PhD in Parenting's post on homeschooling -- GO READ!

[smrtmama]

Have you seen the post on the PhD in Parenting blog about homeschooling vs. public/private school as a means to fulfill a child's "right and duty to learn?" I think you should all take a moment to read it and respond to her.

 

She has some very nice things to say about homeschooling, but some major misconceptions, too. She says, "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" and takes issue with parents who homeschool for ideological reasons.

 

I'd like to hear your feedback about her post, either here or on my blog.

 

I also hope you'll pass the link to her post around, because I'd love to see a strong showing from homeschoolers from all walks of life.

[Catherine]

14% of German teens are significantly xenophobic-that is a bit scary.

 

What did you object to?

[smrtmama]

14% of German teens are significantly xenophobic-that is a bit scary.

 

What did you object to?

 

 

I objected to several points, one of which I left in the comments to the post, that dealing with bullying/favoritism/other unpleasantness in public school is necessary for learning how to cope in the adult world.

 

I object to the idea that there is a collective ideology that is appropriate for all children and that homeschooling in part to install or encourage an alternate ideology is inherently negative.

 

I object to the misconception that rejection of "factual" curricula is a primary motivator for most homeschoolers.

 

As I said initially, she had a lot of positive things to say, but I think she's speaking from a place of lack of knowledge about homeschooling.

[hornblower]

14% of German teens are significantly xenophobic-that is a bit scary.

 

 

 

Given that hs is illegal in Germany, these kids are all products of the school system. She's arguing that hs would increase those stats but I don't think there's any evidence that would support this. It's just one of those things that people like to believe.

 

She's also contradicting herself at one point: that religious folks should be able to manage to convey their belief outside of school hours BUT at the same time, she seems to believe that families with kids at school would not be able to pass on xenophobia or other undesirable beliefs in that same brief time. These statements can't both be true.

 

She also misses the meta view of education that all education is deeply political.

 

What she's trying to get at, in a sort of wooly way - & I mean no disrespect, & I think it's quite a common (small L) liberal viewpoint - is that it's fine when GOOD people do it, but BAD people might abuse it & either neglect the children or give them such a narrow education that they're very ill prepared to deal with living in the big world.

 

Yeah, abuse sucks and BAD people suck. But these issues also raise some pretty big debates about definitions of good and bad, what constitues neglect, and mostly about limits of tolerance in a free society.

 

I don't have time to comment on her blog but maybe someone can point her to this thread if we get a good bunch of comments here.

[Laurie4b]

All education is inherently ideological. It's naive to think that there are forms of education that aren't. The question is: who gets to determine the ideology? An oligarchy in Texas or a child's parents or the state?

 

Are there parents whose teaching is downright destructive? Yes. But that destructive influence is very limited. This is in stark contrast to the power of a state to direct that destructive ideology be taught --then the influence is pervasive. There are many modern examples of this, both in the recent past and currently where this occurs and children are indoctrinated with hate and/or grossly distorted history.

 

Are there parents whose ideology I disagree with? Absolutely, but totally affirm their right to teach it, and in fact, am thankful for the diversity. When our kids grow up and act within the public sphere at work, in politics, etc. they will sharpen one another. Contrast that to the bland, load- em -on- the -factory-belt education created by typical politcal process. Too much homogeneity is unhealthy for a culture.

 

So for me, I would rather take the good and the bad of homeschooling, and keep a parent's right to bring up their child as the primary right--otherwise it's the state's right to bring up a child. As for children bringing themselves up, we feel sorry for those who truly have to--who live in garbage dumps and fight to survive on the streets. So, between the three choices, I vote for parent-directed education. Less overall harm possible, more diversity guaranteed.

 

As for the concern about parents teaching children bigotry, etc., my observation is that people like that do a pretty good job even if their kids attend public school. I don't think homeschooling is particularly a stronghold of secret instruction in bigotry.

 

ETA: One thing that bothers me is her response to homeschoolers who choose to do so for religious reasons. She treats these as "other": people to be distrusted and controlled. I'm guessing she'd be riled up to read a blog where another kind of group is treated as "other"in the same way.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Laurie4b

[MorganClassicalPrep]

I actually agree with many things the author said.

 

I DO believe stronger in a child's right to education more than a parent's right to raise the child however they want. I think the people who aren't teaching their children certain subjects are doing them a serious disservice, such as the family recently discussed on this forum who aren't teaching their children high school level math or science. Yes, it can be made up for in college, but it is much tougher then, and much tougher to get into school without it. The whole premise behind TWTM and the 4 year cycle is that the constant repetition of history material first exposes, then focuses. Other subjects should be the same. If a child doesn't have exposure to a subject, they won't be able to recognize it they are especially gifted in that field, or if it may be a possible career option.

 

I also worry about the children who are homeschooled for purely religious reasons. I am religious, and plan on including religious education within our school, but my daughter will also be exposed to other religions and in high school will do religious education classes. I think it is a little naive to think that you can keep a child in your religion by hiding all others from them.

 

I also disagree with some of what she said. The whole, bullies are necessary thing is ridiculous. My daughter is exposed to many different types of people in everyday life, and learns how to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Children who are bullied in school only learn how to report it to the teacher, and then learn that the authority can't really do much and they are all on their own, because many bullies can't be controlled by the schools.

 

It's interesting to me that the author feels so educated on homeschooling she can write an article about it... when in fact, of her own admission, she has no real experience with it!!

[smrtmama]

 

She's also contradicting herself at one point: that religious folks should be able to manage to convey their belief outside of school hours BUT at the same time, she seems to believe that families with kids at school would not be able to pass on xenophobia or other undesirable beliefs in that same brief time. These statements can't both be true.

 

I was glad to see that some commenters have pointed out this contradiction to her.

 

I feel like she wants to like homeschooling, because it's part of the "crunchy" lifestyle to which she otherwise ascribes (a lifestyle and ideology that I share with her, by and large, and I typically love what she writes). I think she's still too bogged down by the common misconceptions about homeschooling to really understand what it is, how it works, and why her concerns aren't as reality-based as she thinks they are.

[Catherine]

I overlooked that part about kids being strengthened by dealing with difficult peers and teachers. I think people whose kids are in school imagine that there is some benefit, but really, there isn't, at least, I don't think so.

[smrtmama]

I overlooked that part about kids being strengthened by dealing with difficult peers and teachers. I think people whose kids are in school imagine that there is some benefit, but really, there isn't, at least, I don't think so.

 

That's just one of my big hot button topics. I get pretty het up when people suggest that as a reason for institutional education. There are plenty of good reasons for a family to choose public/private school, but that's NOT one of them!

[smrtmama]

I also worry about the children who are homeschooled for purely religious reasons. I am religious, and plan on including religious education within our school, but my daughter will also be exposed to other religions and in high school will do religious education classes. I think it is a little naive to think that you can keep a child in your religion by hiding all others from them.

 

 

 

I worry about those children, but I don't think that parents who homeschool for purely religious reasons should be forbidden from doing so. Once you start controlling what parents can and can't teach, you start creating blockades in the path of all of us -- as we've seen in states with very strict homeschool regulation. I don't think one academic track, one ideology, one set of "knowledge" is so right for all people that it should be mandated by the State.

[Mynyel]

In the article she clearly states she doesn't have a clue about homeschooling but goes on to critique it.

 

She comes off very balanced but, to me, that is how it happens. Just like anything huge (thinking government but this is me, not trying to start a debate) things always start out small. Things get taken away or forced upon in very small amounts. You don't even realize it until it is too late.

 

She says she is for the Convention for the Rights of the Child. That is a global effort that can undermine parenting everywhere. Again, perhaps on the surface one thinks..the CRC doesn't sound bad...they never take over and tell parents what to do. Yea well no one thought 15 years ago that the government would effectively take over the medical arena either.

 

Unless there is proven without a shadow of a doubt abuse, neglect or educational neglect government should not interfere with parenting...neither should anyone else. So what if a parent teaches bigotry? That is their belief and or opinion and it is their right to teach it. They will only be able to effectively function, really, in their own circle. It isn't something that is going to spread like a disease.

 

It isn't the schools place to teach certain things like sex education, gender issues :001_huh:, homosexuality (the author would have us do a unit study on this??). Why is it up to the school and why do people feel that we have to give up those right to "a higher authority"? Since when does everyone know better than me how to teach/raise/handle my child/children?? When did we say it was OK for the government or people with "higher" educations are more right than me? Because they live in a big house and have letters after their name? Because I am lowly and live in a double-wide out in the backwoods of North Carolina? I don't have letters after my name so I am incapable of rearing my children to be successful adults? While her article didn't say these things directly, these are things that people can extrapolate from articles like this.

 

Anyhow :) I just wish they would leave those of us that, past, present and future want to "home educate" our children. Don't bother us, and I won't bother you...much;).

Edited May 27, 2010 by Mynyel
/sigh spelling

[Mynyel]

I worry about those children, but I don't think that parents who homeschool for purely religious reasons should be forbidden from doing so. Once you start controlling what parents can and can't teach, you start creating blockades in the path of all of us -- as we've seen in states with very strict homeschool regulation. I don't think one academic track, one ideology, one set of "knowledge" is so right for all people that it should be mandated by the State.

 

 

I disagree...who are we to tell others what they can teach? Why to we think we are "better" because we "expose" our children to other religions? I don't think that people who homeschool for religious reasons do it specifically to "shelter" them from others. They do it so that they can explain the differences from their our religious views.

 

I will never say that someone shouldn't homeschool because of the reason they want to (not talking about illegal reasons either just personal reasons). Why someone wants to homeschool their child isn't my business and it should be anyone elses.

[smrtmama]

I disagree...who are we to tell others what they can teach? Why to we think we are "better" because we "expose" our children to other religions? I don't think that people who homeschool for religious reasons do it specifically to "shelter" them from others. They do it so that they can explain the differences from their our religious views.

 

I will never say that someone shouldn't homeschool because of the reason they want to (not talking about illegal reasons either just personal reasons). Why someone wants to homeschool their child isn't my business and it should be anyone elses.

 

Are you disagreeing w/ me here? Because I said I don't think they should be in any way limited in what they can teach to their children! Whether or or not I ascribe to their spirituality or ideology, I wouldn't presume to outlaw their teaching it. It's neither my job or the State's job to tell you or anyone else what they can teach their children.

 

It's certainly my right to disagree with it or worry about the longterm ramifications of it. I know that some religious homeschoolers have similar concerns about secular homeschooling. We don't try to CONTROL what the other is teaching, though (hopefully) or expect that the State will do that.

[Orthodox6]

 

. . . it's fine when GOOD people do it, but BAD people might abuse it & either neglect the children or give them such a narrow education that they're very ill prepared to deal with living in the big world.

 

I love this portion of your post !

Why?

. . . because I could take your exact text and describe public education !!!

[LibraryLover]

I thought it was a good article, esp so because she is in Germany.

 

I thought she had some really good points, even if she didn't know every nuance of hsing.

 

I thought she was, in general, very thoughtful. I have read for more hysterical 'anti' hsing posts. She is not the least bit hysterical.

 

I think we really need to be careful that we do not throw everyone who is not 100% OMG! Homeschooling is Great! under the bus.

 

I repesct people with thoughtful opinions. I don't think there is any reason for hsers to slam/bash/mash her.

Edited May 27, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Daisy]

I don't think anyone is slamming her but the WTM boards are known for critiquing logical (or illogical) arguments! That's how we entertain ourselves when the kids are in bed.;)

 

Exactly. LOL.

[smrtmama]

I thought it was a good article, esp so because she is in Germany.

 

I thought she had some really good points, even if she didn't know every nuance of hsing.

 

I thought she was, in general, very thoughtful. I have read for more hysterical 'anti' hsing posts. She is not the least bit hysterical.

 

I think we really need to be careful that we do not throw everyone who is not 100% OMG! Homeschooling is Great! under the bus.

 

I repesct people with thoughtful opinions. I don't think there is any reason for hsers to slam/bash/mash her.

 

Not slamming, but definitely examining her concerns and pointing out inconsistencies.

 

Obviously, some homeschoolers agree with all or most of what she has to say. Others disagree with parts of it. Since her experience with homeschoolers sounded very limited, receiving comments from a wide variety of homeschoolers, who choose homeschooling for different reasons and have had different experiences (in home, public, or private school) will probably be quite helpful for her in developing her opinions on home education.

[Guest mrsjamiesouth]

She has some very nice things to say about homeschooling, but some major misconceptions, too. She says, "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" and takes issue with parents who homeschool for ideological reasons. .

 

 

I believe if tested on this she would change her mind in a heartbeat. Under the threat of something she didn't like, she would no longer feel that way. I can't believe anyone would feel Parent's don't have a right to raise their kids the way they want! :glare:

It also bothers me enormously when people say or infer that Christians homeschool to "brainwash" their children into believing what they do. No matter what you believe, Christian or not, this is what you are teaching your children. If you do not believe in God you teach your child He doesn't exist. If you believe in reincarnation, you teach your child this. Gay couples teach their children about alternative lifestyles.

 

I am a born again believer, and I feel if I didn't teach my children what I "know" to be truth than I am not doing my job as a parent.

 

The Socialization part is a joke! No comment necessary just come to the park with my kids and school kids, we'll compare. :tongue_smilie:

[LisaC]

I actually agree with many things the author said.

 

I DO believe stronger in a child's right to education more than a parent's right to raise the child however they want. I think the people who aren't teaching their children certain subjects are doing them a serious disservice, such as the family recently discussed on this forum who aren't teaching their children high school level math or science. Yes, it can be made up for in college, but it is much tougher then, and much tougher to get into school without it. The whole premise behind TWTM and the 4 year cycle is that the constant repetition of history material first exposes, then focuses. Other subjects should be the same. If a child doesn't have exposure to a subject, they won't be able to recognize it they are especially gifted in that field, or if it may be a possible career option.

 

I also worry about the children who are homeschooled for purely religious reasons. I am religious, and plan on including religious education within our school, but my daughter will also be exposed to other religions and in high school will do religious education classes. I think it is a little naive to think that you can keep a child in your religion by hiding all others from them.

 

I also disagree with some of what she said. The whole, bullies are necessary thing is ridiculous. My daughter is exposed to many different types of people in everyday life, and learns how to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Children who are bullied in school only learn how to report it to the teacher, and then learn that the authority can't really do much and they are all on their own, because many bullies can't be controlled by the schools.

 

It's interesting to me that the author feels so educated on homeschooling she can write an article about it... when in fact, of her own admission, she has no real experience with it!!

 

:iagree: Entirely--well said!

I do think the author of the blog brings up some great talking points, and she leaves enough open territory on each point that she gets great, educated responses (for the most part). I do not think we homeschooling families will ever win everyone's respect, but we are changing the general landscape of how we are perceived. More importantly, many of us are successfully giving our children a fantastic education. There is enough evidence of that now, so I think we have less to fear in terms of our having to relinquish our right to educate our children--which is probably the true core of the debate.

[CLHCO]

Are there parents whose teaching is downright destructive? Yes. But that destructive influence is very limited. This is in stark contrast to the power of a state to direct that destructive ideology be taught --then the influence is pervasive. There are many modern examples of this, both in the recent past and currently where this occurs and children are indoctrinated with hate and/or grossly distorted history.

 

 

I admit, this is a big one for me. Any of us may believe at any given time that our current administration or powers-that-be is good and will not cross this line, and perhaps they won't. The problem is, things change over the years/decades. You can have an act of war by some section of some small group, economic tragedy needing a scape-goat, etc. Suddenly attitudes change, a corrupt government is in, and the very system that was put in place, though most liked it at the time, can suddenly be used for evil on a massive scale that some small misfits on the side would never have the power to do. The power to direct the minds of the future is a dangerous power.

[smrtmama]

The Socialization part is a joke! No comment necessary just come to the park with my kids and school kids, we'll compare. :tongue_smilie:

 

In her defense, I do think she says she thinks the whole socialization thing isn't actually a problem for homeschoolers. She seems very open to a dialogue on the topic, too, which is a positive thing!

[Laurie4b]

The power to direct the minds of the future is a dangerous power.

 

Very well said!

[Entropymama]

Thanks for posting this article! I thought it was well written even if she's a little uninformed. She did try to keep an open mind. And your posts were fantastic. :thumbup:

 

Another reader left a post on that sight that I thought was very insightful.

 

"By saying it’s “problematic†to shelter your children from certain religious view or lifestyle choices….that is indicative of exactly why some have chosen to home school. It’s problematic to you because you believe YOUR views should be taught."

 

I have had concerned friends/relatives bring this point up with me. I didn't choose to hs solely for religious reasons, the fact that I'm a born-again Christian did come into the equation. I want to shelter my kids from certain lifestyles FOR NOW. They think it will be harmful for my kids not to be exposed, for example, to the gay/lesbian community. (Note that I fully intend to educate them on these things, when I feel it's age appropriate. And no, I won't be gay bashing) They think this because those are their views, which of course they think should be taught. Personally, I think the view that a relationship with Jesus gets you to Heaven should be taught, and not exposing young kids to that knowledge could be harmful. But if I were EVER to say such a thing I'd be labeled as narrow minded and/or get laughed out of the conversation.

 

The point is that in every educational setting, someone is pushing their own views and values. This is equally true in public or private school. Thank goodness we live in the US and not Germany, and we're all able to push our own views and values in our homes!

[Joker]

She's also contradicting herself at one point: that religious folks should be able to manage to convey their belief outside of school hours BUT at the same time, she seems to believe that families with kids at school would not be able to pass on xenophobia or other undesirable beliefs in that same brief time. These statements can't both be true.

 

:iagree: This is what stuck out to me as well.

[Laurie4b]

I don't think anyone is slamming her, but I disagree that we should give someone a pass when she muses that perhaps certain "other" groups are suspect and should perhaps not be allowed to educate their children at home. Homeschoolers are a minority and if we do not correct misperceptions when they appear in print, etc. then incorrect notions get perpetuated. These "common wisdom" beliefs can be quite untrue and yet affect future policy decisions. When people don't know homeschoolers who don't fit their "fear profile" it becomes easier for them to slip into thinking it's okay for the rights of those who choose options they don't (homeschooling instead of public schooling) to be whittled away. I think we need to always speak up---politely and intelligently to counter misperceptions.

[KathyBC]

I DO believe stronger in a child's right to education more than a parent's right to raise the child however they want. I think the people who aren't teaching their children certain subjects are doing them a serious disservice, such as the family recently discussed on this forum who aren't teaching their children high school level math or science. Yes, it can be made up for in college, but it is much tougher then, and much tougher to get into school without it.

 

My personal experience was different. I found high school level math and science easier as I got older. Perhaps that was maturity, perhaps it was the absence of the drama and distractions of the high school years. Regardless, I didn't stop learning when I reached 18. Or 22.

[smrtmama]

I don't think anyone is slamming her, but I disagree that we should give someone a pass when she muses that perhaps certain "other" groups are suspect and should perhaps not be allowed to educate their children at home. Homeschoolers are a minority and if we do not correct misperceptions when they appear in print, etc. then incorrect notions get perpetuated. These "common wisdom" beliefs can be quite untrue and yet affect future policy decisions. When people don't know homeschoolers who don't fit their "fear profile" it becomes easier for them to slip into thinking it's okay for the rights of those who choose options they don't (homeschooling instead of public schooling) to be whittled away. I think we need to always speak up---politely and intelligently to counter misperceptions.

 

:iagree:

 

I think that posts like hers are the perfect place to address those misconceptions, because she's indicating she's open to discussion on it.

[mlbuchina]

All education is inherently ideological. It's naive to think that there are forms of education that aren't. The question is: who gets to determine the ideology? An oligarchy in Texas or a child's parents or the state?

 

Are there parents whose teaching is downright destructive? Yes. But that destructive influence is very limited. This is in stark contrast to the power of a state to direct that destructive ideology be taught --then the influence is pervasive. There are many modern examples of this, both in the recent past and currently where this occurs and children are indoctrinated with hate and/or grossly distorted history.

 

Are there parents whose ideology I disagree with? Absolutely, but totally affirm their right to teach it, and in fact, am thankful for the diversity. When our kids grow up and act within the public sphere at work, in politics, etc. they will sharpen one another. Contrast that to the bland, load- em -on- the -factory-belt education created by typical politcal process. Too much homogeneity is unhealthy for a culture.

 

So for me, I would rather take the good and the bad of homeschooling, and keep a parent's right to bring up their child as the primary right--otherwise it's the state's right to bring up a child. As for children bringing themselves up, we feel sorry for those who truly have to--who live in garbage dumps and fight to survive on the streets. So, between the three choices, I vote for parent-directed education. Less overall harm possible, more diversity guaranteed.

 

As for the concern about parents teaching children bigotry, etc., my observation is that people like that do a pretty good job even if their kids attend public school. I don't think homeschooling is particularly a stronghold of secret instruction in bigotry.

 

ETA: One thing that bothers me is her response to homeschoolers who choose to do so for religious reasons. She treats these as "other": people to be distrusted and controlled. I'm guessing she'd be riled up to read a blog where another kind of group is treated as "other"in the same way.

:iagree: With all that, and especially with what I bolded (gosh, is that even a word???:tongue_smilie:).

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

She is one smart cookie. She has gotten a bunch of people to talk about her blog, and probably generated some pageviews from some who have never heard of her before. This is what good blogging is all about, right? You can "preach to the choir" or you can "generate controversy" but whatever you do, aim to get folks talkin' and visitin'. Kudos to her!

 

(oh, and I also found the blog entry & comments very interesting :))

[mlbuchina]

My personal experience was different. I found high school level math and science easier as I got older. Perhaps that was maturity, perhaps it was the absence of the drama and distractions of the high school years. Regardless, I didn't stop learning when I reached 18. Or 22.

 

Me, too. I came out of HS having done trig/pre-cal. Passed on the C level, barely. I had a year or so off , and when I went on to college , I was able to fairly breeze through the math. I couldn't believe it, and didn't understand why I could do it then, but not in hs! I just thought it must have needed the time to "cook" in my brain for a while.:lol:

[lakotajm]

My personal experience was different. I found high school level math and science easier as I got older. Perhaps that was maturity, perhaps it was the absence of the drama and distractions of the high school years. Regardless, I didn't stop learning when I reached 18. Or 22.

 

I remember reading recently (perhaps in The Week magazine) that a study or studies are revealing that the adolescent mind is less amenable to learning that the mind of younger or older people. It's like there is some "static" during the teen years and it said it takes them longer and they are more likely to forget what they learned. They have to work harder at it.

 

This was certainly my experience. I literally cried and moaned and banged my head through pre-algebra homework every night-even if it was just 10 problems, it took me HOURS! Sheer torture. I never took Algebra-in high school or college. I managed to find the "computer class substitutes", thank God. Should I have had Algebra or Chemistry (I also managed to escape that one?) I do not think so. Not every one should be on the same track in life (I have a BA in poli sci, but started with fine arts). My high-schoolers will have Pre-Algebra (to test the waters) and then a frank discussion of the pros and cons of higher level math (the higher level sciences use this as a pre-req, so the math takes precedence.) It will be their choice. Basic math, consumer math, statistics are the only three areas necessary to true educational groundedness. The rest is for those on a specific track in life.

 

My eldest is an artsy girl, not interested in college. That may change, but there are ways to adjust as life leads you to a different path. And it's never too late. Just ask the 80 year old college students!

 

The poster believing it is neglectful to not cover higher level math might benefit from a wider conception of both education and childhood/adulthood vis-a-vis John Taylor Gatto, perhaps. He has a lot to say on this issue and side issues which veer from it. Please do not misread my tone; not being snarky, just speaking in the enlightening manner of this thread.:001_smile:

 

Lakota

Edited May 27, 2010 by lakotajm
Sounds like I'm aiming last paragaph at person I'm quoting-I'm not.

[jewellsmommy]

I actually agree with many things the author said.

 

I DO believe stronger in a child's right to education more than a parent's right to raise the child however they want. I think the people who aren't teaching their children certain subjects are doing them a serious disservice, such as the family recently discussed on this forum who aren't teaching their children high school level math or science. Yes, it can be made up for in college, but it is much tougher then, and much tougher to get into school without it. The whole premise behind TWTM and the 4 year cycle is that the constant repetition of history material first exposes, then focuses. Other subjects should be the same. If a child doesn't have exposure to a subject, they won't be able to recognize it they are especially gifted in that field, or if it may be a possible career option.

 

I also worry about the children who are homeschooled for purely religious reasons. I am religious, and plan on including religious education within our school, but my daughter will also be exposed to other religions and in high school will do religious education classes. I think it is a little naive to think that you can keep a child in your religion by hiding all others from them.

 

I also disagree with some of what she said. The whole, bullies are necessary thing is ridiculous. My daughter is exposed to many different types of people in everyday life, and learns how to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Children who are bullied in school only learn how to report it to the teacher, and then learn that the authority can't really do much and they are all on their own, because many bullies can't be controlled by the schools.

 

It's interesting to me that the author feels so educated on homeschooling she can write an article about it... when in fact, of her own admission, she has no real experience with it!!

 

(Responding to what I bolded above) Our faith is part of our decision to homeschool. We do not hide other religions from our dd and the christian curriculums (that I have seen personally) spend a lot of time exposing the children to other religions. So, I don't think that the majority of hsers avoid other religions. I am sure there are some, but, couldn't the same accusation be made against "religious" private schools. You wouldn't have to homeschool to sequester your children from other faiths.

 

I do agree with you that parents need to do their utmost to supply as much higher level education as possible. There are so many dvd and computer options that there is little excuse to not provide an adequate education even in a subject where the parent lacks confidence.

[Kirch]

"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."

 

I believe if tested on this she would change her mind in a heartbeat. Under the threat of something she didn't like, she would no longer feel that way. I can't believe anyone would feel Parent's don't have a right to raise their kids the way they want! :glare:

 

:iagree: It's easy to say that when what's being taught lines up with your values.

 

The other problem I have with her statement is that in the context, the implication is that homeschooling impedes a child's right to an education, that homeschooling doesn't really *provide* an education, that homeschooling is about parents' rights versus a child's education.

 

What we turned it around: I believe more strongly in a child's right to an education than I do in the state's right to influence children in whatever direction the trends (educational, political, whatever) are going at the moment?

 

I don't think it would take me long to sit here and come up with a whole list of "I believe more strongly in a child's right to an education more than I do in . . ." statements that would apply to public education. Many if not most of us homeschool because we SO strongly in a child's right to an education that we want a better option for our children.

[MorganClassicalPrep]

I worry about those children, but I don't think that parents who homeschool for purely religious reasons should be forbidden from doing so. Once you start controlling what parents can and can't teach, you start creating blockades in the path of all of us -- as we've seen in states with very strict homeschool regulation. I don't think one academic track, one ideology, one set of "knowledge" is so right for all people that it should be mandated by the State.

 

Oh, I definitely don't think those parents should be forbidden from homeschooling, exactly for the reason you brought up.

 

I know of 2 homeschooling for religious reasons families. (All the children are actually my age now, so prior homeschooling families!) In one family, all three children have remained true to their faith and are strong in that faith and happy with how things were. In the other family, most of the 5 kids have rebelled and left the faith, picking up some pretty nasty drug/sex/alcohol habits along the way. It can go either way.

 

My personal philosophy though is one of tolerance, and having a broad worldview. I want my daughter to make her choices based on what is right for *her*, not what I want her to do.

[MorganClassicalPrep]

(Responding to what I bolded above) Our faith is part of our decision to homeschool. We do not hide other religions from our dd and the christian curriculums (that I have seen personally) spend a lot of time exposing the children to other religions. So, I don't think that the majority of hsers avoid other religions. I am sure there are some, but, couldn't the same accusation be made against "religious" private schools. You wouldn't have to homeschool to sequester your children from other faiths.

 

I do agree with you that parents need to do their utmost to supply as much higher level education as possible. There are so many dvd and computer options that there is little excuse to not provide an adequate education even in a subject where the parent lacks confidence.

 

I have also decided to homeschool partially because of my faith. To clarify, I was definitely not lumping in ALL religious based homeschoolers together, because many of us do in fact expose our children, but there are also many out there who homeschool primarily to keep their children from anyone of a different faith, and make sure their children follow the same path.

I certainly hope my daughter will stay in the Church as she grows up, and I feel that I have done a great job of instilling a love and respect for the Church, but I feel like the all or nothing approach some families (not just homeschoolers!) approach religion with leads to unhealthy relationships and a strong possibility of a family break.

[Lizzie in Ma]

I don't think anyone is slamming her but the WTM boards are known for critiquing logical (or illogical) arguments! That's how we entertain ourselves when the kids are in bed.;)

 

:D

[cathmom]

I never heard of this blog before, but the title "PhD in Parenting" rubs me the wrong way.

[gpsings]

I replied, but I admit, I was a bit peeved. :blushing:

[teamturner]

Here is a point made by a commentor that I feel is grossly overlooked in all the homeschooling articles I've ever read:

 

And finally, I am a fan of public schools. But the U. S. school system is groaning under the burden of more students with more significant issues, and dwindling dollars. Schools are designed to teach the greatest number of children possible, to teach to the middle. If you’d ever spent time advocating for a child with special needs or a child who learns in a very different way, or just pressing for higher academic standards in schools just struggling to satisfy the burdens imposed by legislation like No Child Left Behind, you’d understand that just advocating for change is daunting at best, and expecting a straining unwieldy system to adapt to an individual child’s needs is unrealistic.

 

Although my list for home educating is long and is somewehat based on ideology/religious reasons, the longer I homeschool (especially hs'ing classically) the more the quality of the public school education becomes a huge factor to me. I read it all the time on this board. People taking their dc out of ps because they are struggling to learn the way being taught at ps or their dc are bored and can do so much more than what is presented in the ps structure. I wish this point of view received more press.

[Sue G in PA]

I haven't read the other posts, but several things about her article just makes me go "huh"?. First, she mentions that she likes that public school provide a SAFE environment in which her kids are taken care of and educated. Then, under reasons she doesn't like public schools she mentions bullying, peer pressure, drugs, violence, etc. Ummm...does anyone else see the contradiction here? :D

 

I also love that she "worries" about parents pushing their own agendas or passing down their own hatreds to their children. Oh? So it is better for the child to be exposed to OTHER PEOPLES agendas and hatreds? OK. :glare:

 

As for criticizing the parents who pull their kids out due to what is being taught. I take major issue with this statement: "My guess is that in most cases 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." Number one, evolution IS NOT FACTUAL! It is a BELIEF! To push that on my child without explaining the alternative view is just as bad as not introducing children to evolution at some point even if you are a Creationist! And homosexuality and birth control? Ummm...tell my why my elementary aged child needs to know about those things? Why? And tell me why it is better for the SCHOOL to teach them than me or my husband? :glare:

 

I could go on, but I'm already fired up about the article. She says it best when she says that she has absolutely no exposure to homeschooling for herself or for her children. Great...so don't talk about something you don't know anything about! :D

[pdalley]

Wonder what she'd think of my 10th grade biology teacher? For an entire year - for 45 minutes each day for 5 days - we listened to his tirades about Jerry Fallwell.

 

Seriously, I had no idea - at the time - who Jerry Fallwell even was. I learned no biology needless to say. And he gave the entire class F minuses. My mother complained but he was tenured and kept on doing what he did best until he retired.

 

I hate to disappoint her stereotyping but my kids will learn all points of view - not just the ones I happen to believe in. And my kids were not at all safe in our local public schools from bullying - by staff and other kids. So her view of homeschooling is about as far removed from my personal experiences with public schools. I'm sure some good ones exist out there but the ones I attended, my brother attended and my kids briefly attended? Not at all how she described.

 

I did not get an adequate education for the public schools I attended. My education has been pretty much self directed my entire life. Now I would never say 'Oh, because my experience was horrible all public schools stink.' It's just not logical.

[LibraryLover]

I don't think anyone is slamming her but the WTM boards are known for critiquing logical (or illogical) arguments! That's how we entertain ourselves when the kids are in bed.;)

 

 

Well, I am all for that. lol

[smrtmama]

:iagree: It's easy to say that when what's being taught lines up with your values.

 

 

That's the crux of it, for me. She keeps stressing in comments that she's only talking about faith, not any other ideologies, but why pick on faith? Because it's easy to make faith the fall guy.

 

She's a non-believer, or at least areligious, so it's easy to view all religions as part of a "comparative religions class" where they can be presented as equally interesting, but equally false. I'm not religious, so I get that -- no particular set of spiritual beliefs sums up my experiences, so it's easy to dismiss religion and its importance in culture and family life entirely.

 

I do have a set of philosophical, spiritual, and political beliefs that you better darn well bet I will teach my children are right. That doesn't mean I'll teach that opposing viewpoints are wrong or bad, but I'll explain and model why our family believes what we do, how those beliefs work for us, etc.

[Daisy]

I do have a set of philosophical, spiritual, and political beliefs that you better darn well bet I will teach my children are right. That doesn't mean I'll teach that opposing viewpoints are wrong or bad, but I'll explain and model why our family believes what we do, how those beliefs work for us, etc.

 

:D I love that you can understand where I'm coming from even when you don't agree with me. Mutual respect is such a nice thing to have in a friend.

[smrtmama]

:D I love that you can understand where I'm coming from even when you don't agree with me. Mutual respect is such a nice thing to have in a friend.

 

You mean, we can respect each other's viewpoints and treat each other as friends without having instructed our children in the absolutely equality of our beliefs? ;)

[Daisy]

You mean, we can respect each other's viewpoints and treat each other as friends without having instructed our children in the absolutely equality of our beliefs? ;)

 

Gasp, I know! It is downright amazing. :lol:

[smrtmama]

Gasp, I know! It is downright amazing. :lol:

 

Just goes to show how amazingly open-minded...

 

you are.

 

Me, I'm just a stodgy ol' stubborn fool, stuck in my ways, and you tolerate me.

[Daisy]

Just goes to show how amazingly open-minded...

 

you are.

 

Me, I'm just a stodgy ol' stubborn fool, stuck in my ways, and you tolerate me.

 

Whatever. I think it's the other way around. :tongue_smilie:

 

Back to the topic. I wonder what this PhD would think about the German homeschooling family that came to America?

[Whereneverever]

That's the crux of it, for me. She keeps stressing in comments that she's only talking about faith, not any other ideologies, but why pick on faith? Because it's easy to make faith the fall guy.

 

She's a non-believer, or at least areligious, so it's easy to view all religions as part of a "comparative religions class" where they can be presented as equally interesting, but equally false. I'm not religious, so I get that -- no particular set of spiritual beliefs sums up my experiences, so it's easy to dismiss religion and its importance in culture and family life entirely.

 

I do have a set of philosophical, spiritual, and political beliefs that you better darn well bet I will teach my children are right. That doesn't mean I'll teach that opposing viewpoints are wrong or bad, but I'll explain and model why our family believes what we do, how those beliefs work for us, etc.

 

I think it's something of a misrepresentation on her part that she's only uncomfortable with faith- that's it's religion, not faith.

I think that you hold faith or belief in any idea system that you are tied to, not just the ones involving God or the absence thereof.

It's OK to have faith that all (or most) people are inherently good, or that world peace is achievable through better modeling and education, but not that a particular religion is the right choice for your family.

That's the summary I got from her ideological concerns.

[Mynyel]

Are you disagreeing w/ me here? Because I said I don't think they should be in any way limited in what they can teach to their children! Whether or or not I ascribe to their spirituality or ideology, I wouldn't presume to outlaw their teaching it. It's neither my job or the State's job to tell you or anyone else what they can teach their children.

 

It's certainly my right to disagree with it or worry about the longterm ramifications of it. I know that some religious homeschoolers have similar concerns about secular homeschooling. We don't try to CONTROL what the other is teaching, though (hopefully) or expect that the State will do that.

 

Oh my :blushing::blush: I reread the post...please accept my apologies :) I missed that vital word "don't"!! I have learned my lesson and will certainly read posts at least twice before responding. I am sorry to you smrtmama!! It seems we do agree :)