Reaction to Ron Paul's homeschooling comment

[Woodland_Mom]

If this has already been posted, sorry about the repeat. I haven't had much luck getting back on here until yesterday.

 

In Ron Paul's farewell speech to Congress he made a brief statement about homeschooling. I'm very interested in your gut reactions to it whether it's positive, neutral, or negative. I'm not interest in people's thoughts on Ron Paul's political views-just homeschoolers' reactions to what he says about homeschooling in this speech. (Feel free to start a different discussion about his political views if you want to comment on those.)

 

"Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties." Ron Paul Nov. 15, 2012

 

 

Well . . . unfortunately, it seems you've received lots personal thoughts on the political views of Ron Paul. However, I will answer your question!

 

I view Ron Paul's comment in a positive light. Without a doubt, the number of homeschoolers is growing year after year, many of whom (certainly not all) are deeply interested in a truly free society with constitutional protections. Remember: just a few short decades ago, homeschooling was not a legal option in most states. These laws, of course, restricted freedoms. Many homeschoolers are not interested in government restrictions on how they homeschool. I appreciate the fact that he recognizes that homeschoolers (certainly not all) are interested in limited government rather than a rapidly expanding government - specifically in the area of educaton. He implied this when he said, " We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties."

[justasque]

<nods head rapidly in agreement>

 

Regarding the practicality of having parents involved in the choice of curricula: I think the control of schools needs to be returned entirely to local school districts.

 

One problem with this is the income/education geographical segregation in many areas. The school districts in my area vary dramatically in parental education level. If I remember correctly from having looked into it a while back, one district has most parents with post-graduate college degrees, another does not even have a majority who have finished high school. The pool of school board members is basically made up from the local parent population. While individuals can be vastly more educated/intelligent than their circumstances would imply, generally speaking this means that the school board in the wealthy/educated district is vastly more savvy as to how to provide an excellent education (as most of the candidates will have personal experience with this path) than those in the poor district (where most candidates did not even go to college). Of course, again, college isn't everything, but in the aggregate, this is a serious concern about local control.

 

A group of people choosing a strong nuclear family over government intervention won't have an impact on society? Are you serious? One-income families on the rise won't have an impact on society?

 

I don't think that "strong nuclear family" and "government intervention" are mutually exclusive choices. Many homeschooling families I know receive some form of government assistance, whether it is health care for special needs kids, or disability for a disabled parent, or food stamps because their income is low. This doesn't seem to me to correlate strongly with how strong their families are. In fact, in some ways, this assistance makes it possible for mom to stay home and homeschool, thus creating a *stronger* family than without the assistance. It's just not that simple.

 

Without a doubt, the number of homeschoolers is growing year after year, many of whom (certainly not all) are deeply interested in a truly free society with constitutional protections.

 

In my state, the number of independent home educating students has stayed pretty steady over the past decade or so. What has changed is the number of students in government-funded public cyber-charter schools, which is going up.

 

I don't have any answers - just saying that these things are pretty complex.

[Lolly]

Two of the links there are about college performance - a different issue. The other quotes a study where the participants were picked by the study author, not randomly chosen like in the Cardus study. Yes, it's a small sample, but it also doesn't have a lot to match up against in well done research.

 

 

 

 

They both also mention voting...

 

From the first link: Cogan, however, noted that another homeschool study that looked at more than 7,300 adults, who had been homeschooled, determined that the homeschool graduates were more likely to have voted and participated in community service than other adults

 

From the second: In their Communities: Many non-homeschoolers believe that homeschooling can turn out better students, but because homeschool students are educated in greater isolation from the world, they are less politically and socially involved. This concern comes at a great time, for homeschoolers at least. The first generation of homeschoolers has now grown up and entered the workforce. Dr. Ray surveyed over 7,000 adults who had been home schooled and compared them against their more traditionally educated peers. His research found that:

• Ninety-five percent of homeschoolers had an adequate comprehension of politics and government, compared to 65% of U.S. adults.
  
• Seventy-one percent of homeschool graduates participate in ongoing community service activities, including politics, compared to 37% of adults in similar ages.
  
• Eighty-eight percent of HS graduates are members of organizations (community groups, church, or professional organizations) compared to 50% of U.S.adults.
  
• Significantly, 76% of homeschool graduates voted in a national or state election within the past 5 years, compared to 29 percent of similar U.S. adults.
  

From the third:

Involvement in politics is really impressive. Over 76 percent of 18- to 24-year-old homeschool graduates voted in a national/state election the past 5 years compared with just 29 percent of 18- to 24-year-old public school graduates. When they reach the age of 25-39, 95 percent of homeschool graduates vote. They are also more than twice as involved in campaigns, candidate contributions, and boycotts. This demonstrates the real and potential power of the homeschool movement to influence elections.

[Parrothead]

His statement has nothing to do with our family or our reasons for homeschooling.

 

Here too. Politics never entered into our decision to homeschool.

[justasque]

 

From the second: In their Communities: Many non-homeschoolers believe that homeschooling can turn out better students, but because homeschool students are educated in greater isolation from the world, they are less politically and socially involved. This concern comes at a great time, for homeschoolers at least. The first generation of homeschoolers has now grown up and entered the workforce. Dr. Ray surveyed over 7,000 adults who had been home schooled and compared them against their more traditionally educated peers. His research found that:

• Ninety-five percent of homeschoolers had an adequate comprehension of politics and government, compared to 65% of U.S. adults.

• Seventy-one percent of homeschool graduates participate in ongoing community service activities, including politics, compared to 37% of adults in similar ages.

• Eighty-eight percent of HS graduates are members of organizations (community groups, church, or professional organizations) compared to 50% of U.S.adults.

• Significantly, 76% of homeschool graduates voted in a national or state election within the past 5 years, compared to 29 percent of similar U.S. adults.

 

 

 

I did a bit of Google-ing, and could not find the text of Ray's study - I think you have to buy a copy of the report to read the whole thing. But here's the problem that many have brought up with Ray's studies - often his participants are recruited through an avenue that is more likely to produce volunteers of a particular viewpoint. As an example, I believe (if I remember correctly) that one study focused on people whose children had done standardized testing through Bob Jones University. Now there are some folks who are a) fine with standardized testing, and B) fine with BJU, and there are others who reject both strongly. The BJU-associated volunteer group is going to leave out folks on the crunchy, unschool-y, Catholic, non-Christian left, and over-sample those on the evangelical Christian, school-at-home, right. Obviously these are very broad categories! And there are good folks in both! But the point is that this sample method does not produce a "random" sample of the full spectrum of homeschoolers, no matter how many people are in the sample!

 

You should never take the conclusions of a study at face value, or try to apply them to a specific scenario or use them in support of a specific thesis, without understanding the study's methodology.

[butterflymommy]

I am highly engaged in politics; I am extremely patriotic; I consider myself an intellectual; we have strong personal values; and disagree both with Ron Paul's personal version of the constitution (mainly because it necessitates ignoring sections of the constitution and the writings of the founding fathers) and the extreme right. You find homeschoolers on all points of the political spectrum.

 

 

Yes, I know. My first exposure to HSing was from a very politically active family. But where I live I get the pot smoking hippies to hang out with.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm not interest in people's thoughts on Ron Paul's political views-just homeschoolers' reactions to what he says about homeschooling in this speech.

 

I find it difficult to separate my thoughts on his political views from his statement on homeschooling. His statement is connected to his political views, therefore I must look at it in that context.

 

 

]"Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties."[/b] Ron Paul Nov. 15, 2012

 

His thinly disguised dig at public education makes me see the statement in a negative light. I guess then, my answer to your question would be, negative.

[QueenCat]

I am highly engaged in politics; I am extremely patriotic; I consider myself an intellectual; we have strong personal values; and disagree both with Ron Paul's personal version of the constitution (mainly because it necessitates ignoring sections of the constitution and the writings of the founding fathers) and the extreme right. You find homeschoolers on all points of the political spectrum.

 

:iagree: Exactly! I don't like the stereotyping of "Homeschoolers are _______". Just isn't so.....

[Georgiana Daniels]

I don't like stereotypes. Politics never entered our minds when we decided to homeschool. BUT, I do agree that the federal gov't can't provide the kind of education my kids need. Or maybe most kids, for that matter. That said, the gov't has to be involved on some level because so many families can't make the decision to homeschool/private/charter/etc. We have to support education in the US (I'm not saying throwing money, although money is a factor) because public education is the most readily available option for the majority of children--and they deserve that opportunity.

[Stacy in NJ]

His point about how difficult it is for a government funded entity (public schools) to teach or engage with criticism that targets its funding sources is not particularly new or original, but it does remain incredibly relevant, imo.

 

I would slightly change his comment to include the rapidly expanding school choice movement..... because charter schools and voucher program are citical to reinventing education in America, imo.

 

"Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties." Ron Paul Nov. 15, 2012

[Lolly]

I did a bit of Google-ing, and could not find the text of Ray's study - I think you have to buy a copy of the report to read the whole thing. But here's the problem that many have brought up with Ray's studies - often his participants are recruited through an avenue that is more likely to produce volunteers of a particular viewpoint. As an example, I believe (if I remember correctly) that one study focused on people whose children had done standardized testing through Bob Jones University. Now there are some folks who are a) fine with standardized testing, and B) fine with BJU, and there are others who reject both strongly. The BJU-associated volunteer group is going to leave out folks on the crunchy, unschool-y, Catholic, non-Christian left, and over-sample those on the evangelical Christian, school-at-home, right. Obviously these are very broad categories! And there are good folks in both! But the point is that this sample method does not produce a "random" sample of the full spectrum of homeschoolers, no matter how many people are in the sample!

 

You should never take the conclusions of a study at face value, or try to apply them to a specific scenario or use them in support of a specific thesis, without understanding the study's methodology.

 

 

See, the actual thing is I don't have time to look up stuff like that. A quick google is all I have time for. A study involving less than ninety people, only a few of whom homeschool isn't likely to be any more reliable. I don't believe the article told how those few people were selected. If it did, I don't remember. I certainly am not going to go hunting it down. The fact is that pretty much every study has a bias. No numbers can ever be believed. Just the way statistics are, you can use them to prove pretty much any point. To me, a study of BJU testing subjects that involves that large a number of subjects is more reliable than a random sampling of 90 people off the street. Maybe it is because I know so many people who test through them and realize that they are a very good sampling of the general population. They are not just ultra conservative Bible thumpers. In fact, the portion of the population that has a problem with BJU to the point that they would not order testing materials from them is a very small portion of the population. These boards just make it look otherwise.

[stripe]

A group of people choosing a strong nuclear family over government intervention won't have an impact on society? Are you serious? One-income families on the rise won't have an impact on society?

 

Impact does not equal marching on Washington.

 

Yeah, sorry, I grew up with a working mother and attended public school, and I am not a dropout. Furthermore, my lifestyle is totally different from my parents'. So being raised one way doesn't mean you grow up just like that. Even the evangelical Christian groups have a high attrition rate, so....Anyway being a productive member of society does not equal being a stay at home mom, either. Children of divorced families can be very stable and even (gasp!) stay married themselves.

 

I hardly think I equate(d) "impact" with marching on Washington.

 

A woman who works as a doctor or a teacher, for example, impacts her patients/students, not ONLY her own children. She can still be a concerned citizen and helpful neighbor and loving daughter. It doesn't take AWAY from her good citizenship to have a job, whereas a SAHM typically has a smaller sphere of influence, and the common implication that she must neglect her own children in order to do so, is, in my opinion, silly.

 

I don't think that "strong nuclear family" and "government intervention" are mutually exclusive choices. Many homeschooling families I know receive some form of government assistance, whether it is health care for special needs kids, or disability for a disabled parent, or food stamps because their income is low. This doesn't seem to me to correlate strongly with how strong their families are. In fact, in some ways, this assistance makes it possible for mom to stay home and homeschool, thus creating a *stronger* family than without the assistance. It's just not that simple.

 

Not to mention the non-homeschooling families are often getting government assistance: tax write-offs for their mortgages and charitable donations, social security for their retirement years, work for companies getting tax benefits, watching PBS, using public roads, and so on.

 

I have a major problem with the idea that we only have stable families, or a homeschooling situation -- much less a situation of caring families -- by having a mother who does not work outside the home, and a never-married-to-anyone-else couple. And preferably conservative Christians. There are TONS of other sorts of homeschoolers *on this board*, and millions of other sorts of families that are not deadbeats.

[Farrar]

See, the actual thing is I don't have time to look up stuff like that. A quick google is all I have time for. A study involving less than ninety people, only a few of whom homeschool isn't likely to be any more reliable. I don't believe the article told how those few people were selected. If it did, I don't remember. I certainly am not going to go hunting it down. The fact is that pretty much every study has a bias. No numbers can ever be believed. Just the way statistics are, you can use them to prove pretty much any point. To me, a study of BJU testing subjects that involves that large a number of subjects is more reliable than a random sampling of 90 people off the street. Maybe it is because I know so many people who test through them and realize that they are a very good sampling of the general population. They are not just ultra conservative Bible thumpers. In fact, the portion of the population that has a problem with BJU to the point that they would not order testing materials from them is a very small portion of the population. These boards just make it look otherwise.

 

 

What you're saying here just represents a misunderstanding of statistical sampling and how it works. Yes, larger studies are generally better. However, a smaller study with less bias is more valid than huge study where the sample is biased. Ray's samples have been shown to be biased. In many ways, they're little better than anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence has some value, but it's not the same as a proper study. And while I value these boards, everything we put forth is also anecdotal.

 

I also think that homeschooling is much more varied than either HSLDA's stereotyping or Congressman Paul's and that there is a huge variance in how political involved homeschoolers are and on which "side" they get involved. However, valid statistical samples tell us a lot more about what is the most common, not about what the variations are.

[justasque]

A study involving less than ninety people, only a few of whom homeschool isn't likely to be any more reliable.

 

A study with fewer people IS going to be more reliable, if the sample is more representative of the population as a whole, than a study with a larger sample that isn't representative of the larger population. That's just the way the science works.

 

If you go to Penn State and ask people coming out of a football game how many sports team fan shirts they own, you will get a certain result; you can't go claiming that result is representative of Penn State students as a whole, or of college students as a whole, because of the way you selected your sample. It's an interesting data point, but you have to be fairly specific in how you report the results if you want to be accurate.

 

I do agree that at some point the sample is too small and therefore would have a large enough margin of error that the results wouldn't be worth much. If nothing else, the conflicting studies would point to the need for further inquiry and a healthy skepticism before drawing any conclusions.

 

No numbers can ever be believed. Just the way statistics are, you can use them to prove pretty much any point.

 

Well, if you play fast and loose with them that's true. (Not you personally!) You do have to be very, very careful when you do science to be clear about the limitations of your research and how applicable your results may be to a broader question. However, much of the science we do - medicine especially comes to mind - rely on this kind of statistics, and if you are careful not to over-interpret the results, you can get very accurate and useful - indeed, sometimes life-saving - results. Unfortunately, the press isn't always careful when reporting studies, and many people are happy to spin study results beyond what the scientists involved would be comfortable with from a scientific point of view. So you do have to be skeptical; reading the original study does help, but of course we don't always have time for it. We can, however, realize that studies do have limitations, and be open to more in-depth analysis if it is available.

 

To me, a study of BJU testing subjects that involves that large a number of subjects is more reliable than a random sampling of 90 people off the street. Maybe it is because I know so many people who test through them and realize that they are a very good sampling of the general population. They are not just ultra conservative Bible thumpers. In fact, the portion of the population that has a problem with BJU to the point that they would not order testing materials from them is a very small portion of the population. These boards just make it look otherwise.

 

But what makes <Lolly's IRL friends> (or for that matter <askPauline's IRL friends>) a more accurate representation of the broader country-wide homeschooling population than <WTM posters>? We know that each group has an inherent bias; we don't know which is a better (scientifically speaking) sample of the homeschooling population as a whole.

 

I have belonged to quite a few homeschooling groups over the years; they have varied *widely*. Yet some group members thought homeschooling at large looked very much like their particular group looked. As a very minor example, in some groups an ABeka/Saxon curriculum was the norm, with many/most families using these materials to some extent. In other groups, I encountered homeschoolers who had never even heard of ABeka. Clearly, very, very different groups.

[justamouse]

 

I think this is what he is talking about...

[K&Rs Mom]

"Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties." Ron Paul Nov. 15, 2012

 

I didn't look up the context, but I just take this to mean that the schools won't likely be teaching anything to oppose growth of their only source of funding - won't bite the hand that feeds them. It seems pretty obvious to me, so I don't get why it's controversial. I can see why using words like "dangerous" or "revolutionary" would annoy some people, but the idea that people who opt out of any part of the system are more likely to be able to see flaws in the system or even oppose that system just makes sense.

[CatholicMom]

He is painting all homeschoolers with his brush, and thus denegrates us. Not all, yea not even a majority I believe homeschool for political reasons.

And homeschooling will not keep expanding forever. It is hard work, and too much for many families. It has rapidly expanded recently, but I don't expect this bull market to go on and on (and many go back to public school at some point), especially not for political reasons.

 

 

Disclaimer: I only read the quote, not the whole transcript. But from what I understand from that particular quote, he is in no way saying that the majority of homeschoolers do so for political reasons. What is saying is that the homeschool movement will play a role in the battle to retain "our" liberties. I take "our" to refer to Americans in general, not necessarily just homeschoolers... unless the context of the transcript clearly suggests otherwise.

 

I believe he's right. I think that despite the varied reasons that people choose to homeschool, the homeschooling movement will play the role he's referring to. There are also a lot of homeschoolers who have more immediate concerns than influencing society, but in principal they also agree that it's not the government's job to educate America's children. This is what I believe. I think people have developed a dangerous trust in the government to educate their kids. Think about that. The government decides when, how, how much, and what our kids in public school learn.

 

That doesn't mean that every parent who sends their kids to public school doesn't love their kids or is a liberal, LOL. It also doesn't mean that there is no place in society for schools. But I believe that schools should be in the private sector and there should be competition and we are not "owed" free education for our kids. It is the parents' job to see that their kids are educated and that is important, but it's not the government's job to ensure it happens or say how or when it happens, and definitely not what our kids need to know or believe. But, then again, it's also not their job to hand out birth control, so our government schools have clearly crossed the line, even if you draw it at educating kids. Schools don't even know any more whether our children are students or patients... teachers aren't sure if they are there to teach or be social workers. It is far too out of hand.

[stripe]

Okay, maybe homeschoolers could be a force of change or difference, but that assumes that everyone else has the same exact experience.

 

But there are a lot of changes in education these days. For example, states are allowing online education for free. This isn't parental-directed homeschooling but it does introduce some differences. Also some people have enrollment in multiple places, such as at home and college, or at home and online, or at home and at the local public school, or at the public school and online. Magnet schools created some differences, and charter schools are also different, from both the model AND the differences in focus that some have (math, or arts, or whatever). So to me, the idea that homeschooling is the one and only way to break out of some straightjacket mold of public school is outmoded and inaccurate.

[J-rap]

Quotes like this make me cringe. Why do they have to stereotype homeschoolers? Whether he meant to do that or not, that's how many in the audience will interpret it.

[LeslieAnneLevine]

But I believe that schools should be in the private sector and there should be competition and we are not "owed" free education for our kids. It is the parents' job to see that their kids are educated and that is important, but it's not the government's job to ensure it happens or say how or when it happens, and definitely not what our kids need to know or believe. But, then again, it's also not their job to hand out birth control, so our government schools have clearly crossed the line, even if you draw it at educating kids. Schools don't even know any more whether our children are students or patients... teachers aren't sure if they are there to teach or be social workers. It is far too out of hand.

 

I am sure there are plenty of homeschoolers who agree with you, but there are also plenty who do not. The quote bothers me because it attempts to put me, as a homeschooling parent (or my son, as a homeschooled child), in an adversarial position to institutions and programs that I support and agree with.

[Wheres Toto]

I think there's too many assumptions about homeschoolers.

 

We aren't all politically active or aware, or want to be.

We don't all have have a problem with public schools, in fact some of us have students at home and in public or private school.

We aren't all SAHM's that are part of a traditional nuclear family.

We aren't all homeschooling to protest or protect our kids from the teachings of public schools.

We aren't all teaching our kids to be Constitutional scholars.

 

Homeschoolers are such a small percentage and the group is further divided into some classical homeschoolers, some are unschoolers, some teach their girls homemaking and nothing else, some teach the 3R's and not much else. What tiny percentage of homeschoolers is actually teaching a good understanding of the Constitution AND teaching it from the viewpoint of limited government?

[Heidi]

I think there's too many assumptions about homeschoolers.

 

We aren't all politically active or aware, or want to be.

We don't all have have a problem with public schools, in fact some of us have students at home and in public or private school.

We aren't all SAHM's that are part of a traditional nuclear family.

We aren't all homeschooling to protest or protect our kids from the teachings of public schools.

We aren't all teaching our kids to be Constitutional scholars.

I IIIasdfasdf

Homeschoolers are such a small percentage and the group is further divided into some classical homeschoolers, some are unschoolers, some teach their girls homemaking and nothing else, some teach the 3R's and not much else. What tiny percentage of homeschoolers is actually teaching a good understanding of the Constitution AND teaching it from the viewpoint of limited government?

 

I intend to! Anyone else? I don't think it is a small percentage of homeschoolers at all. There are few things more important to understand and know than what is written in our Constitution.

[CatholicMom]

I think there's too many assumptions about homeschoolers.

 

We aren't all politically active or aware, or want to be.

We don't all have have a problem with public schools, in fact some of us have students at home and in public or private school.

We aren't all SAHM's that are part of a traditional nuclear family.

We aren't all homeschooling to protest or protect our kids from the teachings of public schools.

We aren't all teaching our kids to be Constitutional scholars.

 

Homeschoolers are such a small percentage and the group is further divided into some classical homeschoolers, some are unschoolers, some teach their girls homemaking and nothing else, some teach the 3R's and not much else. What tiny percentage of homeschoolers is actually teaching a good understanding of the Constitution AND teaching it from the viewpoint of limited government?

I intend to! Anyone else? I don't think it is a small percentage of homeschoolers at all. There are few things more important to understand and know than what is written in our Constitution.

 

I will, too!

[kalanamak]

Quotes like this make me cringe. Why do they have to stereotype homeschoolers? Whether he meant to do that or not, that's how many in the audience will interpret it.

 

 

People in general and politicians particularly spin whatever they can get their grubby paws on. Very few people trying to "get something" don't. A very few noble people. It is par for the course, but yes, when someone spins something I identify with, it bothers me. I try to remember that whenever I'm reading spin on anything that I don't identify with.

[kalanamak]

I don't like stereotypes. Politics never entered our minds when we decided to homeschool. BUT, I do agree that the federal gov't can't provide the kind of education my kids need. Or maybe most kids, for that matter. That said, the gov't has to be involved on some level because so many families can't make the decision to homeschool/private/charter/etc. We have to support education in the US (I'm not saying throwing money, although money is a factor) because public education is the most readily available option for the majority of children--and they deserve that opportunity.

 

 

And think of the countries where families would LOVE to have access to it.

[Crimson Wife]

A group of people choosing a strong nuclear family over government intervention won't have an impact on society? Are you serious? One-income families on the rise won't have an impact on society?

 

 

Unfortunately, demographic trends in this country show that traditional nuclear families with dad as the sole breadwinner and mom as full-time homemaker are on the decline rather than the rise. :(

[CatholicMom]

I am sure there are plenty of homeschoolers who agree with you, but there are also plenty who do not. The quote bothers me because it attempts to put me, as a homeschooling parent (or my son, as a homeschooled child), in an adversarial position to institutions and programs that I support and agree with.

 

I see what you're saying but I think you're taking it too personally. He's not saying all homeschoolers agree. That particular quote is really not about what homeschoolers are or believe at all. It's about what "the homeschooling movement" (i.e. the fact that people are pulling their kids out of school left and right, and not even putting them in to begin with) is going to change America and affect policies. I don't pretend to know all the ways this movement might affect our society but I definitely think it's bound to, especially if it keeps it up.

 

One thing I could see happening, and may be able to be argued that is already happening, is that there will be changes to public schools themselves... which are a part of the government. Teachers are government employees. They are paid with tax-dollars. School programs and school buildings are bought with tax-dollars. It's easy to forget that.

 

As more people turn to homeschooling instead of government schools, the more the government will try to convince parents that public schools are competent. Look how much more testing is going on in public schools now as compared to when we were in school. Look at all the anti-bullying initiatives. Look at all the talk about American schools being behind and how it's big a problem. The problems are coming to light more now than ever because parents are saying "no thanks" to public schools at an alarming rate (well, alarming if you're the government). Look at how influential HSLDA is now, in protecting parental rights to homeschool in courtrooms, in getting involved in legislation that protects these rights of parents, and in making parents aware of relevant legislation. Look at all these "other types" of schools that are popping up... all kinds of educational opportunities that are coming out of the woodwork. Yes, these are partly because of developing technology, but it's also because there is a demand... mostly from those who are rejecting public schools. The homeschooling movement is also winning a lot of converts who may not be Christian, may not be in a nuclear family, may not be aware of politics, but all of the sudden they have a vested interest in keeping the government off their backs in terms of parental rights and I would bet that new-found awareness often (not always) transfers into a more skeptical view of the government than they had before. Homeschoolers, though a minority, are now a force to be reckoned with. Not because all of them are "against" public schools, but because in practice, they are rejecting public schools for their own family, and they are going to hold on tight of their parental rights when they are being challenged.

 

Then look at the success of homeschooled students in the long run and how that will affect the future. Already I think people are getting the memo that homeschoolers are easily accepted into universities and the average homeschooler tends to out-perform the average public schooler. This will likely affect employment opportunities as they start taking this into consideration, just as they take it into consideration if you got your degree from the community college or from Yale. Also, look at how a lot of competent & involved parents taking their kids out of public schools is going to affect the success of public schools even further in the long-run. Who are going to be the last to take their kids out of public schools no matter how bad the school is? To boot, studies show that homeschoolers are much more likely to be involved in their community and politics.

 

Those are just the ways *I* can see that the homeschooling movement in America is already and will likely continue to affect our society and legislation. It's not saying anything about what you believe or why you homeschool. It's that the homeschooling movement is a big enough minority that it will influence our society and government. I think that's true.

[justamouse]

What tiny percentage of homeschoolers is actually teaching a good understanding of the Constitution AND teaching it from the viewpoint of limited government?

 

That would be us. It's dinnertime talk here. It's the life of a small business person and kids who want businesses and how a large government impacts your decisions and a husband who is a history major with a love of American history and a wife who thinks nothing of reading American history for fun and a 13 yo son who is rabidly pouring through our books. OUr 17 yo Dd is passionate about Am History, and has a constitution buff for a teacher this year, too.

[justamouse]

I see what you're saying but I think you're taking it too personally. He's not saying all homeschoolers agree. That particular quote is really not about what homeschoolers are or believe at all. It's about what "the homeschooling movement" (i.e. the fact that people are pulling their kids out of school left and right, and not even putting them in to begin with) is going to change America and affect policies. I don't pretend to know all the ways this movement might affect our society but I definitely think it's bound to, especially if it keeps it up.

 

 

:iagree:

[I.Dup.]

I see what you're saying but I think you're taking it too personally. He's not saying all homeschoolers agree. That particular quote is really not about what homeschoolers are or believe at all. It's about what "the homeschooling movement" (i.e. the fact that people are pulling their kids out of school left and right, and not even putting them in to begin with) is going to change America and affect policies. I don't pretend to know all the ways this movement might affect our society but I definitely think it's bound to, especially if it keeps it up.

 

 

Agreed! I didn't see it about our personal reasons at all, just about the homeschooling movement in general. I hope it affects the government positively, in increasing our freedoms.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't agree with Dr Paul in general.

 

I do believe in public schools. I don't feel they are doing a great job with it. There is so much bureaucracy and ridiculousness going on. I am often appalled at all the incorrect information being taught and all the politics in continuing to teach bad information.

 

I don't think either side of the spectrum has the right answer, but until they do I am going to teach my child. I would like her to be smart, well informed, and educated. I don't want her learning stupid things she will need to relearn in college.

 

I love history and we do try to teach many aspects of one issue. I don't teach my child "limited government" or "big government" I tell her what those are and why people believe in them. I want her to think for herself.

[stripe]

But I believe that schools should be in the private sector and there should be competition and we are not "owed" free education for our kids. It is the parents' job to see that their kids are educated and that is important, but it's not the government's job to ensure it happens or say how or when it happens, and definitely not what our kids need to know or believe.

I very much disagree that services such as healthcare and education should be commercialized, and I very strongly believe it is in the societal best interest to provide a free, decent education to all children living in that country. I find the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other, to be frightening, inaccurate, and incredibly sad. Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great.

[Slartibartfast]

I very much disagree that services such as healthcare and education should be commercialized, and I very strongly believe it is in the societal best interest to provide a free, decent education to all children living in that country. I find the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other, to be frightening, inaccurate, and incredibly sad. Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great.

 

I agree, even when much of this country was wilderness it was a point of pride to have a school. That school was built by the community and paid for by the community. I very much feel that public funded and supported schooling was very much a part of our country's founding. Many of our Presidents have had some connection to education.

 

The University of Virginia began as a publicly funded school, it was founded by Thomas Jefferson. I think that implies he was for it. James Madison and James Monroe were on the Board of Visitors.

 

William and Mary was supported by tobacco tax dollars and export duties. George Washington was its first American Chancellor. Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Tyler attended.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

I very much disagree that services such as healthcare and education should be commercialized, and I very strongly believe it is in the societal best interest to provide a free, decent education to all children living in that country. I find the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other, to be frightening, inaccurate, and incredibly sad. Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great.

 

I agree. Furthermore, I think communal actions, taking care so those who cannot care for themselves, etc are the things that make us a society, period. Otherwise, we are *not* a functioning society, we are just a collective of people thinning out the herd.

[mamajag]

I think that Ron Paul is taking a fringe movement and trying to apply it to a very diverse group. It's typical politician behavior.

 

I am not libertarian or religious, but part of the reason I homeschool is because I strongly disagree with the direction our public education system is taking. Our private schools locally are not performing much better.

 

I am most often mistaken for a religious homeschooler, which I can kind of understand. i am always in a dress or skirt, usually long, and I stay at home barefoot most of the time. The only reason I'm not pregnant is my husband ended that permanently. I am actually an agnostic hippie chick most of the time.

[Heidi]

I very much disagree that services such as healthcare and education should be commercialized, and I very strongly believe it is in the societal best interest to provide a free, decent education to all children living in that country. I find the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other, to be frightening, inaccurate, and incredibly sad. Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great.

 

As a die-hard conservative, this is not what I believe. I don't know of anyone that believes this. I think you misunderstand conservatism, just like I misunderstand liberalism (or whatever you are). "Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great." Who doesn't believe that?? I think we disagree on HOW to help others and educate others, but implying that conservatives don't want this is not true at all. I've been thinking a lot about this stuff lately, trying to understand it all.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

As a die-hard conservative, this is not what I believe. I don't know of anyone that believes this. I think you misunderstand conservatism, just like I misunderstand liberalism (or whatever you are). "Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great." Who doesn't believe that?? I think we disagree on HOW to help others and educate others, but implying that conservatives don't want this is not true at all. I've been thinking a lot about this stuff lately, trying to understand it all.

 

Ron Paul is *not* a conservative and I think the post you quoted is a good representation of *his* belief. Libertarians frequently quote Ayn Rand (although not all Libertarians are Objectivists) who strongly believed in a survival of the fittest-type society at every level. Conservatives who *do not* believe this should refrain from quoting Objectivists and Libertarians.

[LucyStoner]

One of my pet peeves is when sweeping statements are made about an entire group of people. Public school didn't work well for my kid. I'm seeing it working well for some friend's kids. I know homeschooled kids who are NOT being taught to think for themselves either. I think the end result has to do with how much a parent values education and how they apply that at home. My personal reasons for homeschooling have everything to do with my kids, and the fact that it's working for us as a family at this moment in time. Our choice has nothing to do with politics (which happen to be not conservative or liberatarian).

 

ETA - My oldest attended PS for 2 years and I still follow our local public schools. I really think the schools at least locally have their hands full with budgets, testing, dealing with behavoiral problems, large class sizes, and trying to cover their teaching points. I didn't see any mass brain washing encouraging large government control by any stretch, and I live in a very liberal area.

I agree. There are loads of the girls should not go to college type of homeschoolers. There are plenty of public charter school types. There are plenty of moderates who have other reasons for homeschooling. There are plenty of not so smart homeschoolers, just like there are not so smart people in every segment of society.

 

 

 

I am highly engaged in politics; I am extremely patriotic; I consider myself an intellectual; we have strong personal values; and disagree both with Ron Paul's personal version of the constitution (mainly because it necessitates ignoring sections of the constitution and the writings of the founding fathers) and the extreme right. You find homeschoolers on all points of the political spectrum.

I think it is an interesting quote. I homeschool because it is what works for our family. I would prefer to remain off the grid when it comes to homeschooling but he is not 100% wrong that there is the possibility of long term effects as the number of homeschoolers increase and those kids grow up and start families.

 

I also don't think that government run schools are an institution designed to usurp parental authority and just create little worker bees. It is definitely a system in need of some changes. I know many successful kids who attend public school. Public, private, charter, home it all boils down to one thing imho, parental involvement. Parents invested in making sure their kids are civic minded independent thinkers will shape the future.

I think there's too many assumptions about homeschoolers.

 

We aren't all politically active or aware, or want to be.

We don't all have have a problem with public schools, in fact some of us have students at home and in public or private school.

We aren't all SAHM's that are part of a traditional nuclear family.

We aren't all homeschooling to protest or protect our kids from the teachings of public schools.

We aren't all teaching our kids to be Constitutional scholars.

 

Homeschoolers are such a small percentage and the group is further divided into some classical homeschoolers, some are unschoolers, some teach their girls homemaking and nothing else, some teach the 3R's and not much else. What tiny percentage of homeschoolers is actually teaching a good understanding of the Constitution AND teaching it from the viewpoint of limited government?

 

What they said. I do not consider there to be an orthodoxy on what homeschoolers believe politically. My family values and political beliefs are certainly in line with Ron Paul on the vast majority of topics.

[Heidi]

Ron Paul is *not* a conservative and I think the post you quoted is a good representation of *his* belief. Libertarians frequently quote Ayn Rand (although not all Libertarians are Objectivists) who strongly believed in a survival of the fittest-type society at every level. Conservatives who *do not* believe this should refrain from quoting Objectivists and Libertarians.

 

Pardon me. Can you please explain all of the divisions of belief that I should know, or point me to a website... I only know my left and my right ;)

[Slartibartfast]

Pardon me. Can you please explain all of the divisions of belief that I should know, or point me to a website... I only know my left and my right ;)

 

I think one of the best examples of a Conservative would be Ronald Reagan.

 

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

 

~Ronald Reagan.

[Heidi]

Thanks, Sis.

 

I found this website on libertarianism v. conservatism. What do you think about his definition?

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks, Sis.

 

I found this websiteon libertarianism v. conservatism. What do you think about his definition?

 

 

At the heart of the Libertarian platform is personal freedom. That includes a pro-choice and pro-gay marriage platform. Conservatives do not agree with that.

 

Conservatives generally support Medicare, Social Security, Corporate welfare (in job creating situations) and subsidies. Libertarians do not.

 

I do not believe Ron Paul is truly a Libertarian or truly a Conservative.

[Heidi]

Thanks, Sis.

 

I found this websiteon libertarianism v. conservatism. What do you think about his definition?

 

 

If that is what a libertarian is... it says nowhere that libertarians believe in a "survival of the fittest-type society" or "the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other." Please, show me a link that defines who believes these things. Is it libertarianism? I need proof. I just don't know.

[Heidi]

At the heart of the Libertarian platform is personal freedom. That includes a pro-choice and pro-gay marriage platform. Conservatives do not agree with that.

 

I do not believe Ron Paul is truly a Libertarian or truly a Conservative.

 

 

Are you sure? Because in that article he says that libertarians are split on pro-choice actually. I like what he said about conservatives, that they use the republican platform to essentially manipulate what the Constitution says to legislate their beliefs, whereas that is not what libertarianism is all about.

 

I guess I'm not a die-hard conservative, I'm a libertarian. I never knew the difference!

[Heidi]

I've got to go to bed. I would LOVE to continue this conversation tomorrow.

[Slartibartfast]

Are you sure? Because in that article he says that libertarians are split on pro-choice actually. I like what he said about conservatives, that they use the republican platform to essentially manipulate what the Constitution says to legislate their beliefs, whereas that is not what libertarianism is all about.

 

I guess I'm not a die-hard conservative, I'm a libertarian. I never knew the difference!

 

 

That is a website about getting people to move to New Hampshire to take it over as a Libertarian state.

 

http://www.lp.org/platform These things on the Libertarian Party website are directly contrary to those that would be found among Conservatives. FWIW I am not arguing one way or another just pointing out distinctions. I am neither.

 

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

 

"All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes."

 

 

"We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion."

 

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

If that is what a libertarian is... it says nowhere that libertarians believe in a "survival of the fittest-type society" or "the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other." Please, show me a link that defines who believes these things. Is it libertarianism? I need proof. I just don't know.

 

 

I said the Objectivists (like Ayn Rand) believe that. Objectivists are basically a subset of Libertarians. Read Ayn Rand, watch her interviews (they are on youtube). As far as what do Libertarians believe, look at the party's website. Its platform is quite a bit different than the Tea Party's platform (which I would peg as extreme right).

 

The Libertarian Party's site:

http://www.lp.org/platform

 

You don't think this smacks of us living as tiny islands (in contrast to say...John Donne's argument)?

 

The Tea Party's platform looks quite different:

https://secure.freedomworks.org/site/SPageNavigator/Freedom%20Platform/freedom_platform_v2.html

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

Any particular *party* platform does not definite a position. It is as unfair to claim that the LP platform and Rand define libertarianism as to claim that the Democratic Party defines liberalism or the Republican Party defines conservatism (or for that matter the Tea Party).

 

Liberalism and conservatism are both intellectual movements and dispositions, some would say ideologies. I tried for the longest time to figure out *what* I am, until I realized that for me, these terms are perfectly useless and I have no wish to label myself with a word that has 10 different meanings for 10 different people.

 

Anyone interested in the intellectual histories of liberalism and conservatism and the development of those terms, feel free to PM me. I have a whole reading list that spans centuries and continents and not confined to 20th century America.

 

ETA: I'm trying to keep this within an intellectual, non-political/partisan context.

 

I think it is pertinent when we are discussing the parties. I don't think many would agree with everything on a political party's website, even if they always got our vote and I do believe there is probably *some* things that we would agree with on any party's website. I am not a Republican, do I agree with some of the Republican platform? Sure, I do.

 

Much of the Libertarian platform was based on personal freedoms, but obviously not even their candidates agree with all of those principals. Ron Paul is not 100% in line with the Republican or the Libertarian platforms even though he has run as both.

[Mrs Mungo]

Any particular *party* platform does not definite a position. It is as unfair to claim that the LP platform and Rand define libertarianism as to claim that the Democratic Party defines liberalism or the Republican Party defines conservatism (or for that matter the Tea Party).

 

Individuals can call themselves whatever they want, based upon their own feelings. I call myself a moderate Democrat. I have been called both a liberal and a conservative by people who were speaking on one of my beliefs in a bubble. But, the poster that I was answering seems to be a seeker who is trying to figure out some definitions. Offering the Democratic Party's platform is a pretty decent starting point to figuring out what most Democrats believe.

 

Liberalism and conservatism are both intellectual movements and dispositions, some would say ideologies.

 

I agree. But, once the libertarians became the Libertarian Party? Things sort of shifted there. It makes it tough when you have to distinguish Libertarians from libertarianism. You don't have to do that so much with liberalism and conservatism. Not all Republicans are conservatives, not all Democrats are liberals, most people know that. But, it is hard to say that not all libertarians are Libertarians, kwim?

 

I tried for the longest time to figure out *what* I am, until I realized that for me, these terms are perfectly useless and I have no wish to label myself with a word that has 10 different meanings for 10 different people.

 

It is hard, for sure, to get stuck in boxes when none of our beliefs are truly homogenous.

 

I think it is pertinent when we are discussing the parties. I don't think many would agree with everything on a political party's website, even if they always got our vote and I do believe there is probably *some* things that we would agree with on any party's website.

 

Much of the Libertarian platform was based on personal freedoms, but obviously not even their candidates agree with all of those principals. Ron Paul is not 100% in line with the Republican or the Libertarian platforms even though he has run as both.

 

Good point.

[Heidi]

I said the Objectivists (like Ayn Rand) believe that. Objectivists are basically a subset of Libertarians. Read Ayn Rand, watch her interviews (they are on youtube). As far as what do Libertarians believe, look at the party's website. Its platform is quite a bit different than the Tea Party's platform (which I would peg as extreme right).

 

The Libertarian Party's site:

http://www.lp.org/platform

 

You don't think this smacks of us living as tiny islands (in contrast to say...John Donne's argument)?

 

The Tea Party's platform looks quite different:

https://secure.freed...latform_v2.html

 

Ok, really, I need to go to bed.

 

I read both websites. Slowly. They are pretty similar. I'm not seeing the difference between the tea party and the libertarians except that the focus is slightly different, but I don't see opposite views at all. Anyone else? Second opinion?

 

Tiny islands? Not from my perspective. Are we so selfish a society that we can only be trusted to care for the poor if our money is forced from our hand? Here is my perspective: My number one duty as a Christian is to care for the poor and needy, and I guarantee I could do it better than a national department ever could. Doesn't local welfare make more sense?

Take a drive through government housing and see what a mess it is making of our poor and needy. "Free stuff" is making them poorer and needier. What about teaching a man to fish? What if government got their hands out of talented people's pockets so those talented people can make more rivers for fishing?

And what of giving voluntarily? When people give freely and serve freely, doesn't that improve both the giver and the recipient?

 

I don't want to get too side-tracked on this vein. I just want to point out that the libertarian's platform is little government. That does not mean the poor are neglected at all. I will admit that little government only works for good people who DO care and do feel an obligation to society to be charitable. If we are a selfish people, then yes, libertarian would lead to tiny islands and neglected poor. So MAYBE, Mrs. Mungo, our difference lies in how we see each other.