groundwork is counter-productive.
What I’m saying is that the options are basically, give everyone a general education at first, or start specializing right away. Homeschooling allows people to specialize sooner than public school due to one-on-one instruction (sometimes). Public school allows for a broader general foundation (sometimes). Both of these are valid strategies.
What I think you are saying is that you would like to push kids into more specialized areas sooner, regardless of whether they take to it or not. That seems like the worst of both worlds to me… Am I confused?
Umm… yes you are. That’s why I said that I want well-respected scientists deciding *science* curriculum.
“Nope, it’s for the experts in the respective fields to decide what a “proper education” is.”
*respective fields* as in *their* respective fields!!!
Right, and what I’m saying is that a philosopher puts undue emphasis on philosophy and a sociologist puts undue emphasis on sociology. I suppose it could be perfectly balanced, but you are mostly just pushing for science. Incidentally, does that mean that you think home schooling does other subjects reasonably well?
@JonJon
I agree that almost any expert will have some degree of bias towards their respective field but the alternative seems to be to choose someone who has no interest or understanding of what they’re mandating children should learn and may still be biased against an area of study. I know which version I prefer.
JonJon, I think you are confused. I’m saying that experts in science determine science curriculum, experts in history determine history curriculum, experts in math determine math curriculum, etc. I don’t know what you mean by “undue emphasis.” It’s not like I’m saying that experts in science determine English curriculum. That would be silly since the proper people to determine English curriculum, imo, are the experts in English. In our society the experts are the scholars. It is they who have spent the most time studying and understanding the material, so it is they who should get the say in what gets taught in their respective fields.
I was taught that evolution was just a theory, and that there were weaknesses in that theory.” That just shows a misunderstanding of what “theory” means in the scientific sense, versus the popular sense.
Yes there are weaknesses in the theory, but those weaknesses are getting fixed as new discoveries are made by people who actively explore the world and the universe. That’s not something that happens with religion. Don’t explore, don’t search, don’t ask questions: just accept what the church says. Have faith. Science says: ask questions, find out, challenge the accepted truths.
While he may have confused the colloquial “theory” with the scientific definition, you are evincing some odd notions about the process of holding religious beliefs. It reminds me of a flyer that the local Episcopal church posted on the college campus I attended, which said “To believe, you don’t need to turn off your brains. We don’t.” Since I knew and had great conversations with one of the congregants about religion (a good friend of mine and fellow philosophy major), I knew they weren’t kidding.
It is not a necessary condition of faith to expunge doubt or to cease questioning. Some religious institutions, some congregations, some pastors discourage exploration or searching or doubting, but many don’t, and I would submit to you that the ones who do are betraying the vitality of their faith.
If you find a question or doubt that can’t be answered throw the blanket of, “God works in mysterious ways.” is usually how it goes.
Yeah…not so much. At least, not in my experience of talking with religious people. Sure, some do, but many do not.
I love it when I’m implied to be intellectually irresponsible… Keep it up.
I was taught that evolution was just a theory, and that there were weaknesses in that theory.” That just shows a misunderstanding of what “theory” means in the scientific sense, versus the popular sense.
Yes, I agree. I understand that now.
That’s not something that happens with religion. Don’t explore, don’t search, don’t ask questions: just accept what the church says. Have faith. Science says: ask questions, find out, challenge the accepted truths.
Elemenelope hit the nail on the head.
It is not a necessary condition of faith to expunge doubt or to cease questioning. Some religious institutions, some congregations, some pastors discourage exploration or searching or doubting, but many don’t, and I would submit to you that the ones who do are betraying the vitality of their faith.
Hunderesd of thousands fossiles and other sience proofs all pointing that evolution is fact and people still that one lousy book that has no scientific basis is the only true thing!
7 billion of people in the world and only 300 million think that evolution is wrong. Those people happen to live in one country.
Erm, not exactly.
And this graph only shows western countries. The numbers for the Middle East or South America are probably even worse.
“What is the dividing line between education and indoctrination?”
I struggle with this every day. My wife is Catholic (not practicing in church though), and I am an Athiest. Our daughter is going to a day care located in a church. Yes, they have a chapel day, and have a daily lesson about God/Jeebus. The crux of my problem is that I see all the other benefits she gets from going to this setting. Partly it’s the great education she’s getting, but mainly it’s that she is Diabetic, and they give her the care and attention she needs to manage that at such a young age.
I worry all the time that she’s receiving early indoctrination, but then I tell myself that I did as well, and that she’ll eventually be getting more of a public school education than I did. While I attended school, I questioned my faith, and everything else I was being told about religion. I just hold on to hope that she will to.
But in the end, I’ll love her regardless of her beleifs.
Agreed, some public schools are not up to par with others, and that is where the parent should fill in (or move to a different school district, or put the kid in private school). I think the issue here is teaching the child to consider multiple viewpoints and to practice critical thinking. If the child is not socialized with others of different belief systems, or never taught the principles of other belief systems objectively, he or she will never have the opportunity to question those beliefs or to question the beliefs of his/her family. Once the child grows up, if he or she goes away to college or moves to a different town, he/she will need to know how to deal with the real world.
I realize this is going to sound like a sweeping generalization, but…I’ll just go ahead and throw this out there. I went to middle school and high school in the Colorado Springs area, among a high concentration of military, Focus on the Family, and New Life Church families. I myself was never homeschooled (a fact for which I thank my parents repeatedly), but I had many friends and acquaintances who were. The thing is… you can tell. I’m not at all trying to imply that all homeschoolers are awkward or socially inept, but it was usually pretty clear to me who had and hadn’t been. The longer the period of homeschooling, the greater the social repercussions. Now, in my mid-20s, I have friends who laughingly say they still don’t feel “fully recovered” from their homeschool experience, and insist (whether they are still “believers” or not) that they do not plan to inflict homeschooling upon their own children. I know that social ability is a hard thing to quantify, but this doesn’t seem to have been touched on yet in this thread. Does anyone have any studies for or against? What do you all think?
Something that I’ve never understood is why untrained parents would think themselves qualified to do a job that other people have to get degrees in. Just because you, at one point, attended the sixth grade, does not make you inherently qualified to therefore *teach* the sixth grade. Imagine the uproar if public school teachers were found to be teaching without licenses. Aside from the focused, one-on-one attention (which I’m sure is great), as I see it, the only academic benefit to being homeschooled would come from having an experienced parent who holds separate specialized degrees in all areas of study, and is not only intelligent, but adept at passing this information on in a pleasant, easy-to-understand, and patient manner.
Molly-
The reason that, as you put it, “untrained parents” are qualified to teach their own children is because they know them. You can’t put an educational price tag on knowing your student. Who is better to teach a sudent than their own flesh and blood? Knowing every nuance of their personality, how to reach the student when they are in a bad mood, tired or just not interested. Granted, it’s not for everyone, but for most homeschoolers it is where their heart is. They actually care about the student, as if it was their own.. oh wait, he/she is their own. :-)
Let’s talk about how well trained the teachers really are anyway. Even ignoring that they have been indoctrinated themselves, in the public school system and worse yet the universities around the country. How many of you had a coach that taught you science, or biology, or worse yet, english. He was hired as a coach, and he may have been a good one, but why is he teaching in the classroom?
Not to mention the flexability of homeschooling, maybe the student does better when they have lunch @ 11:15 vs. 1:30. A luxury they won’t have in government school.
I don’t understand why all you folks are so willing to give your children over to the government. Are you so complacent about your own childrens’ welfare and upbringing that you would leave it in the hands of the same folks (the government) that make war on your behalf and implement the death of Social Security, on your behalf, and ensure that all students will get the lowest possible education, arguably (if you look at cost per student) in the world, on your behalf?
All of that is OK, if that’s the investment that you want to put into your own children, all I am asking is to focus on your own issues and leave homeschoolers out of it, we’ll fend for ourselves, as we have for the past 30 years. even if it means that one parent is at home, reducing the family income, it’s worth the investment in our children.
If you’re comfortable letting the government teach your children whatever they like, cool. Again, just leave us alone, let us raise the children that will lead this country in the future.
There is valid information out there that proves homeschoolers do better than public school children on nationalized tests.
I wish you all the best, God bless.
DJ -
I’m not at all doubting that you know your child’s personality in a different way than a public school teacher. Of course you do. It’s great that you know and love your kids – but do you know and love the material? All of it, every subject, to the same extent that someone with a degree in that subject would? I don’t have children, but if I ever do, I will want the absolute best for them in every possible sphere. This includes realizing that, while I may be an intelligent, well-educated person with the best of intentions for my child, I am not an expert on every subject. I want my children to learn from the best, and I don’t think it’s “being complacent about (their) welfare” to recognize my own limitations and trust their education to someone more qualified than I.
If you honestly believe that you can provide a higher-quality education than the public system, in every area and subject, then go for it, and good luck to you. In many areas, the public school system sucks, and homeschooling might be a good option in this case. However, in my experience with families who choose to homeschool, the parents do it primarily to shelter their children from the outside world. They want to immerse their children as fully as possible in religious propaganda and keep them from being introduced to material that might contradict their religious beliefs. In my experience, the families who homeschool are the same families who don’t let their kids watch TV, or insist that they only listen to Christian music, or prevent their kids from seeing Harry Potter movies because they’re worried about opening the door to demon possession.
Now, again, I don’t have kids, so I’m hardly an expert. BUT, I think it’s good for children to interact with other children. Even kids who don’t have similar beliefs, parents, family life, primary languages, traditions, etc. Even if it means your kids get picked on. To be a successful adult, you must learn to think for yourself, to be able to stand up for yourself, to deal with conflict between yourself and someone you don’t know well, to sort through and analyze material and use it to make informed decisions, etc. Homeschooling teaches your kids one perspective – yours. In public school, kids are exposed to a different teacher every year, meaning endless opportunities for new relationships, perspectives, exposure to new material, and methods of teaching.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a link to that “valid information that proves homeschoolers to better than public school children on nationalized tests”? And, which national leaders are you referring to? I wasn’t aware there was a high percentage of former homeschool kids in positions of national leadership.
One or two things caught my eye:
“Knowing every nuance of their personality, how to reach the student when they are in a bad mood, tired or just not interested.” And the student knows very well how to manipulate the teacher – because they know them so well. And the child gets no respite from being under the teacher’s eye.
“How many of you had a coach that taught you science, or biology, or worse yet, english.” Is this worse than having a parent do it? I don’t see why.
“maybe the student does better when they have lunch @ 11:15 vs. 1:30. A luxury they won’t have in government school.” Nor will they have it in a job. Best get used to it early.
“just leave us alone, let us raise the children that will lead this country in the future.” Without an understanding of what, how, and why things work – and an ability to really debate issues, without having to resort to faith-based arguments, they won’t be able to lead any country.
@DJ
you’re funny. you should do a stand-up act. it would be huge in the South.
“Just because you, at one point, attended the sixth grade, does not make you inherently qualified to therefore *teach* the sixth grade. Imagine the uproar if public school teachers were found to be teaching without licenses. Aside from the focused, one-on-one attention (which I’m sure is great), as I see it, the only academic benefit to being homeschooled would come from having an experienced parent who holds separate specialized degrees in all areas of study, and is not only intelligent, but adept at passing this information on in a pleasant, easy-to-understand, and patient manner.”
Yeah, I made that point too. And got jumped all over for it.
Heehee
Yup. every public school teacher has a specialized degree in their field, they are intelligent and have a lovely teaching style…
;)
LRA, you said having dental work performed on you didn’t make you qualified to pull teeth. Slightly different.
*hugs*
everyone is qualified to pull teeth. it’s pulling the correct ones that you need a degree for.
My friend (who’s a dentist) just read that over my shoulder and asked me to correct you: There’s some real skill and technique to pulling teeth, it seems ;-)
i suppose if you wanted it done correctly. but who can afford that these days?
JonJon
pppppppppbbbbbbbtttttthhhhhhh!!!!! :P
It was a metaphor silly!
*hugs*
yes, but yours wasn’t as good as this one.
:D
*jab* *jab*
ok, I’ll give ya that…
:)
Classic nirvana fallacy.
Molly – the studies you asked about:
http://www.nheri.org/Latest/Homeschooling-Across-America-Academic-Achievement-and-Demographic-Characteristics.html
http://www.nheri.org/Research-Facts-on-Homeschooling.html
http://www.nheri.org/Home-Educated-and-Now-Adults.html
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/default.asp
http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-11342-St-Louis-Homeschooling-Examiner~y2009m9d2-Homeschoolers-score-big-on-standardized-tests-including-ACTSAT-and-sign-up-begins-for-local-PSAT
So Molly-
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you should put your children in less than good learning conditions “Even if it means your kids get picked on” so that they can learn to be a successful adult? Do you hear what you are saying? In spite of the fact that it’s proven that the myth of “socialization” is wildly blown out of porportion, and that homeschool kids are generally more active in community organizations (as adults) than non-homeschoolers and that they are more likely to vote than non-homeschoolers, it is, according to you, more important to their development to be bullied? You can’t be saying that. (I think some of the studies above show this)
Good point about the curriculum, but relatively moot, since we, as homeschooling parents get to choose the curriculum, not only that we like and are comfortable with, but one that best suits the learning style of the student, you see you have choice in curiculum as a homeschooler, you can choose what works best with your teaching style and the students learning style, it’s really cool! Teachers in governmnet schools don’t get to choose the curriculm, and even if they did, they would be choosing one for sometimes 30 students or more, it can’t be tailored to the individual students learning style.
Television… there is almost nothing of benfit on television for children, but the real issue is why do you think that would be bad if that was a parents decision? To not even have a TV in the house. Missing what show do you think will stunt the childs development? The Simpsons? American Idol? What about re-runs of Beavis and Butthead, or Married with Children? Defending the indefensible doesn’t seem to be the road you should be going down.
You said, “To be a successful adult, you must learn to think for yourself, to be able to stand up for yourself, to deal with conflict between yourself and someone you don’t know well, to sort through and analyze material and use it to make informed decisions, etc.” I don’t disagree, it’s your next statement that you get completely wrong, ” Homeschooling teaches your kids one perspective – yours.” You seem to believe that because we homeschool, we live on 20 acres and never leave the house. Our kids are exposed to more “culture” and real life than any government school kid could hope to. You know, if you think about governmnet school, it is a false society. No other time in your life are surrounded by and subject to people that are your exact same age. And at no other time in your life are you under the enormous pressure to fit in with everyone else that is in your general vicinity. It is one of the biggest lies in our society that school prepares you for real life, It does just the opposite, it teaches students that if they don’t “fit-in” they wil be ridiculed (picked on as you say), possibly physically assaulted because they don’t dress, talk, act… whatever, like everyone else. Just for the record, our kids have a karate teacher and music teacher, so they are exposed to outside folks/teachers, that aren’t Christian.
I was speaking to future leaders that will (hopefully) be homeschoolers, homeschooling didn’t really get going until the late 80′s.
Thanks Molly, it’s been great chatting with you, have a blessed day.
Len-
Students do know how to manipulate teachers, don’t you think being familiar with the student is beneficial?
I used the coach scenario to illustrate that teachers, just because they are “teachers” aren’t necesarrilly even the best person in the school to teach the given class. And yes it is worse than having a parent teach it, again the parent knows the childs strengths, weaknesses, etc.
I thought education was the point, what’s best for the child, if that means something as inoccuos as when he eats lunch, that is a concession we’re willing to make.
Don’t worry about homeschoolers holding a job, they’ll do fine!
Same with the leading countries point, don’t be surprised in a few years!
Thank you all for reading my rantings and challenging my ideals!
God Bless!
I enjoy reading your comments. I homeschool and I’ve read this book. It was my best catalyst for improving my methods this year. I started homeschooling when we lived in the boonies and the creationists were pressuring our tiny school district to dumb down the biology. I’ve done a lot of history over the years, but only in the last few have I really tackled evolution (the books geared to kids are pretty minimal when compared to the glut of creationist dreck). My youngest and last homeschooler will read something with me next year – Darwin, Dawkins, Carroll – I’m not sure. I’ve got them all from the library and I’ll decide this month. I appreciate following your thoughts on this book. Thanks for sharing
In a totally live-and-let-live society, parents would be free to choose how their children are taught. Parents who wanted an education free from religion could do so, when those who wanted religion as part of education would be equally free to do so.
Our current system is already tilted. If you’re committed to giving your children a relgion-based education, you’ll get it in the public schools. So you decide to send your kids to a religious private school, or to home-school them. You’re still forced to pay, with your taxes, for the public school that you don’t want.
Atheist/secular people often argue that religious people are a menace, because they force their values on others. In this case, though, the religious parent is the one who wants their family to be left alone to educate as they choose. The atheist/secular people are more apt to advocate forcing these parents to, at the least, pay for the public schools in addition to the education they really want. At the worst, some on these forums advocate denying the religious parents the right to teach their own children, perhaps forcing them to send kids to public schools (in addition to forcing them to pay for it).
Correction to my 8:53 posting:
“you’ll get it in the public schools”
should be
“you won’t get it in the public schools”