Wednesday
May262010
Public school? Private school? Homeschooling? Unschooling?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
I want to preface this post by saying that I am not an expert in the field of education. I have done some research on this topic, but it is not comprehensive and may not even be representative. However, my readers have been asking me for a long time to share my thoughts on this topic and those requests have increased since we began our temporary stay in Germany, where homeschooling is illegal. In the interest of full disclosure, as this may colour my thoughts on the issue, I went through the public school system in Quebec and we have chosen a small private language-focused preschool/elementary school for our children, which our son has attended for the past three years and where our daughter will be starting this September.
Because this will influence much of what I say in this post, I should start with my thoughts on the right and the duty to learn.
I believe in and support the Convention on the Rights of the Child's recognition of every child's right to a free education. I believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn the basic things that they need to function in society. This includes, in my mind, practical skills like reading and math, but it also includes knowledge of the natural world, history, cultures, and societal issues. It includes learning and retaining facts, but also learning how to solve problems, debate issues, and apply critical thinking.
I also believe in the duty to learn. I do not think that ignorance is bliss. I believe that ignorance is dangerous and destructive. I believe it is each person's civic duty to learn certain things, whether they want to or not. I believe this is good for them and essential for a functioning society. I do not, however, believe that everyone has to learn everything that is currently taught in the current public school curriculum. Nor do I believe that people who successfully graduate from the public school system actually retain everything that is taught as part of its curriculum.
These thoughts on the right and duty to learn have a significant influence on my opinion of different education options for our children.
I have a love/hate relationship with schools. This is coloured by my own experience in school, my son's experience so far, and the reading I've done on the topic of schooling.
I love that schools:
I hate that schools:
These are, of course, generalizations based on my experience with schools where I live. I know that this does not apply all of the time to all types of schools, although I suspect most of these things apply most of the time. Private schools and alternative schools (sometimes public, sometimes private) are popping up in a lot of areas attempt to capitalize on the strengths of schools and address their weaknesses. However, it only goes so far.
While I used the term homeschooling in the title of this post, which is the most common term used in North America, after much consideration I chose the term home education for the title of this section. It is the term used in the United Kingdom and, in my mind, conceptually does a better job of incorporating the wide spectrum of home education options, ranging from homeschooling according to a specific curriculum all the way to pure unschooling. Another term that is used by some is life learning, which applies to children but also to adults and signifies the importance of learning being a life long process.
I don't have a love/hate relationship with home education in the same way that I do with schools. Perhaps this is because I don't have any direct experience with home education as the primary education of myself or my children. That said, I am passionate about life learning for myself and hope to be able to offer my children many opportunities to pursue their interests. Despite not having a specific love/hate relationship with home education, there are things about home education that I think are inspiring and there are things about home education that concern me.
Before I list those things, I want to address briefly some of the reasons that people choose home education. Both my experience with home educators and my research on home education (one good example) has suggested that there are two, or maybe three, primary motivations for choosing home education. The first is ideological. This is where parents embrace a different ideology than is taught in the curriculum and object to the curriculum because it doesn't teach enough about their own ideology and/or teaches things that are directly contrary to that ideology. The second reason for home educating is pedagogical. This is where the parents believe the structure or curriculum of the public education system is pedagogically unsound. They believe, sometimes passionately, that children are able to learn much better outside of school than they can inside school. The third reason, which is one that appears to be more prominent in recent years among my cohort, is that the available school(s) are not a good fit for the child or the family. This could be because the child is struggling in school and not getting the needed attention. It could be because the child has learning difficulties that result in a classroom setting not being a good place to learn. It could be simply because classes are crowded, teachers are stressed, and there are more social problems in the school than in the past. Or it could be because the family moves around a lot (e.g. for one parent's job) and they are able to provide more stability and consistency to their children through home education.
These reasons for choosing home education are important to understanding what inspires me and what concerns me about home education.
I'm inspired that with home education:
At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:
It is certainly the ideological issues that I mentioned in the first two bullets that concern me the most. I think the other two are more easily circumvented or dealt with.
In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics says that 30 percent of American families that homeschool do so primarily for religious reasons. Realistically, I do not think that there is any reason why parents cannot teach their children about their faith outside of school hours. Therefore, choosing to school your children at home for religious reasons means that there are things that are taught in schools that you don't think your children should be exposed to. While there are probably some instances of inappropriate curricular content, I think that is better addressed by suggesting changes than pulling your children out. My guess is that in most cases, among those who homeschool primarily for religious reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs). This, I think, is problematic. Then, in the extreme, and in a very very small minority of cases, are parents who actively teach their children hatred (e.g. white supremacy, antisemitism). This is downright dangerous. Note: green text added above to clarify that I didn't mean "in most cases" among ALL homeschoolers, just among a specific subset.
I know that a lot of people view lack of socialization as a concern with regards to homeschooling. I don't see it that way. I think that most homeschooling families do participate in a variety of activities with friends and family that allows their children to be effectively socialized. The only times I worry about the socialization factor is where parents actively avoid socialization with certain types of people (races, religions, sexual orientations) for ideological reasons, but that goes to my previous point.
So where do I stand on schooling versus home education? I'm on the fence.
I believe more strongly in the child's right to an education than I do in the parent's right to raise their children any way they want. That said, I see many flaws in the current school system and the many benefits to home education. From that perspective, I don't blame parents for wanting to pull their children out for pedagogical reasons or just because it isn't working for their child or their family. But the ideological reasons, the ones that involve immersing your children in your beliefs and shielding them from others, are not my cup of tea.
I also believe in a civic duty to not be ignorant. This means that if you believe something, being exposed to other beliefs should help you to confirm your beliefs, rather than threaten them. Parents with specific belief systems should be prepared to explain to their children why they believe those things, rather than just pretending it is the only thing you possibly can believe. I also believe that to participate in society, as a citizen, people should have a basic understanding of history and social issues. This means that when you participate, as a citizen, and attempt to influence political decisions or address community issues, that you should have a basic understanding of how we got to where we are today. So if important things were left out, because a parent shielded their child from it or because the child chose not to learn it, that puts us at a greater risk of bad history repeating itself.
I don't think it matters if a child learns to read at age four or age nine. I don't care if a child learns to add and subtract at a desk or by doing real life activities. I don't think it makes a difference if you learn world geography first and then local geography later or the other way around. But I do believe that there are certain things that all citizens should learn. Those are the things that should help reduce hatred, war, and discrimination. Those are the things that allow children to learn about and assert their individual rights. So things like good sex ed programs, which significantly reduce teen pregnancy rates or things like comprehensive religious culture and ethics programs that teach children about different beliefs, viewpoints, family structures and relationships are extremely important. Parents who chose home education should be required to teach their children those things (and are in some jurisdictions).
In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. Children have to go to school. They go to schools where they learn about things like the World War II and the Holocaust, in hopes that history doesn't repeat itself. Despite those efforts, the neo-nazi scene is growing, with one in seven German teenagers (14.4%) having attitudes deemed highly xenophobic. Is the school environment contributing to the growth of the neo-nazi movement? Or would the movement be even bigger of right extremists were allowed to homeschool their children and teach them that the Holocaust is a lie and foreigners are ruining their lives?
My firm belief, and the reason I avoided writing this post for so long, is that there are no easy answers when it comes to education. Nothing is perfect, everything has risks, lots of things have to change.
The right and the duty to learn
Because this will influence much of what I say in this post, I should start with my thoughts on the right and the duty to learn.
I believe in and support the Convention on the Rights of the Child's recognition of every child's right to a free education. I believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn the basic things that they need to function in society. This includes, in my mind, practical skills like reading and math, but it also includes knowledge of the natural world, history, cultures, and societal issues. It includes learning and retaining facts, but also learning how to solve problems, debate issues, and apply critical thinking.
I also believe in the duty to learn. I do not think that ignorance is bliss. I believe that ignorance is dangerous and destructive. I believe it is each person's civic duty to learn certain things, whether they want to or not. I believe this is good for them and essential for a functioning society. I do not, however, believe that everyone has to learn everything that is currently taught in the current public school curriculum. Nor do I believe that people who successfully graduate from the public school system actually retain everything that is taught as part of its curriculum.
These thoughts on the right and duty to learn have a significant influence on my opinion of different education options for our children.
Schools
I have a love/hate relationship with schools. This is coloured by my own experience in school, my son's experience so far, and the reading I've done on the topic of schooling.
I love that schools:
- Provide a ready made opportunity for children to meet and play with a lot of children from different genders, cultures, and backgrounds. I don't have to worry about arranging and supervising play dates. I just send my kid to school and it magically falls together.
- Have teachers, equipment and resources to passionately and effectively engage my children on topics and in activities that I am not able to.
- Provide a safe environment for my children to be cared for while my partner and I pursue our careers and our own life learning.
- Ensure that all children learn history and are exposed to a wide variety of beliefs and viewpoints (at least where I live).
I hate that schools:
- Require all students to learn the same things and the same time, meaning that some will be interested, some will be bored, and some will struggle.
- Are seldom able to provide the right level of support for students who are struggling in a specific area and often push it back onto the parents in the form of extra homework for them to do with the child.
- Involve significant amounts of peer pressure, bullying, overexposure to things like commercialization, sexualization, and specific gender roles that I think are counter productive.
- Do not provide enough time for experimentation, play, outdoor time and self-directed learning.
- Often use grades, rewards, and punishments as a way to keep students in line because it is easier than encouraging self-motivation and teaching common sense and respect.
- Can be abused for the purposes of spreading propaganda to youth.
These are, of course, generalizations based on my experience with schools where I live. I know that this does not apply all of the time to all types of schools, although I suspect most of these things apply most of the time. Private schools and alternative schools (sometimes public, sometimes private) are popping up in a lot of areas attempt to capitalize on the strengths of schools and address their weaknesses. However, it only goes so far.
Home Education
While I used the term homeschooling in the title of this post, which is the most common term used in North America, after much consideration I chose the term home education for the title of this section. It is the term used in the United Kingdom and, in my mind, conceptually does a better job of incorporating the wide spectrum of home education options, ranging from homeschooling according to a specific curriculum all the way to pure unschooling. Another term that is used by some is life learning, which applies to children but also to adults and signifies the importance of learning being a life long process.
I don't have a love/hate relationship with home education in the same way that I do with schools. Perhaps this is because I don't have any direct experience with home education as the primary education of myself or my children. That said, I am passionate about life learning for myself and hope to be able to offer my children many opportunities to pursue their interests. Despite not having a specific love/hate relationship with home education, there are things about home education that I think are inspiring and there are things about home education that concern me.
Before I list those things, I want to address briefly some of the reasons that people choose home education. Both my experience with home educators and my research on home education (one good example) has suggested that there are two, or maybe three, primary motivations for choosing home education. The first is ideological. This is where parents embrace a different ideology than is taught in the curriculum and object to the curriculum because it doesn't teach enough about their own ideology and/or teaches things that are directly contrary to that ideology. The second reason for home educating is pedagogical. This is where the parents believe the structure or curriculum of the public education system is pedagogically unsound. They believe, sometimes passionately, that children are able to learn much better outside of school than they can inside school. The third reason, which is one that appears to be more prominent in recent years among my cohort, is that the available school(s) are not a good fit for the child or the family. This could be because the child is struggling in school and not getting the needed attention. It could be because the child has learning difficulties that result in a classroom setting not being a good place to learn. It could be simply because classes are crowded, teachers are stressed, and there are more social problems in the school than in the past. Or it could be because the family moves around a lot (e.g. for one parent's job) and they are able to provide more stability and consistency to their children through home education.
These reasons for choosing home education are important to understanding what inspires me and what concerns me about home education.
I'm inspired that with home education:
- Children often get much better academic results with much less time spent sitting at a desk, which gives them more time to spend outdoors, playing, and participating in all aspects of family life.
- Children are freer to pursue their own interests.
- There is more self-motivation and less coercion and force involved in learning. This, in turn, encourages children to learn more rather than getting the attitude that learning is boring and uncool.
- Children are not as exposed to negative cultural and societal influences.
- More parents take an active interest in their child's education.
- Children are free to learn at the time of day that best meshes with their personality and body rhythm, rather than according to the ringing of a bell.
At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:
- I worry that parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be shielding their children from the realities of the world (other belief systems, other cultures) and their selves (sexuality, gender issues, personal expression), which I believe is dangerous for the individual and for society.
- I worry that a small minority of parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be doing so specifically to pass on discriminatory and hateful viewpoints to their children.
- I worry that parents who take their children out of school out of frustration with the school system (generally or for their specific child) may feel forced into home educating their children when really the school system should be changing and adapting to address those concerns.
- I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the workforce and may be at a disadvantage (although to be fair, a lot of today's schooled youth aren't dealing with them themselves anyway - they are getting mommy and daddy to do it for them).
It is certainly the ideological issues that I mentioned in the first two bullets that concern me the most. I think the other two are more easily circumvented or dealt with.
In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics says that 30 percent of American families that homeschool do so primarily for religious reasons. Realistically, I do not think that there is any reason why parents cannot teach their children about their faith outside of school hours. Therefore, choosing to school your children at home for religious reasons means that there are things that are taught in schools that you don't think your children should be exposed to. While there are probably some instances of inappropriate curricular content, I think that is better addressed by suggesting changes than pulling your children out. My guess is that in most cases, among those who homeschool primarily for religious reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs). This, I think, is problematic. Then, in the extreme, and in a very very small minority of cases, are parents who actively teach their children hatred (e.g. white supremacy, antisemitism). This is downright dangerous. Note: green text added above to clarify that I didn't mean "in most cases" among ALL homeschoolers, just among a specific subset.
I know that a lot of people view lack of socialization as a concern with regards to homeschooling. I don't see it that way. I think that most homeschooling families do participate in a variety of activities with friends and family that allows their children to be effectively socialized. The only times I worry about the socialization factor is where parents actively avoid socialization with certain types of people (races, religions, sexual orientations) for ideological reasons, but that goes to my previous point.
Back to rights and duties
So where do I stand on schooling versus home education? I'm on the fence.
I believe more strongly in the child's right to an education than I do in the parent's right to raise their children any way they want. That said, I see many flaws in the current school system and the many benefits to home education. From that perspective, I don't blame parents for wanting to pull their children out for pedagogical reasons or just because it isn't working for their child or their family. But the ideological reasons, the ones that involve immersing your children in your beliefs and shielding them from others, are not my cup of tea.
I also believe in a civic duty to not be ignorant. This means that if you believe something, being exposed to other beliefs should help you to confirm your beliefs, rather than threaten them. Parents with specific belief systems should be prepared to explain to their children why they believe those things, rather than just pretending it is the only thing you possibly can believe. I also believe that to participate in society, as a citizen, people should have a basic understanding of history and social issues. This means that when you participate, as a citizen, and attempt to influence political decisions or address community issues, that you should have a basic understanding of how we got to where we are today. So if important things were left out, because a parent shielded their child from it or because the child chose not to learn it, that puts us at a greater risk of bad history repeating itself.
I don't think it matters if a child learns to read at age four or age nine. I don't care if a child learns to add and subtract at a desk or by doing real life activities. I don't think it makes a difference if you learn world geography first and then local geography later or the other way around. But I do believe that there are certain things that all citizens should learn. Those are the things that should help reduce hatred, war, and discrimination. Those are the things that allow children to learn about and assert their individual rights. So things like good sex ed programs, which significantly reduce teen pregnancy rates or things like comprehensive religious culture and ethics programs that teach children about different beliefs, viewpoints, family structures and relationships are extremely important. Parents who chose home education should be required to teach their children those things (and are in some jurisdictions).
In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. Children have to go to school. They go to schools where they learn about things like the World War II and the Holocaust, in hopes that history doesn't repeat itself. Despite those efforts, the neo-nazi scene is growing, with one in seven German teenagers (14.4%) having attitudes deemed highly xenophobic. Is the school environment contributing to the growth of the neo-nazi movement? Or would the movement be even bigger of right extremists were allowed to homeschool their children and teach them that the Holocaust is a lie and foreigners are ruining their lives?
My firm belief, and the reason I avoided writing this post for so long, is that there are no easy answers when it comes to education. Nothing is perfect, everything has risks, lots of things have to change.
Reader Comments (256)
yes!!! agree with you wholeheartedly.
Well put.
Smrt Mama, I'm glad you put this out here. I never understood that argument. For the sake of demonstration, will being in an abusive situation (I'm not saying school) teach us resilience? Will being in a combat zone help us develop a protective armor? For some people, maybe. What I learn from enduring uncomfortable situations is this: I learn to avoid them. I learn that I'm not cut out for them. For me, the logic doesn't follow. For some of my teacher friends, they loved school so much they devoted their lives to it. BTW, I liked your response to the argument.
I just have to say I agree with you totally about the way that History is taught in the US- I didn't even come to this realization in college, because the only US History I took in college seemed to mostly stick to this norm (or else I wasn't paying attention, which is likely). My moment of "oh my God, it really happened like that!" came when I watched the mini-series that was on TV several summers ago, "Into the West." And I'm sure it even glossed over the horrors that were involved in forming this country. I have to say that I understand why they don't want to teach us that- I hated this country for a minute when I watched that movie. But just because I understand doesn't mean I think it's okay. I think we'd have a lot fewer ignorant "go USA!" people running around spouting hypocritical nonsense (hello, teaparty?) if we taught the truth in school instead of the idealized nonsense they feed us.
As for the homeschool vs. public/private school argument... I'm glad we're discussing it. It's been on my mind a lot lately because my older child will be starting school in the next few years and I need to make a decision, and I'm torn for a number of reasons. 1) I actually totally understand PHD's misgivings about homeschooling. Of course, this is based on my experiences, which are limited. My experiences with homeschooling are limited to an ex-boss who home-schooled (and had awesome, respectful, smart kids) and my super fanatically religious aunt and uncle who were that stereotypically sheltering homeschooling family. And their kids did NOT turn out well- they were bitter and hateful towards their parents by the time they reached high school, and ended up having issues both socially and academically, and eventually ended up going to a private school. I don't even think that this is the shortcoming of homeschooling itself, rather it was the shortcoming of the parents, but that is my problem with homeschooling. I think it's a little bit arrogant to think that you can teach your child everything they need to know, and that no one else can do as good a job as you can. I want my children to learn things from other people- because other people have different teaching styles than I do, which may be beneficial to my children. And because they have viewpoints and knowledge that I don't have that they can share with my child. 2) BUT as a former teacher (and student) I also have a lot of misgivings about the education system. For exactly the same reasons listed by PHD. I want my kids to be able to learn things at their own pace and to spend more time on a subject they're particularly interested in. If anything, I'm particularly interested in the subject of un-schooling. I think that me trying to orchestrate un-schooling would be a disaster because I am a control freak- I like plans and lists and schedules. But I like the reasons behind it, and the idea of child directed learning.
But my major reasons for leaning towards public school- 1) my daughter is VERY shy, and I am a bit of a homebody, so I am afraid that we would fall into a pattern of doing all our schooling at home and never getting out to socialize (this is only based on our own faults, not any preconception I have about homeschooling). 2) despite her shyness, my daughter LOVES group learning environments. Her entire week revolves around the three days she goes to preschool. As long as this love continues, I will have no problem with group learning. And 3) I will admit it, I am one of those "lazy" parents who look forward to the "free" babysitting. But I'm not lazy- I just, as PHD so tactfully put it, would like to have time to pursue my own life learning while my child is in a safe environment. And I do still think that at least some public schools provide this environment.
But, this is VERY one-sided in the public school system! Children can not learn about or discuss Christian beliefs in school. It is ONLY in a home education setting that children are free to learn about ALL different views. It is only in the home and with the parents that children can learn and discuss and choose what to believe.
Jessica:
That depends where you go to school. Where we live, there is a mandatory curriculum that teaches about different beliefs.
So, do the children get to learn about God and the creation? Do they get to pray in school and study the Bible and other scripture?
You say,
"While there are probably some instances of inappropriate curricular content, I think that is better addressed by suggesting changes than pulling your children out. My guess is that in most cases, among those who homeschool primarily for religious reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs). This, I think, is problematic. "
If all beliefs should be taught and my children should be expected to learn about evolution, birth control, homosexuality then shouldn't they also be taught about the creation, sex after marriage and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman as well? This is my problem. There is no real balance of all views. I have yet to come across any public school with such a balance in their teaching.
Let me present a slightly differing view of rights of a parent and that of a child's right to education as provided by the state; we are natural beings and thus must follow the laws of nature to survive, formal state education is not found in nature and is a right created by humans. Secondly there is significant historical facts of state institution indoctrinating children for political powr: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Mau. Was it the outrageous beliefs of the parent(s) that are responsible for the deaths of nearly 100 million innocent people or was it the result of the state? Faith and trust in the state is dangerous; it leads to slavery and oppression and unfortunately the murder of families such as mine. Ironic that homeschooling is illegal in Germany with the horrific history that it has in the indoctrination of its youth.
[...] on my toes. She was involved in in-depth discussions on posts on protecting your social capital, school vs. homeschooling, reporting marketing of breastmilk substitutes, calling out a mom who didn’t buckle her [...]
This post is old, but I wanted to bring up a few things that seemed to have been missed.
In the United States, public schooling is an equalizer. It's something that people reminisce about. When you get to college, people ask you about your experiences in high school. My husband was homeschooled and stares at me blankly when I talk about things like prom and team sports and how much I loved marching band. These are just a few things that can only be obtained in a traditional schooling experience. This is not as true for elementary school homeschoolers, but I think not going to high school deprives you of what has really become a part of American culture. It's something that nearly everyone has in common, and college classrooms are largely like high school classrooms.
Also, it's great to teach your kid to explore their passions and school whenever they feel like it and learn with their family, but you can't homeschool a bachelor's degree, and that can have really devastating effects when they get to college and their professor wants them to regurgitate facts and write a five-paragraph essay. Or better yet, a course that's entirely in lecture with the whole grade based on three multiple-choice tests. Public schooling style is mostly the way undergraduate courses are taught, and I've attended a few universities.
Lastly, as an educator, most homeschooled kids are the product of highly-educated parents. When you choose to homeschool, you deprive classrooms of having another high-achiever who motivates other children and sets an example. You could be working in the system to improve public schooling.
Is public schooling a necessary equalizer? What about popular culture and common experiences outside of school?
Do you really think homeschooled children don't play on team sports? I went to public school and I didn't attend prom or play on a team sport. And if you told me how much you loved marching band, I would stare at you blankly, too.
The idea that a homeschooled child, "the product of highly-educated parents," couldn't hack a five-paragraph essay in college is ridiculous. Positing that children need a regurgitating-facts, multiple-choice-test education from the outset in order to do well in college is untrue .. and disheartening. I assume, as an educator, this means that you don't think it's worth rising above such drill-and-kill methods in elementary school .. and projects are a waste of time in high school, right? Kids should accept how the real world works and get with the program.
"You should be working in the system to improve public schooling" is such a common statement, and so naive. Really? You're an educator and you actually believe this? Good luck to anyone trying to improve public schooling for their child. You can throw yourself into the fray for future children, but there will be no meaningful change while your child is in school. You can request the "good" teacher, you can demand the gifted program, you can move to get into a better school district. You can try the lottery for the magnet school. You can *play* the system. You can't improve it, not in time to make a difference for your child.
I'm not necessarily criticizing homeschool, so there's no need to be so defensive and call me naive, I'm just pointing out that there are some experiences that can only come from public (or private) school. (As there are probably some experiences that only come with homeschool). There is a huge difference between team-sports in school and out of school. And as a common experience, schooling is the biggest one.
And I'm not suggesting that schools continue with the system at all, so don't put words in my mouth, I'm only saying that this is the norm in most public universities and children who have thrived in small, homeschooled environment may have difficulty adapting to a very traditional, large-scale environment. I am a literature teacher and frequently design my own projects for my students that allow them to work independently or in groups on the novel of their choice. I also teach them to write five paragraph essays because both are skills they will need in college and that is what I try to prepare them for.
If you actually read what I said, you would note that I simply wanted to point out some things that hadn't been said previously. If you want to homeschool your kid, fine, but be aware that with all schooling options there are both pros and cons and you should be fully aware of all of them.
The large numbers of homeschoolers attending, and excelling in, colleges and universities should allay your concern. My own home schooled 16 year old is currently taking courses at a local college and is preparing to apply to four year schools. Most major universities, and many smaller colleges, are actively recruiting home schooled kids, as we discovered at a recent college fair. From my experence the transition to college life is often.*less* traumatic for home schooled students who are not suffering from the academic burn-out many conventionally schooled students are.
Keep in mind that the parents of most home schooled students, like me, attended public schools. We are well aware of the difference in experience.
My favorite response to people asking me about my kids' socialization: "No worries. Once a week I take him into the bathroom and beat the crap out of him." A sick joke and yet one of my most vivid memories of public school socialization.
I would also challenge the assertion that public school is an equalizer. Wealthy kids hand with wealthy kids, poor with poor, white with white, black with black. "Gifted" and AP classes are mostly populated by white higher income students. Schools in wealthy neighborhoods have more resources than in low income neighborhoods. The *last* thing public school is is an equalizer. It replicates the inequality in the US generally.
The assertion tha public high schools are most like college classes is absolutely absurd and laughable. I went to public school K-12 (skipping 11) and then went to an elite liberal arts college (after a year of deciding whether I ever wanted to sit in a classroom again). High school and college could not be more different. in fact my college experience in part inspired me to homeschool. I don't want my kids to wait 12 years to study their passions and be treated as equals in the process of learning.
Excuse the iPad typos. Hand=hang and the others should be fairly clear.
That might be true if you can afford an elite college, but for the majority of us who attended public universities (and I attended two) it is certainly not the case.
And I don't think you quite understand, I'm not saying that going to a public school makes everyone equal, I'm saying that as an adult, your education is an equalizing experience, something you have in common with others.
I don't feel I'm being defensive at all, and I stand by the assertion that only a naive person suggests a parent can improve public schooling.
I disagree with you that attending public school is the "biggest" common experience. This is a very standard statement from public-schooling parents, who seem to be very concerned that their child fit in. I went to public school; my children are homeschooled. Most of their friends attend public school; some are homeschooled, and some attend private school. They have the same hobbies, listen to the same music, watch the same TV shows, read the same books, play the same sports.
"[C]hildren who have thrived in small, homeschooled environment may have difficulty adapting to a very traditional, large-scale environment." Sorry, but this is just a ridiculous statement. Do a little research about homeschooled children attending ivy-league universities and get back to me. You are suffering from the wrong idea that homeschooled children don't take classes, don't play on team sports, don't leave the house. You have a preconceived idea about the common experience of homeschooled children, and it's just wrong.
I understood you wanted to point out some things you thought hadn't been said; I was responding to what you wrote. When you say, "[B]e aware that with all schooling options there are both pros and cons and you should be fully aware of all of them," do you realize how patronizing that is? Do you really think those "highly-educated parents" you say are homeschooling don't do their due diligence?
Many people come out with the same trite statements against homeschooling and garner only an eye roll from me (and, I'm sure, other homeschooling parents). Your comment was so egregiously uninformed and prejudiced, I had to respond. You know nothing about homeschooling, homeschooling families, or homeschoolers' success in college; that's evident from your comment. Do your own due diligence. If you want to send your kids to public school, there are both pros and cons, and you should be fully aware of all of them.
I think you're being defensive and plain rude to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about. In fact, I didn't say I was against homeschooling at all. My husband was homeschooled and has turned out fine, I simply wanted to add to the discussion, which is completely dominated by homeschoolers, but since no one seems to be able to respond without attacking me and my experience with public schooling, I think it's really a waste of time.
I am not naive at all, I studied all schooling systems as an education student and I am quite aware of all the options out there. To suggest otherwise is blatant ad hominem. You say you aren't being rude and defensive and then say you roll your eyes at "people like me?" I hope you don't school your children with manners like those, because then they really will be socially stunted.
(And consider how few parents can actually afford to send their kids to ivy leagues. Most homeschooled or public-schooled kids will go to public universities where they'll sit in classes of 400 students.)
"I am not naive at all, I studied all schooling systems as an education student and I am quite aware of all the options out there. To suggest otherwise is blatant ad hominem." Fascinating. You do realize you made that statement to me first, right? Or did you forget?
Do you dislike having someone challenge the truthfulness of statements that you make as fact? If so, perhaps you shouldn't be participating in a public forum.
Mine is not an ad hominem attack; I am not attacking you personally. I said it was naive to suggest that parents can improve public schooling. It's also unfair. It's a very common statement from public-schooling parents, as I said above. I'm not attacking you personally, just your statements.
You call me rude, yet you say, "I hope you don’t school your children with manners like those, because then they really will be socially stunted." Hmm.
My point in saying that homeschooled children regularly attend ivy-league universities was only that they make that transition easily and successfully, in contrast to your belief that homeschooled children will "have difficulty adapting to a very traditional, large-scale environment."
Why do you think homechooled children wouldn't be able to adapt to a public university class of 400 students? This fascinates me. On what are you basing this opinion? Do you have statistics to share? Or is it just your hunch? Do a little googling on the subject. I think you'll be surprised.
FYI, I went to an "elite" college on scholarships and loans as an emancipated minor.
Brandis- you made a statement above that I would like to touch on.
"I think it’s a little bit arrogant to think that you can teach your child everything they need to know, and that no one else can do as good a job as you can. I want my children to learn things from other people- because other people have different teaching styles than I do, which may be beneficial to my children. And because they have viewpoints and knowledge that I don’t have that they can share with my child."
I would just like to share my perspective. Many home educating parents freely admit that they do not know everything their child may need to know. First, who knows what your child will need to know as they follow their unique path in life? Second, nobody knows everything- "you don't know what you don't know" can be applied to every single person on this planet- including teachers. What I love about home educating is that I am a facilitator for my child. When my child has a keen interest in something I can find an 'expert' to mentor her right away. Science workshops, internships, private lessons, books, field-trips (extensive travel), are all tools in my belt.
I have so many 'gaps' in my education from being in public school K-12, that I have spent the last ten years reading and studying to make up for it. I am learning along-side my child. Between my husband, our extended family/friends, and community our resources are endless. I have never met a homeschooling parent who believed they 'knew everything their child would need to know'- that is just silly. Rather, they help expose their children to as many rich learning environments/opportunities as possible and help foster & grow connections for their kids- and later on the kids will do this on their own. I hope this helps you understand a different POV. Good day!
well i got 50% on 50% on 50% because i think public schools are a better chance for your child to see new people and make new friends n try new things and homeschooling is a chance for your child to learn more than they do and to give the child the attention they need for them to learn what they need to no
First, let me get it out there right up front that I am a Bible-believing Christian. I believe that all people bear God's image (which by the way is the reason that we have value and the reason that we can speak of "human rights" as if they truthfully and objectively exist). I believe that we are all sinners and that as a result we deserve the wrath of God. I believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross to save people from their sins. I believe He rose from the dead. I believe that He will return. I believe that every one of us will one day face judgment and that those who believe will be saved and inherit eternal life, and those who do not believe will be condemned in accordance with God's justice.
Now, truth is by its very nature absolute. What is true is true whether or not it is believed by men. Since Christianity IS true, it should be believed, and Christian values should be inculcated into all people everywhere.
Quite a bit has been said about moral relativism here. The thing is, when it comes to practical matters of ethics, politics, and law, there is no moral relativism. I mean this in two senses. First, right and wrong are theologically and philosophically absolute in nature. Those who have the power to make policy or to draft bills or to make bills into laws should be reminded that they will one day give an account to God for the manner in which they wielded their power. Secondly, I am pointing out that those who say that they are all for multiple versions of "truth" being presented to children are apparently not cognizant of the fact that there is always some overarching value or ethic that governs any particular human institution. The "ultimate authority" of any institution is - in a sense - the god of the institution, and the overarching values, ethics, rules, and regulations form the governing theology of the institution which is always inculcated. It is never a question of whether this will happen, but only a question of which "god" (and which theology) is so inculcated. Will we obey Ephesians 6:4 and Deuteronomy 6 and the 10 Commandments as we raise our children and oversee their education, or will we render our precious children to the gods of this world? (I'll make a note here that if you believe the first 4 of the 10 Commandments are irrelevant for you and your children if you have any, then you are failing as a parent).
So, while it is said that children should "decide for themselves" what to believe, the same people rant against "hate speech." Firstly, children don't have the maturity to "decide for themselves." Secondly, who defines what constitutes "hate" and on what grounds? (And for that matter, I'll point out that some hate is appropriate. We should abhor corruption for example.) And who are the real haters? Those who believe what I believe and inculcate those values into their children, or those who slander and persecute people like myself?
I believe, for example, that since little unborn babies bear the image of God, killing them is murder. Am I a "hater" for saying so?
I believe that sexual intimacy is something that God designed to be enjoyed in the context of a monogamous heterosexual marriage and that any other sexual practice is perverse, sinful, and depraved in nature. Is it "hateful" for me to believe this and to teach this to my children?
I believe that the glory of God should be our central and primary concern in all matters of faith and life - including but not limited to all matters of education, law, and politics. Is it hateful for me to teach this to my children?
I believe that it is wrong to call that which is good, evil; and that it is wrong to call that which is evil, good. Is it hateful to teach this to my children as if it is the truth and not merely "my personal belief"?
Be careful when you use the word hate, lest you slander any individual who bears the image of God. I've noticed many haters who express their hate by falsely accusing others of hate.
Also, friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4).
Jesus died on a cross to save sinners. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. These truths form the basis for any sound philosophy of parenting or pedagogy.
It is obvious to me that "freedom of speech" is patronizing nonsense - not only in Canada, but also in the United States. One of the big points to "freedom of speech" is to have the freedom to incite people to embrace certain religious or political beliefs - which then has the potential to result in violence. Example: The American Revolution. Was Samuel Adams a hater?
Any nation that disallows such speech does not truly have "freedom of speech." Hate laws are nothing more and nothing less than blasphemy laws. Anti-bullying legislation restricts speech. Anti-bullying legislation is the inculcation of the state's secular religion into the minds and hearts of the masses.
At this point, I've not said whether I am for or against free speech. What I am for is honesty and truth. Don't patronize people with the idea that you believe in freedom of speech if the only speech you are interested in defending is that which more or less is in agreement with your viewpoint. If you label all other speech as "hate speech" and if you think it is good for "hate speech" to be made against the law, then you must realize at very least that you are no proponent of free speech.
Jesus died on a cross to save sinners.
Let me just say that support of the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child is dangerous. It sounds good, but in practical application it takes rights away from parents and gives them to a committee of nations---nations such as dictatorships and Muslim nations, who in many cases refuse to give females the right to education or the rights to own property. Are these the people you want making decisions regarding your children? It takes away your freedom to choose what education or health care you want for your children and gives it to a committee.
Personally, I am glad that we have choices about how to educate our children in this country.
You say that Christian homeschoolers are passing on bigotry by teaching belief in God's Word, but you fail to point out that the full title of Darwin's book, taught in all public schools in the US, on evolutionary theory is titled, "The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" and that this book along with Nietzche's teachings are what informed Hitler's ideas about the Jews. A person's religious convictions regarding homosexuality cannot be equated with racial bigotry and to do so is an insult to minorities. Good people are now being kept from fostering and adopting children because of a religious conviction that homosexuality is wrong. Teaching that an action is wrong does not mean a person is teaching that the homosexual is less valuable. It means that they teach that what they do is wrong. I also teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but I don't hear you saying that I am bigoted against divorced people. I bet you teach that smoking is wrong, so are you bigoted against smokers?
Kim, you are simply wrong about the UNCRC. It stands for precisely the opposite proposition and requires the state provide education to ALL children. It says nothing about limiting the role of parents, merely the state is obliged to provide education and healthcare. If parents are already doing so, there is no need for the state to.
And in what alternate universe are people being kept from adopting children because they are homophobes? Homosexuals are prevented in many places from becoming adoptive parents. Nowhere are people with a stated opposition to homosexuality prevented from adopting.
First, let me address the UNCRC. It does limit and take away parental rights and gives them to the government. You may agree with this, but I don't want anyone else having the right to usurp my decisions for my kids regarding their education, healthcare, or anything else. I realize there are bad parents out there whose children might benefit from someone else raising them, but I am not sure anyone benefits from the government raising children and making decisions regarding what they need. The UNCRC sounds great on the surface, but handing over our sovereignty as a nation to a treaty controlled by the UN is actually putting ourselves at the mercy of much less progressively-minded nations. We lead other nations in providing clean water, food, shelter, healthcare, free education, safety, the right to liberty, and the ability to become anything you want if you are willing to work and study. Why should we be subject to 3rd World nations' standards of what is right? And yes, there are some cultures that are better than others. (You said in an earlier blog that we shouldn't teach our children that one culture is better than another) I don't have any trouble teaching my children that a Nazi culture is not as good as our free nation or that a Communist culture is not as good as ours where we have freedom of religion and press. I have friends who are Muslims, but frankly, I don't want to live in an Islamic country where I would not have the right to own property because I am female or have the right to practice my Christian religion.
Check out parentalrights.org for information on the arguments against the UNCRC.
If you will google the Daily Mail in the UK regarding a couple who recently lost their right to foster because of their beliefs regarding homosexuality, I think you will see that your alternate universe is in the UK. Also, recently in the state of Georgia at a CASA training session derogatory comments about Christians who do not agree with homosexuality were used to instruct attendees to be wary of allowing Christians to foster children because of their [Christian] beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. Just because someone disagrees with a person's lifestyle does not make them a "homophobe." Like I said I don't agree with smoking but I am not a "smokaphobe." I don't agree with being obese, but I am not an "obesephobe".
I greatly disagree with divorce, drunken driving, stealing, lying, murder, etc., and I myself do things which I know are wrong unfortunately, but I don't tell my kids they are okay. Yet, according to the logic here, I should have to teach my child that these things are okay even if I disagree with them.
Also, one more thing, on evolutionary theory, Darwin gave us a good thing in showing us that organisms can adapt to their environment, thus dispelling immutability, but to extrapolate that into a theory of origins is too far-reaching. There simply is no hard evidence to support that species change from one animal to another. In fact when the change in the environment goes back to its original state, what you find is that the organism goes back to its original form without the adaptations. Most mutations result in death or destruction of organisms rather than benefit, too. Darwin's theory also does not even address where the materials for the formation of organisms originated. Look up things like irreducible complexity and check out "Darwin's Black Box" and research by Michael Behe. If you don't like to read, check out the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". At least be willing to admit that natural selection does not equate to evidence against design and a young earth. There are no undisputed missing links, and there should be millions of them based on the number of fossils in existence. Species do not change into other species. If the earth is so old, why aren't there more people on the planet and where are all the graves/fossils/evidence of the billions who must've died over the millions of years? How could life have existed millions of years ago since the sun would have been too cool to support it? Based on our knowledge of the moon, it would've been touching the earth millions of years ago. Why are there comets--they should've melted a long time ago? Please don't make fun of people who believe in a young earth because there is a great deal of empirical evidence to support a young universe. There are enough questions about an old earth (billions/millions of years) to warrant presentation of alternate evidences and views. Check out Answers in Genesis (AiG.com) or "Icons of Evolution" or "The Case for a Creator", etc. if you are actually open-minded enough to read about other data that support a young earth and design.
I realize you are probably not Christian based on your comments, so I don't expect you to be in agreement, but if you are a Christian and believe in the Bible as God's Word, you cannot support an old earth because it completely nullifies the rest of the Bible. If death and disease and destruction came before sin and not because of it, then God did not need to send a Savior. God must not be a very good Designer if His creation was not indeed very good. I believe that the creation was perfect until man sinned. Why did God make a man who could sin? Because if we did not have free will, we could not freely love. We would just be puppets. I realize you think I am a simpleton, but to me it is easier to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator than it is to believe that all this great complexity came here randomly by chance. Those who think evolution is a FACT of origins must believe that if you took the pieces of a watch and shook them together in a bag for millions of years, all of a sudden one day you would have a perfectly formed running watch. (a watch is actually a much simpler mechanism than the simplest of living cells) I don't have enough faith to believe in that kind of magic. If believing in God, believing that He has a purpose for our lives, believing we aren't just meaningless existences, and believing His precepts that we should love Him, love our neighbor, care for the earth, not murder, not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, etc. are what make the world a better place makes me a simpleton, I stand guilty and unashamed of my beliefs.
Kim:
There is a big difference between saying you disagree with lying, murder, etc. and that you disagree with homosexuality. People do not choose their sexual orientation. Being against homosexuality is like being against short people or people of colour or women or redheads or some other aspect of our lives that we do not have control over.
I believe in teaching children morality, primarily by helping them to discover and nurture their own moral compass in a way that allows them to make good decisions, rather than by dictating "right" and "wrong" to them, especially when "wrong" includes things that people have no control over.
When Christians say we disapprove of homosexuality, we don't mean that we disapprove of someone having homosexual tendencies, but rather that we believe it is wrong to act on those tendencies. Just like we believe it is wrong for a person with heterosexual tendencies to act on those tendencies outside of the boundaries of marriage. People may not have control over their tendencies, but they do have control over their actions.
As for children developing their own moral compass without being told what "right" and "wrong" are... I think that is a dangerous situation. Children do not start out with the reasoning powers to understand the consequences of their actions. They may eventually develop a strong moral compass, but it will only be after years of wrongdoing.
Do you seriously never tell a child "no, that is wrong" when he doesn't yet know better? For example, my 2-year-old innocently bit her baby brother once, not realizing it hurt him. I told her, "No, don't ever do that again" because I didn't want her to have to try it a few more times before her moral compass realized that this was wrong. And that's even a simple moral issue; as the issues get more complex, children need a guide to teach them how to make right choices.
Of course, I do expect that you and I part ways when "right" and "wrong" involve obeying God in faith where our moral compasses don't give us a clear answer (or any answer at all). I just think that the idea of leaving a child to raise himself is not likely to produce a moral adult as you suggest.
phdinparenting:
You say that people do not choose their sexual orientation.
You are partially right.
We are all born as sinners. We don't become sinners by sinning; we sin, because we are sinners. "In Adam's fall, we sinned all." As members of the race of Adam, from birth, we have had a sinful nature imputed to us, and thus, we think and act accordingly.
The good news is that Jesus died on a cross to save us sinners from our sins. In Christ, we who believe have had the righteousness of God imputed to us. In Christ, we are forgiven, redeemed, and being sanctified.
In the fall of man, man sank into a state of sin, misery, and total depravity. By total depravity, I mean that no part of the human experience is unaffected by the fall. This of course includes, but is not limited to, our sexual orientation.
Some people are prone to become drunkards; other people can drink a glass of wine every night without a problem. Some people are prone to be sexually deviant or sexually perverse. Other people don't deal with an enormous amount of temptation in this area. Some people are prone to be quick to anger and fits of rage. Other people are more laid back. We are all born with different strengths and weaknesses - different talents and inclinations. But right is still right, and wrong is still wrong. We must master our sinful natures. Yet, we are neither willing nor able to do so. We need a Savior.
In any case, the Bible pronounces a woe on all who call good, evil; and evil, good. I would suspect that you would agree that it is very bad to say that that which is good is bad and that that which is bad is good. You say that being against homosexuality is like being against short people or people of color, etc. You are wrong to say this. Homosexuality is one form of sexual perversion. That it is trendy doesn't make it right. Furthermore, people born with homosexual tendencies are culpable for their actions. Let me make this clear, temptation is not a sin. Giving in to temptation is a sin.
You can say, "Well, I'm not a Christian; I don't believe that." You can also say that you don't believe in the laws of gravity. Whatever you believe, you still have to deal with reality, or reality with deal with you. Regardless of your beliefs, Jesus Christ is real. If you believe the gospel, you are in touch with reality. If you don't believe the gospel, then you are out of touch with reality, even if you retain some remnants of common sense (since you still bear the image of God - whatever you believe).
I strongly recommend people simply read the UNCRC for themselves since it is a clear self explanatory document. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm ParentalRights.org is lunatic raving propaganda.
I have no comment concerning the rest of what you write. I am not a Christian and if I thought all of them held your beliefs I would live in constant fear of them. Thankfully I know many Christians who respect diversity and comprehend science.
Jake:
On respecting diversity:
There is "good diversity" and "bad diversity."
Example of good diversity: Various cultures all over the world celebrate Christmas in various different ways. There is beauty in this kind of diversity.
Examples of bad diversity: Some people are faithful to their spouses, while others cheat on their spouses. Some people have high moral standards, while other people have no moral standards.
The point is that there is right and wrong. To use diversity as a license to do wrong - claiming there is no real "right or wrong" is not right.
You can no simultaneously render real respect to two ideas, doctrines, creeds, or values that contradict each other.
Thus, "diversity" is very often a misnomer. In any organization, a set of governing values, ethics, and policies wins out as the overarching values of the organization. You can not have two antithetical overarching values governing an organization at the same time. Two can not walk together unless they are agreed (or unless one or both are compelled). In the name of diversity and tolerance, many people resist and hold in contempt all ideas that are contradictory to their own - thus proving that very often all this talk about diversity and tolerance is just that - talk.
On science...
There are many Christians who are physicists, engineers, and mathematicians who (gasp) do not buy into Darwin's popular hypothesis on evolution. Rather than smugly looking down your nose at such people, you might consider this: What do you actually KNOW to be true about the hypothesis that is evolution?
Diversity in and of itself is not a concept that carries its own implicit value. Therefore there can be neither "good diversity" nor "bad diversity." One may think particular types of diversity are good or bad things. I believe diversity of ideas and racial diversity is a good thing. You are free to think it is a bad thing. We are, I suspect, bound to disagree about what things are antithetical to one another. I have seen no one in this conversation use the concept of diversity as an excuse to do bad things to other people.
As a statistical matter, very few scientists believe in a deity. The study concerning this is mentioned in this conference session I watched just the other day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo&feature=share
Regarding what I "actually KNOW to be true" about evolution, frankly I find the question irrelevant. I have no use for absolute truth of the kind that appears to guide you. Reason, however, is important to me. And that brings us back to science, where there is no place for religion.
"Diversity in and of itself is not a concept that carries its own implicit value." Not true. Go to the homepage of almost any corporation and you will see some kind of statement about how much the corporation values diversity and how "diversity" governs corporate policy. Diversity is that overarching philosophy that forms the ethics policies of corporations and the laws of the land. Of course, I see beauty if racial and cultural diversity. But the problem is when we start dealing with moral diversity and/or "diversity of truth."
I haven't watched your YouTube video yet, but throughout history and in our modern day, there have been a plethora of scientists who have believed in God.
It is not very scientific to assert that it is irrelevant to distinguish between what we KNOW to be true and what we HYPOTHESIZE to be true. That the same individual would assert that reason is important to him gives me concern that the said individual confuses reason with what sounds good to him at any given time.
Science and faith are not antithetical with each other. Physics, for example, is the study of God's creation. Furthermore, science by itself (detached from theology) is utterly powerless to provide any insight whatsoever about morality and ethics. When we start talking about the rights of man, for example, science has nothing to say. Science can answer questions about matter and energy, force, momentum, motion, chemistry, biological functions, etc, etc. But science can't answer the questions that involve justice, the rights of man, the ethics of human behavior, etc, etc. Without faith in God, you can't know with any certainty that man has any value or that man has any fundamental rights. If there is no God, but only physics and chemistry, then there is no basis for us to say for example that bin Laden was morally wrong to incite violence and terror on people. If we do not bear the image of God, then we are only matter in motion. If that is the case, then all arguments about justice and injustice become completely arbitrary and absurd.
But we are not arbitrary and absurd to recognize that raping women is wrong. We have common sense due to the fact that we bear the image of God. We know (without any scientific theory to prove it) that women have intrinsic value; therefore, it is wrong to rape women.
So, faith is not antithetical with science, and scientific inquiry is only one way to obtain certain kinds of knowledge.
My views on much of what you state is clear n that YouTube video conference session. Science does not answer all ethical questions but reason does. As I said before, there is no problem that can not be adequately addressed through the use of reason and without resort to religion. Beyond that, we are in the realm of subjective opinion, which is fine as long as no one is hurt.
I'm afraid I can't repeat myself in this debate much more if for no other reason than because I am working mostly from an iPad and this site is loading very slowly or not at all for me on this mobile device.
I do have to say I am always gobsmacked when I hear people argue that there is no morality nor any moral conduct wthout a god. While matter in motion can be amoral, we are rational beings capable of moral discernment. It is *with* a god that we lose all value if, as you describe, we are here to follow orders, behave in his image, do his bidding, live in his moral construction. Thankfully, I don't think most people of faith leave humans so powerless which is why I have no problem with the religious beliefs of most people. You, however, seem to have nothing but contempt for people as mere people. How sad.
Jake:
That we ARE INDEED rational being capable of moral discernment should indicate to you that we are NOT merely matter in motion. Matter in motion has no intrinsic value, but we do have intrinsic value. Now, connect the dots. We have intrinsic value, BECAUSE we were created in God's image.
I'm not sure what I said that makes you think that I "have nothing but contempt for people as mere people." I love mere people. Mere people are image bearers of God. I do not hold people in contempt unless they are particularly contemptible (like rapists and murderers for example).
There are different kinds of reason: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning has nothing to say about presuppositions, axioms, and posulates, and we all have our presuppositions, axioms, and postulates whether we realize them and acknowledge them or not. Reason is a vehicle by which we proceed from certain information or data to conclusions. Again, it sounds like you might be confusing reason with what sounds good to you at any given time. But you should keep in mind that there are many people who are probably a lot more intelligent than you who (a) believe in God and who (b) use reason very well. In my particular field, I know many people who have a firm grasp on Maxwell's equations and who also believe in God. Pitting reason and faith against each other is not reasonable.
This must be my last comment because it is too difficult to load this page on a mobile device. I suspect you will feel the need to have the last word so have at it. I won't be here to read it.
I am well acquainted with the methods of reasoning. I am not confused. You will not convince me that reason leads necessarily to a god and I have no interest in convincing you that reason dictates there is no god.
What we teach our children does matter. I am astounded at the prejudice against Christians teaching their own children Christian doctrine. This website deems it "dangerous" to pass on my Christian beliefs, and indicates that my children will not be "fully educated" or ignorant in some fashion if they believe in Christianity. Perhaps you are not seeing what I see as obvious or perhaps you believe that societies ruled by atheists are better. The fact that we can have this conversation is an example of living in a Christian society which gave us the Bill of Rights which gives us freedoms of speech, press, and the freedom to practice our religion---even the freedom to practice atheism which is a protected religion in our society according to the Supreme Court. That means that even if there are more Christians in America, an atheist is not forced to practice the Christian religion just because he is in the minority. Christian people are responsible for you having these rights. Yet, you fear Christian doctrine which originated these rights in our country. This does not make sense to me. Why not fear the teaching of atheism? This teaching has given us Communism, Marxism, and Nazism. It appears to me that this teaching is more dangerous to children than teaching Christian precepts. According to my belief in Christ I teach my children not to steal, lie, cheat, murder, lust, and to love my neighbor as myself. Why is teaching that so dangerous? A belief in Darwinism teaches that only the fittest should survive and whatever you decide is right for you is good as long as it helps you be the "fittest to survive". Darwinism is dangerous to the disabled, the elderly, the unborn. According to its precepts, those that are "an inconvenient drain on society" should be done away with. It gives us the right to murder the unborn, the disabled, and the terminally ill. If you live long enough, you will be in one of these categories. I wonder how dangerous this teaching will seem to you then. Also, if there is no basis for moral decisions, who gets the ultimate right to decide who is "an inconvenient drain on society?" All you have to do is look back to the French Revolution to see that they guilliotined the very people who started the Revolution. Hitler decided that the Jews and the disabled people of his country did not deserve to live in order to create his Utopia. I guess he got his right to decide that from the majority in his country during that time.
As far as Christians being against science, perhaps you are ill-informed as to the history of science, but it was a Christian that gave us the scientific method for goodness sake. His name was Roger Bacon. Other Christians who were and are scientists include but are not limited to: Leo the Mathematician, Robert Grosseteste, Copernicus, Galileo, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Robert Boyle, Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Linnaeus, Joseph Priestley, Milner, Michael Faraday, John Bachman, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Cantor, John Ambrose Fleming, Max Planck, Edward Arthur Milne, Boyd, and more recently: Charles Townes, Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingerich, RJ Berry, Ghillean Prance, Michal Heller, Donald Knuth, Francis Collins, and many of the astronauts who served and are currently serving at NASA. I do not think that Christians are anti-science. God is the author of science and we believe is the author of rationality. The very fact that the world is not random and is orderly has lead to the discovery of many scientific principles. We actually believe that truth can be known---which is what scientific inquiry stems from. You can say you believe in reason, but reason comes from order not from chaos and randomness. It is fine if you want to practice your religion of atheism and disagree with the presence of God, but it is against logic and reason to invoke ad hominem arguments against people who oppose your view. To say teaching my beliefs is "dangerous" and "not fully educated" is not a valid syllogism given the correct premises.
All of us will die one day. You believe that after that there is nothing. I believe that after that there is something. Is your supposition more scientific? Can yours be proven any more than mine? I am not calling you a "dangerous" person for teaching your children the way you do, but perhaps after thinking about it, I should. Philosophically speaking, you believe that life is accidental, basically has no overarching purpose. I believe that life is given to us and is precious with inherent meaning. Is your philosophy more valid? Is it more "dangerous". If you teach your children that I, as a Christian, am "dangerous" because of what I am teaching my children, how does that affect how they see my children?
Perhaps you are the one who has a narrow-minded view of those who think differently from you.
I love your article. It covers a wide scope of very valuable insights. We chose to use both the public school system and home schooling for our children. Our oldest child went to public school until his freshman year. He was not able to get the classes he needed for his chosen career so we brought him home. Our next child attended 1st,2nd & 7th grade. Our youngest attended 1st & 6th grades. They chose whether or not to attend school with the only requirement of which ever the chose must be done for the whole year. They are all adults now and very successful in their professions. My granddaughter will be home schooled by her parents choice. I agree that the reasons for choosing either option should be well thought out!
I had a pretty interesting life when it came to this subject. I had 2 close friends from grades 1-6. I went to Public school, My friend Dave went to Private evangelical Christian School, and my friend Rick was home schooled.
I was predominately concerned with Nintendo, Music and girls. I got strait F's all through public school. Due to an attention deficit that was not diagnosed until I was long dropped out. Am now a Pc repair man.
Dave was predominately concerned with Nintendo, Jesus and girls. He got nearly strait A's all through Christian private school. He is now a Sheet rocker with his dad.
Rick was Predominately concerned with Nintendo, being weird, and girls. nobody knew what his grades were, and nobody ever saw him doing the home school thing. All his family had speech problems. all 11 kids. strange mannerisms unique to them specifically. He is now In prison.
I suppose the moral to the story is it all comes down to the parents. how they raise there kids. What they "the parents" may think they are capable of and what they are just flat out not capable of should be the issue in home schooling. I think it is pretty common knowledge that with every new generation, kids learn more than there parents knew at a younger age as well as updated information. I don't know how a parent expects to be able to teach there kid anything beyond what they themselves know and or can even remember. Are the parents learning it themselves in order to teach it to there kids? What if they are not understanding it correctly either?
In my opinion Dave got decent socializing in Private Christian school. At least when it comes to "like minded individuals" as undesirables like teen pregnancies were kicked out. but over all a well rounded guy.
Rick on the other hand is the biggest social psycho I have ever met. Not all home schools fault but the lack of the parents with 11 kids thinking they can teach individually to there own class. of 2 through 17 year olds lol.
i on the other hand can fit into nearly any social situation, on the positive sides and or the negative sides of the fence. the ghetto and the suburbs lol across all colours and cultures. within reason of course. I think a little dose of living in Europe for a few years helped as
well. So in my opinion The social peer to peer experiences you have in Public school are better for the eventual move into Westernised Diversified Society's.
Of course if you live on a road in the back skirts of nowhere and plan on inheriting your family's house and don't plan on doing anything mainstream with your life. than why go to school in the first place? You can just sit home and read the bible and stare at your wilting apple tree in wonder. =p
I apologize for my atrocious spelling and grammar, as yes I did fail school period. but it wasn't the schools fault as much as it was my inability to concentrate. Not to mention since when were all kids capable of a well rounded education anyway? Its possible that some kids are destined to be outcasts and undesirables and others to be successful good citizens.
I found this article in my search for an intelligent debate on traditional vs. home schooling. We are homeschooling (kids are only 1 and 6), but I am attempting to challenge my current views. There are plenty of intelligent arguments against traditional schooling, I wanted to see some arguments FOR. Anyways, I mostly agree with you. Funny thing is, I almost feel the opposite about school. We are pretty liberal and have a diverse extended family. I have a gay cousin, a transgender brother, Muslim cousins, we ourselves are agnostic... I almost feel that putting my kids in public school would teach them there is something wrong with all this being that it isn't terribly common. I expose my kids to all kind of factual information, but in talking to, I hear that I am not supposed to tell my kids how babies are born (for the record, my older daughter was in our bedroom watching wher sister was born. She knows all the facts of life in that respect), but I am supposed to push the hours of homework kids get by age 6 in the name of education. I am supposed to rob her of any imaginative time by filling her schedule with school, homework, and extracurricular activities, but I am not supposed to tell her that Santa is a fun story but defies logic because that robs her of her imaginative childhood. We tell kids to have confidence, but measure them up with grades and tests daily. We tell them to not be overly influenced by peers, but stick them in an environment with many kids their same age where bullying and pressuring and teasing are daily realities. I just don't quite get it.
One more thing I want to discuss: the idea that kids need to deal with difficult people to learn how to deal with them in adulthood. Ever read Alfie Kohn's getting hit on the head lesson essay? I tend to agree more with that. Bad stuff happens and it is unpleasant every time no matter how much practice we've had. However, there really is no avoiding everything unpleasant and unfortunately even homeschoolers have to deal with difficult adults and children.
Thanks for you ideas, though. It isn't too often that I find a logical look at the pros and cons of both.
Yes, I agree. My daughter receives very minimal instruction as we are very unschooly, but she suddenly can read very well. She's 6, has never been to school, and reads emails over my shoulder. Yet along the way, I heard people telling me how worried they were that she wasn't receiving instruction on phonemic awareness, etc. I am finding thus far that she is quick to catch onto information that is interesting and useful. I wonder how much is retained by traditionally schooled kids that isn't one of these...
We chose to homeschool during the elementary years to instill our moral and Biblical values. We see no need to expose them now to evolution, homosexuality, abortion, etc and we do not want the school system to brainwash them. We also teach our children to love everyone even though they do not agree with all that they do or how they live. We also chose to homeschool because we can fit more learning into four hours than public school children get in an entire day leaving time for them to take private lessons in music, piano, violin, and art and class instruction in gymnastics, and ballet.
My children performed in the 99 and 95 percentile respectively in the Iowa standardized test last year.
Most families do not have many choices outside of public schools, both parents work so there is no one to stay home to teach the children. The cost of sending 1 child much less multiple children to a private school would be too costly.
just wanted to say thanks to all of you, i am doing a research paper on this topic and this has really helped me in many ways on how to make this research paper go as planed.
im still a little confused on this whole topic. but trying to understand
I read through a lot of these posts and it seems to me that the proponents for the evolutionary theory start showing their true colors when faced with a Christian who wants their children armed with the reality of the Evolution/Creation Controversy. That controversy does IN FACT exist. Check out this listing of quotes by leading sccientists: http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
What are you so afraid of by opening up this debate? Afraid that the facts might end up supporting the idea that there is a God that you are accountable to? What is this world coming to when those pesky Christians teach, God forbid, morality? respect for other people? The FACT that a life of obedience to a higher authority (God, government, or boss) will always exist in every human being at all ages? Afraid you are going to be told there are consequences for certain actions? I can see why that would bother you.
Anarchy. That's what this world needs! "Don't tell me what to do!" Sounds like a 5 year old.
And then there is this manufactured paranoia about homeschooled (ideologically homeschooled) kids being brought up unprepared and dare I say, racist. If you have watched the news lately, the champions for public education and progressivism have been showing their ugly and hypocritical side. What with the disparaging remarks against conservative women. They laughed when one of their own, a journalist in the uprising in Egypt, was gang raped by a crowd of over 100 men. One of their own Democrat Senators went to his grave never apologizing for the part he played in the KKK (an group started by 12 Democrat Senators, by the way). We are watching the governments of Europe hogtie their native citizens giving them no option of self defense under the eutopian myth of political correctness. Left-wing extremists in America are accusing kids who chant "USA" at a football game as racist. There are college students who don't even know who Hitler was! Here in America! And the only means of debate that they are taught is bullying, humiliating, lying, and shouting conservative opponents into silence. Which goes back to your panic attacks regarding the Creating/Evolution debate.
So I think that paranoia is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
Sex Ed. Where do I begin? Do you know the results of 40 years of sex education in America? Do you know where we were before that? What we have to show for it? I found a quote off of Phyllis Schlafly's website which says "in the September/October 1988 SIECUS Report, SIECUS president Debra Haffner's article, called "Safe Sex and Teens," includes this instruction. "We should teach teens about oral sex and mutual masturbation in order to help them delay the onset of sexual intercourse and its resulting consequences." Now that's solving the problem right there! Man I should sign my son up for it right now!
I heard a mother talk about how she pulled her son out of school for discplinary action after he was caught with at least 20 other boys (between 9-11 years of age) talking a number like the one you get at the deli in the grocery store to get a blowjob from another 9 year old girl. Not several girls. ONE. Is this the kind of sex ed you want? Planned Parenthood holds sex toy parties in high schools, offers pornographic cartoons to grade school students and porn color books for kids as young as kindergarten. I think it goes without saying that a parent who has a stronger desire for their childs well-being and health will be far more effective at teaching the right and wrong way to have sex than some tax funded abortion clinic.
Of course this sex ed curriculum is written by people who grew up in the age that says if you haven't had sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend, then how do you know if you are compatible for life? That ranks up there with the dumbest questions I've ever heard. Wait! Wait boys! Let me lift up my skirt so you can slip it in just to see if you fit! REALLY?!!! I'm being sarcastic because the obsurdity of the 80's sexual freedom peer pressure that I grew up in was absolutely ridiculous!
Oh, and then there's the other one. Marriage is just a piece of paper. Funny these guys don't seem to complain about signing a contract for a car or a house. So basically they're saying that the warranty on their microwave means more to them than the one institution that is the cornerstone of civilization. Whatever.
And then there is the dramatic increase in STD's and suicide. I heard a statistic recently that about 20% of the high school students in Idaho wanted or tried to commit suicide. Sexual activity was one of the reasons why. Girls do the deed not realizing that their being used and then want to kill themselves. My only argument against the method of teaching abstinence is that it is not replacing the sex obsessed societal pressure kids are faced with with positive life improving alternative activities. And it does not really dive into the beautiful dynamic of the relationship between a man and woman outside of a bedroom. That could do wonders for the divorce rate.
Over half of all infants born to girls younger than age 18 are fathered by adult men.
Infidelity is hovering around 60%. Divorce is a 50.
How often did our parents and grandparents hear cases about teenage pregnancy in their day? Just a thought.
Even Raquel Welch came out and said that the age of porn has annihilated men. An ironic source, but still.
Any parent who does not take the time to teach their kids about sex and relationships is allowing potential harm to come to them. But if you think for one minute that the federal sex education standards should be abided by by ANY decent, loving parent, then you don't know what's going on. Check this out: http://all.org/ppsexed
And as a final note for all liberals on this blog. I know you will be accusing me of lying and fabricating facts. I can't help you there. I will not be doing your research for you so don't ask. If you are so interested in checking out what I've written, then do it yourself.
I chose to home school last year because I wasn't happy with the public schools in the area. We are using an online virtual school (connections academy - flvsft) for 3rd and 1st grade and my kids are involved a lot of activities. I am a part of some very big homeschooling groups in the area and have met a lot of wonderful people. My daughter is 6 and wants to go back to school next year for 2nd grade and I'll probably let her. My son is 8 and perfectly happy with his sports and meeting friends that way. Every child has a different need and I chose home school because it felt like something I needed to do. We are secular family and it was more about safety than it was anything else. I think a lot of people would be horrified to hear what actually goes on in the elementary schools around here. My 6 year old will own it and probably pop a bully right in the nose if he/she harasses her but my son who is a bit more introverted is a bit shyer to stand up for himself. Just 2 wonderful kids with 2 totally different personalities. Every homeschooler, except for one, has actually been the most educated in this area. The doctors, scientists, and ex school teachers... that's what they are doing.
Unfortunately, I cannot fix my grammar! I would like to point out that it's one homeschooling family out of the many that I've actually met have been very educated people. Most of the kids have no problems socializing and some of those kids can be downright mean too. Just thought I'd throw that in there.