Here's a homeschooling article that'll get your blood boiling :)

[LibraryLover]

I think the article makes some valid points. West is in no way saying it should not be allowed. I think there are plenty of parents hiding behind 'homeschooling'. I think plenty of parents hs for the 'wrong' reasons. I think it's perfectly fine to write questioning essays about hsing at this point as there are millions of us. There is no way all of our children are being well-served. It's not possible.

Edited December 24, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Sputterduck]

I think it's perfectly fine to write questioning essays about hsing at this point-- there are millions of us. And there is no way all of our children are being well-served. It's not possible.

 

 

The same thing can be said about ps, except it's on a Much larger scale. The public schools should focus on their own failures and leave me and mine alone, since we aren't under their jurisdiction in the first place. What right do they have? Especially when they're failing as it is?

[Sandy in Indy]

 

SO....fess up....who here is raising a little circus performer????:tongue_smilie:

 

Uh...my ds is a juggler. :lol: (You should see him with 7 clubs!)

 

Oh, he just finished his first semester of pre-pharmacy with a 3.94. Missed a perfect 4.0 cause he got an A- in one class.

 

Yup, he's really un-prepared for life in the "real" educational world. Oh, wait, he does have that fall-back job with the circus! :rofl:

[LibraryLover]

Are there no articles, no opinion pieces questioning public school (are there no work-houses, are there no prisions)?

 

Throwing in a little Dickens because tis the season :D.

 

The same thing can be said about ps, except it's on a Much larger scale. The public schools should focus on their own failures and leave me and mine alone, since we aren't under their jurisdiction in the first place. What right do they have? Especially when they're failing as it is?

[Renai]

SO....fess up....who here is raising a little circus performer????:tongue_smilie:

 

Hmmm. My daughter can be quite the , but doesn't so much anymore (well, she's slowed down a little).

[nono]

Well, not at my son's Catholic elementary school nor the local Jesuit high school.

 

 

How about that! Interesting piece of information. Though I admit to being a bit :confused: as to why they identify as a Catholic school...

 

The irony of the author's position still stands from my point of view, where Catholic schools here still actually teach the Catholic religion daily in their schools.

[Renee in NC]

Homeschooling families live in trailer parks and 1,000 square foot homes. My home is 1,500 square feet. Thank you very much!:smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

Woman has an ax to grind. Maybe a homeschooler hit her car.:lol:

 

Merry Christmas,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

 

I resemble that remark (we live in a 1300 square foot trailer - no tarp!) Oh, wait! Not the undereducated part...;)

[LibraryLover]

As a research paper, it's crud. She's showing dank backup. However, if it's an opinion piece...and it seems to be...she can say whatevah. We can let her know our opinions back.

[lionfamily1999]

I resemble that remark (we live in a 1300 square foot trailer - no tarp!) Oh, wait! Not the undereducated part...;)

We have a house that's smaller than 1000 square feet... where does that put us?

[elizabeth]

I don't know. This kind of article doesn't bother me because I'm not threatened by her opinion, which is what this is -- an opinion piece. There are shreds of truth in all her accusations about homeschoolers. The portrayal of religious homeschoolers lines up pretty well with the religious homeschoolers I have encountered IRL. The attitudes of religious homeschoolers she describes line up very accurately with religious homeschoolers I've encountered IRL and online -- especially online.

 

Part of me cheered her for slamming those kinds of homeschoolers. I personally think they ruin homeschooling for the rest of us. I hate that down the road I'll invariably encounter someone who will assume I'm one of those fundy nuts because I said I homeschool. That's the only thing about the article that bothers me -- that once again, I get lumped in with people I have nothing in common with except the choice to homeschool.

 

And yeah... that's just my opinion.

It is not just your opinion. I happen to share it if I may. Thank you for articulating perfectly my thoughts on the matter. Too much cold medicine tonight for me to even compose a sentence...

[Renee in NC]

We have a house that's smaller than 1000 square feet... where does that put us?

 

Not in a trailer?:lol: Crowded?:tongue_smilie:

 

I bet you have more volume than I do!:lol: We have 7 foot ceilings, so it feels like a cave.

 

How long do you expect to be in that house?:grouphug:

[BigMamaBird]

I resemble that remark (we live in a 1300 square foot trailer - no tarp!) Oh, wait! Not the undereducated part...;)

 

Mine's only 950 sq. ft., plus I'm a Christian. I'd drive her insane!!:lol:

[elw_miller]

Quote from the article:

"First, courts, and particularly the federal courts, have never granted the

existence of the “right to homeschool.â€

 

9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

:001_huh:

[lionfamily1999]

Not in a trailer?:lol: Crowded?:tongue_smilie:

 

I bet you have more volume than I do!:lol: We have 7 foot ceilings, so it feels like a cave.

 

How long do you expect to be in that house?:grouphug:

WOOHOOHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Sorry, but the idea that I can ever expect to get out of this house :lol:

 

Dh grew up in this little cubby hole we call home. His grandfather (aka the man that raised him) left it to him. Dh is pleased as punch to raise his dc in the same house he grew up in. He's lived in a few other places, apartments and things, but this has always been home. I just wish his home came with room for expansion, but no, there's no way to add-on, except to put on another story, and since the house is truss built, I don't even think that is possible.

 

Our ceilings are pretty low too... but there is no hope for escape, dh loves his little house ;)

 

 

Don't cry for me Argentina. We own the home outright and were here before the hoa :D

[Renee in NC]

WOOHOOHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Sorry, but the idea that I can ever expect to get out of this house :lol:

 

Dh grew up in this little cubby hole we call home. His grandfather (aka the man that raised him) left it to him. Dh is pleased as punch to raise his dc in the same house he grew up in. He's lived in a few other places, apartments and things, but this has always been home. I just wish his home came with room for expansion, but no, there's no way to add-on, except to put on another story, and since the house is truss built, I don't even think that is possible.

 

Our ceilings are pretty low too... but there is no hope for escape, dh loves his little house ;)

 

 

Don't cry for me Argentina. We own the home outright and were here before the hoa :D

 

Acck! I got you confused with the other lion lady - didn't her house burn recently? Sheesh! I didn't think there was anything wrong with your house (just that it was temporary and a not great time.)

 

I'd love to own a house outright, even a tiny one.:D

 

About the low ceilings - do you have ceiling fans? We do and it is funny. In one room the ceiling fan even hangs down slightly, so my dh just tries to avoid that room all together!:lol: My cousin (who used to live here) is 6'4" tall and he broke several of the lights/fans with his head!:lol:

[lionfamily1999]

Acck! I got you confused with the other lion lady - didn't her house burn recently? Sheesh! I didn't think there was anything wrong with your house (just that it was temporary and a not great time.)

 

I'd love to own a house outright, even a tiny one.:D

 

About the low ceilings - do you have ceiling fans? We do and it is funny. In one room the ceiling fan even hangs down slightly, so my dh just tries to avoid that room all together!:lol: My cousin (who used to live here) is 6'4" tall and he broke several of the lights/fans with his head!:lol:

LOL, it's okay. We've had people say how lucky we are to have paid off our starter home... so when were we going to move?

 

We have one ceiling fan, in the middle of the living room. So far, only one person has smacked their head on it. Dh corrected me, with some offense, that our ceilings are eight feet, thankyouverymuch. He's the sensitive one ;)

 

I halfway want a bigger house, but then I think of how much together time we have, because our house is little, and how difficult it is to keep up with, even though it's little, and I realize I'm not up for a bigger house.

[Hedgehogs4]

I think that article just may be the most ill-informed piece of trash journalism I have ever read. 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back.:tongue_smilie:

 

i don't think this falls into the category of "trash journalism"--more like "trash academia" as this is intended to be an informed, educational, sophisticated publication. :tongue_smilie:

[Renee in NC]

LOL, it's okay. We've had people say how lucky we are to have paid off our starter home... so when were we going to move?

 

We have one ceiling fan, in the middle of the living room. So far, only one person has smacked their head on it. Dh corrected me, with some offense, that our ceilings are eight feet, thankyouverymuch. He's the sensitive one ;)

 

I halfway want a bigger house, but then I think of how much together time we have, because our house is little, and how difficult it is to keep up with, even though it's little, and I realize I'm not up for a bigger house.

 

:D

 

There are lots of things to like about our home. For 1300 square feet, it is laid out PERFECTLY. We turned a never used formal dining room into another bedroom, so we have 4. There are two baths - one full, and the other effectively a half (there is a shower stall that we can't use.) The rooms are just the right size for the stuff we have. There is acutally a lot of storage - one HUGE closet, another medium sized closet, and a large linen closet.

 

We have a large yard (for the area.) We are within a couple of miles of about everything - library, church, dh's work, WalMart, Target, etc.

 

The downsides are not terrible - no cell signal in the house (it has metal sides and a metal roof that interferes) and "soft" floors (no one has fallen through yet!) The rent isn't bad at all, especially considering that we can have our dogs and cats here as well.

 

I think it is GREAT that you have a paid for house - just think of what kind of freedom that will give you in the future!

[angela in ohio]

I think the article makes some valid points. West is in no way saying it should not be allowed. I think there are plenty of parents hiding behind 'homeschooling'. I think plenty of parents hs for the 'wrong' reasons. I think it's perfectly fine to write questioning essays about hsing at this point as there are millions of us. There is no way all of our children are being well-served. It's not possible.

 

It is perfectly fine to question. Using incorrect information and baseless accusations to do it is the problem here.

[LibraryLover]

Sure. I said as a research paper it's crud. She's certainly getting more than her undeserved 15 minutes of fame because of internet lists and horrified forwarding. :D

 

It is perfectly fine to question. Using incorrect information and baseless accusations to do it is the problem here.

[lionfamily1999]

:D

 

There are lots of things to like about our home. For 1300 square feet, it is laid out PERFECTLY. We turned a never used formal dining room into another bedroom, so we have 4. There are two baths - one full, and the other effectively a half (there is a shower stall that we can't use.) The rooms are just the right size for the stuff we have. There is acutally a lot of storage - one HUGE closet, another medium sized closet, and a large linen closet.

 

We have a large yard (for the area.) We are within a couple of miles of about everything - library, church, dh's work, WalMart, Target, etc.

 

The downsides are not terrible - no cell signal in the house (it has metal sides and a metal roof that interferes) and "soft" floors (no one has fallen through yet!) The rent isn't bad at all, especially considering that we can have our dogs and cats here as well.

 

I think it is GREAT that you have a paid for house - just think of what kind of freedom that will give you in the future!

Being content with what you have is relaxing isn't it :)

 

We do have a lot of freedom without a mortgage hanging over our heads. Maybe if the town down the road grows enough and tries to suck us into their double taxes we'll sell and buy lots of land and build another tiny little house :lol:

 

Soft floors just mean a lesser chance of concussion when the kids go flying off the furniture, or trip over the carpet ;)

[Dani n Monies Mom]

...and her little article is all built on a lot of assumptions...

 

I LOVED (and by loved, I mean rolled on the floor DYING in laughter:lol:) her assumption that all HSers are right-wing fundamentalists who follow GWB like he's a god....b/c HSers can't really read or think for themselves.:glare: She has OBVIOUSLY never spent a minute reading some of the very long threads on this forum.;)

 

SO....fess up....who here is raising a little circus performer????:tongue_smilie:

 

:D My friend homeschools and her dd17 just began apprenticing with a clown! What's even more funny is that dd17 is actually in a public charter school, and doing this for extra money. My friend only hschools her middle son, age 10.:D

[Stacy in NJ]

...devout, fundamentalist Protestants.

check

 

And, of the hundreds of thousands of fundamentalist Protestant parents who in the past two decades have pulled their children from public schooling, the majority have done so not because their kids have special needs, or because they live too far from a schoolhouse, but rather because they do not approve of the public schools’ secularity, their liberalism, their humanism, their feminist modes of socialization,

Ayup

and in some cases, of the schools’ very existence.

Oh yes, most definitely :thumbdown:

 

They do so, furthermore, with little or no oversight from public school officials, who in some states need not even be notified of the parents’ intent to homeschool.

Yes we do, thank you NJ.

 

Because of lax or no regulation, in most of the country parents who homeschool now have virtually unfettered authority to decide what subjects to teach, what curriculum materials to use, and how much, or how little, of each day will be devoted to education.

Shocking isn't it?

In most (but not all) states, testing is optional, and in almost all states, the parent-teachers need not be certified or otherwise qualified to teach.

I ain't never gone to collage and lookie how I turned out.

 

In other words, in much of the country, if you want to keep your kids home from school, or just never send them in the first place, you can. If you want to teach them from nothing but the Bible, you can.

Well, this isn't true in NJ anyway although I wish it were.

 

In 2009, thousands of parents who keep their kids home and don’t tell a soul are well within the bounds of the law.

Land of the free baby. :patriot:

 

Education, after all, is typically described as a core, and possibly the core, state responsibility.

That's the problem.

First, children who are homeschooled with no state regulation are at greater risk for unreported and unnoticed physical abuse, when they are completely isolated in homes.

And people who have multiple s*xual partners instead of one partner for life are at a greater risk of STDs and yet...

 

Second, there’s a public health risk. Children who attend public schools are required to have immunizations. ...deregulated homeschooling means that homeschooled children are basically exempted from immunization requirements. They are more susceptible to the diseases against which immunization provides some protection.

Here you go again thinking the state knows what's best for the child.

 

Third, public and private schools provide for many children, I suspect, although I have yet to see studies of this, :lol: a safe haven in which they are both regarded and respected independently and individually.

Right, because kids in a school setting don't follow the crowd and we right-wing fundies (that's the fundie goose-step) beat the individualism right out of our kids.

 

Fourth, there are political harms. Fundamentalist Protestant adults who were homeschooled over the last thirty years are not politically disengaged, far from it. They vote in far higher percentages than the rest of the population. They mobilize readily.

Wow. I don't know whether to laugh or mobilize. Let me go get Elaine and we'll discuss it. Are you scared yet?

 

They are as effective as they are, and as successful as they are, because they engage in politics in the same way that soldiers participate in combat. They don’t question authority, and they can’t go AWOL. With little education, few if any job skills, and scant resources, their power either to

influence the lines of authority within their own sphere, or to leave that sphere, is virtually nil.

Wow, profile much. I wouldn't be too sure of that Miss Georgetown. There's an Evangelical college filled with homeschoolers right down the road from you that probably has you quaking in your boots.

 

Finally, the economic harms. The average homeschooling family may have a higher income than the average non-homeschooler, as was recently reported by USA Today. The radically fundamentalist “movement†family, however, is considerably poorer than the population, and it is the participants in these movements—the so-called “patriarchy movement†and its “quiverfull†branch and related groups — that are the hardcore of the homeschooling movement.

I knew Jean was no dam* good.

 

Even given these potential harms, there remain good reasons to permit homeschooling, in plenty of circumstances.

Just as long as you think in an approved manner.

 

Karen, Are you having a laugh at this poor dunderheads expense?

 

Thanks for the take down. :iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know. This kind of article doesn't bother me because I'm not threatened by her opinion, which is what this is -- an opinion piece.

If it was just her opinion I wouldn't give a flip about it.

but since she is advocating and working towards seeing this be a political reality, I will pay attention to how many political bozos will use this academic piece not as opinion, but as solid research. I'm pretty sure that i can pinpoint exactly WHICH political bozos will give this opinion piece more credit than is due, and will ruin homeschooling for ALL of us. it won't be the few fundamentalists that ruin homeschooling: it will be the ones who enact laws against ALL homeschoolers.

[Peek a Boo]

Her version of homeschooling history is a bit inaccurate. Check out Diosa Dotada's response for some correction on that point.

 

from that link:

 

In Texas, home education has never been illegal. The very first compulsory education laws allowed for it, and not in select cases, but as the prerogative of any family who chose that route. You also assert that there is no case law that confirms the validity of home education and protects a family’s right to choose to home educate. This is also inaccurate in the state of Texas. The Leeper case was a legal challenge to the parental right to home educate and that right was confirmed by the Texas Supreme Court. This example of case law is the primary provision currently cited to guarantee the freedom to home educate in Texas.

 

technically it WAS considered illegal in TX. Homeschoolers were being jailed because the law was not clear according to the judges. Thus the Leeper case. The Leeper case was not a challenge to homeschooling: it was challenging THE STATE for imprisoning homeschoolers. Here's a couple of links and quick explanations about the legal situation in TX, including history of the leeper case:

 

http://www.jsoft.com/archive/taffie/txlegal.html

http://www.thsc.org/about_us/hs_history_lesson.asp

 

Now ultimately the case concluded that homeschooling is not and never has been illegal in TX, BUT, it was cold hard fact that it was considered illegal by the legal authorities.

 

Jim Mattox [Atty General TX way back] did try to make homeschooling illegal by attempting to pass legislation that would require a certified teacher for every subject in both public and private schools. Homeschooling is considered a private school and would have effectively been wiped out.

[Karenciavo]

Karen, Are you having a laugh at this poor dunderheads expense?

 

Thanks for the take down. :iagree:

 

Me? The ? :biggrinjester:

[creekland]

If it was just her opinion I wouldn't give a flip about it.

but since she is advocating and working towards seeing this be a political reality, I will pay attention to how many political bozos will use this academic piece not as opinion, but as solid research. I'm pretty sure that i can pinpoint exactly WHICH political bozos will give this opinion piece more credit than is due, and will ruin homeschooling for ALL of us. it won't be the few fundamentalists that ruin homeschooling: it will be the ones who enact laws against ALL homeschoolers.

 

:iagree:

[Quad Shot Academy]

I wonder if she is focusing on circus performers because she saw the same Wife Swap that I did. :lol:

 

http://www.realitywanted.com/newsitem/968-an-overachieving-upper-class-wife-swaps-lives-with-a-carefree-carnival-wife-on-abcs-wife-swap

 

The article does not do the homeschooling portion of the show justice, but let's just say that there was not much schooling going on. :sad: I would also think that all carnival and circus families have to homeschool, but I could be wrong.

Edited December 25, 2009 by Quad Shot Academy
wrong word!

[LittleIzumi]

Okay I haven't read it yet, but I had to comment... This explains it all!

 

Thank you for sharing this - I have been trying to figure out why my preschool and toddler boys are constantly climbing, jumping, swinging and just generally acting like clowns, acrobats, lion tamers, trained monkeys and sometimes the lion. I feel like a ring master some days!

 

I wish someone had explained this a lot earlier to me.

Duh! I am raising circus performers.

 

I wouldn't have discouraged my 16 months old from standing on the back of the couch or climbing out of his high chair if I had known. I would have just installed nets to catch him!

 

So dd is SUPPOSED to resemble a spider monkey because I'm going to HS her. Gotcha. :D

 

We're athiest/agnostic homeschoolers here, and it bothers me when people assume that all homeschoolers are religious....but the way this article portrayed religious homeschoolers was just insulting. Poor, undereducated people living under tarps in trailer parks? How can the author not see that she's just perpetuating a crazy stereotype?

 

Hornblower and Priscilla, here's a great response to the article from a secular homeschooler (apparently she's been receiving emails from the author after her original response):

 

http://diosadotada.homeschooljournal.net/2009/12/22/an-update-on-the-continuing-dialog/

 

Hey, our 900 sq ft trailer has a roof, thank you :lol: (and vaulted ceilings, a fenced yard, and a garden. Woohoo). It's so funny how living in a trailer is automatically horrible (not to the poster, but in general and to the article, etc). When my dad was going to a university (got his master's), the student family housing were trailer parks. Ours has a pool. I wonder how many stereotypes you could stack up before they fell over and swamped the author in her own nonsense?

 

Sheesh, when did it become harmful to vote? Some one sounds a bit fearful in her article.

 

Don't let them mobilize and vote

Don't let them children learn to think for themselves

Don't let the children have more than one day a week for religious training. Any religion, but in particular Christians.

Don't let mothers make the choice to stay at home.

 

No, it's okay to vote IF the state told you how you are supposed to vote. Just not if you are thinking for yourself.

 

If it was just her opinion I wouldn't give a flip about it.

but since she is advocating and working towards seeing this be a political reality, I will pay attention to how many political bozos will use this academic piece not as opinion, but as solid research. I'm pretty sure that i can pinpoint exactly WHICH political bozos will give this opinion piece more credit than is due, and will ruin homeschooling for ALL of us. it won't be the few fundamentalists that ruin homeschooling: it will be the ones who enact laws against ALL homeschoolers.

 

I love the "I suspect, although there are no studies on this yet," almost hoping that people won't notice the "no" part and assume it's fact. :001_huh:

[stripe]

I love the "I suspect, although there are no studies on this yet," almost hoping that people won't notice the "no" part and assume it's fact. :001_huh:

Does that even matter? Alfie Kohn looked up the references cited in articles trumpeting the benefits of homework and found that the studies being cited ACTUALLY showed no benefits. It seems a footnote and a claim plus a shared belief were enough.

[Perry]

Does that even matter? Alfie Kohn looked up the references cited in articles trumpeting the benefits of homework and found that the studies being cited ACTUALLY showed no benefits. It seems a footnote and a claim plus a shared belief were enough.

 

I wouldn't rely on Alfie Kohn to interpret any research.

Kohn consistently makes factual errors, oversimplifies the literature that he seeks to explain, and commits logical fallacies.

For example, in this 2006 Education Week piece, Kohn questions the value of homework. He claims that the data showing that homework boosts academic achievement in elementary school are soft and brushes aside data showing that it boosts academic achievement in high school, saying that “more sophisticated statistical controls” show that it doesn’t help at all. This summary does not correspond with the conclusions of most researchers, (see, for example, this review of the homework literature). Kohn also argues that two common justifications for homework—to automatize skills and to provide practice time for mastery—are based on flawed assumptions. Kohn claims that time on task is not important to learning, and that the only skills that can be automatized are behavioral, that is, physical responses such as a golf swing. On both points, he’s in error. (Once could cite many examples: two would be the chapter on automaticity in pilots’ perception by Mica Endsley, and the chapter on practice time by Anders Ericsson, both in the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance.

 

I lurve Willingham though. Edited December 25, 2009 by Perry

[pqr]

this makes me doubly angry too.

 

this is a professor? written in 2009?

 

and the USA Today article is current, not written ages ago?

 

coupled with the NEA's current resolutions supporting the articles above?

 

"as ... homeschool critic Robert Reich has persuasively argued...."

 

I laugh because their thinking is screwed up, but these are not articles from The Onion: these are serious people who really believe we need to be under someone's thumb and are in positions to make it happen.

 

and yet people still believe that HSLDA is merely fear mongering.....yeah.....

 

Well put. This type of stuff does worry me because we are under threat in our choice of educational methods. What really concerns me is that some will not see it.

[stripe]

I wouldn't rely on Alfie Kohn to interpret any research.

I wasn't suggesting anyone rely on him for anything. However, I find it thought-provoking to consider that researchers may misrepresent the items they are citing, which is his claim; so my question was, would it even be necessary to have a study to back up this woman's claim, or could she simply take murky research about homeschooling and cite it as evidence for her own conclusion (homeschooling is dangerous or whatever).

[Perry]

I wasn't suggesting anyone rely on him for anything. However, I find it thought-provoking to consider that researchers may misrepresent the items they are citing, which is his claim;

I agree that people misrepresent the research. Just commenting on the irony of the Alfie Kohn example, since he is notorious for doing it.

Edited December 25, 2009 by Perry

[stripe]

I agree that people misrepresent the research. Just commenting on the irony of the Alfie Kohn example, since he is notorious for doing it.

Consider me suitably chastised.

[StephanieZ]

Considering the author wrote this:

 

"Fourth, there are political harms. Fundamentalist

Protestant adults who were homeschooled over the last

thirty years are not politically disengaged, far from it.

They vote in far higher percentages than the rest of the

population. They mobilize readily. The “army” in

which adult homeschooled citizens are soldiers has

enormous clout: homeschoolers were called “Bush’s

Army” in 2000 and 2004 for good reason. Their capacity

for political action is palpable and admirable,

although doubly constrained"

 

This is the creepiest aspect of this poorly thought out essay, IMHO.

 

I am at the opposite end of the political spectrum (sorry, ladies) from the majority of "fundamentalist protestants" the author is worried about (and so presumably an ally of the author on many big issues). . . Nonetheless, I can't see how any democracy-loving American could, with a straight face, criticize the political engagement of any population. That's amazingly shortsighted and just frightening. (Anyone else hear echos of poll taxes, literacy tests, etc?)

 

There may be a problem - - - but the problem lies in the disengaged majority, not the engaged minority. IMHO, more power to you for raising engaged, effective, citizens. If y'all (meaning my highly respected political opposition) are doing it right raising your kids to be effective advocates. . . Go Girl!! :) The author should focus on engaging everyone else, not criticizing the opposition for doing such a good job raising engaged citizens!!

[Testimony]

I live in a house that has two bedrooms with the strong potential for two more bedrooms on our third floor. My husband uses one of the upstairs rooms as his office. Our outside property is not that large because part of my property is a mountain. It comes to about 5,000 square feet of property that I have altogether. All of that belong to my husband and me. We have no mortgage on this property. We owe no one. We are debt free and we got that way with one income while I am homeschooling. It is our starter home, but we are debt-free. The writer can say all she wants about religious people, but I am a college educated woman who worked for all she has, including my education.

 

I resent that someone is calling me a dumb poor religious idiot. I am probably worth a lot more money than the writer of that article because I own all my assests i.e. houses and cars. So, if I had a huge house with a large mortgage and bank owned vehicles, I would be more intelligent.:rolleyes:

Peace to all,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

Edited December 25, 2009 by Testimony
grammar and pushed wrong button

[LoveBaby]

If it was just her opinion I wouldn't give a flip about it.

but since she is advocating and working towards seeing this be a political reality, I will pay attention to how many political bozos will use this academic piece not as opinion, but as solid research. I'm pretty sure that i can pinpoint exactly WHICH political bozos will give this opinion piece more credit than is due, and will ruin homeschooling for ALL of us. it won't be the few fundamentalists that ruin homeschooling: it will be the ones who enact laws against ALL homeschoolers.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I don't care if you homeschool because you are a "circus perfomer", a "fundamentalist right-winger" or a "liberal tree-hugger". Anytime someone is proposing taking away our liberties and our *responsiblity* to care for and provide for our children in whatever way we see fit is scary!

 

I'll stand arm-in-arm with any homeschooler, whether I agree with their religion, methodology or parenting style, any day of the week if it means that the "State" will leave me and mine alone. I don't agree with the current agenda of the public schools any more than Crunchy Mama from Diosa Dotada Endeavor blog does, even though it's for different reasons, but I'd stand beside her against state regulation of our homeschool in a heartbeat. I'd rather be lumped in with homeschoolers of all backgrounds than split on method, religion, etc. and lose the right to homeschool altogether.

 

Gah...I get so irritated when other's decide that they know better than me how to raise my kids, live my life, take care of my family, build my house, plant my garden etc, etc, etc. Especially when the bulk of the arguement is to seemingly protect the innocent. Exactly how does one determine proper protection? Protection from what? Religious training, lack of religious training, eating McDonalds, not being allowed to eat McDonald's, celebrating holidays, not celebrating holidays? My fear is that at some point it will be determined that "religion" is dangerous, or that "all religions except XYZ" is dangerous and the State must step in and protect my children from it or make sure they aren't missing the "proper" teaching. I don't want *anyone* in charge telling me what I must do for the well-being of my children or my family, because what "they" decide is probably not what I would choose.

Edited December 26, 2009 by LoveBaby

[stripe]

I agree that people misrepresent the research. Just commenting on the irony of the Alfie Kohn example, since he is notorious for doing it.

It is important to realize that this argument is a Tu Quoque fallacy, however. Just because (you linked to an article wherein someone said that) Alfie Kohn may have misrepresented/simplified research does not mean that his similar comments about others are utterly meritless.

 

We homeschoolers, and citizens in general, should not rest on our laurels, much less on fallacious arguments, especially given our desire to point out the bad reasoning conducted by other parties.

 

I would like to share my distaste for an argument that rests on laughing at people for having children and practicing basic civil duties such as voting or guaranteed freedoms such as religious belief. The idea that a truly informed citizenry would reject those ideas is a bit...unsettling, to say the least. We simply have to do better than point fingers at "the other" and laugh.

[grace'smom]

I thought the value of diversity was a primary value of American culture (as asserted by most public school systems). But this article does not seem to recognize conservative christians as one of the many facets of our diverse nation. I really dislike it when people only recognize their own limited version of diversity, and disregard or prejudge other facets that are just as much a part of our culture as their own valued version. I, personally, find different lifestyles fascinating and love that America has so much to offer. I think it is against modern American values to interfere in the affairs of minority cultures that are existing peacably within our society, be they Amish, conservative Christian, Muslim, etc. Didn't we learn anything from our history of past mistakes?

 

She just doesn't seem, to me, to be respecting the cultures and values of America. But that's just my own opinion. If we were all the same it would be easy to decide "yes or no" on these types of issues. But America's laws have to be more "giving" in order to support the diversity that exists here and she is not recognizing that. Again, just my opinion...

[Perry]

It is important to realize that this argument is a Tu Quoque fallacy, however. Just because (you linked to an article wherein someone said that) Alfie Kohn may have misrepresented/simplified research does not mean that his similar comments about others are utterly meritless.

 

I don't believe he is a reliable source of information.

 

Stripe- I didn't mean to pick on you. I really have a problem with Alfie Kohn and it's hard for me to keep my mouth shut about him. Sorry.

[lionfamily1999]

This is the creepiest aspect of this poorly thought out essay, IMHO.

 

I am at the opposite end of the political spectrum (sorry, ladies) from the majority of "fundamentalist protestants" the author is worried about (and so presumably an ally of the author on many big issues). . . Nonetheless, I can't see how any democracy-loving American could, with a straight face, criticize the political engagement of any population. That's amazingly shortsighted and just frightening. (Anyone else hear echos of poll taxes, literacy tests, etc?)

 

There may be a problem - - - but the problem lies in the disengaged majority, not the engaged minority. IMHO, more power to you for raising engaged, effective, citizens. If y'all (meaning my highly respected political opposition) are doing it right raising your kids to be effective advocates. . . Go Girl!! :) The author should focus on engaging everyone else, not criticizing the opposition for doing such a good job raising engaged citizens!!

:iagree:

I thought the value of diversity was a primary value of American culture (as asserted by most public school systems). But this article does not seem to recognize conservative christians as one of the many facets of our diverse nation. I really dislike it when people only recognize their own limited version of diversity' date=' and disregard or prejudge other facets that are just as much a part of our culture as their own valued version. I, personally, find different lifestyles fascinating and love that America has so much to offer. I think it is against [i']modern[/i] American values to interfere in the affairs of minority cultures that are existing peacably within our society, be they Amish, conservative Christian, Muslim, etc. Didn't we learn anything from our history of past mistakes?

 

She just doesn't seem, to me, to be respecting the cultures and values of America. But that's just my own opinion. If we were all the same it would be easy to decide "yes or no" on these types of issues. But America's laws have to be more "giving" in order to support the diversity that exists here and she is not recognizing that. Again, just my opinion...

:iagree:...

 

 

You mention Amish and I have to wonder, was she including the Amish in her hs definition? Just an interesting idea, I rarely hear anyone include the Amish in their definition of hsers, but I guess maybe in the larger communities they create a school? Do the Amish hs? totally o/t I know..... but now the gears are turning :p

[Karenciavo]

You mention Amish and I have to wonder, was she including the Amish in her hs definition? Just an interesting idea, I rarely hear anyone include the Amish in their definition of hsers, but I guess maybe in the larger communities they create a school? Do the Amish hs? totally o/t I know..... but now the gears are turning :p

 

The Amish community is pretty diverse and there may be some that do but I don't believe most home school. My niece is Amish (long story) and even in small communities they have one room school houses. My niece would love to home school her children (she was home schooled before my sister and her husband began their Amish period), but it is greatly discouraged.

[Kirch]

Honestly, this seems like an attack against protestant fundamentalism (and related movements) under the guise of discussing homeschooling. She makes it clear that she thinks some people can do a good job homeschooling, but the overall tone is that this group of people is dangerous and that the state should intervene for the good of their children and society as a whole. The fact that so many of them homeschool is a convenient angle to attack with the article.

[Mama Bear]

The author's use of commas has surely caused some small country to have run out entirely. How rude.

[Harriet Vane]

The author's use of commas has surely caused some small country to have run out entirely. How rude.

 

:smilielol5:

[OhM]

Just popping on to direct interested parties to this rebuttal of the article by NHERI's Brian Ray.

 

Personally, this single statement: "These families are not living in romantic, rural, self-sufficient farmhouses; they are ... on tarps in fields or parking lots," so strains her credibility (did I say strains? I mean destroys) that I find it difficult to take any of her statements seriously. If any are accurate, they must fall into the "stopped clock is right twice a day" category.

 

It's not difficult to imagine people in such desperate circumstances, but would they really identify themselves as "homeschoolers"? And would more state control over homeschooling really address their plight at all? But then, she doesn't see living on a tarp as a plight, but rather an educational philosophy from which society should be protected(!):confused: