S/O off "Ham Strikes Again..." ~ WHO OWNS HOMESCHOOLING?

[KnitWit]

Cynthia, I see what you are saying as I have friends like that too.

 

However, I don't see the history of homeschooling as belonging to religious fundamentalists. Raymond and Dorothy Moore were Seventh-Day Adventists and Gregg Harris and others took them to task over that and plugged them into the *secular and liberal* category even though upon reading his own words, Dr. Moore seemed to have considered himself Christian and driven by his faith, didn't seem to matter to The Powers That Be that were raising themselves up at the time. (Harris and Mike Farris of HSLDA by the way, according to what I've read *original source* online)

 

Then, what about the Colfaxes?? John Holt??

 

This is where I think we have been drinking some kool-aid. kwim?

 

(By the way, I am not saying any of these people are or are *not* Christian. *I* don't know. The point is that THEIR point was not their religion, but homeschooling)

[KristinaBreece]

I think that much of the problem of the us vs. them mentality stems from the reason why people choose to homeschool their children. Some groups believe it is the only way to raise godly children. Some people feel that it is a divine call.

 

I know many moms who homeschool because it is just another wifely duty...there really is no other option in their world. In talking with these moms I get the idea that the broadening of the homeschool "movement" to include secular families or less fundamental families is threatening to them. They do view homeschooling as "their movement".

 

Perhaps this stems from the history of homeschooling, esp. in the 70's and 80's, where the only homeschoolers we ever heard of were "religious" fundamental homeschoolers. I think they see themselves as the pioneers who paved the way for homeschooling freedom...and many of them did just that...and they want to preserve the "movement" the way it was.

 

Because of the growth of homeschooling among non-religious/non-fundamental/other religions, materials are being produced to meet the demands of these "new" homeschooling adherents. This is threatening to the more established publishers not just in the financial realm, but in the realm of content. When the vast majority of homeschooling publishers all ascribed to a similar worldview there wasn't as much of a problem; curriculum choices included the fundamental religious material or secular textbooks. Now there are homeschool publishers who would promote alternative worldviews! That is threatening to them.

 

See, that's my biggest issue. My choices are not a threat to anyone else's. I take a very "live & let live" approach to life. I don't care if you choose to homeschool because you want to avoid bullying, or because you want to make sure your DC are well-versed in Biblical principles, or if you HS because you believe that the government is vying for control of our children's minds and want to make sure they know how to make tin foil hats. I would care if anyone were unable to homeschool. It is our <del>right</del> RESPONSIBILTY to ensure the adequacy of the education of our children. If you choose to do so by sending your DC to public school, then you must believe that choice is the right one for your family, and good for you. Thus the need for an organization dedicated to freedom in educational choices.

[prairiebird]

The very essence of homeschooling lies in its freedom. There are no leaders, but mentors. When it becomes an organization in which one set of ideals tells another what is best, we've lost what we set out for in the first place.

 

This is exactly the sentiment I'm feeling. It feels like there's some agenda here to pose a definition and description of homeschooling in a way that's palatable to only one subgroup- but this subgroup is trying to define this word for everyone.

 

:iagree:

 

Personally I am sick to death of self proclaimed "leaders". I didn't vote for those folks. I didn't sign up to join their fan club league. I really don't give a flip about their opinion in general, much less religiously. I'm sick of the hen house politics and quiet frankly think it shows a lack of professionalism and Christianity.

 

If a group doesn't want to bring in a certain speaker - fine. Their choice.

 

But the bashing and gnashing of teeth and beating of chests is just flat out unprofessional, tacky, unchristian, and what is more relevant: it tells nothing of their own product. If the most they can say in favor of their product or opinion is that it isn't some other product/opinion - that's a really pathetic statement about the quality of their own product, isn't it? And that isn't going into whether their complaints are even accurate or not.

 

I'm heartily sick of these supposed leaders treating me like sheeple. I don't need them to protect me, guide me, shelter me. I can appreciate a heads up as much as the next person. But no, I can make decisions for myself. I'm a big girl now. I think I can handle differing opinions, ask my own questions, and make my own decisions, tyvm.

 

And that is the end of my soapbox.:)

 

Yeah, and with the stuff happening in my state (Illinois) I keep getting the feeling that as homeschooling grows in mainstream awareness, men in power feel like they need to get up and stand in front of it all and tell me how it's supposed to go. There are some homeschooling leaders that are women (no matter what religious/secular affiliation) but I can't help getting the feeling that there are men in power positions that see a growing population of people doing something and feel they need a leader to speak for them. On ALL things, like we were one collective group. In Illinois, it took a lot just to get a secular homeschooler into the first discussion group with the politician starting all of the regulation talk. Subsequent meetings form what I've read have only included the Christian Home Educators.

 

If you notice some of the rhetoric coming out of all this, it almost sounds like the word "homeschooler" is whole collective school onto itself that needs defined rules- like it's a giant public school (or giant christian school depending on the loudest voice.)

 

growing pains. You have a "movement" that started with religious people. People who fought hard, risking a lot, to give us the rights we now use freely. And it's expanded to many other parts of society so that now the homeschooling population is getting to be quite diverse. No one "owns" it. But it may be growing in ways the pioneers didn't intend. Growing always hurts a little for all involved.

 

I don't think you can say that the entire "movement" of homeschooling started with only religious people. I think the roots are very mixed, and that can be a dangerous path to say that it was born of a religious movement that eventually expanded into other parts of society.

 

Groups like NAACP or NAD (National Association of the Deaf) are set up mainly for the purpose of defending the members' rights. They are mainly political groups. Within the groups, the people are very diverse but as long as the focus is on keeping the members' Constitutional rights secure, the groups work quite well and have a lot of power to improve the quality of life. If the home school "leaders" or "representatives" get sidetracked by religious or other secondary issues, the homeschooling movement might become scattered and ineffective when it comes to fighting for good laws to protect the families' right to home school their children in the future.

 

This is what I'm afraid of. It feels like the political party issues dividing the country are bleeding into the homeschool arena. I don't want my state trying to define homeschooling based on one very conservative portion of society. I don't want people making income limits on homeschooling (or not being food stamps as I saw mentioned in our state as well) or people telling me that single parents, gay families, pagans, wiccans, etc. cannot homeschool because they don't fit the defined conservative christian profile. (appologies on not capitalizing properly on any of these words, not meant as an insult, just trying to get this all in before 9:00 in my area!)

[Joy at Home]

I own my homeschool. The "movement" is not a homogenous group, nor should it be. I also hate to see it as a united group that has splintered off into different segments. It's always been a blend of families who educate at home for different reasons with different goals for their children. I suppose if anything I see it as a spectrum of ideologies, with most people floating around gleaning what they can find useful for their families.

 

I will never feel like I have to tow some party line to belong anywhere. I'm too independent for that. I prefer to think for myself and agree with views without feeling compelled to sign on and fight for a "cause".

 

I am a Christian. I use some AIG resources in our house because their views on Genesis are consistent with my own. It is interesting to me to listen to other interpretations of scripture, knowing that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and their view of genesis or evolution does not change that. It does not threaten me.

 

As a Christian I desire to glorify God in all I do, but fall miserably short every day. As a sinner trying to do the best I can in a fallen world, I try to extend some of the amazing grace God shows me to others. I will not judge people or reject them because their views may differ from my own. That includes my Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, Pagan, atheist, agnostic, theist, liberal, conservative, gay, lesbian, etc., etc., sisters on this board and in life.

 

To that end, I believe in love, not fear; inclusion not exclusion; intelligent debate on specific views, not platitudes spoken to dismiss entire groups; discussion not silence; embracing differences not being threatened by them.

 

I won't take marching orders from anyone. I march to my own tune.

 

lisa

[SweetBean]

I can't tell you how many times I've heard other homeschooling moms say that they wish their husbands would get involved. If there are more dads getting involved shouldn't we be happy? My DH has always attended with me. Our kids are just that, OUR KIDS. He likes to be involved, and I am glad!

[KristinaBreece]

That is where I disagree with you.

 

You disagree that he was an @$$?

 

Or you think it's bad to present different curricula & ideas?

 

Or you think it's okay to make disparaging, unchristian, and erroneous remarks about others?

 

Not being snarky-- I just want to know, because I don't think these 3 statements are automatically mutually inclusive.

 

Cynthia, I see what you are saying as I have friends like that too.

 

However, I don't see the history of homeschooling as belonging to religious fundamentalists. Raymond and Dorothy Moore were Seventh-Day Adventists and Gregg Harris and others took them to task over that and plugged them into the *secular and liberal* category even though upon reading his own words, Dr. Moore seemed to have considered himself Christian and driven by his faith, didn't seem to matter to The Powers That Be that were raising themselves up at the time. (Harris and Mike Farris of HSLDA by the way, according to what I've read *original source* online)

 

Then, what about the Colfaxes?? John Holt??

 

This is where I think we have been drinking some kool-aid. kwim?

 

(By the way, I am not saying any of these people are or are *not* Christian. *I* don't know. The point is that THEIR point was not their religion, but homeschooling)

 

Good points.

[SweetBean]

I own my homeschool. The "movement" is not a homogenous group, nor should it be. I also hate to see it as a united group that has splintered off into different segments. It's always been a blend of families who educate at home for different reasons with different goals for their children. I suppose if anything I see it as a spectrum of ideologies, with most people floating around gleaning what they can find useful for their families.

 

I will never feel like I have to tow some party line to belong anywhere. I'm too independent for that. I prefer to think for myself and agree with views without feeling compelled to sign on and fight for a "cause".

 

I am a Christian. I use some AIG resources in our house because their views on Genesis are consistent with my own. It is interesting to me to listen to other interpretations of scripture, knowing that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and their view of genesis or evolution does not change that. It does not threaten me.

 

As a Christian I desire to glorify God in all I do, but fall miserably short every day. As a sinner trying to do the best I can in a fallen world, I try to extend some of the amazing grace God shows me to others. I will not judge people or reject them because their views may differ from my own. That includes my Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, Pagan, atheist, agnostic, theist, liberal, conservative, gay, lesbian, etc., etc., sisters on this board and in life.

 

To that end, I believe in love, not fear; inclusion not exclusion; intelligent debate on specific views, not platitudes spoken to dismiss entire groups; discussion not silence; embracing differences not being threatened by them.

 

I won't take marching orders from anyone. I march to my own tune.

 

lisa

:iagree:

[Trish]

Green Eggs & Ham

 

I will not school them in a box

I will not school them with a fox

 

I will not school them with wet hair

I will not school them everywhere

 

I'll feed them nouns, and sometimes verbs

I'll not distract them with Ken's blurbs

 

We'll have some fun, and do some writing

Convention kerfuffles? I'm not biting!

 

We'll do our science: text and labs,

Ignoring Christians' unseemly jabs

 

I've got more, but there's school to do,

Just let us know, when Ken Ham is through.

 

:001_smile:

[SweetBean]

You disagree that he was an @$$?

 

Or you think it's bad to present different curricula & ideas?

 

Or you think it's okay to make disparaging, unchristian, and erroneous remarks about others?

 

Not being snarky-- I just want to know, because I don't think these 3 statements are automatically mutually inclusive.

 

 

 

Good points.

:glare: I disagree with the way you framed it.

[KristinaBreece]

:glare: I disagree with the way you framed it.

 

I'm sorry. I meant to ask which of her points you disagreed with. I may have badly paraphrased the last question (not meant to offend--just trying to type it from memory because it didn't quote the quote within your post)-- but I didn't mean to "frame it" any particular way. I just wondered which of the 3 points you quoted that you disagreed with.

[prairiebird]

I can't tell you how many times I've heard other homeschooling moms say that they wish their husbands would get involved. If there are more dads getting involved shouldn't we be happy? My DH has always attended with me. Our kids are just that, OUR KIDS. He likes to be involved, and I am glad!

 

 

Involved is one thing. In charge and telling us HOW homeschooling is supposed to go without listening or accepting other viewpoints is completely different.

[Peela]

I dont care who started homeschooling- Im not going there- and Im sure whoever started it doesn't want to own it, either.

 

But what I am really happy about is that, like many other movements going on in the world at the moment, it is leaderless- in the sense that it empowers us as individuals to take leadership and responsibility- of our own families, away from institutions. There is no governing body, no single overarching leader or committee. It is a grass roots movement that throws bureaucracy and hierarchy out the window in favour of empowered individual thinking and action.

We are united by our individuality, our independence from group thinking, from wanting to be told what to do by government or institutions- how to bring up our children. We are not united by a single belief, by religious conviction, or any number of other qualities that many of us might identify with. We all homeschool for different reasons. So how can any one of the various factions or sub groups possibly own the whole of the movement? Its just silly. Its diversity is its strength.

Once homeschooling becomes institutionalised under a single banner, a single purpose, a single definable vision, we just become another type of institution- instead of something very unique and free and useful.

[Miss Marple]

Cynthia, I see what you are saying as I have friends like that too.

 

However, I don't see the history of homeschooling as belonging to religious fundamentalists. Raymond and Dorothy Moore were Seventh-Day Adventists and Gregg Harris and others took them to task over that and plugged them into the *secular and liberal* category even though upon reading his own words, Dr. Moore seemed to have considered himself Christian and driven by his faith, didn't seem to matter to The Powers That Be that were raising themselves up at the time. (Harris and Mike Farris of HSLDA by the way, according to what I've read *original source* online)

 

Then, what about the Colfaxes?? John Holt??

 

This is where I think we have been drinking some kool-aid. kwim?

 

(By the way, I am not saying any of these people are or are *not* Christian. *I* don't know. The point is that THEIR point was not their religion, but homeschooling)

 

I'm thinking more of the actual families who chose to homeschool in the 70's and 80's. Holt did a lot to open the doors to alternative education. Many religious groups (Gothard, GCI, etc.) embraced the alternative in order to maintain control of the worldview their children were exposed to (not that we don't all do that to some extent, but this was the main objective for many I knew) and produced curriculum for their members. Even then there was controversy over which curricula would produce the most godly children. These families do feel individually responsible for the acceptance of homeschooling today. I realize my circle of involvement wasn't all inclusive, but I did not know any family that homeschooled for reasons other than religious back in the 70s and 80s. I vividly remember a friend of my folks who was called into court every couple of months in Albuquerque to defend homeschooling. Obviously it wasn't a popular alternative yet :D In the 80s I lived in Iowa where a pastor was jailed frequently for keeping his kids out of school. Again, it was for "religious" reasons.

 

I'm not saying that they "own" homeschooling, but I think they feel that they do. IMO, controversy in the homeschooling realm is nothing new. In our technologically advanced age, though, we hear more and we see more. More people are making money from homeschoolers (lecturers, publishers, tutors, etc.) so there is more opportunity for controversy.

Edited April 4, 2011 by CynthiaOK

[mcconnellboys]

Here's a problem I have with all this: the arguments these folks are making are fluid and ever-changing. Wasn't Sonlight kicked out of their own home state convention (Colorado) because they carry publications such as Usborne that include old earth dates, evolution data, etc. in their books?

 

Okay, so we've identified Usborne books as a culprit. Why is it, then, that Usborne books can still be sold by other vendors, "Christian" vendors, Usborne reps, etc. at convention?

 

Now, perhaps Colorado did ban all Usborne products from their convention - I don't know because I haven't been there to see for myself - but there were Usborne products galore at Cincy IN SPITE of all the hooplah about young earth/old earth!

 

Why is it okay to attack one person or one book while allowing reams of others that include the same info? Let's get our ducks in a row, shall we?

 

Tons of folks love both Usborne and DK books. I love, and use, both. Neither brand is exactly kind to either Judaism or Christianity in at least some of their books. I was just looking over a DK timeline book in preparation for ninth grade work and it completely discounts the pre-Solomonic history of the Jewish people! I'm not going to stop using these books, however, because they DO have some worth, as do most books. And I'm not going to condemn vendors who offer such books for sale.

 

Why would it be okay for a large book seller, such as Rainbow Resource Center, for instance, to be at a convention selling Usborne and/or DK books if another such seller, such as Sonlight Books, has been banned for selling the SAME BRAND OF BOOKS?????? Or even books with similar content?

 

Why can't Peter Enns be an old earth thinker (if he even is, I don't really know), but 50 other vendors at the same convention can sell books that contain old earth content?

 

If they're going to CLEANSE, then they need to do it across the board with every single vendor and make their stance perfectly clear and concise. And applicable to ALL, EQUALLY. Then those of us who don't want to go to another tent revival can save our money and stay home....

[Murphy101]

Screw them.

 

*snort* That was certainly succinct of you.:D

 

We should found a lobby that is specifically designed to protect the right to homeschool with as few regulations as possible. No SoF, no pushing certain curricula or world view.... just homeschooling freedom.

 

Indeed. Well past time for such a thing.

 

I know many moms who homeschool because it is just another wifely duty...there really is no other option in their world. In talking with these moms I get the idea that the broadening of the homeschool "movement" to include secular families or less fundamental families is threatening to them. They do view homeschooling as "their movement".

 

Hey, I'm one of those moms!:D Not home schooling is just not an option in this house, tho it really has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I'm not threatened by nonchristian home schoolers. There are so many different support groups, I have no issue with them having their own too. Goodness, sometimes I might feel more comfortable with them!

 

The issue I see is that all the major local and state and national "leader" associations are fundie Protestant associations. I don't have an issue with their groups per se. Freedom to do assemble and all that. I do have an issue with the fact that they are very much gate keepers. No secular group need apply. Not to advertise their group, not to participate in capital days, nothing. On the surface, it looks like only a certain type of home schooler exists. The reality is that a huge segment of home schoolers either join and keep their true opinions to themselves or are barred from participating in the larger community of home schoolers.

 

I'm actually very torn on this. I firmly believe a group should decide what their goal is. If it is to provide support to likeminded home schoolers, it stands to reason that being like minded is a requirement of membership.

 

This really isn't an issue most of the time.

 

But when the higher ups, the state groups for example, start to speak as though they represent the whole, knowing darn good and well that they purposely exclude a large segment of that whole - well now then I get a bit itchy.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is.

 

Ideally, a secular group would rise up on their own and not need the sanction or support of the veteran long standing associations and it wouldn't be an issue. But I'm not sure if that is realistically possible. Or at least not for some years yet to come.

 

Honestly, I feel home schooling is more threatened by public virtual/charter schools billed as home schooling than by the local atheist or Wiccan or Buddhist or whatever.

[SweetBean]

I have repeatedly posted in favor of inclusive conventions.

 

I have no problem with a speaker saying he doesn't like another curriculum. I've heard it from other speakers (never heard KH speak).

 

I have listened to the recording in question, and don't see why that would have resulting in dis-inviting a speaker. Frankly, if GHC hadn't dis-invited KH, this whole thing would have died down by now. Those who cared for his opinion would have had it, and that would have been it.

 

GHC is the one who has made its own convention less inclusive.

[Karen in CO]

*I* own it!

 

Well, I own this chunk of it that starts with my oldest child and ends with my youngest...

:iagree:

 

Me. I own it. All of. I get to decide who can and can't homeschool, and I get to decide how everyone homeschools.:D

 

Oh wait, nevermind. I have a couple of real jobs I am supposed to do, and I'm on my first cup of cofffee.

[Karen in CO]

wow no coffee + kids = double posts

Edited April 4, 2011 by Karen in CO

[Miss Marple]

But when the higher ups, the state groups for example, start to speak as though they represent the whole, knowing darn good and well that they purposely exclude a large segment of that whole - well now then I get a bit itchy.

 

I'm right there with you!

[KnitWit]

I dont care who started homeschooling- Im not going there- and Im sure whoever started it doesn't want to own it, either.

 

But what I am really happy about is that, like many other movements going on in the world at the moment, it is leaderless- in the sense that it empowers us as individuals to take leadership and responsibility- of our own families, away from institutions. There is no governing body, no single overarching leader or committee. It is a grass roots movement that throws bureaucracy and hierarchy out the window in favour of empowered individual thinking and action.

We are united by our individuality, our independence from group thinking, from wanting to be told what to do by government or institutions- how to bring up our children. We are not united by a single belief, by religious conviction, or any number of other qualities that many of us might identify with. We all homeschool for different reasons. So how can any one of the various factions or sub groups possibly own the whole of the movement? Its just silly. Its diversity is its strength.

Once homeschooling becomes institutionalised under a single banner, a single purpose, a single definable vision, we just become another type of institution- instead of something very unique and free and useful.

 

YES! Peela! I completely agree with you!

Now, how do we resist this without it being *war*? I'm not interested in that. Is it enough to just *not come to the table*? It appears in history that the answer to this is *no* or we wouldn't be here. Maybe I'm wrong. I *have* only had one cup of coffee this morning. I cannot be assumed to be thinking clearly...yet. ;)

[Lostinabook]

I don't think you can say that the entire "movement" of homeschooling started with only religious people. I think the roots are very mixed, and that can be a dangerous path to say that it was born of a religious movement that eventually expanded into other parts of society.

 

I agree. I wrote a research paper on homeschooling when I was in college more than 20 years ago and my primary sources were John Holt and the Colfaxes. I am a very very conservative Christian, but that is NOT why I began homeschooling. I began homeschooling because I was certain that I could do a better job of educating my children than the p.s. did in educating me.

[SweetBean]

Involved is one thing. In charge and telling us HOW homeschooling is supposed to go without listening or accepting other viewpoints is completely different.

And we can infer that is what is happening because there were more men at the convention?

[Plucky]

:iagree:

 

Me. I own it. All of. I get to decide who can and can't homeschool, and I get to decide how everyone homeschools.:D

 

Good luck with that. You'll have to pay someone to homeschool your kids because you'll too busy being the Queen of Homeschooling. :lol: (I know you are jk.)

 

I don't even have extra energy to care that much about the Ham stuff. I've got too much work to do. :001_smile:

[KnitWit]

 

If they're going to CLEANSE, then they need to do it across the board with every single vendor and make their stance perfectly clear and concise. And applicable to ALL, EQUALLY. Then those of us who don't want to go to another tent revival can save our money and stay home....

 

I vote for *no cleansing*. Who gets to do the cleansing? kwim?

[akmommy]

The very essence of homeschooling lies in its freedom. There are no leaders, but mentors. When it becomes an organization in which one set of ideals tells another what is best, we've lost what we set out for in the first place.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[kimnc]

Perhaps this stems from the history of homeschooling, esp. in the 70's and 80's, where the only homeschoolers we ever heard of were "religious" fundamental homeschoolers. I think they see themselves as the pioneers who paved the way for homeschooling freedom...and many of them did just that...and they want to preserve the "movement" the way it was.

 

Because of the growth of homeschooling among non-religious/non-fundamental/other religions, materials are being produced to meet the demands of these "new" homeschooling adherents. This is threatening to the more established publishers not just in the financial realm, but in the realm of content. When the vast majority of homeschooling publishers all ascribed to a similar worldview there wasn't as much of a problem; curriculum choices included the fundamental religious material or secular textbooks. Now there are homeschool publishers who would promote alternative worldviews! That is threatening to them.

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. A lack of willingness to adapt. Or perhaps just losing control over the direction homeschooling is taking.

 

However, taking a longer-term view of things, I think of the homeschooling "movement" as parents just taking back what was once theirs -- the education of their children. EVERY parent has that right, no matter what your religion, race or creed. The increased diversity in materials is a good thing (even though it sure makes choosing much harder sometimes.)

I'm firmly in the camp that we homeschoolers need to stick together and not let these types of debates (ie., young earth vs old earth) tear us apart. There are too many people out there who would be all to glad to see the homeschooling movement outlawed again.

 

That is all.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have repeatedly posted in favor of inclusive conventions.

 

I have no problem with a speaker saying he doesn't like another curriculum. I've heard it from other speakers (never heard KH speak).

 

He didn't criticize a curriculum. That's not the problem.

 

I have listened to the recording in question, and don't see why that would have resulting in dis-inviting a speaker. Frankly, if GHC hadn't dis-invited KH, this whole thing would have died down by now. Those who cared for his opinion would have had it, and that would have been it.

I see. It shouldn't be a problem for him to say that OEC-types are wolves in sheep's clothing and heavily imply that they aren't Christians (not just in his talk, but elsewhere as well)? I think GHC needed to stand up for those who don't believe in YEC. It's one thing to say "this is what I think about creation, this is why I think it," that wouldn't be a problem.

 

GHC is the one who has made its own convention less inclusive.

In what way is it less inclusive now? There is a prominent YEC speaker as part of the convention. One less hateful. How is that less inclusive?

 

I agree with Martha where she said:

But when the higher ups, the state groups for example, start to speak as though they represent the whole, knowing darn good and well that they purposely exclude a large segment of that whole - well now then I get a bit itchy.

That is the problem. These groups are shutting out other people and *pretending* they are representative of all homeschoolers.

[FaithManor]

Green Eggs & Ham

 

I will not school them in a box

I will not school them with a fox

 

I will not school them with wet hair

I will not school them everywhere

 

I'll feed them nouns, and sometimes verbs

I'll not distract them with Ken's blurbs

 

We'll have some fun, and do some writing

Convention kerfuffles? I'm not biting!

 

We'll do our science: text and labs,

Ignoring Christians' unseemly jabs

 

I've got more, but there's school to do,

Just let us know, when Ken Ham is through.

 

:001_smile:

 

:hurray:

 

Awesome! And I'd just like to say that my state, Michigan, was on the forefront of the right to homeschool legally back in the 80's. My parents and I demonstrated (peacefully) for the D family whose battle to homeschool in Unionville/Sebewing, Mi...went all the way to the State Supreme Court and ultimately won Michiganders the right to homeschool without State Board of Education oversight and the burden of restrictions and paperwork.

 

This family, definitely Christians, were Old Earth so they weren't mainstream to many of the evangelicals that supported them. But, everyone understood the necessity of supporting each other's rights to direct their child's education. There were secular and atheist teachers, with teaching certificates, who were being persecuted for attempting to homeschool, and we stood for them. There was a small group of homeschoolers from the area of Marlette, who were Wiccan, and out demonstrating peacefully, though the family on the forefront, were Christians. Everyone got along just find. We hugged each other, we uphled each other, the debate was not theological, it was beyond that. It was ideological, fundamental, to the rights of all of the citizens of Michigan with 49 other states watching to see what we would do. It was, an amazing time for me as a teenager and I wasn't homeschooled! My parents didn't have a dog in that fight. Their fight was simply put, the rights of all parents regardless of race, creed, color, or theological distinction to direct their child's education...to prevent the state from adopting an ideology that children are the property of the state!

 

So, no one ideology owns my homeschooling. To the Ken Hams, the Doug Phillips, to the protestors at Cincinnati, etc. guess what? My children are not your property. You do not have a right to dictate to me what I should believe, what I should teach, and how I should teach it. I celebrate diversity. Yes, I believe that Jesus, the son of God, came to redeem me. Yes, I believe the God created the heavens and the earth. Yes, I identify myself as a Christian. And guess what???? Gasp, gasp, sputter, and cough....I JUST LOVE EVERYBODY ELSE TOO! I think the world of Mergath, and Audrey, and Peela, and Rosie, and...and...and...I can't name them all. Gasp....I've hugged a witch, a true, self-described, practicing witch, and here's the rub for ya, I just wanted to love her and show her mercy and compassion during a bad time in her life and guess what, it was wonderful! I adore my cousin, an atheist, evolution teaching, environmental professor and researcher at the University of Minnesota (Duluth). She's marvelous!

 

Now sputter some, more those that believe they "own" homeschoolers. I'd like to see greater diversity in curriculum choices so that all are included. And, given the depth of my book addiction, I'd fondle and caress those books too!

 

You know hive, my youngest is 10, almost 11, and so the "Telling God's Story" curriculum won't do me any good. But, I've considered buying it "just because" and then giving it to our church library!

 

I hope and I pray that the "powers that be" will wise up, apologize, and let this die. It has the potential to do great harm.

 

To summarize, I own my children. They are MINE! I Consider it my territory and I will run off anyone who sends their dogs to "p*ss" on it!!! My mamma bear, she's a BIG, Hungry Polar Bear that will eat anything in it's path from the migration of her children from birth to adulthood! LOL

 

Faith

[Murphy101]

I can't tell you how many times I've heard other homeschooling moms say that they wish their husbands would get involved. If there are more dads getting involved shouldn't we be happy? My DH has always attended with me. Our kids are just that, OUR KIDS. He likes to be involved, and I am glad!

 

And we can infer that is what is happening because there were more men at the convention?

 

I'm all for dads being informed and involved. My husband is not only very aware of the day to day running of this home, he does corporate learning and development training as a profession. So he is certainly knowledgeable about the subject of teaching methods and learning styles.

 

That is far different than a man who has never once sat down to the kitchen table after a cup of coffee and spent the next 4-8 hours actually doing some home schooling 7 different children with toddlers and a nursing a baby at the breast standing up at a conference and lecturing on how us moms should do it and how if all wives just submitted to their husbands - it would all turn out okay. Because even if little Timmy never learns to read or add, this is the ticket to getting him to heaven.

 

If someone is going to lecture me on how to how to home school or even how to manage a household - it better actually be someone who does it.

 

I have nothing but the highest respect for my husband and the many other husbands out there who work their butts off supporting, encouraging, providing and backing up us home schooling moms. They are an awesome rare breed that need our praise and recognition. But nope, I would never presume to stand up as some kind of leader or authority on how they do their jobs just because I'm married to one. My dh would also never stand up and presume to tell women how to home school or run the house.

 

I vote for *no cleansing*. Who gets to do the cleansing? kwim?

 

Ick. I second that motion. Sounds like one of those colon cleansing diets that require lots of toilet scrubbing.:ack2:

[Miss Marple]

On a more personal experience note:

 

Years ago, I was involved in setting up an academic co-op in our area. I was asked by several moms to do this. We had a large, lively support group in the area that included a variety of protestant religious families. I had a reputation of being a bit more "liberal" than the "rulers" of the support group.

 

Through the grapevine, I discovered that the leadership of the support group felt that the co-op threatened the livelihood of the support group and was making calls to discourage anyone from participating. Well, the support group did sorta fall apart, not because of the co-op, but because of the leadership style. Newer homeschooling families could not stomach the patronizing, "our way is the only way" mentality.

[pdalley]

I actually agree there is room for both and then some.

 

He was not disinvited bc there wasn't "room" for him.

 

He was disinvited because he was being an unprofessional a$$.

 

It is one thing to show up with a very different POV and product. That is great!

 

It is another to show up and slander, disparage, make unchristian and erroneous remarks about other providers.

 

The first, no one had an issue with.

 

The second? Not only does not suit the purpose of the venue (to promote his own product) but is unprofessional and inappropriate.

 

:iagree: and also what Polly has said. Just because I'm a Christian - who to this point I would have considered conservative. But I want there to be room for everyone and everyone to feel that way.

 

I did speak with my Pastor (also a public school teacher prior to becoming a Pastor) and she was horrified at Ham's stance. She agrees that theological disagreement is to be expected and even encouraged in a mutual respectful discussion but accusing people of being 'attackers of Christ' is just disruptive and not edifying.

 

I choose to believe in God and that He wanted us to educate our kids at home. Every other door was shut but this one. However I am not nearly arrogant enough to think that translates into every family living as we do or educating as we do. We're all snowflakes and what makes us neat is that we are all so different - IMO. I do not want to lose sight of that.

[prairiewindmomma]

I think it's interesting that SWB uses the word "own" in framing the question. "Owning" something not only encompasses the legal right to possess something but it also implies a financial interest in the object.

 

I think this argument is more about money & power than it really is about ideology. I think many Ham-ites fear losing both.

[Murphy101]

On a more personal experience note:

 

Years ago, I was involved in setting up an academic co-op in our area. I was asked by several moms to do this. We had a large, lively support group in the area that included a variety of protestant religious families. I had a reputation of being a bit more "liberal" than the "rulers" of the support group.

 

Through the grapevine, I discovered that the leadership of the support group felt that the co-op threatened the livelihood of the support group and was making calls to discourage anyone from participating. Well, the support group did sorta fall apart, not because of the co-op, but because of the leadership style. Newer homeschooling families could not stomach the patronizing, "our way is the only way" mentality.

 

:glare: I was in a group like that. Myself and a couple friends decided to do a little coop type thing in my home once a week. It royally upset the group we were in when word got back to them. They felt threatened by it. One bc they were under the misguided notion that if we weren't doing it, we would be doing what they wanted instead. (We wouldn't have. In fact, the reason we got together was exactly bc the group was not offering what we were interested in doing tho we had repeatedly begged for it.) Two bc they claimed they were hurt at not being invited. It was in my home and I did actually invite several of them and was told we were meeting too often, not doing what they were interested in and so forth. Apparently what they were really mad about is that we didn't change everything for them and still did what we originally agreed upon. (Oh and apparently they were the only ones who were allowed to feel hurt if the group didn't meet their needs. To heck with it not meeting our needs?)

 

Oh don't get me started on hen house politics!!!:glare::lol:

[Jen500]

I think it's interesting that SWB uses the word "own" in framing the question. "Owning" something not only encompasses the legal right to possess something but it also implies a financial interest in the object.

 

I think this argument is more about money & power than it really is about ideology. I think many Ham-ites fear losing both.

 

Hmmm, yes. I was reading a Wikepedia entry about AIG and it seems as if there has been infighting amongst AIG groups in the past over what boils down to money and control.

[Susan C.]

Doug Phillips of Vision Forum posted the following on Ken Ham's FB wall:

 

"The most controversial home school convention of the decade ended this afternoon in Cincinnati without incident, but also without resolution or response to grief and concern of thousands of home educators concerning the expulsion and character attacks on AIG president, Ken Ham. Hundreds of home schoolers attending the conference expressed their heartache over the treatment of Ken Ham and the sanctioning of speakers teaching a liberal view of Scripture. Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

 

We were discussing the bolded part in the "Ham Strikes Again..." thread last night. This morning, SWB suggested a spin-off thread to discuss the topic of WHO *owns* homeschooling? I think it is a good question so, I'm biting. :)

 

I am going to respond before I read any other responses....

 

My "rules of engagement" are: I own my homeschooling, I am the consumer, I choose what I buy and use and I am the one teaching! I will share my reasoning to those I choose to. And, drum roll, I will always attempt to get along with other homeschoolers and respect their right to use what they wish.

[SailorMom]

No one needs to - and there are more than enough of us to give plenty of money to any publisher that meets our eclectic needs.

It does bother me that there are so many stereotypes.....

[akmommy]

I don't think you can say that the entire "movement" of homeschooling started with only religious people. I think the roots are very mixed, and that can be a dangerous path to say that it was born of a religious movement that eventually expanded into other parts of society.

 

I agree. The first homeschool family I knew back in '81/'82 were not Christian, but hippies. I think Christians kind of emerged at the forefront as a result of the legal battles. The liberal home schoolers were more of the radical unschooler, anti establishment crowd and so they weren't out there writing curriculum and forming organized groups.

[AvasMom]

Me today: "Kids, can you please just TRY to work a little more independently? Mama has to work hard to keep up with her interweb today. Kthanx."

[justamouse]

Me. And I'm not giving that power over to anyone.

[AvasMom]

Screw them.

 

:cheers2:

[mcconnellboys]

Exactly what I was trying to say, Martha, thanks!

[Mrs Mungo]

Anyone remember the Gentle Spirit fiasco? Cheryl Lindsey's livelhood was attacked by "leaders in the homeschooling movement" through faxes and emails because of serious issues in her private life (which THEY made public without talking to her). It was resolved legally through a libel suit that ended a couple of "ministries" and cost many those leaders at least thousands of dollars paid to C. Lindsey.

 

 

That kerfuffle has been mentioned a few times during this new kerfuffle. I agree that there are some similarities. I'm surprised the ministries involved here haven't looked at that and backed off a little.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think that much of the problem of the us vs. them mentality stems from the reason why people choose to homeschool their children. Some groups believe it is the only way to raise godly children. Some people feel that it is a divine call.

 

I know many moms who homeschool because it is just another wifely duty...there really is no other option in their world. In talking with these moms I get the idea that the broadening of the homeschool "movement" to include secular families or less fundamental families is threatening to them. They do view homeschooling as "their movement".

 

 

 

Yes, for a certain segment of the homeschooling populations, homeschooling itself is a mandated activity. There are churches where members are told that it is more godly to homeschool their kids. And as part of that, there is an expectation that it be done a certain way, with certain books. You see that with the VF group. I don't know quite how all of that works, because while I'm a Christian, I'm not part of that kind of a group. But I have seen it in people I have met. This is why Doug Philips, especially can issue a rallying cry and speak of a movement - because it is a part of his greater patriarchal movement.

 

With Ken Ham, I'm not as sure of the dynamics. He is an influential homeschooling mentor. That's evident because he's a popular speaker and has a following in his blog/facebook etc. I don't know if AiG as an organization has a certain kind of influence in certain segments of Christianity. He seems to have an expectation that it does though. His rallying cry has been less homeschool centered and more conservative Christian doctrine centered.

[justamouse]

Part of the problem is that many of the "leaders" in homeschooling act as "pastors" doling out accountability whether it is wanted, desired or appropriate.

 

Has anybody followed Matthew 18? Did Ham go to SWB or Wile before he publically spoke about any issues he had with them? There are clear scriptural violations going on, as well as probably legal.

Anyone remember the Gentle Spirit fiasco? Cheryl Lindsey's livelhood was attacked by "leaders in the homeschooling movement" through faxes and emails because of serious issues in her private life (which THEY made public without talking to her). It was resolved legally through a libel suit that ended a couple of "ministries" and cost many those leaders at least thousands of dollars paid to C. Lindsey.

 

(Lisa/laughinglioness here my "fixed keyboard" is missing a couple of numbers and I can't sign in under my regular account).

 

You're so right, and I think that strikes at the heart of this matter as it sits from a Christian perspective.

 

I don't want another Pastor in the form of a homeschooling 'headmaster'. I have a priest, I am a parent and am my children's headmaster. I don't need any other person for spiritual accountability, which these two most definitely set themselves up as.

 

I want to buy homeschooling curriculum. That is what I want from homeschooling companies.

[LizzyBee]

As far as I understand it, Great Homeschool Conventions is privately owned and is a for-profit organization. Certainly anyone who disagrees with their philosophy on homeschooling, faith, and conventions, can choose not to attend. But nobody gets to tell them who can speak and who can't.

 

In my state, the largest homeschool organization is run by very fundamentalist Christians and they "own" the convention in that they decide who will be invited and who will not. I choose not to attend because my favorite speaker is not considered the right kind of Christian for the convention. I *am* a conservative Christian, but I think a homeschool convention should be about homeschooling.

 

In the bigger picture, who owns homeschooling? In my state, homeschools are private schools. Therefore, dh and I own our homeschool. That means we get to decide on the subjects taught and the materials we'll use to teach them.

 

I think it's interesting that SWB has been mentioned in connection with "false teachers" infiltrating the homeschool movement. SWB was homeschooled in the 1970s and her mother worried that it wasn't even legal! How could SWB infiltrate a movement in which she and her family were pioneers?

Edited April 4, 2011 by LizzyBee

[EJCMom]

I think it's interesting that SWB uses the word "own" in framing the question. "Owning" something not only encompasses the legal right to possess something but it also implies a financial interest in the object.

 

I think this argument is more about money & power than it really is about ideology. I think many Ham-ites fear losing both.

 

:iagree:

 

I agree 100%. I believe this is all about power, money, and control. I think the fact that SWB is a woman has likely exacerbated the issue.

 

If you pay close attention to the direction that Christian conservatism has been going in the last decade or so (patriarchy, quiverfull, etc.) there is a definite political component to the rhetoric. There is a component that seems to be about gaining political power in the future. This segment of the homeschooling community seems to see the education of children of distant secondary importance to instillation of a particular worldview. Education and critical thinking are the enemies of this sort of indoctrination. I believe they see anyone who gains power in the homeschooling movement who believes that education, and teaching students to think logically and critically, are the primary reasons for homeschooling as a threat to the power they are attempting to gain through the homeschooling movement. Therefore, they (she) must be discredited. What is the best way to discredit someone in a community where the loudest voices subscribe to a particular brand of Christianity? Call her Christian beliefs into question and cast aspersions about her character by claiming that she's secretly, stealthily trying to lead your children astray.

[Penelope]

In theory, all homeschooling parents should "own" homeschooling.

 

In practice, the ones who are going to have the power and influence are the ones who can raise lots of money for their "cause", the ones who are able to form large state and national organizations that can convince many people that they need to join for their protection.

 

So whether or not we like it, the ones that seem to own it, or try to, are the state organizations (many of which are very conservative), and HSLDA. Then there are VF and AIG, which I naively used to think were about curriculum, but seem to be much more than that.

 

It's hard to know what percentage of homeschoolers are doing it for primarily religious reasons, but I'd guess it's still the majority. If people weren't overwhelmingly interested in young earth and worldview curriculums, those companies wouldn't be making any money and they wouldn't be invited to conventions.

[stripe]

Perhaps this stems from the history of homeschooling, esp. in the 70's and 80's, where the only homeschoolers we ever heard of were "religious" fundamental homeschoolers.

And hippies.

 

I don't think it's ever been monolithic.

 

It's madness to think young earth creationist Christians represent all homeschoolers.

[KnitWit]

Here is a link that provides some history on this issue. I think it is important to read, whether you *agree* with the perspective of the writer or not, in order to understand and how DEEP all of this runs.

 

http://planetpreterist.com/news-5589.html

[Murphy101]

And hippies.

 

I don't think it's ever been monolithic.

 

It's madness to think young earth creationist Christians represent all homeschoolers.

 

I think it is madness to suggest they even represent all Christians.