Editorial re. proposed Conn. homeschooling changes

[JoJosMom]

I found this to be a great read.  It is a robust defense of homeschooling, albeit from a libertarian/conservative perspective.  I have no wish to debate; I just thought that it was worth sharing.

[RootAnn]

Wow. I don't know anything about the proposed Conn. changes, but I felt the article was an unbashed attack with lots of Ad Homiem invective and not much meat. He even attacked the state of Connecticut as a whole, including the people who live there, I assume. I hope other editorials are better researched, more logical, and less attack-oriented toward "the Left." (He made me think, "Wow, The Left sounds much worse than Big Brother.")

[VeritasMama]

Wow. I don't know anything about the proposed Conn. changes, but I felt the article was an unbashed attack with lots of Ad Homiem invective and not much meat. He even attacked the state of Connecticut as a whole, including the people who live there, I assume. I hope other editorials are better researched, more logical, and less attack-oriented toward "the Left." (He made me think, "Wow, The Left sounds much worse than Big Brother.")

Here is a slightly less vitriolic article from someone in CT:

 

http://city-journal.org/mobile/story.php?s=10760#.VDWHK-29Kc0

 

My "leftist" relatives do not support homeschooling. I have yet to meet someone one the right who doesn't. I think that this gets painted as a "left vs. right" issue because there are people out there who don't think homeschooling should be legal, and they almost always self identify as being on the left.

[T'smom]

Wow. I could not finish reading that. I am a member of the "Left" and a strong homeschooling proponent. The two are not mutually exclusive IMO.

[Runningmom80]

aren't we supposed to avoid politics?

[kiana]

Here is a slightly less vitriolic article from someone in CT:

 

http://city-journal.org/mobile/story.php?s=10760#.VDWHK-29Kc0

 

My "leftist" relatives do not support homeschooling. I have yet to meet someone one the right who doesn't. I think that this gets painted as a "left vs. right" issue because there are people out there who don't think homeschooling should be legal, and they almost always self identify as being on the left.

Simply because many who are anti-homeschooling are on the left does not mean that those on the left are anti-homeschooling. This is a logical error.

[sassenach]

aren't we supposed to avoid politics?

I didn't read the article. Just want to comment on this question. I think the rule of avoiding politics does not apply to discussing homeschool laws/potential laws. That would be silly.

[Runningmom80]

I didn't read the article. Just want to comment on this question. I think the rule of avoiding politics does not apply to discussing homeschool laws/potential laws. That would be silly.

Except the article is completely one sided, and goes after "the Left," as its subject matter.

 

 

It's by no means an unbiased reporting of potential homeschool law changes.

[RootAnn]

Thanks for posting another version, VeritasMama. I will try to get time to read it later. 

 

FWIW, I dislike Logical Fallacies & unlogical attacks no matter what "side" they are on. The OP said she thought it was a "great read" and a robust defense of homeschooling. I posted that I begged to differ. Bad reasoning and attack dog political  rantings does not make for a great read or a "robust" defense. (Robust = strong and healthy; vigorous.) His argument would not stand up under scrutiny.

[hepatica]

I am also a CT homeschooler. 

 

This is proposed language in a "draft" of the advisory committee report. Even if it made it into the final report, it is only an advisory committee, not law. All these proposals would still have to go through the legislative process. So a bit of a reach for so many commentators to be getting themselves into such a frenzy.

[VeritasMama]

Wow. I could not finish reading that. I am a member of the "Left" and a strong homeschooling proponent. The two are not mutually exclusive IMO.

I know they are not, but you won't find any conservatives who support making homeschooling illegal, the right to homeschool is an important principle to them. You will find some on the left who do, I'm related to some on them. I realize it's not everyone on the left.

[VeritasMama]

Thanks for posting another version, VeritasMama. I will try to get time to read it later.

 

FWIW, I dislike Logical Fallacies & unlogical attacks no matter what "side" they are on. The OP said she thought it was a "great read" and a robust defense of homeschooling. I posted that I begged to differ. Bad reasoning and attack dog political rantings does not make for a great read or a "robust" defense. (Robust = strong and healthy; vigorous.) His argument would not stand up under scrutiny.

Emotions run high on this topic. It's going to be hard to find a commentary that is not biased and many of them will be heated. The article I posted is from a homeschooler who is probably on the right, but he does link to the documents if you want to read them for yourself.

[VeritasMama]

I am also a CT homeschooler.

 

This is proposed language in a "draft" of the advisory committee report. Even if it made it into the final report, it is only an advisory committee, not law. All these proposals would still have to go through the legislative process. So a bit of a reach for so many commentators to be getting themselves into such a frenzy.

I think that the "frenzy" you are describing is exactly how average citizens prevent things like these proposals from becoming law. It is the way politics work, it is how lawmakers are shown the "will of the people." It's not always pretty, but that's democracy.

[hepatica]

I think that the "frenzy" you are describing is exactly how average citizens prevent things like these proposals from becoming law. It is the way politics work, it is how lawmakers are shown the "will of the people." It's not always pretty, but that's democracy.

 

I disagree. The vitriol in that article regarding the state of CT, academics professionals, teachers unions etc., does little to further the cause of homeschoolers. The "tone" of homeschoolers in CT, at least in my experience, is much more measured. I get little sense that homeschoolers feel anyone is out to get them or coming for their children. 

 

Certainly, there are many misconceptions about homeschoolers. But, this is a straw man argument. If you watch the advisory committee hearings in CT, the tone is very measured and thoughtful. The committee members may be unfamiliar with homeschoolers, but we will hardly convince them that additional mental health screening is unnecessary by acting paranoid, and  attributing evil motives to the committee members.

 

I am actually sympathetic to the committee's attempt to find a way to ensure a better provision of mental health services to children in the state. If our healthcare system were not so woefully inadequate it would not fall to the schools to try and provide these services. But, if mental heath services are not going to be generally available to children (and our current health insurance system makes it impossible for many kids to adequately access mental health services), and the schools are actually going to become the locus of mental health service for kids in this state, then I would like to find a way for homeschoolers to access those services (in the same way they can access testing for LDs ). Homeschoolers need to get involved in this debate in an equally intelligent and measured way so that they can be sure to make sure that homeschooled children are not left out of what may indeed become a new mental health service system.

[NCMom]

I know they are not, but you won't find any conservatives who support making homeschooling illegal, the right to homeschool is an important principle to them. You will find some on the left who do, I'm related to some on them. I realize it's not everyone on the left.

Umm.. No. I work with a number of self identified conservatives (20+) who vehemently oppose homeschooling in any way, shape or form.

 

They happen to mostly be employees of the local PS, lol. I also have several friends who attend conservative churches where fellow conservatives do not support homeschooling at all.

 

And having lived in an area with MANY unschoolers/homeschoolers who were self identified liberals and serious homeschool advocates I have to say that is not so cut and dried.

 

Georgia

[VeritasMama]

I disagree. The vitriol in that article regarding the state of CT, academics professionals, teachers unions etc., does little to further the cause of homeschoolers. The "tone" of homeschoolers in CT, at least in my experience, is much more measured. I get little sense that homeschoolers feel anyone is out to get them or coming for their children.

 

Certainly, there are many misconceptions about homeschoolers. But, this is a straw man argument. If you watch the advisory committee hearings in CT, the tone is very measured and thoughtful. The committee members may be unfamiliar with homeschoolers, but we will hardly convince them that additional mental health screening is unnecessary by acting paranoid, and attributing evil motives to the committee members.

 

I am actually sympathetic to the committee's attempt to find a way to ensure a better provision of mental health services to children in the state. If our healthcare system were not so woefully inadequate it would not fall to the schools to try and provide these services. But, if mental heath services are not going to be generally available to children (and our current health insurance system makes it impossible for many kids to adequately access mental health services), and the schools are actually going to become the locus of mental health service for kids in this state, then I would like to find a way for homeschoolers to access those services (in the same way they can access testing for LDs ). Homeschoolers need to get involved in this debate in an equally intelligent and measured way so that they can be sure to make sure that homeschooled children are not left out of what may indeed become a new mental health service system.

"In the end, according to Solomon, it was Lanza’s psychologist who recommended homeschooling. His parents accepted the idea as a last resort for a child whom local medical and education professionals couldn’t seem to help. So yes, Adam Lanza’s mother homeschooled him during his high school years. But Nancy Lanza wasn’t trying to prove some political point by homeschooling her son. She was trying to help him, to give him a future, to keep him alive, and to keep his peers safe. The Newtown Public School system was involved every step of the way. “Even after beginning homeschooling, Adam continued to attend Newtown High’s Tech Club meetings,†Solomon writes. Adam’s home curriculum was coordinated with Newtown High so that when he graduated, he received a diploma rather than a G.E.D. Adam Lanza’s homeschooling was a reaction to his illness, not the cause of it."

 

Adam Lanza was an adult. He had recieved mental health services both private and through the school district continually from a very young age. He wasn't homeschooled until 10th grade. For this committee to say that homeschooling played a role in what happened means that every public school will have to be blamed for every student they have who has graduated and commits a horrific crime. That is the logic being used here, and it is faulty. That is why homeschoolers are up in arms, homeschooling did not play a role in this tragedy.

 

There are plenty of mental health services available to children, Lanza recieved all of them and nothing helped. I think, sadly, he became an adult and his mother simply gave up.

[hepatica]

"In the end, according to Solomon, it was Lanza’s psychologist who recommended homeschooling. His parents accepted the idea as a last resort for a child whom local medical and education professionals couldn’t seem to help. So yes, Adam Lanza’s mother homeschooled him during his high school years. But Nancy Lanza wasn’t trying to prove some political point by homeschooling her son. She was trying to help him, to give him a future, to keep him alive, and to keep his peers safe. The Newtown Public School system was involved every step of the way. “Even after beginning homeschooling, Adam continued to attend Newtown High’s Tech Club meetings,†Solomon writes. Adam’s home curriculum was coordinated with Newtown High so that when he graduated, he received a diploma rather than a G.E.D. Adam Lanza’s homeschooling was a reaction to his illness, not the cause of it."

 

Adam Lanza was an adult. He had recieved mental health services both private and through the school district continually from a very young age. He wasn't homeschooled until 10th grade. For this committee to say that homeschooling played a role in what happened means that every public school will have to be blamed for every student they have who has graduated and commits a horrific crime. That is the logic being used here, and it is faulty. That is why homeschoolers are up in arms, homeschooling did not play a role in this tragedy.

 

There are plenty of mental health services available to children, Lanza recieved all of them and nothing helped. I think, sadly, he became an adult and his mother simply gave up.

 I don't disagree with these facts. It's silly to blame homeschooling, especially in this case.

 

But, if CT tries to institute an integrated mental health system for children, and its locus is the schools, then I guess I want to make sure those services are available to all. I am looking at what is really new about what the committee is proposing ( and I do think it is an exciting new idea to try and build a truly adequate mental health system for children). I don't think there should be any requirements that homeschoolers use the system. And, frankly, it would be a huge departure from the approach the state has historically taken to impose such requirements. I don't think that will happen here. And, CT homeschoolers are smart enough to make those arguments without the craziness of the article in the OP. They could simply state what you very rationally and intelligently stated above.  

[Farrar]

I disagree. The vitriol in that article regarding the state of CT, academics professionals, teachers unions etc., does little to further the cause of homeschoolers. 

:iagree:

 

Articles like this hurt homeschooling, IMO. They don't help. They make homeschoolers seem as angry, bitter, and extremest as the author.

[2ndGenHomeschooler]

I live in CT too. I agree that we need to take a calm, measured, approach to dealing with this. Panicking won't help our cause at all. That being said, we DO need to do something. If they want to make services available to all children that's great. Currently homeschoolers don't have access to much, if anything, through the school system. Unfortunately, the draft proposal that was released doesn't stop at simply making services available. It also REQUIRES screenings for all children and seems to imply that they can share that information without parental consent. It also seems to say that they want to require screenings for parents too. I need to read it again a little more slowly so I may have misread some of those things. My number one issue with it (and the number one issue of the other parents I have spoken with) is that this proposal requires things vs. offering them. That is not ok with me.

[MotherGoose]

"Inherent in the draft recommendations is the commission’s belief that government and state institutions have—and should have—the ability to shape social outcomes. “We need a holistic approach that will follow children from birth to adulthood, identifying risk factors, reinforcing protective factors, and promoting positive development throughout,†said University of Connecticut law professor Susan R. Schmeiser, who helped draft the recommendation. Schools, she said, should serve as “a locus of this more integrated system of care†and should adopt “a comprehensive, integrated approach†that is not reactive, but proactive. A reformed school mental health system should do more than just scan the horizon for disorder, she said. It should “prioritize social and emotional learning within the curriculum.â€

From http://city-journal.org/mobile/story.php?s=10760#.VDXR7mK9KSN

This does not seem political, it's horrifying.

[VeritasMama]

Umm.. No. I work with a number of self identified conservatives (20+) who vehemently oppose homeschooling in any way, shape or form.

 

They happen to mostly be employees of the local PS, lol. I also have several friends who attend conservative churches where fellow conservatives do not support homeschooling at all.

 

And having lived in an area with MANY unschoolers/homeschoolers who were self identified liberals and serious homeschool advocates I have to say that is not so cut and dried.

 

Georgia

Some of the most virulent anti-homeschoolers I have known were teachers I worked with both in public and private schools. Most of my fellow teachers thought homeschooling should be illegal, but that was 8 years ago so attitudes may have changed. But I think this is pretty common in the profession, regardless of politics.

 

The conservatives I know would say that your friends aren't really conservatives if they don't support homeschooling ;). Homeschoolkng is discussed openly and frequently in conservative publications as a positive thing.

 

I'm not trying to start a fight, I apologize if I offended, I wasn't trying to paint with a wide brush and I regret it if I did. It's a debate that we shouldn't be having, I'm sorry if I started it.

[VeritasMama]

Simply because many who are anti-homeschooling are on the left does not mean that those on the left are anti-homeschooling. This is a logical error.

I didn't say everyone on the left was anti-homeschooling. I said the overwhelming majority of those who are anti-homeschooling self identify as being on the left. This is a fact, not a logical error.

[kiana]

I didn't say everyone on the left was anti-homeschooling. I said the overwhelming majority of those who are anti-homeschooling self identify as being on the left. This is a fact, not a logical error.

I was mostly referring to the article and not you. The reason I quoted you is that you appeared to be supporting the article's characterization of the Left as some sort of monolithic anti-homeschool group. If you didn't intend to be supporting that, I heartily apologize.

 

"If you have not followed the issue closely, it is probably impossible for you to understand how intensely the Left and the government-school monopoly hate, loathe, and distrust home-schooling and home-school families" rather clearly implies that it is the Left in general.

 

I don't think that the proposed regulations in CT are good, and if I lived there, I would be writing my congressman about what a bad idea this bill was. But this article is a terrible, terrible argument as to why they are bad. There is not a shred of logic in it -- rather, it is a shrill, vitriolic screed about the evils of the Left, coupled with a healthy dose of fear-mongering and paranoia.

[VeritasMama]

I was mostly referring to the article and not you. The reason I quoted you is that you appeared to be supporting the article's characterization of the Left as some sort of monolithic anti-homeschool group. If you didn't intend to be supporting that, I heartily apologize.

 

"If you have not followed the issue closely, it is probably impossible for you to understand how intensely the Left and the government-school monopoly hate, loathe, and distrust home-schooling and home-school families" rather clearly implies that it is the Left in general.

 

I don't think that the proposed regulations in CT are good, and if I lived there, I would be writing my congressman about what a bad idea this bill was. But this article is a terrible, terrible argument as to why they are bad. There is not a shred of logic in it -- rather, it is a shrill, vitriolic screed about the evils of the Left, coupled with a healthy dose of fear-mongering and paranoia.

Thank you, I realize the left is not monolithic, and I don't support the negative rhetoric used in the OP's article. The article I linked to does a much better job of laying out what is going on without the "us vs. them" vitriol.

 

One point I was trying to make was that, for better or worse, pundits on the right and the left use over the top rhetoric to get attention. This isn't just about ratings and clicks, it is also about furthering their agenda, and the louder and more "frenzied" they are the more they can whip up their base and get them to contact their representatives. Angry letters and phone calls do have an effect on the legislative process. That is one reason why the original article is so "outrageous," and over the top, it's a strategy that works and both sides use it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Wow. I could not finish reading that. I am a member of the "Left" and a strong homeschooling proponent. The two are not mutually exclusive IMO.

 

Same here.  I lean pretty far left.

 

And I am originally from CT (born and lived there 32 years).

 

Although left and right in CT isn't quite the same as left and right elsewhere in the country.

[Lucy the Valiant]

"Inherent in the draft recommendations is the commission’s belief that government and state institutions have—and should have—the ability to shape social outcomes. “We need a holistic approach that will follow children from birth to adulthood, identifying risk factors, reinforcing protective factors, and promoting positive development throughout,†said University of Connecticut law professor Susan R. Schmeiser, who helped draft the recommendation. Schools, she said, should serve as “a locus of this more integrated system of care†and should adopt “a comprehensive, integrated approach†that is not reactive, but proactive. A reformed school mental health system should do more than just scan the horizon for disorder, she said. It should “prioritize social and emotional learning within the curriculum.â€

From http://city-journal.org/mobile/story.php?s=10760#.VDXR7mK9KSN

This does not seem political, it's horrifying.

 

Oh. Wow.

 

Yeah, that is some pretty serious language, right there.

 

It goes on . . .

 

"But empowering a local school district to reach inside families and execute programs of social and emotional learning—perhaps against the will of parents—is unambiguously a violation of the right to homeschool as expressed by Connecticut’s education laws. More than that, though, it’s a call for a radical restructuring of the traditional relationship between children, their families, and the state. The commissioners, like most social engineers, insist they are only motivated by a desire to protect vulnerable kids. “The purpose of this recommendation is to make sure that kids get what kids need. If they have needs that aren’t being addressed, just because the parent has chosen to remove them from the school setting . . . their needs are still going to be met,†said commissioner Kathleen Flaherty. Homeschooling, from this point of view, is an obstacle to the necessary provision of essential public-health services."

 

Yes, there is most definitely a HUGE difference between offering & requiring these mental health services. And it is not insignificant to this discussion that many of the loudest voices against home schooling are coming from the public school system.

 

I was a public school teacher who VOWED I would *never* home school my own future children. (As we enter year 7 of home schooling, I have never been more glad to be so wrong.)

 

"Schools, said Schmeiser, should form “multidisciplinary risk assessment teams†to identify and address toxic stress, trauma, and social isolation in homeschooled children."

 

Yeah, I get why they're "up in arms."

[EmseB]

It might be helpful to read the specific leftist, progressive (not liberal, to be clear) perspecitive that Williamson was going after in his article (it is by the Professor West he mentions).  It is full of logical fallacies and lazily cited assertions.  It is in a journal specifically about public policy issues.  And it is a dangerous perspective.  If it seems like Williamson was attacking the statists on the left, it's because he was.  That was his whole point.  If you're a liberal proponent of homeschooling, then I don't think you would fall under the group of people he's speaking about.

 

And, not to "no true scotsman" this thread, but if a conservative doesn't think that a family has the inherent right to educate their own children, then they aren't conservative.

[kiana]

And, not to "no true scotsman" this thread, but if a conservative doesn't think that a family has the inherent right to educate their own children, then they aren't conservative.

 

If a liberal doesn't believe in a parent's right to choose the best education for their child (including homeschooling as well as any other approach), then they aren't liberal.

 

:)

 

ETA: I realize this is a little bit snarky, but I'm going to leave it with an explanation.

 

You do not get to disavow any conservatives who disagree with homeschooling, saying that they are "not REAL conservatives", without allowing liberals to do the same. Both people who consider themselves conservative and people who consider themselves liberal (as well as people who consider themselves neither) have a wide range of political viewpoints. The idea that in order to be "real conservatives" or "real liberals" (you don't see this about homeschooling with the liberals, but you see it about other political viewpoints where they sort of expect each other to be monolithic) they need to agree with all aspects of the party line is extraordinarily divisive and really fosters the "us against them" mentality.

[Guest bhushannowonline]

Article that you shared was really nice. I still think homeschooling is not easy. It comes with different pros and cons.

[hepatica]

It might be helpful to read the specific leftist, progressive (not liberal, to be clear) perspecitive that Williamson was going after in his article (it is by the Professor West he mentions).  It is full of logical fallacies and lazily cited assertions.  It is in a journal specifically about public policy issues.  And it is a dangerous perspective.  If it seems like Williamson was attacking the statists on the left, it's because he was.  That was his whole point.  If you're a liberal proponent of homeschooling, then I don't think you would fall under the group of people he's speaking about.

 

 

 

I agree that West's article is very sloppy scholarship. I have blogged before about the logical inconsistencies in the arguments made by scholars such as West and Robert Reich (whom West cites in the above linked article). 

 

But, even with their clearly biased assumptions about homeschoolers, West and Reich and other opponents of homeschooling do not speak in the outrageous voice of someone like Williamson, who denigrates the entire state of CT as "a venn diagram overlap of everything that is awful about New York and everything that is awful about New England."  How can he possibly hope to be taken seriously? And, frankly, as a homeschooler, I would like policy makers to take me seriously.

 

Moreover, why not just write an article about West? He has conflated the Sandy Hook Commissions proposals on mental health with the inconsistent arguments of anti-homeschooling scholars. I guess hoping that we won't look carefully at the commission but just join in the frenzied rhetoric. His argument just as, if not more, sloppy than the one/ones he is criticizing.

[VeritasMama]

I agree that West's article is very sloppy scholarship. I have blogged before about the logical inconsistencies in the arguments made by scholars such as West and Robert Reich (whom West cites in the above linked article).

 

But, even with their clearly biased assumptions about homeschoolers, West and Reich and other opponents of homeschooling do not speak in the outrageous voice of someone like Williamson, who denigrates the entire state of CT as "a venn diagram overlap of everything that is awful about New York and everything that is awful about New England." How can he possibly hope to be taken seriously? And, frankly, as a homeschooler, I would like policy makers to take me seriously.

 

Moreover, why not just write an article about West? He has conflated the Sandy Hook Commissions proposals on mental health with the inconsistent arguments of anti-homeschooling scholars. I guess hoping that we won't look carefully at the commission but just join in the frenzied rhetoric. His argument just as, if not more, sloppy than the one/ones he is criticizing.

As I said, the original article is not meant to be scholarly work. It is meant to incite strong feelings in the readers who will then contact the people involved to voice their outrage, thus impacting public policy. Angry phone calls and letters really do work. It is a political piece, it is punditry, the piece that he links to lays out the specifics, Williamson is editorializing based on the other piece. He doesn't have to make persuasive arguments to his readership to accomplish this, conservatives embrace the right to homeschool as part of their definitive principles, an they'll read the other piece he links to.

 

I'm not saying I like the Williamson piece, but the context and intention of what he is trying to accomplish with the piece are important.

 

This is a very concerning issue, please read the city-journal article I linked to. There is understandable alarm over this issue, it is important for all homeschoolers to keep an eye on these things.

[Mergath]

I know they are not, but you won't find any conservatives who support making homeschooling illegal, the right to homeschool is an important principle to them. You will find some on the left who do, I'm related to some on them. I realize it's not everyone on the left.

 

That is absolutely untrue.  I've met plenty of conservatives who think children need to attend school to be "properly socialized."  

[Mergath]

I didn't say everyone on the left was anti-homeschooling. I said the overwhelming majority of those who are anti-homeschooling self identify as being on the left. This is a fact, not a logical error.

 

It's not a fact unless you can back it up with something beyond anecdotes.

[Farrar]

Can anyone summarize what these changes even are? One of the article linked seemed to imply they weren't even proposed legislation, but recommendations of the panel studying Adam Lanza. And the bias is so great that I can't really make out what the goals of the legislation/recommendations actually are. I mean, on their face, they sound too expensive to ever pass, and therefore not worthy of much attention.

[EmseB]

If a liberal doesn't believe in a parent's right to choose the best education for their child (including homeschooling as well as any other approach), then they aren't liberal.

 

:)

 

ETA: I realize this is a little bit snarky, but I'm going to leave it with an explanation.

 

You do not get to disavow any conservatives who disagree with homeschooling, saying that they are "not REAL conservatives", without allowing liberals to do the same. Both people who consider themselves conservative and people who consider themselves liberal (as well as people who consider themselves neither) have a wide range of political viewpoints. The idea that in order to be "real conservatives" or "real liberals" (you don't see this about homeschooling with the liberals, but you see it about other political viewpoints where they sort of expect each other to be monolithic) they need to agree with all aspects of the party line is extraordinarily divisive and really fosters the "us against them" mentality.

 

I actually agree with this, so no explanation needed.  :)

 

I was mainly basing my comment off of the actual definition of those terms as it applies to political philosophy, which is why in my post I tried to differentiate between progressive/leftist statists (who very much want homeschooling to be illegal) and liberals.  To be clear, I don't think Williamson makes that distinction in his article specifically, but I don't think liberal homeschoolers (who are obviously for educational choice) would fall into the category of people he was lampooning like Prof. West or those trying to push for psych evals for homeschooled kids in CT.  I do think, aside from the party politics we have here in the States, that there are objective philosophical tennents of both liberalism (classic liberalism) and conservativism, etc that do have a tendancy to manifest themselves into positions about big issues like education, welfare, etc.  I think the philosophies can be objectively defined, but self-identification is trickier, especially American party politics is so divisive along the major issues.  I'm sure there are leftists who would say that if you don't let the state educate your kids you can't be a true liberal, but obviously they haven't read the definition of liberal. :)

 

So yeah, anyway, I agree with almost everything you've said here, and I don't think a philosophically liberal person would be against educational choices.

[VeritasMama]

Can anyone summarize what these changes even are? One of the article linked seemed to imply they weren't even proposed legislation, but recommendations of the panel studying Adam Lanza. And the bias is so great that I can't really make out what the goals of the legislation/recommendations actually are. I mean, on their face, they sound too expensive to ever pass, and therefore not worthy of much attention.

It's a panel that was created to propose policy changes that should be made because of Sandy Hook. They specifically brought up homeschooling and suggested that an increase in oversight may be appropriate. The article I linked to in my original comment has a link to the advisory panel documents.

[Farrar]

So it isn't even proposed legislation changes? Are the "increased oversight" suggestions more specific or are they actually that vague? Without there being specific changes proposed, no wonder everything that's being written about it is just a political mudslingger. I don't even know why it merits much discussion, honestly, if there's no force of law behind it. And having extremists put out really vitriolic articles decrying the whole panel doesn't necessarily help in terms of not eventually leading to more homeschool regulation.

[VeritasMama]

That is absolutely untrue. I've met plenty of conservatives who think children need to attend school to be "properly socialized."

But I'm sure none of them support making homeschooling illegal, even if they personally think that schooling is best.

 

In the original post I was discussing those who think homeschooling should be illegal.

 

Parental rights, including the right to homeschool, is inherent in the philosophical stance of conservatism. You won't see prominent conservatives denounce the right to homeschool, because they would be denounced by most conservatives.

 

As I said above, I realize the left and the right are not monolithic, and that there are self described liberals who support homeschooling. I was not implying that liberalism and homeschooling arent compatible, I was comparing political philosophies.

 

There are prominent liberal publications that have published articles saying that "progressives" shouldn't homeshool, and there are prominent self described liberals who have publically said homeschooling should not be legal. This is not something you will see among prominent conservatives, for the reasons I gave above.

 

I don't have a dog in the right vs. left fight, I've always self identified a a moderate. But I do care about the right to homeschool, so I pay attention.

[EmseB]

But, even with their clearly biased assumptions about homeschoolers, West and Reich and other opponents of homeschooling do not speak in the outrageous voice of someone like Williamson,

 

Um, really? She fancied up her language and it's not editorial style as Williamson's piece was, but the outrageousness is there.  Especially in the parts about the harms of homeschooling

 

"Fundamentalist Protestant adults who were homeschooled over the last thirty years are not politically disengaged, far from it. ....They don't question authority, and they can't go AWOL. With little education, few if any job skills, and scant resources, their power either to influence the lines of authority within their own sphere, or to leave that sphere, is virtually nil."

 

and

 

"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, 1,000square-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."

 

Not to mention that us homeschoolers are non-immunized diseases carriers waiting to incite a public health crisis.

 

Of course, I know a lot of people who believe this to be true about the majority of homeschoolers, so they probably wouldn't see any derisiveness here at all.

 

At any rate, in both cases, I try to look beyond the tone and look for the substance of what the author is trying to say as well as the merit of their claims (if I'm analyzing their writing).  I do think tone can turn some people off of an article immediately, as I'm tempted to simply not read West's article based on her characterization of people who are somehow the core of unregulated homeschoolers, but I'm willing to look at what she can suppport because if what she's saying is true then I have to adjust my thinking instead of dismissing her outright.  I have dismissed her, as it happens, but it's not because of her tone or obvious bias against fundamentalist protestant homeschoolers.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Here is a slightly less vitriolic article from someone in CT:

 

http://city-journal.org/mobile/story.php?s=10760#.VDWHK-29Kc0

 

My "leftist" relatives do not support homeschooling. I have yet to meet someone one the right who doesn't. I think that this gets painted as a "left vs. right" issue because there are people out there who don't think homeschooling should be legal, and they almost always self identify as being on the left.

Liberal here who strongly supports homeschooling as well as school choice. I know plenty others as well in real life and here on the WTM.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have also met conservatives who are against homeschooling as well.

[VeritasMama]

So it isn't even proposed legislation changes? Are the "increased oversight" suggestions more specific or are they actually that vague? Without there being specific changes proposed, no wonder everything that's being written about it is just a political mudslingger. I don't even know why it merits much discussion, honestly, if there's no force of law behind it. And having extremists put out really vitriolic articles decrying the whole panel doesn't necessarily help in terms of not eventually leading to more homeschool regulation.

Like I said, they are whipping up the constituency. Input from the public does influence the development of public policy. If you are active in local politics, this is how it is done on both sides. So while it is unseemly to many, stirring up public outcry at this stage of the game can be an effective strategy when trying to ensure that recommendations like these don't become actual policy. Public input on the work of these types of "task forces," "committees" and "advisory panels" is part of the process, and it does have an impact on how leaders move forward. Involved citizens often contact their representatives about any and all issues being publicly discussed, not just legislation. It is the way politics works, and working the base into a frenzy to influence public policy and legislation is used by the right and the left.

[EmseB]

Moreover, why not just write an article about West? He has conflated the Sandy Hook Commissions proposals on mental health with the inconsistent arguments of anti-homeschooling scholars. I guess hoping that we won't look carefully at the commission but just join in the frenzied rhetoric. His argument just as, if not more, sloppy than the one/ones he is criticizing.

 

Oh, sorry for posting again, but I meant to address this.  West and the Sandy Hook Commission are both advocating for public policy change based on the idea that the state is simply allowing us all to homeschool our kids, but the government should be able, at any time, to ask us to jump through any number of hoops in order to retain our "right" to keep our kids out of public schools.  In both cases, the underlying assumption is that kids who go to public schools are getting the oversight and care they need because the state is able to see the kids everyday and enact their standards for education, health and well being, whereas my kids don't get any government oversight and that's inherently a bad thing.  If you read about the ills that West blames on homeschooling, and then see what the SHC is trying to fix by prescribing public policy for homeschoolers, it's not a conflation to say they are ideologically coming from the exact same place and advocating for very similar policies.

 

Williamson is talking about overarching ideology of both groups (Commission and anti-homschooling "scholars") and how it plays out in public policy advocacy.

[EmseB]

I have also met conservatives who are against homeschooling as well.

 

I have met many conservatives who don't homeschool and feel very strongly against homeschooling their own children, and even strongly for putting their kids in public schools.  I have yet to meet a conservative (someone who philosophically believes in conservatism) who advocates for making it illegal for parents to choose to homeschool their children if they so choose.

[Stellalarella]

Here is the perspective from the "Coalition for Responsible Home Education."  They are big supporters, apparently.

 

Williamson is a hot head.  He just is.  He's fun to read just for vocabulary study and sentence structure.  

 

The part of his piece that I liked for myself, though, is "Home-schooling isn’t for everybody, but every home-school student....is a quiet little declaration of independence."

 

I don't think everyone takes on homeschooling that way--but increasingly, I am.  His statement reminded me that it's a great privilege and responsibility for my husband and I to direct our children through their educations.  He says homeschooling is a radical movement.  And I do think it takes courage to go against the flow these days--to not run my children's learning by the demands of ever-changing standardized tests, to give them enough time to play---just free play, for pete's sake is so counter-cultural right now,  to teach them about God even as we study history, science, reading and math, to not tie down pre-schoolers for hours of academics that are developmentally inappropriate.  I'm all for declaring independence from a state sponsored system that is going to offer, which means, uh, require, services for what a patently unhealthy state calls mental health.  

 

i really think reading the release from the Coalition for Responsible Home Education is helpful for understanding the supporting side.  

 

 

[EmseB]

i really think reading the release from the Coalition for Responsible Home Education is helpful for understanding the supporting side.  

 

Except they talk in terms of access.  The commission and others are talking in terms of requirements.  It's all fine and good to say my kid should be able to have a psych eval, but it's quite different to say they should be required to have one to make sure that they are "normal" based on the standards of my school district.  Or to say that as a homeschool parent my kid should be able to have an IEP and access to resources.  But once my kid must have an IEP because he's not meeting public school benchmarks, and then I must start meeting objectives and standards set out by the district, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms. 

 

To support "responsible" homeschooling in this light simply supporting one definition of responsible homeschooling, and I find it really just means bringing public school standards and curriculum home.

[VeritasMama]

Liberal here who strongly supports homeschooling as well as school choice. I know plenty others as well in real life and here on the WTM.

 

I am well aware of this. I never said that all liberals are against homeschooling, I realize that those who are anti-homeschooling make up a fringe group, but the majority of them do self affiliate with the left. Please read my other comments.

[VeritasMama]

Here is a brief account of one of the proposals from the Connecticut Post:

 

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Commission-evaluate-some-home-schooled-kids-for-5775275.php

 

"Under the proposal, home-schooled children with behavioral and emotional disabilities would have to have individualized education plans approved by the special education director of the local public school district. Allowing for the continued home-schooling of such children would be predicated on the individualized plans and "adequate progress" documented in mandatory annual reports."

 

One of the reasons this alarms me is because Adam Lanza was receiving psychiatric care from a young age and while he was homeschooling, his psychiatrist had recommended homeschooling because years of school interventions and support had not really helped him, and he was not a homeschooler at the time of the attack. He was an adult who happened to have been homeschooled for the last two years of high school. It wasn't until he became an adult and declined mental health care that the attack occurred. How can any public school prevent that?

 

Logic says that homeschooling did not play a role in the Sandy Hook attack, and yet the commission cited homeschooling as a cause of concern and  has proposed changes to the way homeschoolers are evaluated. The reforms they are suggesting wouldn't have actually prevented the attack, Adam Lanza was still involved with the public school the entire time he homeschooled.

[2ndGenHomeschooler]

Adam Lanza was not home schooled. He received home bound instruction through the public school system beginning in 10th grade, most likely as part of an IEP. He graduated early with a diploma from the Newtown school district. This is not an option for home schoolers in our state. The difference between home schooling and public home bound instruction is a key difference. Home schooling means zero government oversight or accountability here. Home bound instruction means that he had tutors or spent part of his time in school or SOMETHING that allowed the "experts" to keep an eye on him all the way to the end of high school. Three years later he went back to the school and committed that horrific crime.

 

The Sandy Hook Commission is supposed to be making recommendations that might prevent another tragedy like this from occurring. First of all, they don't seem to understand that it is impossible to legislate away all evil in the world. Secondly, their recommendations are illogical. They already had everything they are proposing as far as Lanza is concerned. It did nothing to prevent Sandy Hook. (And some could argue that his struggles in that school only contributed to the problem.) They couldn't prevent one of "their" children from doing this. What makes them think that monitoring more children will help anything?

[DesertBlossom]

Am I the only one wondering how they are using Adam Lanza's story to push to increase oversight in homeschooling?  Lanza was in public school up until 8th grade. I would think a decent case could be made that his public schooling only made his behavioral problems worse, and that homeschooling was a last ditch attempt to help him.