"The Last Radicals...Homeschoolers Occupy the Curriculum"

[Michelle O. in MO]

Thought some of you might be interested in reading this.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/328699/last-radicals?pg=1

Edited October 18, 2012 by Michelle O. in MO

[Spy Car]

One of the most disgusting and dishonest articles I've ever read.

 

Poison.

 

Bill

[msjones]

One of the most disgusting and dishonest articles I've ever read.

 

Poison.

 

Bill

Wow.

 

Really?

 

It's not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't put it in the poison category.

[Spy Car]

Wow.

 

Really?

 

It's not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't put it in the poison category.

 

Yes. The article was filled with venomous lies and invective from beginning to end. It is this sort of "journalism" that is designed to create "heat" rather than "light" that drags down the national discourse.

 

Bill

[pokegirl]

Yes. The article was filled with venomous lies and invective from beginning to end. It is this sort of "journalism" that is designed to create "heat" rather than "light" that drags down the national discourse.

 

Bill

 

 

Can you point out the lies? I'm wondering what ticked you off? Was it the article or the fact it's from National Review?

[newlifemom]

"Homeschooling represents a kind of libertarian impulse, but of a different sort: It is not about money. Homeschooling families pay their taxes to support local public schools, like any other family — which is to say, begrudgingly in many cases — and the movement does not seek the abolition of local government-education monopolies. (It should.) Homeschooling families simply choose not to participate in the system — or, if they do, to participate in it on their own terms."

 

I don't agree with the bolded, but I did like this quote. As a whole I enjoyed this obviously biased editorial.

[msjones]

Yes. The article was filled with venomous lies and invective from beginning to end. It is this sort of "journalism" that is designed to create "heat" rather than "light" that drags down the national discourse.

 

Bill

 

It was so extreme that it was almost funny. At least, that's how I read it.

 

Plus, there are bits of truth in there, wouldn't you say?

[Elizabeth in MN]

I liked it, which is surprising because I'm a card carrying hippie liberal freak.

 

Nope, he didn't never mind...

[msjones]

It was so extreme that it was almost funny. At least, that's how I read it.

 

Plus, there are bits of truth in there, wouldn't you say?

 

For example, I agree that we are part of an "authentically radical social movement."

[Spy Car]

It was so extreme that it was almost funny. At least, that's how I read it.

 

It certain is extreme. I guess if the National Review were a comedy magazine one could argue the article was "almost funny" in its extremism, but..

 

Plus, there are bits of truth in there, wouldn't you say?

 

Not really. Pretty much distortions of the truth I'd say.

 

Bill

[pokegirl]

"Homeschoolers may have many different and incompatible political beliefs, but they all implicitly share an opinion about the bureaucrats: They don’t need them — not always, not as much as the bureaucrats think."

 

This is the line that I remembered most. If you are homeschooling/afterschooling, you are doing just that- rejecting (on some level) bureaucracy.

[kalanamak]

A concatenation of paranoias so disrelated I had no idea where the article was going.

[kalanamak]

If you are homeschooling/afterschooling, you are doing just that- rejecting (on some level) bureaucracy.

 

I'm rejecting the 30K a year price tag at the local good-but-not-religious school.

[Spy Car]

"Homeschoolers may have many different and incompatible political beliefs, but they all implicitly share an opinion about the bureaucrats: They don’t need them — not always, not as much as the bureaucrats think."

 

This is the line that I remembered most. If you are homeschooling/afterschooling, you are doing just that- rejecting (on some level) bureaucracy.

 

I after-school because I feel that it is a parent's duty to be involved in their child's education. Those are my values. I also highly value the dedicated and hard-working teachers who make large contributions to my child's education. I don't "reject" that is any way, shape, or form.

 

I think people who believe the schools can do it all, without parental involvement, have it all wrong.

 

Bill

[pokegirl]

I'm rejecting the 30K a year price tag at the local good-but-not-religious school.

 

 

So then why not just send them to public school? That's free.

[pokegirl]

I after-school because I feel that it is a parent's duty to be involved in their child's education. Those are my values. I also highly value the dedicated and hard-working teachers who make large contributions to my child's education. I don't "reject" that is any way, shape, or form.

 

I think people who believe the schools can do it all, without parental involvement, have it all wrong.

 

Bill

 

Well, technically, the author is talking about homeschooling not afterschooling so you aren't included in the population he is talking about :).

[pokegirl]

I don't understand why people don't agree with this article. I suspect it's because they don't like the source of it (NR). Can someone please point out one lie or mischaracterization? I'm genuinely confused here.

[merry gardens]

My inner radical loves being identified as a member of "The Last Radicals."

Thanks for sharing.

[Audrey]

A concatenation of paranoias so disrelated I had no idea where the article was going.

 

:iagree: He had a thesis statement, but failed to write the article upon it, favouring, instead, a string of stereotypes, outdated data and quotes from organizations that do little to no business related to actual homeschooling.

[Spy Car]

Well, technically, the author is talking about homeschooling not afterschooling so you aren't included in the population he is talking about :).

 

You were the one who said those afterschooling are doing so because they are rejecting "bureaucracy." I'm saying it ain't so.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I don't understand why people don't agree with this article. I suspect it's because they don't like the source of it (NR). Can someone please point out one lie or mischaracterization? I'm genuinely confused here.

 

I would have thought the National Review would have higher standards than publishing this tripe.

 

Bill

[Audrey]

I would have thought the National Review would have higher standards than publishing this tripe.

 

Bill

 

 

They generally do, Bill (as believe it or not, I read it online quasi-regularly to keep current with internal US talking points), but this article hits upon several key buzz themes important to the magazine's target demographic at a time when there is a contest for buzzing the loudest.

[Spy Car]

They generally do, Bill (as believe it or not, I read it online quasi-regularly to keep current with internal US talking points), but this article hits upon several key buzz themes important to the magazine's target demographic at a time when there is a contest for buzzing the loudest.

 

I will admit to not reading the National Review as much as I did in the past, but under William F. Buckley's long tenure I read it rather frequently, and while I may not always have agreed with the positions espoused I liked the National Review for adding to the sphere of reasoned debate.

 

This article is beneath contempt. I'm sure Mr Buckley would be grieved if he knew this sort of excrement was being published in his magazine.

 

Bill

[Audrey]

I will admit to not reading the National Review as much as I did in the past, but under William F. Buckley's long tenure I read it rather frequently, and while I may not always have agreed with the positions espoused I liked the National Review for adding to the sphere of reasoned debate.

 

This article is beneath contempt. I'm sure Mr Buckley would be grieved if he knew this sort of excrement was being published in his magazine.

 

Bill

 

 

I do not disagree with the bolded. :001_smile:

[Spy Car]

While it was among the less inflammatory stupidity in the article, the author's suggestion that (aside from homeschooling) "A Love Supreme" was the only worthwhile cultural product of that era is "malarkey" (that's Irish :D).

 

I love John Coltrane and "A Love Supreme" is a piece of music that is near and dear to my heart, but it was hardly "the only worthwhile cultural product" of the 1960s. This was an era of almost unprecedented cultural expression.

 

Methinks the author is not well informed. Or, a deliberate prevaricator.

 

Bill

[Zebra]

It was kind of a lazy article, but cetainly not the worst thing I have ever read. Not even the most biased. I think calling it "poison" is a bit of an overreaction.

 

I did like the point that homeschoolers are actually DOING SOMETHING about the problems they see. Not just whining and marching on Washington. They are getting their hands dirty and trying to fix the problem the best way they know how.

 

There are a lot of conservative Christian stereotypes associated with homeschooling, and I think it's an important point that many homeschoolers are COUNTERCULTURE RADICALS. That's how I like to view myself ;). That's what I got out of the article.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Thanks, I enjoyed it.

[Parrothead]

Not finished with it yet but this struck me as hilarious:

 

“The husbands and wives in these families feel themselves to be under a religious compulsion to have large families, a homebound and submissive wife and mother who is responsible for the schooling of the children, and only one breadwinner.

 

:lol: Dh wishes! LOL

[Rebecca VA]

It didn't bother me. I've been "into" homeschooling for almost 20 years and found many of the points he made in the article to be quite true. Many of the older homeschoolers (late 50s and beyond) I know are the aging hippie (now Christian, but still crunchy) type. I've heard the complaints about taking the best and brightest students out of the school system since I first started talking about homeschooling with other moms in the 1990s. All of the points the author made, I've personally seen and experienced.

 

The article's tone had a conservative bias, but that is to be expected in an article written for a conservative magazine. My only complaint is that the author didn't back up his assertions with quotes and other documentation.

 

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what was so offensive about the article.

[Parrothead]

I don't understand why people don't agree with this article. I suspect it's because they don't like the source of it (NR). Can someone please point out one lie or mischaracterization? I'm genuinely confused here.

How about this picture of homeschoolers:

These families are not living in romantic, rural, self-sufficient farmhouses; they are in trailer parks, 1,000-square-foot homes, houses owned by relatives, and some, on tarps in fields or parking lots. Their lack of job skills, passed from one generation to the next, depresses the community’s overall economic health and their state’s tax base.

[Rebecca VA]

The article's author didn't make up the phrase about homebound and submissive wives. That was written by a professor at Georgetown Law School who is anti-homeschooling. The author was trying to refute it.

[WishboneDawn]

I have to say I didn't mind the article. Sure, it had a lot of stereotypes and such but there was a thread of truth in it. Put aside much of stupid swipes (quinoa-consuming?? Progressives as champions of monopoly?) and there was a point I recognized and identified with.

 

Being on the liberal end of the spectrum (although I consider myself more and more a traditional conservative - traditional conservatives don't seem to exist in politics or media these days) I've often been depressed by the automatic dismissal that some left-leaning figures seem to give to homeschooling. These are otherwise clever thinkers like PZ Myers who, when it comes to homeschooling, think no deeper about the issue then to recognize that some parents teach their kids creationism and that is a BAD thing.

 

Of course the fact that conservatives at large generally don't have an issue with homeschooling is no great sign of their deeper thought on the issue. They generally seem to hold the same stereotypes as the liberals and so see a demographic that they can flatter for votes or market to.

[kiana]

Although, I honestly don't feel like homeschooling is a homogenous movement of any sort. I also really disliked the statement about college professors wanting to indoctrinate students. That was not my experience.

 

Ayup.

 

It is more common (and frustrating) to run into the sort of student who wishes to be fed the answer. It is especially frustrating when you are attempting to help a student learn to work a longer, complex problem, and the only question at each step is 'So, is this the answer?'

 

The 'thinking for themselves' professors *don't* want is the kind which consists of parroting what their parents/their church said without ever having thought about it for themselves, or the kind which is rudeness masquerading as 'thinking for themselves.' (e.g. if you disagree with your professor on something, repeatedly interrupting his lecture to interject your own points is both rude and counterproductive.)

 

Referring to 'liberals' as a monolith is also incredibly obnoxious. I've met people who were far left who said 'You homeschooled? That's so cool, I wish my parents could have homeschooled me/I wish I could homeschool my kids.' I've also met people on the far right who lectured me about how horrible homeschooling was.

[elegantlion]

I was not sure what the author's point was. It was kinda rambly.

 

I did agree with the sentiment of some parts of it though.

 

Although, I honestly don't feel like homeschooling is a homogenous movement of any sort. I also really disliked the statement about college professors wanting to indoctrinate students. That was not my experience.

 

Overall, again, not sure what the author's point was exactly. I do enjoy reading homeschooling articles though because for the most part I don't think most people think about homeschooling at all. I imagine many homeschoolers aren't sad about that fact though. ;)

 

I tried to read it earlier, and I wasn't sure if it was my stuffy head or the article.

[klmama]

How about this picture of homeschoolers:

These families are not living in romantic, rural, self-sufficient farmhouses; they are in trailer parks, 1,000-square-foot homes, houses owned by relatives, and some, on tarps in fields or parking lots. Their lack of job skills, passed from one generation to the next, depresses the community’s overall economic health and their state’s tax base.

 

You missed the point of that. The article's author was quoting someone else that he said got it wrong.

 

One of those liberal professors is Robin West of the Georgetown law school, who wrote a remarkably shallow and evidence-free jeremiad against homeschooling that was published to the journal’s discredit in Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly. More a work of imagination than one of scholarship, the article ignores the wealth of data suggesting that homeschooling is a largely upper-income and suburban phenomenon, and that homeschooled students typically outperform their public-school peers. West offers a caricature of homeschooling families far removed from reality: “The husbands and wives in these families feel themselves to be under a religious compulsion to have large families, a homebound and submissive wife and mother who is responsible for the schooling of the children, and only one breadwinner. These families are not living in romantic, rural, self-sufficient farmhouses; they are in trailer parks, 1,000-square-foot homes, houses owned by relatives, and some, on tarps in fields or parking lots. Their lack of job skills, passed from one generation to the next, depresses the community’s overall economic health and their state’s tax base.â€

[Zebra]

Yes, I agree with this.

 

Although sometimes I wonder if homeschooling really has anything to do with trying to fix the problem. My reasons are far more selfish than that. Me keeping my kids home and not being involved with the district does nothing towards fixing anything.

 

Homeschooling, for me, is fixing the problem for my family. So on that level I feel I am fixing the problem. And, hopefully I am sending the message that the public schools need to be fixed. If enough people opt out of public schools, then maybe something will need to be done to change them. That's how I feel I am "fixing" the problem. IMHO ;). It's the best I can do.

 

My experience has been that "conservative Christians" are so open to accepting homeschooling because they really don't understand the diversity in the homeschooling community. The diversity of beliefs, and the diversity of homeschooling methods/reasons for homeschooling. I have run into more diversity in the homeschooling community IRL, than anywhere else in my life.

 

I am a "conservative Christian". But you would have a really hard time fitting me into that "box" without me offering that label of myself. And I would only offer that label with a gun to my head. I am extremely hard to define. And that's what I have found the majority of homeschoolers to be like. Counterculture revolutionaries who defy labels ;).

[merry gardens]

How about this picture of homeschoolers:

These families are not living in romantic, rural, self-sufficient farmhouses; they are in trailer parks, 1,000-square-foot homes, houses owned by relatives, and some, on tarps in fields or parking lots. Their lack of job skills, passed from one generation to the next, depresses the community’s overall economic health and their state’s tax base.

The author atributes that quote to Robin West from Georgetown, who this article says wrote "a remarkably shallow and evidence-free jeremiad against homeschooling".

 

Re-read page two.

[creekland]

I just finished reading the article. It brought up some good points IMO, and like others, I have personally seen examples of cases he brought up.

 

FWIW, good students left in underperforming schools (not all are) do get shafted. I see it happen EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. Many schools are not about helping the talented academic student. They are about getting the underperforming student up to state standards. Many, many academically talented students would do far better being homeschooled with parents who can take them to the level they ought to be at.

 

Been there, done that, no regrets.

 

On the other end, many slower academic students would do better being homeschooled. In ps we have to go at a certain pace. If the student needs more time to grasp a concept - well - too bad for them. We must press on. I see it happen EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

 

Are these students better off in a homeschool without parents who help them? Probably not (though some top kids could do well with very limited effort on the parent's part). But it does not surprise me at all that college-bound homeschooled students consistently test better on pretty much any aspect out there (Baylor had results recently of current college students and their GPA, etc).

 

When one can (and does) tailor an education, it's simply better. I don't care which end of the political spectrum one is on for that result.

[Halcyon]

I liked it, which is surprising because I'm a card carrying hippie liberal freak.

 

Nope, he didn't never mind...

 

:iagree:

[Halcyon]

How about this picture of homeschoolers:

These families are not living in romantic, rural, self-sufficient farmhouses; they are in trailer parks, 1,000-square-foot homes, houses owned by relatives, and some, on tarps in fields or parking lots. Their lack of job skills, passed from one generation to the next, depresses the community’s overall economic health and their state’s tax base.

 

This is the author quoting ANOTHER article, which he states is "a remarkably shallow and evidence free jeremiad against homeschooling". He calls it "a caricature of homeschooling families far removed from reality."

[Candid]

Thanks for posting. I'm in the I like to be a radical camp.

[southernm]

Thanks for posting. I'm in the I like to be a radical camp.

 

:iagree: me too!

[catz]

 

Referring to 'liberals' as a monolith is also incredibly obnoxious. I've met people who were far left who said 'You homeschooled? That's so cool, I wish my parents could have homeschooled me/I wish I could homeschool my kids.' I've also met people on the far right who lectured me about how horrible homeschooling was.

 

:iagree: I live urban and most of the homeschoolers I've come across are left leaning, as are we. I don't feel I'm making any kind of huge statement or rebellion by doing it. My oldest went to PS 2 years and it just wasn't a great fit for a kid who was academically well ahead but socially and emotionally age appropriate. Grade skipping did not seem like the right solution for him and I've talked to one too many people who regretted it after the fact. And FTR, I'm happy for people who like their schools. Had my son gotten into a local magnet via a lottery, we probably wouldn't be homeschooling right now. And I think this has been even a better fit for all of us.

 

I find that there are certain parents who have their kids enrolled in a school. It doesn't matter if it's public or private school or what their political leanings are. And these patents get SUPER defensive about their school experience when they find out we're homeschooling. I think it's a competitive parenting thing and not necessarily something just a liberal would engage in.

[Wheres Toto]

I'm neither crunchy nor conservative. :D And I'm definitely not making a statement against government schools. I'm just doing what's best for my family.

 

I felt like some of his ideas about the homeschool demographic were dated. I think we are already past the point where people should assume it's all conservative religious folks. Although maybe that's more a statement about where I live, then homeschooling in general. And maybe I'm spoiled coming to this forum where we have such variety. :D

[Cricket]

It didn't bother me. I've been "into" homeschooling for almost 20 years and found many of the points he made in the article to be quite true. Many of the older homeschoolers (late 50s and beyond) I know are the aging hippie (now Christian, but still crunchy) type. I've heard the complaints about taking the best and brightest students out of the school system since I first started talking about homeschooling with other moms in the 1990s. All of the points the author made, I've personally seen and experienced.

 

The article's tone had a conservative bias, but that is to be expected in an article written for a conservative magazine. My only complaint is that the author didn't back up his assertions with quotes and other documentation.

 

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what was so offensive about the article.

 

:iagree: The author could have left out a few comments aimed at progressives, but other than that I thought the article did a fine job at pointing out how diverse the homeschooling community is. I've met people all along the spectrum he describes.

[Avila]

I just finished reading the article. It brought up some good points IMO, and like others, I have personally seen examples of cases he brought up.

 

FWIW, good students left in underperforming schools (not all are) do get shafted. I see it happen EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. Many schools are not about helping the talented academic student. They are about getting the underperforming student up to state standards. Many, many academically talented students would do far better being homeschooled with parents who can take them to the level they ought to be at.

 

Been there, done that, no regrets.

 

On the other end, many slower academic students would do better being homeschooled. In ps we have to go at a certain pace. If the student needs more time to grasp a concept - well - too bad for them. We must press on. I see it happen EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

 

Are these students better off in a homeschool without parents who help them? Probably not (though some top kids could do well with very limited effort on the parent's part). But it does not surprise me at all that college-bound homeschooled students consistently test better on pretty much any aspect out there (Baylor had results recently of current college students and their GPA, etc).

 

When one can (and does) tailor an education, it's simply better. I don't care which end of the political spectrum one is on for that result.

 

:iagree: Yes on all accounts to this. :)

[kiana]

FWIW, the quotes from Robin West (Georgetown) are factual, but non-contextual. She certainly is pro-homeschooling regulation, though.

 

Her article is linked here, for those of you who fancy seeing the quotes. (loads of ads, sorry): http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+harms+of+homeschooling.-a0214999687

[justamouse]

I've also found the article to be quite true.

[Impish]

I've also found the article to be quite true.

:iagree:

[TravelingChris]

My kids have had no issues with being homeschooled and going to college. The professors all seemed to like them better than the average student because they were hard working and interested in learning. IF a professor finds out they were homeschooled, it just gives homeschooling a better image, not worse.