In addition to being a boundless resource for those seeking accidental humor, Conservapedia is also used as a resource by homeschooled children. "Lectures" for various "classes" are available on the site, and can easily be used to demonstrate the advantages in requiring that homeschooled children be taught to a certain standard.
Here's a choice bit from "American History Lesson 2:"
In 1692, Salem Witch trials. There was a panic that some girls, just about your age, were practicing witchcraft. Girls were prosecuted for this. Some were convicted and then executed. The authorities thought that these criminal prosecutions would help expose the ways of the devil for the benefit of everyone. Then someone observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused said that the wife of the governor was also a witch. Then they put a stop to the prosecutions and freed everyone who was still alive. The whole episode did not make the Puritans look very good.
I had originally planned to ask if anyone could find the errors in this little bit of "historiness," but that would be far too easy. So instead, I'm wondering if anyone can find a full sentence in that entry that doesn't contain at least one large error.
I really can't believe that homeschooling standards are so ridiculously lax that this material is allowed to be used.
- Log in to post comments
This is so bizarrely stupid I don't even know how to reply. As if going to school at home will make a kid more motivated. I guess I should tell the 100 STUDENTS in our habitat for humanity project to stop, or OUR 200+ students to end the beach cleanup immediately. They clearly lack motivation. Mind you this is only 1 school of many.
I guess the 2 kids that I lost this year to home schooling because they found our school to tough can pick up the slack for them since they will become more motivated and active in community building after their move.
I guess your father in-law wouldn't want our 100's of college bound students in his classes. I mean we send many each year to Baylor, Rice, Texas, texas A&M and on and on. He wouldn't want any of them I'm sure.
A motivated kid and one with a sense of community doesn't have anything to do with where they attend school. It comes from within and how the parents raise them. How to get it out of a studentis often the biggest part of being a successful educator.
the last one maybe?
Yeah, that was my first thought. The last sentence is rather hard to argue with ...
Wow, the more I see this kind of stuff the more I am convinced that "conservative" is a synonym for "ignorance"
you will probably see Coulter's science chapters put on Consrvapedia. It would certainlt fit.
I hesitate to post this on my own blog, because people I know might read it, but the home school-acreditation groups are waaaaaaaay lax.
Worse, there is an organization (http://www.narhs.org/) that will give home-schoolers a high school diploma, provided only that they document the number of hours that they spent on different subjects. It turns out that a high school diploma is a useful thing to have when applying to colleges.
NARs doesn't mind if students subjects from ID textbooks, like say biology, geology, or other subjects, they only care that the hours are documented.
Sad, but true.
I nominate the first sentence for two reasons:
1) The Salem Witch Trials did occur in 1692;
2) The sentence lacks a verb, which provides an example of Conservapedia's distinct inability to reliably accomplish even the basic task of forming a complete sentence.
I'm a homeschooler, and have never heard of and would never use Conservapedia. I don't know any homeschoolers who are. I do know many dedicated parents who are teaching, contracting instructors, and facilitating their childrens' educations.
Homeschoolers aren't the problem here.
Jen, the point is not to argue that homeschooling can't be done well -- indeed, some people do an excellent job. The point is that there are no serious standards, no minimum level. The folks behind Conservapedia are just as much homeschoolers as you are, and while they're subjecting their children to this garbage, they're not accountable to anyone.
Vasha, Once you can show me that the public education system can meet the minimum standards that they set for themselves for the children that they serve, your point about standards for homeschoolers might have some weight.
I'm glad you appreciate that there are some excellent homeschoolers. Those of us doing an average job should be allowed to continue to do so without condescension as well. And for those of us doing a poor job, I agree, help is warranted. My feeling is that since so many more students are being mis- and under-served by their public schools, energy might be better spent sorting that out, rather than holding homeschoolers up as some sort of education disaster area.
"Girls were prosecuted for this" -- that's correct, right?
The public schools should, absolutely, do a better job at meeting standards. I fail to see, though, exactly why the failure of the public schools to meet standards would somehow mean that homeschoolers should be exempt from any need to meet any standard.
I had absolutely no intention to be condescending toward homeschoolers as a whole when I wrote the original post, and I'm sorry that you took it that way.
I did (and do) intend to be highly critical of the general lack of standards covering homeschooling. If you think that suggesting that your education of your children should meet some sort of minimum standard is condescending, then I think you are being a bit too sensitive.
At least as I see it, the idea of requiring homeschooled children to be taught to some minimum standard really isn't all that different in principal from a building code that requires all buildings be built to a certain minimum standard. Responsible builders may be inconvenienced by the paperwork, but they were already planning to build a structure that exceeds the code requirements, so the standard is not going to have any effect on the way that the building is constructed. The careless and incompetent builders, on the other hand, are prevented from constructing dangerous buildings.
ben: nope. The accused were both men and women and the women were not "girls".
How many times do I have to tell you people: it's spelled Conservapaedia!
;-)
I'm afraid that I too took your post as an attack on home schoolers. I think this is a problem of posts that are flippant and which use ridicule to get a point across, instead of reason informed by experience, spread over a well thought out piece of text.
I fail to see, though, exactly why the failure of the public schools to meet standards would somehow mean that homeschoolers should be exempt from any need to meet any standard.
This is false reasoning. Home schooling parents have an absolute right to educate their children in whatever way they choose. The fact that public schools fail to meet their targets (or not) has no bearing on the rights of parents, and the standards that they may or may not adopt for their children's education at home or elsewhere.
I am getting the feeling that this is an academic argument for you, and that you do not have children of your own.
At least as I see it, the idea of requiring homeschooled children to be taught to some minimum standard really isn't all that different in principal from a building code that requires all buildings be built to a certain minimum standard.
That section pretty much proves it. No one who has children of their own would compare the rights of a child to the legislation that governs pieces of property. Human beings and their relations one to another are governed by rights which are not conferred by the state. Property is another matter entirely. Comparing building codes to educational standards betrays your total lack of understanding and empathy.
When you have your own children and are forced to make a choice between sending them into the public school system or educating them yourself (or more probably, your wife doing the work) THEN you will be able to talk about this subject.
In the meantime, instead of sniping and ridiculing, why don't you download a copy of MediaWiki, and start up your own Wiki for home schoolers so that they can have a resource that is carefully vetted, unbiased and scientifically, historically and otherwise accurate?
Skeptics, Atheists and dogmatic science fanboys never want to do this kind of helpful work however, because it takes away their reason for being; to rail against and burn at the stake anyone that doesn't believe as they do.
And finally, Home schooled children outperform public schooled children by a large margin:
http://tinyurl.com/jsc5s
Your help would make those numbers even better.
This one's more or less inerrant:
...assuming "your" means tween to early teen, and assuming we accept the sentence as being part of the truth (it was "some girls", as well as some women and some men).
What's more important, though, is that most of the accusers were, in fact, "some girls, just about your age".
Oh, and James:
I don't think you're correct about that. Divorcing parents, for instance, frequently use their children as bargaining chips or fulcra for leverage against one another.
Also, in suggesting that the idea of establishing minimum standards for education is somehow onerous, you appear to be falling into the fallacy that all opinions are equally valid. That simply is not true.
you appear to be falling
I only appear to be, but I am not.
'Establishing minimum standards' means the state imposing doctrine on parents, for example, teaching that all religions are equal, or that homosexuality is a correct way to live.
I give those two examples because it is certain that there are some parents for whom teaching this to their children by force would be objectionable, even more so if they were compelled to be the agents that imparted such information.
My right to educate my children as I please has nothing to do with your or anyone else's opinion, or the state. This is fundamental to our freedom, and is in fact codified in law, except in countries like Germany that are still using anti home schooling laws drawn up by Adolf Hitler's government. Use Google to read about this hot topic.
The people who are against home schooling are allying themselves (knowingly or unknowingly) with that man and his ideology. This is not about sophistry, splitting hairs, straw man arguments and other garbage. This is about what makes life worth living; the freedom to be what you want to be and your right to think what you want to think.
Scientists should be FOR that, not against it.
>>I fail to see, though, exactly why the failure of the public schools to meet standards would somehow mean that homeschoolers should be exempt from any need to meet any standard. <<
The American courts have made it clear that our Constitution provides parents the right to direct the education of their children. What that means for each family is up to that family to decide. If I believe the best way for my kids to be educated is to investigate the world around them based on their own interests - if that's my conviction - I have that right. If I believe my kids need to sit down at a desk for six hours reading textbooks, that's my right too. Most homeschoolers fortunately strike some balance between these two extremes, but the parents in the family have the legal right to determine what that balance is.
As for establishing a minimum standard, the real question becomes: Who gets to determine what that standard is? You might choose to exclude that excerpt from Conservapedia (as would I and most homeschoolers I know!). I might choose to exclude the completely discredited drawings of embryos (purporting to show how all embryos look alike early in their development) which in spite of being proven false is still published in most high school biology textbooks. Who decides? American courts have made it clear: the parents do!
>>I had absolutely no intention to be condescending toward homeschoolers as a whole when I wrote the original post, and I'm sorry that you took it that way. <<
Jen wasn't the only one who took your post as condescending. I believe most homeschoolers would find it so. Your post implied that homeschoolers are ignorant enough to believe that excerpt from Conservapedia was appropriate education for their children. The truth is that the vast majority of homeschoolers examine very carefully the material we put in front of our children, making sure it is of the best quality possible. We want our children to be exposed to get a BETTER education than the public school provides, not worse. I have worked in a homeschooling enrichment program for five years, and have homeschooled my own children for ten years. I know literally HUNDREDS of homeschooling families; I know of NONE who would use an article like this to educate their children, unless they use it as an example of poor argumentation.
>>If you think that suggesting that your education of your children should meet some sort of minimum standard is condescending, then I think you are being a bit too sensitive. <<
Again, the problem with your minimum standard is who gets to decide. What does and what doesn't meet the standard? And who determines whether it does or doesn't? Would you require testing? (Many states already do that - and homeschoolers average 80th percentile on standardized tests.) Which test would you require - and what gives you (or anyone else) the right to decide which test is best? Would you insist that homeschoolers use a given curriculum? And if so, what makes you think you - or anyone else - know(s) more about what curriculum is best for my children than I do?
You see, once you start down the path of requiring minimum standards, you enter a slippery slope of decisions. And the closer a person is to a child, and the more the person cares about the child, the more likely they are to choose what is best for that child.
>>Responsible builders may be inconvenienced by the paperwork, but they were already planning to build a structure that exceeds the code requirements, so the standard is not going to have any effect on the way that the building is constructed. The careless and incompetent builders, on the other hand, are prevented from constructing dangerous buildings. <<
I agree with James here - there is a huge difference between buildings and children. The basic requirements of a safe building are always the same; the basic requirements for raising and educating a child are unique to each child. Sure, there are some similarities - every child needs food, for example - but some kids will die if they get even a bite of peanut butter, and my 6yo is allergic to corn. Requiring parents to meet certain standards, besides potentially requiring massive amounts of additional paperwork (if you haven't homeschooled, you have no idea how much extra work you're talking about), ignores the fact that every child is unique, and has his or her own unique needs.
One child may be an excellent speller, may learn to spell just by reading, and thus may not need any formal "spelling" lessons at all; another may have trouble even with simple words and may do poorly on spelling tests even if they spend an hour a day on it. One child may grasp math concepts intuitively and be two years ahead in math before they ever start formal education; another may struggle all the way through, and do only the minimum required to get out. Requiring a given curriculum, or insisting on minimum test scores, would do a disservice to the children on both sides. Shouldn't decisions about an individual child's education and progress be left up to those who are caring for that child?
Oh, and by the way, just to alleviate your concerns - in all the years I've been homeschooling, all the research I've done on homeschooling curriculum, and all the homeschooling families I know - I've never heard of Conservapedia. You don't need to worry - very few people are using that as their homeschooling curriculum!
Wrong.
There are some opinions which are not valid nor worthy. The suggestion, for instance, that a six-day creation is equally worthy with the fact of evolution of interrogation in a biology class is simply wrong.
The idea that it's OK to believe in a flat Earth or geocentric solar system is absolute, utter foolishness.
Scientists should be against bullshit. There's no dictum anywhere regarding what they should be for.
It's classic Libertarian hand-waving to raise the specter of force when anyone dares to suggest that (as an example) a seventh-grade-aged child (ca. 12 YO) should be at least capable of performing symbolic algebraic manipulations, familiar with Newtonian mechanics, reading novel-length works of literature and aware of fundamentals in biology such as the process of cellular division, the existence of DNA and a gloss of the nature of evolution.
These are minimum standards.
Your suggestion that minimum standards mean "the state imposing doctrine on parents, for example, teaching that all religions are equal, or that homosexuality is a correct way to live" is a ludicrous strawman and deserves to be treated as the foolishness that it absolutely is.
This is absolute BS. This kind of psuedo-libertarian reasoning is rediculous. You do not have the right to do whatever you want to your children. That's why we have anti-child abuse laws. You can teach your children whatever you want, but in adition to that some minimum standards should be enforeced. To believe that the state doesn't have an interest in ensuring that it's citizens education is meeting some basic levels is completely inane. I'm not dogmatic enough to believe that we should be compelling people to teach ideological beliefs or even evolution but there should be SOME bare minimum.
It's not an academic issue with me. My children are going to be entering the public school system next year. I believe it's in the best interest of my children to be exposed to the outside world. Including things that I find unpleasant or I may not agree with. I will instruct them as I see fit, and part of what I teach my children might be that they have to disagree with their instructors about certain things.
Warren, you believe that six-day creation cannot and should not be taught alongside with the 'fact' (it is not a fact, it is one idea among many) 'of evolution of interrogation in a biology class'. That is your business and your right, and if you have children, it is also your right to take them out of schools where the curriculum does not adhere to your ideology and then teach them at home.
This is the whole point, and the only point that matters. You can trot out your science fan boy dogma all day long; it is irrelevant to the home schooling issue.
People have the right to belive what they want, and they also have the right to teach what they believe to their children without oversight or interference from anyone.
And please do not have a go at me for using a straw man; sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, pot calling the kettle black and all that.
That's wrong, James, sorry. Evolution (the process) is a fact. Evolution (the interrogation of the process) is a theory.
But the factual nature of evolution is not in dispute. It is the only valid fact recognized in biology, paleontology and anthropology.
This is not dogma, any more than the fact of universal gravitation is dogma, any more than the fact of 2 + 2 = 4 is a dogma. This is reality.
"Creation" is a religious concept and is perfectly valid in a religious setting; it's sensible too in a philosophy class. It is entirely, utterly and undeniably out of place in a fact-based, reality-oriented science course.
Show me the strawman in anything I've posted here and I'll accept the criticism.
This is absolute BS. This kind of psuedo-libertarian reasoning is rediculous.
You mean 'ridiculous'. You should have been home schooled, maybe then you would be able to reason and spell and write politely.
You do not have the right to do whatever you want to your children. That's why we have anti-child abuse laws.
We are only talking about education, and in fact, we do have that right. This is false reasoning yet again. Yawn.
You can teach your children whatever you want, but in adition to that some minimum standards should be enforeced.
You should learn how to spell before you try and lecture others on education. 'Addition' has two 'ds' and 'enforced' is spelt just like that.
To believe that the state doesn't have an interest in ensuring that it's citizens education is meeting some basic levels is completely inane.
Do you mean 'inane' or 'insane'? You probably meant 'insane', so I will deal with that untruth. Home schooled children are better educated and better citizens than children who attend public schools:
They are better socialized:
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2007/03/homeschooling-and-socialization…
and as I said in the comment above, they outperform public schooled children in every measurable way:
http://tinyurl.com/jsc5s
Home schooling is better for children. This is a scientifically established fact.
I'm not dogmatic enough to believe that we should be compelling people to teach ideological beliefs or even evolution but there should be SOME bare minimum.
There should be no minimum, because that is the door to total control over parenting, as they have in Germany.
It's not an academic issue with me. My children are going to be entering the public school system next year. I believe it's in the best interest of my children to be exposed to the outside world. Including things that I find unpleasant or I may not agree with. I will instruct them as I see fit, and part of what I teach my children might be that they have to disagree with their instructors about certain things.
It is your absolute right to do this, I wish you well in it, and hope that you understand that if you should change your mind and wish to home school, that avenue is open to you as a right. No one can tell you what to do with your children. You can send them to public school, teach them at home or as the autonomous learners do, 'un-school':
http://anunschoolinglife.blogspot.com/
them at home. That is your choice, and your right. As a father who respects the rights of everyone, no matter what they believe, you have my unequivocal support in whatever choice you make to educate your children.
That is the essential difference between me, and the people who scream and shout about standards being essential.
Oh, and I can use a spell checker. :)
I normally don't pick people up on spelling, but because the post that started this thread is about picking holes in an irrelevant and silly Wiki entry, I thought that I might wade in and join in the group-think.
Conservapedia has its uses: we started using it to teach our children about how not to think or write!
My wife and I have homeschooled our four children (eldest: 12, youngest 2) from the beginnings of their education. I'm an agnostic and my wife is Catholic (her brother is a priest!), and we don't homeschool for religious reasons.
My wife and I view the supernatural in very different ways, and sometimes that leads to significant disagreements. My wife manages the trick of accepting science and of accepting Christianity, something I can't do. Our children are aware of our different world views, but don't seem to have made strong choices in favor of either.
Since our eldest was five, he has been fascinated by dinosaurs; at 12, he works in a museum as a volunteer prepator (currently working on a 66 MYA triceratops from Hell Creek), reads scientific papers, and participates in a college program for gifted students. Science (and, in particular, evolution) have always been a part of our joint educational adventure, but it's not the sum total of what we do. One of our daughters also likes science; another likes the theater (the two-year-old just goes along for the ride). We tailor our approach to each child's education to his or her particular interest. That's the value of homeschooling! We also make sure they're exposed to the world at large - on their 10th birthdays, for example, I take them on a trip to the U.K.
Our children have friends (both homeschooled and "schooled") who are conservative (my wife and I are political and social liberals) Christian creationists, so they've been exposed to that whole set of non-rational arguments (it's hard to maintain friendships with people who believe you're going to hell, though).
We do believe in rigorous standards, but the standards are determined by subject matter. If we're studying history, we explore the methodology of historical research; science, the scientific method; art, art criticism. Like the other homeschoolers who have commented, we would oppose the imposition of state standards - usually, because the state standards I've seen are less rigorous than the standards we use.
Unless adults are prohibited from holding irrational, non-fact-based beliefs, I don't see how the state can prohibit parents from teaching their children irrational beliefs. Adults with irrational beliefs can and do function in our society, and most likely their children will too. We are, after all, free to be rational or irrational. But we're not free to impose rationality - or irrationality - on each other.
Are comparisons to Hitler the best you can manage, James?
must not conflict with your children's right to be taught the facts, concepts, and abilities they need. A democracy will certainly find some kind of consensus on what those are.
My freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa. Simple enough.
and as I said in the comment above, they outperform public schooled children in every measurable way:
So a study conducted by an organization dedicated to home-schooling finds that home-schooling is more effective than public schooling.
ZOMG!!1
I have the remember that this sort of credible research is out there. Next time I'm building a workstation I have to remember to buy from the first company-rep to trot out performance benchmarks conducted by the company's in-house technicians.
Jen, if you're still reading this, I apologize -- I was indeed a bit condescending.
I have no problem being condescending towards home schooling in general. Go ahead flame away. In my 14 years as an educator I have had some students return to the public school system well educated. But I would say that is 10-20% of the total.
The more likely result is a below average student who is returning when momma found out she doesn't have enough knowledge to teach chemistry, biology, US history, and down the line. Now we lose a student here and there to home schooling as well. They are almost always discipline problems whose parents seek to remove them from whatever punishment is coming their way.
I have seen studies like the one mentioned and they always make us chuckle as we just never see the supposed results.
And I'm tired of hearing about the lack of standards in public education. We are totally tested out to ensure our kids have this or that basic skill set. It's a baloney argument used by people who don't know any better.
Now does this mean some parents can't do an excellent job? No of course not. But it does mean that a large swathe of home schooled kids are not being properly educated. Likewise the social benefits of a public school cannot easily be measured as far as day to day learning is concerned. I myself learn much about various groups being within these schools.
One last note, nothing is worse than watching a home schooled parent come to our HS and want their child placed on our athletic teams. Or this year to walk with the graduating class. The poor kid has been subjected to the academic side without all the rest that school can provide.
I feel sorry for them at times, even the well educated ones.
Sigh. Warren; this is one of those rare times where comparison to Hitler in a forum / thread is absolutely appropriate.
You are obviously, painfully, unaware of the recent controversy over the German family that had its children confiscated by the state, because they were home schooling.
This is the newspaper article:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070227-084730-5162r.htm
that has made the story go viral. If you had read my post above and payed a little attention, you would have discovered this for yourself. The story is all over the internet.
I told you to use Google to find out about this astonishing and sad tale, but you couldn't be bothered to check out the facts. Don't worry, I am happy to spoon feed you and have posted a link to it.
Now go and read it.
Clearly you are not a self starter; you are bad home schooling material!
GH~"nothing is worse than watching a home schooled parent come to our HS and want their child placed on our athletic teams. Or this year to walk with the graduating class. The poor kid has been subjected to the academic side without all the rest that school can provide."
You do understand that as homeschoolers WE STILL PAY TAXES to your local school district right? On top of footing the entire bill for our child(s) education? Although it can be rather expensive, we seem to have the ability to school our children (including numerous sports, outside activities, co-ops, etc) for much less that it "seems" to cost a local district. And you still don't think that our students should be allowed to play a sport if they want to? We are all socialized ya know - and we can play well with others!
"I have no problem being condescending towards home schooling in general. Go ahead flame away. In my 14 years as an educator..."
If you can be so condescending toward homeschoolers, how do you act during a parent/teacher conference when a parent views things differently than you do? Hum...I sure would want you teaching my child. Our entire family is in public education from the top down and they support and understand why we homeschool. They have first hand knowledge of the reasons why, they work in it everyday.
Mark, James and D replied very well and addressed the issues that I otherwise would have spoken to.
To end, when everyone finally sees that allowing a government to fill all of their needs is WRONG and they begin to see that having children and sending them off to be "raised" by our public schools is WRONG, maybe our world can be a better place. Until then, I will still make the choice to instill my moral and educational values in my children, if I wasn't up for that, I should have used birth control! It is the same thing I say to people when they tell me, "oh, I just can't wait until my child is old enough to go to school and I can get them out of my hair, I just don't know how you do it, spending all that time with your kids" - it's called family, many Americans seem to have lost the true meaning of family as of late, yet they still reproduce.
Having children is life long job - and worth every minute!
And GH ~ some of us with education degrees and Master's left public education to DO BETTER by our OWN children rather than leave them at the mercy of "the system" - That says a lot now doesn't it???
PS~ http://www.dailymail.com/story/Life/+/2007030767/Public-universities-in…
And one more stab~ my college prof father-in-law wishes daily that he had MORE homeschooled students placed in his classes, his take is that overall they are more focused and driven and they also are more active in helping their local communities! You know, giving back and success if life!
Sigh. Warren; this is one of those rare times where comparison to Hitler is absolutely appropriate. You are obviously unaware of the controversy over the German family that had its children confiscated by the state, because they were home schooling.
This is the newspaper article:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070227-084730-5162r.htm
that has made the story go viral. If you had my post above and payed a little attention, you would have discovered this for yourself. I told you to use Google to find out about this astonishing story. Don't worry, I have now done the work for you and posted a link to it. Clearly you are not a self starter. You are bad home schooling material!
I knew this argument would show up and your correct you do pay taxes. You have also made a choice to willfully remove your child from the institution. The system is not a buffet. If you find our schools and the people within inadequate why then would you seek to put them with such individuals on a ball field. Personally I have no huge problem with it, I just don't understand the hypocrisy.
Ummm with respect and professionalism. We are discussing an issue here and the results I've seen. I have not personally insulted anyone. If calling it as I have seen it offends you then so be it.
Yes you would because I'm good at what I do.
Good for you. As I mentioned if you took the time to actually read my prior post I mentioned some people do a good job.
You have a back assed view of the world there lady. We do not raise kids in our schools we educate them. Providing education for millions is RIGHT not wrong. It is a positive thing in our society not a negative.
Right if you can't teach them nobody can because you are 100% correct and knowledgeable about everything. And if someone else had to educate your child other than you my goodness they should never have been born. Awesome.
After reading that paragraph I may actually fear for your kids. As if kids who go to school for their education have no family or semblence of one or for that matter yours is somehow superior. You certainly are smug. I see virtually all smiling faces in our hallways and alot of laughter as we learn.
Not really considering there are millions of teachers and parents doing better than well within the system. It means their is more than one way to raise a child. Exactly what 'system' are you speaking about? A child comes to my room, gets an education, goes onto the next level, graduates, goes to college of their choice, gets job of choice. WOW! Shame we have a system that builds successful adults.
"My right to educate my children as I please ..."
must not conflict with your children's right to be taught the facts, concepts, and abilities they need. A democracy will certainly find some kind of consensus on what those are.
Assuming a democracy did "find" a consensus on "the facts, concepts, and abilities [students] need," that democracy would also have to reach a consensus on how to measure the success of all educational venues in delivering those results. And I think it's very relevant to ask whether public schools should (or can) be held to the same standards, and whether failures to achieve "the minimum" should be treated equally. For instance, if a public school student is measured as not meeting the minimum, what is the remedy? What is it for a homeschooled student?
While it seems obvious that the public schools should be accountable to some standard defined by the public, why should homeschools be thus accountable?
The right of child to a proper education is indisputable. The definition of "proper education" is constantly debated, weakly evidenced, and far from settled, outside of the mainstream institutions themselves (Can you say "vested interest in the status quo"?). Education is not an objective or universal science, but an area of philosophy highly dependent on social context. As long as there are no objective, evidence-based reasons for discouraging educational alternatives, we must give individuals (including the parents of minors) the option of pursuing "a proper education" outside of the boundaries drawn by academics and bureaucrats (and clergy, in another place and time).
Many homeschoolers are actively trying to avoid what they see as the mistakes of institutional education. Some of these have whacked worldviews. Some just fundamentally disagree with the methods (or even the goals) of mainstream education. Why should these people be required by the state to meet standards written for a completely different purpose?
My freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa. Simple enough.
Did you *really* mean to write that? To think that the very *beginning* of one's freedom ends another's! Lock 'em up before they steal our freedom ... er, lock us all up, I guess. That is an alarming and ironic contortion of the idea that one's (non-zero) rights are limited by the (equivalent) rights of others.
Good luck finding consensus that doesn't trample the rights of reasonable people to find a better way to live. Pursuit of happiness, and all that.
No. You do not own your children -- teaching them utter bullshit like intelligent design is practically child abuse. You're crippling your children intellectually.
GH~ It seems this forum has become a battle ground of sorts for you to make an attempt at defending our public system, that is an up hill battle on more than one front and logistically a battle that truly cannot be won.
As to your comment: "You have a back assed view of the world there lady. We do not raise kids in our schools we educate them. Providing education for millions is RIGHT not wrong. It is a positive thing in our society not a negative."
It is a shame that you can only see one view of the education system and how I truly wish that your view was correct. The sad fact is that too many people have children and then use the education system as a babysitter and/or surrogate parent. Fault there remains with the parents, but our system is the enabler and has happily taken on that role.
Providing education is not wrong and I never stated that it was, I simply know that not everyone is created equal and that I can and do make better choices for my own children than anyone else could or any system could. I gave birth to them and in doing so inherited responsibility for my children that entails more than labor and raising them morally until age 5 or 6. When children go to "school" they see others more during a week than they see the people that are supposed to be responsible for shaping their lives.
As to: "A child comes to my room, gets an education, goes onto the next level, graduates, goes to college of their choice, gets job of choice. WOW! Shame we have a system that builds successful adults."
Coming from that public system and having worked in it, I tend to think that the most successful go on to be successful inspite of the education system and their teachers. I can remember two good teachers during my experience and that is way too few for all my years spent in the system.
I am not smug to those that utilize the system or those that remain in it in an administrative or teaching capacity, my hats off to those that are great at their jobs. There are just too few that truly care and do a "great" job. I am just not personally willing to leave my children at the mercy of it all and hope for the best, instead I spend my time, money and energy making sure they do get the very best education and a very social and well rounded life. I do so because I care and because it is my responsibility.
The battle here cannot be won and is not worth anymore of my energy, I only hope that choice will remain part of our great freedoms in this country, including the right to make choices as to how and where our children are educated.
Sure it can when I'm actually discussing it with someoone who understands logic. You have already made up your mind.
Fault there remains with the parents, but our system is the enabler and has happily taken on that role.
How is the system an enabler? back this up. You make alot of claims with little backing. You act like 1 million schools got together under government guidance and said 'This is how we are going to take over families'. How silly.
We have several excellent teachers in my HALL. We produce hundreds of college bound students each and every year. Perhaps your experience was different or perhaps the problem lies within you. To malign the 100's of teachers in your local district as not good is profoundly arrogant and frankly makes you look silly.
Hmmm so at least you admit there are a few.
How do you judge this? How do you kow this? There are millions of dedicated educators. How could you possibly know their hearts?
The problem with your view if that if you are not teaching scientific consensus you are doing harm to your children. Effectively making them intentionally stupid. Public school ensures the vast majority of the population receives a standard education that is needed in our society. If everyone educated their children at home there is no filter to ensure proper education is reaching the masses. This is bad for a nation. You can't have millions of children being taught the earth is 10000 years old without another knowledgeable adult there to say it ain't so and challenge such silliness with the truth.
Oh and from above Warren is 100% correct. The public school system stands as a barrier to the ignorance and pseudoscientific views of many in the USA.
I also like Mark Hacklers post above. No one can stop parents from putting irrationality and stupid ideas into their kids heads under the guise of education. But a strong nation needs a school system that ensures the majority have enough education to rebuff those educated/indocytrinated with irrational ideas.
This is a profoundly silly statement. Evolution is a fact. Things evolve. It is also a theory much like gravity or the heliocentric solar system. Most certainly 6 day creation ahs no place beside such a well vetted theory as evolution. In comparative religion class, no problem. But to teach children this is science is a waste of their education.
If any of these are not being taught in the home school environment your doing your children a disservice. The public school ensures that the majority of the population of a nation has an educated understanding or at least exposure to current understanding.
Having said all that if someone wants to educate kids at home, so be it. But as mentioned in my experience the results have not typically been good.
James, while such stories are indeed troubling, I think you're now falling into the fallacy of the slippery slope.
You've been consistently responding with smokescreening like this from the beginning, attempting to employ either slippery-slope arguments or reductio ad absurda, deliberately overlooking every measured, reasoned response given you in your attempts to score rhetorical points.
The problem is that your technique doesn't work. You haven't answered a single rational argument with a rational response.
And whatever your personal concerns might be, no one here is a Nazi. I'm certainly not the one employing the language of demagoguery in response to another's sensible arguments.
The German story is irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about minimum education standards in the US; I posted a series of suggestions for such standards, and rather than concede their reasonable nature you went off on a fear-the-totalitarians tangent.
You most certainly did not. This is the second time in this discussion you've failed to maintain consistent awareness of your own discussion points; you seemed to think -- incorrectly -- that I was strawmanning; and now you seem to think -- also incorrectly -- that you "told me" to Google a story.
You can't even offer references in this thread to support the claims you're making about this thread. Why should anything else you claim be taken as grounded, well-researched or reasonable?
Another ad hominem attack impugning my intelligence, coming from someone who posted his own comment twice, separated by five hours' time. I don't think I'm the one lacking in informational awareness here.
I'm done with you until you answer the arguments I already posted.
Whoops, actually, you did. Sorry about that. I read right through that first suggestion.
"Today, many would find it hard to believe that education was never addressed in the United States Constitution, nor was it discussed at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The government would like citizens to believe that it reserves the right to educate the nation's youth, yet this right was never bestowed upon it, nor was it stripped away from parents.
The post-civil war industrial revolution started to mainstream public schooling to meet the economy's needs, not the children's. Factories forced parents out of their homes and pushed children into the schools, where they became conditioned for work in the industry and indoctrinated into a national mindset that forwarded the government's agenda.
Socialism, moral relativism, evolution, pro-choice, multiculturalism, environmentalism, gay rights, self-esteem training and sex education are all politically correct/fundamentally wrong concepts promoted in the public schools that have taken their toll on the conservative and biblical values that have formed the backbone of American society.
Through the public schools, the government has played monopoly in the game of education since the turn of the 20th century, controlling the board and children's lives ever since. The recent homeschooling movement, which now provides instruction for 4 million children in the United States, is seen by bureaucrats as usurping their unbridled authority over the education system. Dire attempts to stem this burgeoning exodus from the schools have been made by the state at virtually any cost."
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/116405.aspx
JBR, the CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network, a Pat Robertson organ) piece is so obviously right-wing biased it's not even worthy of response. To call evolution "politically correct" is tantamount to accusing algebra of being an ideology.
Try to use facts, not rhetorical spew, to establish your points.
I'll tell you what reading comments like the one I'll copy below make me more than sure the public school system is needed now more than ever.
Fundamentally wrong concepts? Good science,not being a bigot, protection of natural resources, egads teaching children about sex! Perhaps the values that you hold where not so good if such ideas are a challenge to them.
I have zero problem with home schooling when done well. It just is so rarely done well. You see a conspirasy where there is none and frankly the laundry list of items you had on your list nearly ensures any kid homeschooled by you is not getting educated but rather indoctrinated. They will be at a disadvantage in the real world.
"I have zero problem with home schooling when done well. It just is so rarely done well."
The same can be said for government led public education.
This "discussion" is more like a one way street to no where and a place to slam others for their differing views, how very sad.
Indubitably. Both "sides" have observed good results from their education modi of choice. Both have observed bad results from their antitheses. This suggests that both are correct.
When done well, public education is superb. When done well, homeschooling is superb. Both convey strengths. Each method has positives the other lacks. Both are in common practice in the US and other parts of the world. Neither method is inherently inferior nor superior to the other.
From my point of view a significant difference is that there's at least a gesture toward minimal-standard instruction in public education (arguably, in some cases, minimal is the operative adjective); while matters such as philosophy, ethics, morality and religion can and should be taught in the home and/or church, public education, in my opinion, should as much as feasible limit itself to facts.
To me there really are measurable minimum standards; the ones I detailed yesterday are sensible and I can't imagine why homeschoolers wouldn't agree that they're acceptable measures of baseline achievement in any child, however educated.
That a child accepts the fact of evolution, for instance, doesn't in any way dictate how he feels about it -- nor does it change the facts -- just as knowledge of Earth's sphericity in the face of Isaiah 11:12 doesn't invalidate the shape of this planet.
But then, I'm not the one trying to argue that standards equal iron-fisted totalitarianism.
No it cannot. The vast majority of individuals who attend US public schools get a reasonable education. Now alot of factors contribute not the least of which are parental involvement and student ability. It seems the public school system is getting blamed for alot of problems not of it's own making. Are there things that can be improved -most definetly, are there things they do well- most definetly.
This discussion is not a place to slam others. In my case I gave firsthand knowledge on over 14 years of home schooled students and my experiences therein. If stating these students return behind the public school students is slamming well then so be it.
I tend to agree with Warren's stance in his last post.
If standards are the real issue then understand that the majority of states do have standards for homeschoolers to meet. Normally you find that homeschoolers meet and exceed the normal public school standards. The majority of parents also take it upon themselves to have their children tested and pay for it themselves, even if a state does not require it. Testing is an entire other bag of worms in and of itself, but the basic point is that the majority of homeschooling parents want the best for their children and do whatever they must do to provide that, even if it eventually means using tutors or paying for college classes several years earlier than normal. Many also use co-ops.
There is more than one way to skin a cat and if some parents feel that they can and then in turn do offer their children a better and wider variety of educational experiences, I say move forward. No one needs the government hanging over their shoulders and most homeschooled students prove that they do just fine and better than some other schooled students by out testing others and performing better in college.
I agree with one post that talked about freedom and we should keep the freedoms in place that allow us to make choices for our children, even if they are out of the norm from the rest of society. We do not have to all travel the same path nor do we all have to end up at the same destination and that is okay.
To me, standards are the only issue. From that point of view more than a few public schools are failing miserably.
What I continue to find baffling is the opposition that seems to erupt whenever anyone suggests the idea. There's a nonsensical leap made from (e.g.) "knowledge of quadratics" to "shoving homosexuality down kids' throats" that betrays an irrational hysteria which is, to say the least, excessive.
In matters of philosophy, ethics, morals and religion, one can easily argue that parents are actively homeschooling all the time -- and to date no one's managed to pass (let alone propose) legislation dictating what parents say to their kids about right/wrong or similar decisions.*
In spite of this utter lack of legislation of morality,** though, as soon as someone starts talking about minimum education requirements that any student should be expected to meet, the spectre of jackbooted thugs on the march is inevitably raised.
I don't know where the irrational fear comes from, but it's groundless ... and it definitely is irrational.
====
* With the exception of ultra-right wingers such as the ones who are assembling Conservapedia, who want to force Christianism on children in the form of prayer and the Decalogue.
** See the above footnote.
I've known a few homeschoolers, and a few home-schooled kids. Invariably, the kids were home-schooled in order to allow the parents to inculate their own prejudices into their offspring without fear of contradiction or the need to defend their opinion against inconvenient facts.
The finest example of homeschooling I ever met was the Scientologist.
The thesis of home-schooling, as far as I can see is: Keep 'em down on the farm until we're good and certain the city'll scare the crap out of 'em and send 'em running home.
I'll take a stab at this: Surely much of the anti-standards hype is the result of propaganda by YEC and punitive pregnancy organisations.
Since real academic standards will invariably include both introduction to basic science, which will blow creationism out of the water, and information on the use and availability of contraceptives, which runs counter to the pregnancy-as-punishment ideology of some primitive barbarians, it is natural that such esteemed organisations as the Moonie Times, the Disco Inst. and Faux News will give plenty of space and air time to this propaganda.
Oh, and a little Google search for the people who still for some reason trust the Moonie Times to not lie through their teeth when it suits their agenda:
http://german.about.com/library/blschule.htm
- JS
"Minimal standards" still may be irrelevant to the goals of a homeschooler. While I think it's important to provide accountable public education, I see no reason why it should be mandatory, or why the standards used to judge institutional schooling should be turned on those who choose to homeschool.
My homeschooled kids will know lots more about certain things than many adults by the time they're 16. Do I care if one of the things they know is a particular standard set by a society that's heavily biased toward traditional education? Do I care if they recognize the name of William Faulkner, or know that electrons weigh almost nothing compared to protons, or can write as "well" as all the commenters here? Not a bit.
If they need to know something for their own safety, it's my job to make sure they know it. Heck, maybe I'd accept state standards in those cases. But in all other cases, any "gaps" in their education will be readily filled, because they will know *how* to learn on their own, and accept the responsibility to do so. And that's more than can be said for the many (no, not all) kids who get into the mindset that learning happens at school, and stops when the bell rings. No, I'm not claiming to know how many kids lilke that the schools turn out. I was one, but I've recovered.
Re Jen, James Weston, Mia
I would appreciate it if any of these folks can produce the name of one Nobel Prize winner in any of the three sciences for which such prizes are awarded (i.e. physics, chemistry, and medicine) who was home schooled. After all, if homeschooling is superior to public (or private) schooling, they should be able to produce at least one such individual.
I would appreciate it if any of these folks can produce the name of one Nobel Prize winner in any of the three sciences for which such prizes are awarded (i.e. physics, chemistry, and medicine) who was home schooled. After all, if homeschooling is superior to public (or private) schooling, they should be able to produce at least one such individual.
Why aren't YOU a Nobel Prize winner? What? Isn't that what EVERYONE's educational goal is? No?
I've never heard a homeschooler claim that homeschooling is more likely to produce intellectual giants than traditional schooling.
But your question makes my point exactly -- who decides what the goal of a decent education should be? Most agree we want citizens who are able to take care of themselves and take an active role in whatever society they belong to. You can't measure that, and you can't prove that academic standards will predict it. Your success is not my success. Let parents teach when they have the ambition to do so. If you can prove that homeschooling presents a danger to society, then regulate or outlaw it. But you can't, so why the grasping at strawmen to make arguments against it?
Evolution is a fact. Things evolve. It is also a theory much like gravity or the heliocentric solar system.
...
If any of these are not being taught in the home school environment your doing your children a disservice. The public school ensures that the majority of the population of a nation has an educated understanding or at least exposure to current understanding.
Having said all that if someone wants to educate kids at home, so be it. But as mentioned in my experience the results have not typically been good.
GH, I agree with your opinions about teaching good (and exciting) science vs. pseudoscience and ideological claptrap. I'm glad you still see that your fears, however well-founded from your experience, do not trump the more fundamental parental rights involved in home education.
My kids' science discussions would hearten you. We homeschoolers are not all singing "Jesus loves me" and using the neo-con agenda as curriculum. We sing "Why does the sun shine?" and use our interests as curriculum. Today we learned the concepts of precocial and altricial, because we were watching Bambi, and it came up. My oldest is seven.
>Jen, if you're still reading this, I apologize -- I was indeed a bit condescending.
Vasha,
I just got back, and am surprised at how many more comments there are now. It's quite the discussion.
Apology accepted, and I thank you. I'm reading through all of this now and if I have anything to add I'll post below, but wanted to let you know I'd read the above.
D in Colorado's post far above pretty much summed up many of my feelings, thanks to him/her for the post.
Warren wrote:
"To me, standards are the only issue."
If this is your main issue, I'm confused. Most states have requirements for homeschoolers in some form, whether it be testing, portfolio review by certified teacher, approved curriculum, operation under certified umbrella school, or some combination of these. All states have legislation concerning homeschoolers. This link goes through them all state by state:
http://www.nhen.org/leginfo/state_list.asp
Are you upset that the states don't have more standards? Do you desire a national Homeschooler Certification, with requirements each state should follow? If this were formed, how would homeschooling differ from public schooling? Will there also be a Private School Certification, to be acquired by all private schools, or do you think private schools should be left alone?
As I referred to in my earlier post, there are so many kids out there in the public school system who are barely getting by, I find it odd that energy is expended trying to make sure the small percentage of mandatory school-aged kids being homeschooled are regulated.
Re Meg
Ms. Meg responded to my query about home schooled winners of Nobel Prizes by effectively brushing it off as unimportant. In all my years of undergraduate and graduate school at reputable universities (U.C. Berkeley, Un. of Rochester) majoring in physics and earning a PhD therein, I never met anyone who was home schooled. The fact is that most parents, unless they are scientists and/or mathematicians themselves, are totally incompetent to instruct their children in science or mathematics. The result is obvious. These children don't grow up to be scientists or mathematicians. Ms. Meg asks who decides what the purpose of an education is. I always thought that the purpose should be to permit the recipients of an education to be all they can be. Based on Ms. Megs' response, she apparently doesn't agree and is satisfied with a decent education, whatever that is. Ms. Meg asks why I haven't won a Nobel Prize. I don't see the relevance of such a question. For Ms. Megs' information, I can name 6 Nobel Prize winners in Physics who graduated from the Bronx School of Science in New York City. That's one school in one city. Apparently, all the home schooled children in the 100+ years the prizes have been awarded have been unable to win one.
Re: SLC
It seems from your post that only high achievement in math and sciences is your concern. Is this so? Here's a pretty high achiever:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/macarthur.html
It's just one example, and it's not a Nobel, but I find him pretty impressive.
Two students from my homeschool group went to MIT last year, one the year before that. I mention MIT as it's a pretty good math and engineering school. Many others went to different universities, a few work, and a few are home, learning and pondering. I don't imagine this is all that different from the varieties of experiences an ordinary high school class might expect.
I'm a molecular biologist. Other homeschoolers I know are novelists, materials science engineers, professional educators, business owners, and landscapers. Every parent I've met wants their child to reach their best, and Meg's suggestion that it might not be a Nobel Prize is perfectly valid, and doesn't mean that homeschool parents aren't working to help their kids reach intellectually or socially.
SLC is quoted in italics.
Ms. Meg ...
I posted as meg. Please have the courtesy to refer to my post using the name I posted under.
... responded to my query about home schooled winners of Nobel Prizes by effectively brushing it off as unimportant.
Oh, good! I got my point across!
In all my years of undergraduate and graduate school at reputable universities (U.C. Berkeley, Un. of Rochester) majoring in physics and earning a PhD therein, I never met anyone who was home schooled.
Is that supposed to be compelling data? Even assuming your omniscience regarding the primary education of everyone you encountered while in school, are you implying that the absence of home-schooled students in your personal academic network proves something about homeschooling education in general? Do you use this kind of logic on a regular basis, in your physics research?
The fact is that most parents, unless they are scientists and/or mathematicians themselves, are totally incompetent to instruct their children in science or mathematics. The result is obvious. These children don't grow up to be scientists or mathematicians.
"Most parents" send their kids to traditional schools, so we don't have to worry about general incompetence, only that of homeschoolers. Homeschooling does not usually involve the parents instructing the child without recourse to outside resources. But supposing homeschooling DOES, as you suggest, leave students so weak in science and math that they pursue other careers (I do not concede this unsupported point -- this is hypothetical). We can only suppose the same "problem" exists in traditional schools that are not meeting standards in science in math. So kids who get lousy science and math education don't become scientists or mathemeticians. Do we have a critical shortage or something? Is the world worse off if they become writers, farmers, or sociologists?
Ms. Meg asks who decides what the purpose of an education is. I always thought that the purpose should be to permit the recipients of an education to be all they can be. Based on Ms. Megs' response, she apparently doesn't agree and is satisfied with a decent education, whatever that is.
You are equating "be all they can be" with winning a Nobel Prize, and implying that those who are "satisfied with a decent education" at the primary level will somehow not "be all they can be". Has it occurred to you that Nobel Prizes, while popular aspirations in the hallowed halls of science research institutions, are not often to be found on the mantels of the vast majority of successful, well-adjusted, satisfied members of society?
I get the feeling you see the physical and medical sciences as a very high and noble calling. That's great for you, and you must be very happy to do whatever it is you do with your PhD. But you must understand that (a) not everyone plots his career as a trajectory toward Nobel candidacy, (b) not everyone who goes to college wants a PhD in Science, (c) plenty of homeschoolers go to college and even pursue graduate degrees,(d) there are actually productive members of our society, out there "being all they can be" who [gasp!] don't have college degrees, who [gasp!] don't work in science or medicine, who [gasp!] can't name a single Nobel Laureate in any field. Or do you find it hard to believe that anyone meeting one of those criteria is really reaching his full potential? Your values, whatever they are, are not universal, and I hope I have misinterpreted your apparent belief that they are or should be.
Ms. Meg asks why I haven't won a Nobel Prize. I don't see the relevance of such a question.
The relevance is that you set it up as some sort of standard we could judge homeschooled individuals on. I'm merely asking why you haven't achieved the standard yourself. Perhaps some of those reasons would be the same ones cited by homeschooled individuals who have also "failed" this test of worth.
I can name 6 Nobel Prize winners in Physics who graduated from the Bronx School of Science in New York City. That's one school in one city.
That's a useful skill you have there! That one school is a SCIENCE school that's been around for almost 70 years in a HUGE city. Unless there's some well-established movement of "Urban Homeschoolers of Science" you want to deride over their failure to earn a proportionate Nobel representation, your comparison is a bit stacked, dontcha think?
Apparently, all the home schooled children in the 100+ years the prizes have been awarded have been unable to win one.
"Unable" implies an attempt has been made, which you have not proved. You have failed to explain the importance of your observation. Repeating it will not give it meaning. Yes, the Nobel prize is important to the people who are advancing human progress in the fields in which it is awarded. No, it is not the sole determinant of a person's worth or success. No, it is not remotely a reasonable determinant of the success of a (relatively) small and infinitely diverse group of people whose aspirations are not clustered in the sciences.
There are lists out there of homeschoolers who have done fabulous things. If you really want to play the politics of human value, look them up and be impressed or scoff as you will. I'm not here to drop names and flash my credentials to convince you that my choices would be the best for everyone.
I'm merely here to present the idea that homeschooling does not necessarily try to answer the same needs public schooling addresses. If homeschooling cannot be shown empirically to be a threat to society, there is no justification for its curtailing through increased regulation.
Meg-
I appreciate your point of view and it seems you may be one of the homeschoolers doing a good job. But for me it doesn't change the fact that the many I have seen are so far behind, lacking in some many basics, and in reverse are often our discipline problems seeking to escape whatever school action they had coming their way. I just can't endorse home schooling in any broad sense for these reasons that have spanned 14 years in a pretty average community.
Likewise I think it is very unnrealistic to expect many home school parents to be remotely knowledgable about all that goes into the various subject areas. 10 to 1 if I took the average home school parent I have encountered they would fail my remedial biology test. I would guess the same for algebra, history and so on. At the primary levels more people may be successful but as a child ages the knowledge level becomes so specific and the burden much greater that I think it is a rare scenario that can pull it off to the equal of organized education unless a collective of sorts is used and then you may as well use the public school.
Please ignore the grammar errors in the last post, I didn't preview and am bleary eyed from being up to late. Try to work through it.:-)
Re Jen
Ms. Jen indicates that she is a molecular biologist. In response, I would say that, unlike most home schooler parents, she is undoubtedly competent to provide a good science/math education to her children. In fact, she is probably more competent to do so then most teachers at public and private high schools. Unfortunately, most home schooler parents are not molecular biologists or mathematicians or chemists or physicists.
For the information of the Megs, the Jens and the Westons of the world, I would like to point out that the leading advocate for home schooling here in Virginia is Michael Ferris, an extreme right wing Christian Reconstructionist and young earth creationist and co-founder of Patrick Henry University, whose academic reputation makes Bob Jones University and Liberty University look almost sterling by comparison. Mr. Ferris, unfortunately, is more typical of home schooling advocates then Ms. Jen is.
It may be that Mr. Farris is the typical homeschool advocate in your experience. He certainly is one of the loudest, with a media ready to print his statements. He doesn't speak for all homeschoolers, though, not even all homeschooler in Virgina.
I have to agree with SLC here. The individual may not speak for all homeschoolers but he speaks for alot more than the Jen's of the world. Likewise the students I have seen over 14 years are considerably more than the Jen's of the world as well. It is the simple truth.
Ok. So my experience is not as worthy, my questions not addressed, and my rebuttals ignored and the topic shifted to other areas. Several posters have made it clear that they aren't interested in other points of view. I'm going to have to say thank you for the discussion and move on.
Re meg
Ms.(Mr.) Meg apparently is unimpressed with the absence of home schooled individuals amongst Nobel Prize winners. OK, how about the US National Academy of Sciences, which currently consists of about 2000 members, (only about 2 or 3 dozen of whom are Nobel Prize winners), according to their web site. This is considered the most prestigious science organization in the US. I would ask Ms.(Mr.) Meg how many members of this organization were home schooled?
SLC,
I have not claimed that homeschoolers are proportionately represented in any group of highly educated scientists. You are making the converse claim, and I am saying "So, what?" I do not recognize the validity of your test, so we wil not agree on the conclusions you draw from it.
GH and others who see homeschooling as somehow under-serving the student population and society at large,
I think publicly funded education should be free, safe, non-ideological, and universally available. But not mandatory. I am very glad that public education is an option for EVERY child in the U.S., and I am glad the the schools continue to make success for every student their goal. It's an impossible task, but working toward the ideal is far better than giving up. But just as I don't think the occasional failures of public education are a reason to scrap it, I do not see that homeschooling should be more accountable to the government merely because some homeschooled students (or their homeschools) fail.
Please show me the data that say homeschooling as it is currently practiced is, in aggregate, doing a poorer job of preparing kids for adulthood than public or private schooling. If you can show me that data, I'll have to reconsider my position that the freedom to homeschool should not be curtailed merely because in some cases students are underserved (I assume such cases exist, just based on probability).
We are barraged with consistent messages that research shows that parent involvement and teacher-student ratios matter a LOT in education. My homeschool has full-time involvement of a tag-team of parents, and a 2:3 teacher-student ratio. We meet the legal requirements for private, non-accredited schools in our state. Why is my homeschool more of a threat to society than another private school with more normal parent involvement and a teacher-student ratio of 10:1 or more? Or a large public school with student-teacher ratios of 20:1 and lower than average parent involvement?
Public policy cannot be based on unsupported ideas and fears of what homeschooling might mean for society. I share many people's fears that many children are not learning critical thinking skills, how to evaluate an argument on its merits, and how to distinguish science from spin. But I have not heard one EVIDENCE-BASED argument explaining why regulation of homeschooling will produce better results for children.
I'm ambivalent about the merits of home schooling. I've known home schooled students who excelled and home schooled students who were clearly educated at home to shield them from facts and the real world. I've known some who were brilliant at dealing with others and some who couldn't handle the idea that there are people in the world who don't agree with their world view. My question is, what percentage of the parents who home school their students are competent to teach high school level math? Most of the parents I know who are not engineers or scientists struggle with basic algebra, much less calculus.
A student educated by a mathematically competent teacher who has a poor knowledge of history can generally survive a freshman college curriculum and catch up along the way. A student who can't do math beyond the eighth grade level (which is not at all uncommon among even educated professional parents in the US) is essentially a hopeless case for any science or engineering major, and will have a hard time surviving general education for a humanities major as well.
I'm sure that home schoolers have a solution to this or the whole idea would probably be a non-starter. How is this situation normally handled?
I'm ambivalent about the merits of public schooling. I've known public schooled students who excelled and public schooled students who were clearly educated by a bureaucracy intended to shelter them from the real world. I've known some who were brilliant at dealing with others and some who couldn't handle the idea that there are people in the world who don't agree with their world view. My question is, what percentage of the teachers who hold sway over public school students are competent to teach high school math? Most of the teachers I have known would struggle with algebra, much less calculus, especially given that they deal with over a dozen students a day.
A student educated by a mathematically competent teacher who has a poor knowledge of history can generally survive a freshman college curriculum and catch up along the way. A student who can't do math beyond the eighth grade level will have to avail themselves of the remedial coursework available at their university, which would not have accepted the student without understanding their limitations. Fortunately, many public universities have instituted such classes, to deal with the students graduating from public schooling that require remedial studies. Many people think college isn't the place for remedial study, and that the job of basic education belongs in the public schools.
I'm sure that public schoolers have a solution to this or the whole idea would probably be a non-starter. How is this situation normally handled?
Jen (couldn't help it. and yes, I know that not all teachers teach hs math. Try, just try, to see it as humor with a point.)
Troublesomes Frog,
Many homeschoolers use packaged curricula, some use correspondence or umbrella schools, some use cooperatives, some use subject-specific textbooks, software, or websites. Some contract with a correspondence school, which may include professional teacher review of student work. Some rely on their own ability to stay a chapter ahead of the kids, and some seek out workshops or more formal training for themselves as teachers. Some send their students to community college for college algebra and higher levels. So, how is it "normally" handled? I'm not sure anyone but a business analyst for homeschool curriculum companies would bother quantifying it, but my guess is no clear norm would emerge. The resources are out there.
I'm sorry jen but your argument is falling flat and I endorse your right to home school your kids. You last copied and edited post meant as humor illustrates it perfectly. Your creating a strawman version of the public school and then attacking it.
Which school and how are they doing this? You make a claim not back it up. It is easy to see this in home schooled children and demonstrate it by simply asking many of the parents.
100% of them that have received degrees and proper certification. Our schools are very strict about this.
Are they algebra teachers? I am sure not. The algebra teachers I know seem to know algebra very well ahving taught it in some cases for decades. You argument is simply dishonest and arrogant.
This I can partially agree with as students do often have holes in their education that require further study. College's chase dollars. They see a market. I don't think college is the place for remedial study but they chase the buck. It is not the 'average' graduate they are reaching for with these programs. Again you are attacking a strawman and need more understanding of the actual demographic the college's are pursuing.
The 'problem' allows more students, typically those in the bottom portion of their class a shot at a college degree. These are not the majority of the graduates in a given year. In any event it is between a university and a student and not the public school system. You simply are creating an issue where there isn't one.
And none of your arguments address the fact that as a child enters HS the knowledge becomes much more specialized and the need for educators skilled in the subject matter increases several fold.
And again after 14 YEARS of seeing these students directly in the classroom only roughly 10-20% are on level with the average PS student.
And again after 14 YEARS of seeing these students directly in the classroom only roughly 10-20% are on level with the average PS student. (GH)
GH, do you know why these kids switched from homeschooling to public high school?
How many years do they spend in public HS, on average?
When they graduate (assuming they do -- curious about that, too), are they more evenly distributed above and below the average?
Perhaps I should make my point more explicitly: I haven't personally seen a strong correlation between home schooling and academic achievement or personality skills one way or the other. I know people who honestly did a very good job of providing a better education than public schools would have, and I know people who are obviously the product of parents whose sole purpose in home schooling them was to make sure that their education was untainted by the crazy ideas they put in textbooks. I lean toward giving the people and the process the benefit of the doubt, but I do wonder what happens to students who are the victims of a lack of standards or professional guidance in more difficult topics.
I tend to agree. The idea that college is there to repair damage done by inadequate primary and secondary schooling isn't exactly a strong recommendation for an educational program. College is supposed to be the next step in education, not a safety net paid for to fix earlier educational mistakes.
The reason I bring this up is that I was an engineering major in college. Like most of my classmates, I arrived with a basic grounding in calculus and still had years of math to go. If I had come in with math skills comparable to those of my parents (who are fine, smart, normal people), I would have been up a creek without a paddle. It would probably have taken me a couple of years more to get around to taking the core classes to start my degree. I suppose that treating college as the high school of last resort may work fine for some subjects, but for others, it's simply setting the student up for failure.
My calculus teacher had a degree in mathematics. It worked out surprisingly well.
Of course, she was hit by a car and we spent third quarter "learning" from an English major who tried to stay a lesson ahead of us. I appreciate her efforts and sympathize with her predicament, but that part of the year was a disaster. That's what got me thinking: Given that the average American adult shudders at the thought of algebra, how does one home school a child beyond one's own abilities? Meg was kind enough to answer that question.
But of course. I see awkward, ill-fitting mimicry as one of the highest forms of satire.
As for your point, I'm trying not to look too dim witted here, but it does seem to depend either on public school math teachers being equally incompetent, or the idea that colleges are there to clean up the mess. Neither seems appealing to me.
Yes, in almost all cases it is one of these 2 reasons:
1. The increasing difficulty of the subject matter outpaces the ability of the parents to teach it adequately.
2. The kids desire for social activities. Sports, dances, prom, etc.
Many of our returns are at the freshman level so I would guess the general plan of the parents was to home school them until HS and then back in. I'll let you decide the logic of this. And alot return in the 8th grade as well.
They do fine once they are brought up to speed so to speak. No better or worse in general at graduation than any other. But some have to work very hard to catch up and a few are far ahead and find the work easy. As mentioned previously much depends upon the parents and the actual child's talents.
I don't want to sound flippant, but if homeschooled kids, like people in general, can "catch up" as necessary, either in public high school, or in college if they go straight to college, or even on their own if they're not college-bound, what's the big deal?
I'm not saying this would work in traditional or public schools, where the mission and structure (lots of kids, public accountability, etc.) require stepping through a curriculum and testing progress against a standard. But for me, part of choosing another path was knowing that learning (for me) is far more effective when it is more customized, as far as pace, subject, and methods. If "minimum standards" are always linked to the pace and subject matter of the public school curriculum, there's no way for someone to take a different approach without "failing."
Public schooling has a lot do without trying to be responsible for all the people who opt out of it. Why not let homeschoolers take a different tack? I'll try to answer the most likely responses:
* Because when they show up in GH's freshman classes, GH will have to work harder to bring them up to speed.
- That is the biggest one, as far as I can see, and it's a good point. But if public school isn't there to get the kids who are "behind" back on track, what's it there for? If a homeschooled kid pops into public school in high school, obviously the parents buy into the need for the public school academic standards. Whether a kid was homeschooled, or came from a different country, or just never "got" it before 9th grade, sometimes they are still trying to catch up in high school. Will the trend of homeschooling increase the numbers who are trying to catch up in high school? Possibly, but not definitely. Should the public schools be able to turn away homeschoolers who are behind? I don't think so -- the whole point is to educate as many citizens, as well as possible. Could the public schools (or the national Dept. of Education) do something non-compulsory to encourage and support homeschooling parents who do buy into the academic standards? Yes, and some states do. But I think any initiative for such programs would have to come from the public schools -- if homeschoolers are asking for them, they lack the resourcefulness to achieve their goals and should probably have their kids in public school.
* If they never achieve the PS minimum standards, they'll be a burden to society.
- If there is ever evidence to show that homeschoolers (in an environment where public school is free and universally available) are more likely to be on public assistance than traditionally schooled citizens, this becomes an issue. At that point, I promise to re-think my approach to academic standards, and insist that homeschoolers be regularly tested.
* If they aren't ready for college before they're 18, they'll never make it in [insert preferred profession here].
- This argument has been floated a couple of times with no support, so I'm sure it'll come up again. Adults can learn. Plenty of people take "remedial" classes before being fully enrolled in degree-seeking programs. Yes, the road to a degree is longer if you need remedial study, but why is that a concern of the public schools, if the person is not a product of the public schools? Maybe homeschooled students who haven't kept up with the PS curriculum will be less interested in pursuing a science or engineering career, but is that really a problem for the student, or for the profession?
* It's an injustice to the child to make him catch up later on.
- Why is it more of an injustice than another other choice parents make for their kids that affects them right up to adulthood (obviously not counting abuse)? What church to attend, if any, where to live, what school (if not homeschooled), what privileges, whether to have a TV, whether to allow junk food, whether to give an allowance or a car? I'm sure I haven't heard the last of this argument, so I'll leave it there.
I'm just asking that you step back and look at the premises which seem "obvious" to you, and question them objectively. If you don't find them outright false, can you at least admit that they aren't as cut-and-dried as you have always assumed them to be, and consider whether the arguments justify curtailing the rights of a parent to choose certain elements of his child's environment?
You have it EXACTLY backwards. The student will have to work much harder to attain the level of their peers.
Certainly not. Why punish the children for their parents poor choices?
They should be tested anyway.
In my view becuase it's wholly preventable. It isn't any more of an injustice and may not be one at all if done well but an injustice is an injustice.
And actually after reading the 'pro' side on this thead I am starting to think my being 'pro' in allowing parents this choice may be less than well grounded.
Mr. Weston - way up above you said:
"'Establishing minimum standards' means the state imposing doctrine on parents, for example, teaching that all religions are equal, or that homosexuality is a correct way to live."
Which religions, exactly, are more equal than others?
Dave