Pharyngula

Posted by: jackal.eyes | March 7, 2010 12:11 PM

My brother was home schooled because the public school system couldn't deal with his learning disabilities. The only other choice would have been to send him to an expensive private school that would have rammed Catholicism down his throat. Ideally, there would be better options, but in reality, home schooling is sometimes the best available. In PA, home schooled children are required to take yearly standardized tests to make sure they're learning the public school material. As long as evolution is on those tests (I don't know if it is), and as long as students who don't pass the tests are no allowed to continue being home schooled (I don't know how well the testing is enforced), then there shouldn't be a problem.

Posted by: Nessa | March 7, 2010 12:17 PM

I just want to point out that not everyone home-schools for religious reasons. I am an atheist home-schooling my boys, because I don't want to send them to a religious private school, but I want a better education for them than the public schools can provide.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | March 7, 2010 12:22 PM

I was 'homeschooled' for secular reasons. I was bullied daily, and the school administrators and faculty either turned a blind eye or actively participated. After years of threats failed to work, my mother decided to pull me out of school after sixth grade and educate me at home, using a (fully accredited) correspondence high school service based in Chicago. If memory serves, if I didn't go through this correspondence school, and my mother instead taught me herself, then I would have to take the GED.

I'd like to see similar services crop up, and possibly even have some run by the government. (I know school districts run "hospital/homebound" programs to educate those who cannot physically attend school; this might be a good overlap/replacement.)

I'm not opposed to the idea of homeschooling, obviously. I just wish there were better regulation of it. Not everyone who homeschools is a religious nut; some actually do want the best education possible for their children.

Posted by: 1webdeveloper | March 7, 2010 12:27 PM

I'm another atheist who has one child being home schooled. I suspect there may be quite a number of us out there.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 12:35 PM

Home schooling has a negative image for various reasons:

* All too often kids are home schooled so they won't go to school with "them darkies" and other untermenschen.

* All too often kids are home schooled to protect them from evilution, sex education (including acceptance of LGBTs as real people), and other unchristian topics.

* Some home school teachers like Andy Schlafly are obviously incompetent.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | March 7, 2010 12:36 PM

Sorry I have to disagree with PZ on this one.

The effective re-segregation of the public school system along class lines that started at the beginning of the Reagan administration makes options for poor families living in crappy places really thin on the ground. My brother's family had to live in horrid places where the schools not only suck, but also lack any special needs programs at all. Laws that require a city to pay for special needs children to attend private schools with the proper programs usually require an expensive lawsuit to make such happen. (back in the late 90s I spoke with a lawyer who makes about half his income suing the city of Oakland, CA for exactly this conduct, but he would not do more than talk to me on the phone for 5 minutes without a $2K retainer).

So, it's home school or throw 'em in the shark tank. What would you choose for your special needs child?

Posted by: randallstevens | March 7, 2010 12:37 PM

Wow, those comments on Coyne's were pretty informative. For instance, I never knew that he was gay. Not only that, he's an "evolution faggot". Learn something new every day.

Posted by: loveberry | March 7, 2010 12:40 PM

Yet another atheist homeschooler here. I fail to see why my right to educate my child should be removed because other people do it badly, especially while the public schools are failing children in every respect at such astronomical rates.

Posted by: tomh | March 7, 2010 12:47 PM

Givesgoodemail wrote:
anyone who knows what they're doing, or is willing to learn how, can educate their children (with or without religious components) much more adequately than a regimented curriculum.

That's simply not true. Very few people are qualified, or can educate themselves to be qualified, to teach children all the various subjects that they need to compete in the modern world. It's also difficult to learn effective teaching techniques - that's why teachers are required to learn how to educate students, as well as master the subject matter itself. And a home school educator needs to master a wide variety of subjects. To say anyone can do it is just wishful thinking.

Posted by: loveberry | March 7, 2010 12:52 PM

Where did the article state that 83% of homeschoolers are Christian cultists?

I read that 83% wish to educate their children on religious and moral issues. You don't want your kids educated about religion and morality?

It was badly worded, and the interpretations are worse.

Posted by: Nessa | March 7, 2010 12:54 PM

tomh; Teachers spend all that time learning time and classroom management skills, and how to teach 20-30 kids all at once. Teaching a child one on one is far different than teaching in a classroom. And like Givesgodeamail wrote, children are very effective at teaching themselves, given the proper encouragement and resources.

Posted by: John Marley | March 7, 2010 12:56 PM

On the other hand, anyone who knows what they're doing, or is willing to learn how, can educate their children (with or without religious components) much more adequately than a regimented curriculum.

[citation needed]

Posted by: tomdoc | March 7, 2010 12:57 PM

I know secular people who home school. They do it because they don't care for the public schools in their area, not because they think the universe is 6,000 years old. My question is though, aren't most of the text books written for homeschoolers religous in nature. How would a secular homeschooler find a good sciene textbook?

Posted by: John Marley | March 7, 2010 1:05 PM

How would a secular homeschooler find a good sciene textbook?

Probably with a small amount of research.

Posted by: tomh | March 7, 2010 1:06 PM

Nessa wrote:
children are very effective at teaching themselves, given the proper encouragement and resources.

That's probably the worst justification for homeschooling I've seen yet. Children can teach themselves! Well, that certainly lifts all responsibility from the adult involved. Homeschooling should be banned, as it is in many civilized countries.

Posted by: kantalope | March 7, 2010 1:08 PM

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

It is best to laugh and talk like Dr. Strangelove: "heh, ya that paragraph was added by some scamp in the mailroom you know. heh. We all thought it was very funny hehehe and then, you know, someone forgot to cross it off. Very unfortunate you know."

No science....no science credit. That was not so hard.

Xtians think science is all bunk anyway why do they pretend to need/want it?

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 1:12 PM

Homeschooling should be banned, as it is in many civilized countries.

This kind of open authoritarianism and state-power-worship makes me very sad.

I refer anyone who actually cares about freedom to my post at #12.

Posted by: raven | March 7, 2010 1:15 PM

"I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.
deleted 2 paragraphs

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

According to the Bob Jones biology book, if you accept evolution and an old universe, you are going to hell. Odd, I don't remember learning that in science classes.

They have been called on it before. And said they would remove that passage. They never did and probably have no intention of doing so.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 1:18 PM

I refer anyone who actually cares about freedom to my post at #12.

After posting this, I realise how arrogant it sounded. I retract it.

What I meant to say was that anyone who cares about freedom should be engaging with the issue of the gross authoritarianism practised in most schools, and working to do something about it. Anyone who condemns homeschooling needs to address those issues.

Posted by: amphiox | March 7, 2010 1:23 PM

#11, 12, 15

Your objections are merely arguments for making public schools better, and fit fully into the spirit of PZ's comments about appropriate standards and accreditation.

And if, under such a system, you still want to homeschool, then all you have to do is incorporate yourself as a private school, obtain the appropriate accreditation to prove yourself competent in providing the appropriate quality of education, and off you go, with your student body of 1 (or 2 or whatever).

(It would probably work out best not for a single family, but for a group of likeminded parents to get together to homeschool their children - you can tap into a greater pool of adult expertise this way.)

And it is certainly true that an appropriately motivated child, with just a minimal amount of guidance, is usually exquisitely capable at self-education.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 1:29 PM

Your objections are merely arguments for making public schools better, and fit fully into the spirit of PZ's comments about appropriate standards and accreditation.

Did you even read my post? I wasn't just talking about the quality of government-run schools (and, indeed, private schools), but about the hierarchical, authoritarian structure, the way that they seek to control every aspect of young people's lives and instil "discipline" and unquestioning obedience.

And yes, in theory this is an argument for changing the way schools are run. But in practice, if you're a parent living in an area where all the local schools are very poorly run, what are you supposed to do? Ruin your child's life, and cause him or her permanent emotional damage, by forcing him or her to attend a bad school? In that circumstance, homeschooling is the only decent option. Trying to prevent parents from choosing that option, in those circumstances, is simply causing unnecessary suffering to children for reasons of dogmatic ideology.

Posted by: Hugo Rune | March 7, 2010 1:30 PM

Personally I'm torn on the issue. I think there are a number of good reasons to allow homeschooling in principle but from what I've seen in the vast majority of cases its just abused to indoctrinate the kids and keep them away from "evil" secular influence. Here in (central) Europe it only ever comes up when some lunatic Christian fundies think that their children are not brought up in the "right spirit" i.e. sufficiently terrorized and frightened into religion in public and private schools. You'd think that there were crazy fundie schools enough out there for everyone to find something they can agree with.

Last time we had something about homeschooling in the media it was about this case. I mean, one can argue about Germany's ban on homeschooling. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it. But political asylum because of religious persecution? Everybody in Germany, religious or not, has to follow that law.

I'm not from Germany myself but that whole thing really really annoyed me. Still does. How can one devalue an important human rights institution like political asylum for something like this?

Posted by: AlisonS | March 7, 2010 1:37 PM

In this case, I too disagree with PZ. There are other reasons why parents may choose to home school. Some have been mentioned by previous posters. I have secular friends who live in rural Vermont and their children would have had to spend several hours a day being bused to school. She had been a teacher and taught them all the non-science subjects and her mother handled the science subjects. They also coordinated activities with other home schooled children. When the oldest started high school for his last two years, he was top of his class, and by miles. I believe that Vermont has regulations regarding home schooling and there are quite a lot of rural parents who opt to do this. Some do so for religious reasons, but as long as there are firm regulations in place as to curriculum and standardized testing, I generally do not see a problem (except, of course, for the poor kids who have religious nonsense shoved down their throats).

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 7, 2010 1:39 PM

Walton,

Your original post indicated you were opposed to requiring any form of accreditation for schools, or for home schooling.

That suggests you do not see the need to for certain standards in what is taught. Presumably you see no need to require science be taught, and that creationism/ID not be part of that. In short you seem to be saying you see no requirement for even the most basic of standards, like being able to read or write.

Posted by: Danu | March 7, 2010 1:45 PM

Another secular home-educator here. (Where I live, which is not the US, we don't call it homeschooling as it's all about education and not about school.)

The State systems do not do a perfect job either - adult illiteracy rates tell us that. I taught adult literacy for a while and as part of our training we were told that in our country, as in all typical Western countries, functional illiteracy was about 16%.

Next, the typical State education is not one I wish for my children. I am literate so I wasn't let down there. But I spent my school years bored out of my skull, with all creativity and desire to learn knocked out of me as I was made to progress at the unbearably slow average level. And I'm not one of these 'gifted' children. I'm no more than averagely bright. My husband, educated in a different European country to me, was told in as many words not to try his hardest as it was showing up the other boys. One of my friends took her son out of school when the teacher complained he was asking too many questions! We don't want that for our children.

I also invite you to check out 'Do Schools Kill Creativity' on TED Talks. www.ted.com.

As for the questions about curricula - we have the internet now! Knowledge is in no way rationed. Stanford University posts lectures on YouTube. MIT has 1800 of its courses free and available for download. National Geographic website ... NASA website ... need I go on?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 7, 2010 1:52 PM

Okay, I admit I'm stumped. A Christian sent an email to Jerry Coyne that included this, "I beat the shit out of people like you, you cock smoking douche nozzle."

My problem is that I'm having trouble visualizing a "cock smoking douche nozzle". Is it just me, or are christian insults incoherent?

Posted by: Cathy | March 7, 2010 2:00 PM

Good to see so many secular homeschoolers writing in here. When I homeschooled my kids (K to 12--one now in college, two have graduated), we were part of a very active homeschool group with other parents that ranged from Jewish to Buddhist to Christian to lots and lots of atheists.

Before I was a parent, I took every education class offered at my college and earned my teaching credential, and my husband is currently a biology teacher in a public high school. I can affirm that my education courses didn't teach me about teaching and learning nearly as much as my own personal reading and actual experience.

Most (but not all) of the other homeschooling parents I know did/are doing a great job for and with their kids. Homeschooling is challenging--but then all of parenting is challenging!

Everyone in a free society should have a variety of options in regards to educating their kids. No, that doesn't meant that they should have the right to lie to and mislead their kids (any more than they should have the right to beat and mistreat them). But our educational options should include low-cost, high-freedom choices like homeschooling and unschooling.

By allowing such an option, the public schools have more incentive to provide better education. I have seen many situations in which authoritarian and even racist school officials were forced to bend to the more reasonable voices in the public school because the parent had the power to "walk" and homeschool his or her kid. So even families who don't wish to homeschool benefit by everyone having the choice.

An analogy might be the beleaguered "public option" in health care -- IF we could get such a thing in the U.S., it would not only provide a valuable option to families BUT ALSO an incentive to health insurance companies to behave better.

I hope PZ will rethink his position. Of course, I also hope that public schools will improve, no parents anywhere will beat, mistreat, and mis-educate their children, and religion will fade away. While we're dreaming....

Posted by: MadScientist | March 7, 2010 2:06 PM

Wow ... if only ignorance really were bliss. People have such delusions, such as that Polly Brown quoted about her 16-year-old son who wants to be a marine biologist:

"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school"

Now if the kid were able to get his hands on real books there may be some truth to that, but if the poor kid had nothing but that jesus crap he hasn't got a chance.

Posted by: cheeseburgerbrown | March 7, 2010 2:06 PM

I'd like to chime in as a member of another atheist freethinking family which has chosen homeschooling over the public and private options available in our small, rural district in Canada.

I would be remiss if I did not confess that we do indeed push a certain worldview on our kids: it's a worldview founded on rationalism, critical inquiry, intellectual exploration.

My wife and I work (and study!!!) very hard to provide them a useful framework for parsing what they learn about history, science, culture, ethics, mathematics, health and art. I think this is working, because they ask incisive questions.

Because our village is small and the population almost uniformly Christian, we also go to great efforts to teach our children tolerance for less defensible worldviews.

If anyone out there is considering homeschooling their kids, be sure to think twice. Make no mistake that it's no less a commitment than taking on a second job for yourself, and a responsibility with profound consequences.

Yours in Christlessness,
CBB

Posted by: zach314159 | March 7, 2010 2:09 PM

I am a secular home-educated (see last bit of word) and what danu said about "But I spent my school years bored out of my skull,..." perfectly explains why some of my friends (as well as me) are home-schooled.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 7, 2010 2:24 PM

Givesgoodemail (@2):

I've scanned the thread (through #40, as I begin writing), but my initial responses to your comment remain largely unchanged by the subsequent comments.

Drawing parallels between consistency in vaccinations and consistency in education isn't valid.

No one (in their right mind) does home vaccinations, because that would be inconsistent, ineffective, and absolutely dangerous.

Really? Vaccine protocols are reasonably well defined, and I'd be willing to bet that the specific skills required to administer vaccines are easier to acquire and master than the skills required to administer a comprehensive educational program.

Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of home vaccination; on the contrary, I'm saying your analogy makes (to me, at least) exactly the opposite point that you intend.

It's true enough, as you point out, that children have amazing faculties to acquire knowledge, and that education occurs through a dizzying array of modalities (involving the child and all of the comprehensive adult culture in which the child is being raised), many of them self-directed and continuing throughout life. But the correctness of this assertion...

Homeschooling, particularly the style called un-schooling, works.

...depends entirely on what you mean by "works." You seem to be assuming that the goal of the activity we're discussing is the betterment of the individual child, and that assumption is something I unequivocally deny. The goal of education — that lifelong multi-mode activity that we've alluded to — might be individual betterment, but I'll borrow the distinction Walton made (in an earlier thread, to which he refers @12 of this thread) between education and schooling: Schooling, I insist, has as its "product" not an improved individual, but an improved member of society... more particularly, in any democratic society, an improved member of the electorate. In that, homeschooling fails by definition, because it is inherently designed to segregate students (for whatever reason... please don't lecture me about how many homeschoolers aren't fundies) from socially integrated education.

The key thing about public schooling is that it's public. That is, it's a reflection of, and accountable to, the public in a way that homeschooling (and, to a lesser degree, private schooling) implicitly seeks to avoid. Homeschooling may (or may not, depending on the people and situations involved) do a great job of building smart, well informed young people; it doesn't even attempt to do the job of public schools in a democratic self-governing society.

And BTW, most of the ills of public schools that folks in this thread have complained about — authoritarianism, instructional incompetence, inadequate resources, etc. — can happen just as easily in homeschooling or private schooling... with the difference being that, given the lack of tranparency or accountability inherent in such private settings, it's vastly more difficult for third parties to intervene on behalf of the students.

Finally, by removing the most committed and involved students and families (whatever else they might be, homeschooling and private-school parents are generally not indifferent to education) from the public schools, private forms of education actively damage their effectiveness and efficiency in meeting their social function.

The civil libertarian in my recoils at the notion of banning homeschooling or private schools, but I honestly believe we'd all be better off if everybody went to public schools (in which case, as an aside, people might get a bit more serious about fixing the things that are wrong with them). Failing that, the public has, IMHO, every right to insist that homeschools and private schools meet publicly determined minimum standards for both curriculum and instructor training, if they're to be accepted in lieu of compulsory public school attendance.

Posted by: loveberry | March 7, 2010 2:29 PM

So for all of those who want all the kids back in school out of some misplaced sense of fairness, what exactly would that look like? Shall we place our excelling children back in failing schools that did them no favors while they were there years ago? Turn a blind eye to the bullying and cruelty that schools ignore? Forget about the standards and excellence and independence that we have fostered in our children while they hunker down into mediocrity to avoid being noticed by the mobs of under-supervised kids?

Yes, fix the schools. They are there for a reason. But just as I would not sacrifice my firstborn for some god whispering in my ear, I will not sacrifice him to a flunking school system because someone thinks it's not fair that he's getting a great education while his counterparts in this district are barely learning to read.

Posted by: Brandon | March 7, 2010 2:36 PM

While I realize that it adds nothing to the discourse regarding the crazies that homeschool their children, I just wanted to bring a good story of homeschooling for those unfamiliar with some of the secular benefits. I grew up in a very small, rural school that wasn’t well equipped to deal with advanced students, I tested out extremely high on tests at a young age, and I was getting a bit out of hand at school because of sheer boredom. Rather than attempt to pay for private schools they couldn’t afford that were an hour away, my parents elected to homeschool me – so, at the age of 9, I had attended by last public school class. Over the next three years, I educated myself through high school, and enrolled part time in a local university at 12 years old. Because of my youth, I took my time there a bit, and I’ve been slow in graduate school as well, but the end result is that I’m now 24 years old, have a B.S. in Molecular Genetics, and I’m finishing my Ph.D. in Microbiology. All told, I’ve got to say that my homeschooling didn’t hold be back in science one bit, and it’s exactly why I am where I am at a young age.

Homeschooling has important uses – those that would seek to strip it away altogether (as P.Z. seems to be suggesting), don’t seem to fully understand that, or just think that it's grossly outweighed by the downsides. For people that have a good approach, it’s quite valuable.

Posted by: loveberry | March 7, 2010 2:41 PM

David, my point is, I will not leave my child on a sinking ship while we rally to plug the leak. I will put him on the lifeboat, and then work to save the ship.

Posted by: caleb.beckett | March 7, 2010 2:49 PM

As a former "student" of the very textbooks mentioned in the article, I'm very glad to see that the public is being informed of the disgrace that is fundamentalist homeschooling, and that people like Coyne aren't afraid to say it like it is. I'll spare you a long and wordy expose of the epistemology (or more accurately, the lack thereof) that is borne of Christian fundamentalist homeschooling and just say that if you haven't been there, it's simply not possible for you to comprehend it. I can best describe it as akin to the visceral reaction that I'm sure many of you get when listening to the likes of Ray Comfort, but expanded to the point where an attack on creationism is an attack on your fundamental beliefs about every aspect of reality. Therefore, the responses that Jerry Coyne received don't surprise me in the least-I can say that having come from it and looking objectively on it now, that fundamentalist Christianity is, at its deepest level, about promulgating fear and abhorrence of anyone who challenges creationism, which really is its central doctrine.

Posted by: Samantha | March 7, 2010 2:50 PM

loveberry @67

I think the problem most people have with homeschooling is that a lot of parents take their children off the sinking ship only to put them in a lifeboat with a smaller but still problematic whole (i.e. lack of socialization) and then ignore both holes to pat themselves on the back.

It is incredibly damaging to a child to be bullied throughout school (and I was one of those children) but it is just as damaging to have a child totally removed from normal society and only introduced to it post-developmentally at 18. That's a trap a lot of homeschooling parents fall into and usually the attempt to fix it is something along the lines of getting together all the local homeschooled children once or twice a week. Of course, the parents ignore that these get-togethers are (usually) highly monitored by parents and rarely allow the children the opportunities to develop the social tools they will need to live in the larger world (which isn't to say that they should be inculcated into every little social trope out there and denied their individuality!). Cautious parents can avoid this, but few know how important specific social situations are and truly believe that fully supervised play-dates are just as good as two kids playing on their own.

Posted by: loveberry | March 7, 2010 2:54 PM

My kid spent 5 years in public schools. When he started a year proficient in a subject, I asked what they planned to do with him all year. Their answer?

"Don't worry about it, he has already met the standard."

When his grades dropped from As, to Bs, to high Cs, and I asked what I could do to help, their answer was, "He's passing, don't worry about it."

NO. HELL NO. Not for my kid. The public school system had him for 5 years and all they managed to do was convince him that math is impossible and the he's a little bit stupid. Three years later he still doesn't quite believe me when I explain that he is at grade level or higher in every single subject.

You can't generalize anecdotes across a population, of course. But honestly, how many of you resonate with what I have just said? How well did public schools serve you?

Posted by: Samantha | March 7, 2010 2:56 PM

And that should be "stick them in a lifeboat with a smaller but still problematic hole (i.e. lack of socialization)" rather than "whole".

That's not public school education at work, that's three days straight of essay writing.

Posted by: Brandon | March 7, 2010 3:02 PM

Loveberry @73

I can't believe just how similar that was to my own experience! As a kid growing up way ahead of the curve, the superintendent of the school I was at actually said, "Don't worry, we'll slow him down".

I can still barely believe such a mentality exists.

Posted by: loveberry | March 7, 2010 3:03 PM

The "socialization" question is beyond silly. Unless your idea of homeschooling is kids locked in a room with their siblings all day, afraid of the sunlight, peering hopefully through the curtains at passersby for a little human contact.

Ludicrous.

Posted by: Samantha | March 7, 2010 3:11 PM

loveberry:

Unless your idea of homeschooling is kids locked in a room with their siblings all day, afraid of the sunlight, peering hopefully through the curtains at passersby for a little human contact.

If that's honestly what you think the only way for a child to not be socialized, then you're the one being silly. I lived with two homeschooled children for a few months. Not once were they even able to speak to me or even look at me because they had no social skills. This was despite the fact that they regularly went on field trips and to the park and even had a half-dozen kids come over for "science" lessons two or three times a week. They were so poorly socialized because they were ALWAYS under the thumb of one parent or another and all their interactions were monitored and the parents were quick to step in and "sort things out".

Now, I won't ever say that homeschooling should be banned or is always a bad idea, but that is something I've seen to be VERY common with homeschool parents (to the point where I've only met one homeschooled kid who hadn't been raised like that) and it is something that those who want to homeschool should be aware of and dealing with. Unfortunately, a large percentage don't. Just means that they're not ideal for homeschooling, not that the idea as a whole should be scrapped.

Posted by: Sastra | March 7, 2010 3:17 PM

Jerry Coyne not only gets email: he gets creationists and home schoolers in the comment section.

PZ gets home schoolers. Home schooling has many intelligent, reasonable advocates, and the ensuing discussion is both enlightening and thoughtful.

Sorry, PZ: I think Jerry wins this one.

Posted by: Utakata | March 7, 2010 3:21 PM

I'm not sure where I stand on home schooling. As from the comments above it's clear that some homer schoolers are not religious nutters. But at the same time I'm a little concerend that a child's social interactions are limited. Growing up amoung peers is part of the whole education process IMO.

But one thing I do disagree is with the quaint notion of private schools. A dinosaur that serves no function but to segregate the haves against the have nots...and in some cases, segregate on the based of genitalia and religious beleifs. Sorry to ruffle your feathers Penn and Teller, but this skeptic actually believes the elimination of private schools would evolve us as a human species by light years. Imagine a school with no religion and does not judge children based on the size of their perents' wallets nor if your child comes to school wearing a skirt. That's what you get with a public school system if done *right.

*Note: I say this great sadness, because here where I live in Toronto, Ont...we have two publically funded school systems with one based on religion. And one that is not, it's leadership wants to segregate it by race and sex. I see under this scenario why some commenting here would want home schooling as a viable option. /sigh

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk25bzfeJzooxtW_G2Jo9aQu4IkVxU0jns | March 7, 2010 3:24 PM

@74:
So, outside of gloating that you're a better person than @58, what the hell is your point? You live in a different country and may have a different home situation. I know single parents who absolutely cannot afford home schooling in any way. I guess you'd throw them to the dogs, so your kids would get the advantage.

Posted by: glasnost0 | March 7, 2010 3:26 PM

After reading through Coyne's blog post, I think he says it best:

It kills off the part of a child that most needs nurturing: her sense of wonder, and all the possibilities of life that are opened up by that wonder.

He's talking about religion-based homeschooling, but in my experience, the same applies to public schools. I've heard the "He's meeting standards" excuse that #73 and #77 relate from at least two public school principals, and heard dozens of similar stories from other homeschoolers. The "teaching to the test" mentality that many people attribute to No Child Left Behind has been around in public schools for decades, to the point that mediocrity is celebrated and students are actively discouraged from excelling.

Say what you will about how allowing parents to remove their children from the school system only contributes to its weakening, and you may well be right, but the solution isn't to sacrifice a generation of learners to an inadequate system for a slim chance at improving that system.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 7, 2010 3:29 PM

Loveberry (@67):

I will not leave my child on a sinking ship while we rally to plug the leak. I will put him on the lifeboat, and then work to save the ship.

You may be the exception, but in my experience (and I'm referring to actual experience fighting the school budget wars here; that's not just a rhetorical fillip), the vast majority of parents stop giving a rat's ass about saving the "ship" once their children are (allegedly) safely in the "lifeboat." Keep in mind that there are only enough lifeboats for a tiny fraction of the children on the ship; by putting your kid in the lifeboat, you're dooming others' kids to staying on the ship.

That would be fair enough, as far as it goes — I agree every parent's first duty is to his or her own children — but, unlike an actual, steel ship, the "ship" of public education is actively harmed by people abandoning it. I can't fault you for looking out for your own, but you'll forgive me if I don't congratulate you for hastening the intellectual drowning of those you leave behind. I'd be much happier if you'd just help save the ship, full stop.

And really, if people have the time, energy, and resources to effectively homeschool, doesn't it stand to reason that they also have the time, energy, and resources to supplement their children's education without removing them from public schools? To volunteer in the schools and help correct the social problems? To get meaningfully involved in the PTO/PTA, or the Board of Education, or the Town Council, to affect the funding and management of the schools?

My observation is that the number of people who whine and kvetch about their local schools exceeds by an order of magnitude the number who actually raise a damn finger to do something about them.

Legion (@72):

For those people who say home school should be banned, or that parents should send their children to failing schools for... for... well really, we've yet to hear any good fucking reason for why this is a good idea... for those people, STFU and walk in our shoes.

Sorry, but I won't STFU. The shoes I'm walking in right now are those of someone whose local schools used to be really good, but which is in the process of collapsing because too many of my neighbors worship at the altar of tax cuts. When I see people who spend tens of thousands of dollars in catholic school tuition or give up a second income to homeschool, and yet vote against the town budget (~2/3 of which goes to fund our schools) because they "can't afford" an annual property tax increase of (for the average homeowner) just a few hundred dollars... which is the bare minimum needed to just keep pace with expenses... <deep breath>... when I see that, I can't bring myself to think of it as anything but selfish.

My own child is safely through school, and halfway through her undergraduate years at Yale; I could easily just say, "I got mine; now the rest of y'all can just suck it." But I actually can't do that.

I could never ask you to sacrifice your kids for... hmmm... as I was typing that, it dawned on me that we ask our neighbors to sacrifice their kids for the larger society, when we encourage them to join the military, or become police officers or firefighters, or any number of other socially necessary things that put people at risk... but I digress....

What I meant to say is that I respect your concern for your own kids, but at some level, our society is a collective enterprise, and we're all called upon to balance indivicual needs with larger social goods. Ultimately, I firmly believe, taking care of the latter is what best serves the former for most individuals most of the time, which is why we've formed societies in the first place.

Posted by: c9r | March 7, 2010 3:30 PM

How many people here have gone to a US public school within the last ten years? I went to public schools. And supposedly good ones at that. I'm about to graduate with a degree in physics. But it took several years of post-public-school enlightenment to realize I wanted to be a scientist.

I loved science as a kid. In fact, I loved learning more than just about anything. It took more than a decade of excruciating boredom and enforced conformity to wane my interest in things that I loved. I took two years off after hight school and basically started my education over. I read math books, watched physics lectures, read history and literature--all the things I would have done all those years before had nearly 100% of my time not been eaten up by worthless, thoughtless busy work.

I know many people my age who shied away from careers in science and engineering because they felt hopelessly unprepared for such an education and were jaded by how bad their high school science classes were. We're losing far more would-be scientists to high school science classes taught by non-scientists than we are losing to young earth creationists.

PZ and others are so worried about losing people to creationist wackos (I worry too) that they don't seem to notice all the people they're losing who actually want to be scientists. I was almost one of them. I desperately wanted to go to a private school, or be home schooled, or just teach myself. All I wanted to do was learn. But my parents "believed" in the importance of public school; a belief as irrational and unsubstantiated as any "fundie xian" delusion. Universal, quality education is, I think, the most important responsibility of any society. But saying that it has to be through a demonstrably broken system is pathological.

Anyone who thinks that schools can be fixed by improving standards doesn't grasp the fundamental problem. There has been a positive feedback loop in place for the past few decades where the "C" students of one generation become the teachers of the next, whose "C" students become the next generation's teachers and so on and so forth. We're a society of idiots taught by idiots taught by idiots. And the copy of a copy of a copy is so distorted now that there's no recovering it. And secular homeschooling is a fantastic option. Kids want to learn. It takes adults to stop them.

Posted by: Cinnamonbite | March 7, 2010 3:34 PM

Oh, I'll GLADLY send my 14-year-old to public school just as soon as the FloriDUH public school is as good or better than my homeschooling program.

Unfortunately, he's 3 classes away from graduating under their lax standards. To fill time, he's taking Latin (after 3 years of Spanish condensed down into 1 year). After he's proficient in Latin, he thinks he might take Greek. And yes, he's already taken AP classes online. So by the time the FloriDUH public school system even recognizes they have a problem, my boy will most likely be graduating COLLEGE. So I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: loveberry | March 7, 2010 3:40 PM

Bill, do you hear what you are asking? You are asking me to watch my child flounder and fail, hate himself, hate school, and follow a path that almost certainly lands him in juvi and then prison, on the off chance that my volunteering in the classroom once a month might help some other kid not fail?

LISTEN to yourself.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 3:43 PM

Home schooling is one of those topics, like circumcision or abortion, where there'll never be any consensus. On the one hand you hear "my friend was home schooled, is a YEC and reads at a three year old level" and on the other hand you hear "I was home schooled then went to university where I got my PhD in platonic neurophilosophy at the age of eight."

Home schooling is good for some people and double plus ungood for others. That's the basic nature of the beast.

Posted by: cheeseburgerbrown | March 7, 2010 3:46 PM

@87: "So, outside of gloating that you're a better person than @58, what the hell is your point?"

I believe the assertion was that homeschooling was the pervue of the wealthy, to which I was providing contention (of at least the universality of the assertion) in the form of personal anecdote.

Please note that I am not a professional summarizer, so actual mileage may vary. Plus I didn't even bother to scroll back for extra checksies.

Yours,
CBB

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 3:53 PM

But if you want to get rid of homeschooling entirely, you need to make the American public school system worth going to first.

This. Commenters from outside the US... heck, commenters from outside Texas, where I live, just love to talk about how backward and ignorant we are here, how greedy and cruel, how superstitious and slavish, how obese and lazy, how nekulturny and anti-intellectual, how second-rate we are in every conceivable way. And then they turn around and tell me that I have to sacrifice the interests of my individual children, who are learning the arts, math, science, literature, manganimity, comparative history, humanism, critical thinking, and crucial skills for daily living, to the subnormal, pathological interests of the community? This community, in a country that you ridicule because the ideals you value aren't taught in our schools? Fuck you.

Posted by: fairhavenhorn | March 7, 2010 3:54 PM

Reviewing the report's other statistics shows that the commenters have a much better feel for homeschooling reality than PZ. Another, more important, statistic is the answer to "why was home schooling chosen". Only 36% listed religious or moral motivation. 21% listed the school environment, 17% listed dissatisfaction with academics, 14% family time/schedule/distance/finances, 7% a desire for non-traditional education methods, and 5% special needs or health restrictions.

So, in the words of an old TV show, "Homeschooling is not just for scary religious people any more."

I suspect the high percentage figures for religious and moral education as a component of home schooling is people like several local home schooling families I know. Two families are Unitarian Universalists and another is Quaker. They take their moral duties seriously and consider a moral education for their children to be important. Their notion of proper moral education bears little resemblance to that of a fundamentalist Christian. Their motivation for home schooling was dissatisfaction with the academic quality of the local schools.

Posted by: Magnifica | March 7, 2010 4:00 PM

Had to chime in as another Atheist, science loving home school mom. We are pretty affluent, live in the town with the best public schools in the area, and could afford private school if we chose. After months of my daughter being bored silly in public school and learning some very bad habits regarding not trying hard if others around you weren't and not wanting to learn new things any more we pulled her out. Now she flies through material two years above grade level and has a passion for learning and deep understanding again.

We have great large groups of homeschoolers to hang out with and almost daily activities with the public school kids in town. If anything, the homeschooled kids I meet are given more freedom and self responsibility than most kids rather than the stereotyped smothering that people picture.

Many of the comments here are clearly from people without children or who think they understand homeschooling from reading a few articles about it.

Even the vast majority of fundy homeschoolers in our area that I have met are getting a hugely better educational foundation than public schools. The creationism angle is painful, but overcome-able by an intellectually curious person. Just learning the crap that passes as minimum math and language arts in public schools and not having a love for learning nurtured is a much worse handicap in my opinion. Don't even get me started on the directionless hodge podge that passes as science education.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | March 7, 2010 4:03 PM

Poor kids. Their parents are just filling their kid's brains with mush.

Posted by: Legion | March 7, 2010 4:14 PM

Bill Dauphin:

What I meant to say is that I respect your concern for your own kids, but at some level, our society is a collective enterprise, and we're all called upon to balance indivicual needs with larger social goods. Ultimately, I firmly believe, taking care of the latter is what best serves the former for most individuals most of the time, which is why we've formed societies in the first place.

Can't argue with that, but it's a tough balancing act sometimes. We tried. We really tried to work with the schools. Individually, most of the teachers and administrators were decent people, but they were stuck within a malfunctioning system that seemed designed for failure.

Once we scheduled a meeting with our daughter's teachers. When the time came, we couldn't understand why they seemed so guarded, even hostile. They wanted to know what was the problem.

When we explained that we weren't there to bitch at them, but to simply learn about how our daughter was doing and what could we do to support them, they were flabbergasted. They honestly didn't know what to do with parents like us. In the end, we were ignored, because the system was really only set up to deal with problems, not solutions.

And it's true, we do ask fire fighters, soldiers, and others to make sacrifices for the common good, but for us to sacrifice our daughter at an age when she was unable to understand the gravity of that sacrifice, well, that was not a decision we could make. To do so would have been immoral.

We believed then, and still do now, that by taking her out of a failing school, we were acting in the public good. Now that she's older, she can decide for herself what sacrifices she wants to make.

And given that she's a compassionate person who understands her responsibility to work toward the public good, we think our decision was the best one we could make.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 4:30 PM

erm. "nobody demands them to be better"

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 4:38 PM

citation for what? the lack of investment and motivation to fix public schools because you have the option to take your kids out? the Tragedy of the Commons seems pretty basic to me. I'm not claiming it's the only reason of course, but it's a reason.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 7, 2010 4:44 PM

Loveberry (@97):

Bill, do you hear what you are asking? You are asking me to watch my child flounder and fail, hate himself, hate school, and follow a path that almost certainly lands him in juvi and then prison, on the off chance that my volunteering in the classroom once a month might help some other kid not fail?

LISTEN to yourself.

I'm LISTENing to myself better than you're listening to me, apparently, because that's not what I've been asking of you. I've repeatedly acknowledged that every parent's first responsibility is to his/her own children, and that I'm explicitly not asking people to sacrifice their kids to the sort of dire consequences you describe.

What I am asking of you — and of parents considering homeschooling generally — is that you think hard about the whole issue. To begin with, while I obviously know nothing about your personal situation, your kids, their schools, in my experience the sort of man the lifeboats!! alarm you raise is usually hyperbolic in the extreme. Except in severely economically or socially deprived neighborhoods (blighted inner cities, impoverished remote rural communities, etc.), our schools, flawed as they are, are really not turning out vast numbers of the sort of virtually lobotomized incipient criminals you describe. Is your local school really so far gone that it's impossible for kids to get a decent education there, no matter how involved you are¹ on campus and at home? There's really no combination of supplemental home lessons and your involvement in the school community² that can yield satisfactory results?

Maybe in your particular case, you really have no option... but I don't believe that's broadly true of all the people who seek to homeschool. If it is true, by all means save your child first. But please don't pretend there's no cost to your neighbors when you do so.



¹ BTW, while I don't have numbers at my fingertips (though I believe they exist), the consensus seems to be that involved, active parents coupled with a healthy home environment is the single most important factor in the success of pubic schools and their students.

² And I'll just note that if the resources you would commit to homeschooling are really no more than the equivalent of "volunteering in the classroom once a month," UR DOIN' IT RONG!

Posted by: glasnost0 | March 7, 2010 5:00 PM

I'm not claiming it's the only reason

The problem with the Tragedy of the Commons analogy is that whether your child goes to public school or not does not actually directly impact the quality of public schools. Homeschooling parents pay the same taxes as non-homeschooling parents, which ostensibly go, in part, to public schools. The problem, as Bill said, is not that people are removing their children from public school systems, it's that people are removing their children from public school systems, then not doing anything to fix said systems. One solution would be to force everyone to attend public school, thus giving them a vested interest in improving them, but legislating ethical behavior seems to me to be a poor substitute for encouraging it through other means.

I would love nothing better than for public schools to become places that I trusted to educate my (hypothetical) children. If anybody has any bright ideas about how to change public education to solve such problems as overcrowding, accommodation of both gifted and challenged students, and stifling of creative thought, I'm all ears, and while, as a graduate student, I don't really have the time to attend school board meetings or campaign for change, the education policy of a candidate is the first thing I consider when voting at any level of government.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 5:07 PM

agh, blockquote fail. what comes before the !!!! is quoted, the rest is mine

Posted by: ckitching | March 7, 2010 5:22 PM

Homeschooling parents pay the same taxes as non-homeschooling parents, which ostensibly go, in part, to public schools.

This is not true. Many places have tax credits that apply to those who home school their children.

Posted by: Greta Christina | March 7, 2010 5:24 PM

Another voice for understanding why smart, secular people might want to home-school their kids. My friend (and big old atheist) Susie Bright home-schooled her daughter... largely because the California public school system sucks donkey dicks.

It's a tough issue. I don't think parents have infinite power over how their children are raised, and I do think society has a stake, not only in protecting children from being harmed by their parents, but in making sure children grow up with the information they need to function in society. But given how crummy and underfunded so many public schools are in so much of the country, I think a smart, reasonable, loving parent might well want to keep their kids as far away from them as humanly possible.

I think we could reach a reasonable compromise. Allow parents to homeschool their kids... but require that homeschooling parents be accredited, and that their kids get regularly tested to make sure they're getting the education they need.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 7, 2010 5:33 PM

Jadehawk:

theoretically it might be fixable, but the US lacks a system to do so.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure lack of a system is the key, because I think the underlying problem...

The deepening obsession with individualism and competition and concurrent growing aversion to community and cooperation...

...is attitudinal rather than structural. That may not be good news, though, because attitudes are notoriously resistant to orderly change. That said, I'm hoping for some sort of rational backlash to the Tea Party insanity... hopefully coming before it destroys the country.
<Fingers_Crossed>

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 7, 2010 5:54 PM

At one point, our daughter was chastised by her teacher for reading ahead in a textbook, on her own time.

I once was, too. But I managed to ignore it.

The "teaching to the test" mentality that many people attribute to No Child Left Behind has been around in [US] public schools for decades, to the point that mediocrity is celebrated and students are actively discouraged from excelling.

You misspelled the No Child's Behind Left Act.

Home schooling is one of those topics, like circumcision or abortion, where there'll never be any consensus.

Interesting examples... because on circumcision there's a consensus except among Americans, Muslims, and Jews. <slightly open grin>

Only 36% listed religious or moral motivation. 21% listed the school environment, 17% listed dissatisfaction with academics, [...] 7% a desire for non-traditional education methods

I smell a lot of overlap between all those. "School environment"? Evil Darwinist sex-educating gay-friendly school environment. Academics? Evil Darwinist sex-educating gay-friendly academics. Non-traditional education methods? Even more traditional education methods (the Bible).

"Homeschooling is not just for scary religious people any more."

That's misleading – the right to homeschool was gained by hippies who wanted, you know, "alternative" education.

not "can't" as in do not have the skill; "can't" as in single parent working 50+ hours.

I know; I don't think it makes much of a difference.

You think that the public school system is broken because of homeschooling? Where on earth would you get this stupid idea? Public schooling is getting worse and worse

It's probably not the biggest reason. Among those, the stark raving mad way of financing the public schools in the USA has already been mentioned. Another is a vicious circle: because teaching is underfunded, there are no good teachers; because there a no good teachers, there's no reason to pay the teachers better...

But, yes, the option to just say "I got mine, fuck you" obviously contributes to making the US public schools even worse.

while home schooling becomes less and less feasible and acceptable.

Is that so.

And your idea that gun control would work if only guns didn't exist! Brilliant!!!

You didn't quite read for comprehension. Where I come from, most bank robberies are committed with toys and other fakes, because guns are so hard to get; it's simply not true there that "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". It is, however, true in the USA, where getting a gun illegally is ridiculously easy. So, any effort at restricting legal gun ownership* would have to be preceded by a crackdown on the already illegal black market; banning guns and not doing anything else would fail spectacularly.

* Completely independently of whether that's a good idea.

If you think another revolution is going to "solve" America in the manner that you wish (with federal indoctrination,

Ooh. True colors of paranoia coming out.

fascist gun control,

Dude, this is an insult to every single victim of any kind of fascism ever. You will therefore retract it.

Perhaps I need to remind you about the fascistoid Saddam Hussein, under whose reign every man who considered himself one had a Kalashnikov?

and socialist health care

<headdesk>

I have enough of your Dunning-Kruger effect. Every single halfway developed country, except the USA, South Africa (I think), and of all places China, has universal healthcare. Have you no shame about talking about things you don't even know anything about???

the anti-government attitudes that government programs are evil and can't ever work

...which were invented by the Raygun government.

Posted by: glasnost0 | March 7, 2010 6:02 PM

Allow parents to homeschool their kids... but require that homeschooling parents be accredited, and that their kids get regularly tested to make sure they're getting the education they need.

So, basically, you've given up on our schools without even knowing what the hell you're talking about?

That said, I'll back up on my rhetoric above, if only to point out that I haven't "given up" on anything. Not all schools look like something our of a Pink Floyd song; supplementing their child's public school education could, in some situations, be a better choice for parents than homeschooling; the next generation isn't going to grow up unable to read, write, and 'rithmatic; things are not beyond repair.

But I said what I did because I think public education is something that we should be able to really rely upon, in the same way that we rely upon, say, safety standards for canned foods. When it comes to light that somebody got botulism from a bad can of tuna, there are recalls, public apologies, and lawsuits; when it comes to light that students are getting a poor education at a school... well, it doesn't, because nobody really seems to notice. Or, worse yet, that (already failing) school gets money taken away from it by NCLB, sending it into a tailspin of underfunding and poor education.

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable, but I think that the existence alone of schools like the ones I've encountered constitutes a failure of public education as a whole, one that needs major reform to be fixed, and I think that homeschooling your child is, in many cases, the best stopgap solution available.

Posted by: jgrn307 | March 7, 2010 6:04 PM

I posted a similar thread on the "Why evolution is true" website, but I thought I'd post it here. This issue brings to light a critical issue, that of proper education. How often when we (as scientists or scientific-minded) get into a conversation with a creationist are we left thinking, "Wow, this person simply does not understand evolution." On the other hand, most of us are well versed in the literal interpretation of Genesis, we just don't see any evidence to support it. Put another way: how many scientists would pass a test on what a Creationist believes, and the basis of these beliefs, a test CREATED by a creationist (probable answer: most of us). How many creationsts would pass a test on the theory and evidence behind evolution by natural selection (probable answer: not many). This is an issue of EDUCATION. If you are confident in your beliefs, then you shouldn't care if you are exposed to differing ideas.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 7, 2010 6:08 PM

Gun control "works" in Europe because people can kill each other with whatever they want, but there are less incentives for violent crime and robbing people is a lot easier when the commons aren't armed.

One word: Canada.

Three more: Bowling for Columbine. You should watch it. It's not about "incentives for violent crime", it's about fear.

Posted by: ckitching | March 7, 2010 6:39 PM

One word: Canada.

Maybe not a great example. We are having trouble stopping the flow of cheap, illegal weapons. It's pretty clear where they're coming from, but some people get really offended when someone suggests they're coming from the States.

Posted by: thebigkahuna | March 7, 2010 7:14 PM

Quickly (as it would take a while to read through all 137 comments):

There are many secular home schoolers who do so for a variety of reasons. Home schooling is not for the timid or the unprepared, but a variety of resources and support groups exist for those who wish to try. I will also add that success is also largely dependent on the student's willingness to learn; i.e., home schooling requires more self discipline, IMHO.

We home schooled both of our sons. The oldest received a full scholarship at age 16 to the local
community college and is now working on his Master's in CompSci; the youngest is on the VP's list and was invited to join Phi Theta Kappa. Not to shabby, if I do say so myself. FWIW, I hold a B.S. in an engineering discipline with 23 years in a technical field; my wife is a stay @ home mom with an A.A. in marketing and an extremely competitive drive ... LOL!

The Spousal Unit helps moderate/facilitate a home schooling blog to help other home schoolers, share notes/ideas/etc. At the risk of being accused of blog-pimping,

http://www.peaknetwork.org/

v/r
Bo

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk25bzfeJzooxtW_G2Jo9aQu4IkVxU0jns | March 7, 2010 7:20 PM

@101
I didn't make that assumption myself, all that matters is can a family (of whatever makeup) take the financial hit? If they can't, they're screwed. What would you do to help those who financially cannot do anything but rely on public schools? I think I already know the answer.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn7nC_SOspWbA-gblf5JA78ckCJ0cylCq8 | March 7, 2010 7:36 PM

Tomdoc asked how you can find secular textbooks. Simply do a Google search for Secular Homeschool Textbooks.

I used Amsco for Science and EMC Publishing Literature and the Language Arts for English. Saxon Math is great and has online resources for homeschoolers. For those publishers who do not sell directly to homeschoolers you can purchase their books at Amazon.Com, The Homeschool Supercenter, or various other places. The Internet allows any homeschooler willing to do the research to find what they need. I have more information about secular homeschooling on my blog http://alasandras.blogspot.com/

Posted by: dfminardi | March 7, 2010 7:38 PM

"One word: Canada.

Three more: Bowling for Columbine. You should watch it. It's not about "incentives for violent crime", it's about fear."

Bowling for Columbine is stupid, dishonest, and incoherent. It tries to make the point that guns are bad but then undermines its own point with lies and by pointing out the fact that news coverage of murders goes up even while murder rates are going down. And Michael Moore makes more stupid movies about the epidemic of violence even while murder rates are going down. Irony much?

What makes Canada interesting? They have comparable gun ownership rates to the US but lower crime rates. They have a larger bureaucratic state and a smaller police state.

Oh, and Jade, I love how you wave off your complete ignorance of the history of international gun control by recognizing the fact that I'm a libertarian. Oh no! You also seem to think that home schooling is something new that is tearing down public schooling because you have no sense of cause and effect. You are a genius!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 7:45 PM

I love how you wave off your complete ignorance of the history

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 7, 2010 7:53 PM

Glibertarians. Arrogant, ignorant, and arrogant. Enough said.

Posted by: dfminardi | March 7, 2010 8:09 PM

We have a higher crime rate because we have a bigger police state and we punish drug dealers and drug users too severely.

I simply said that in general robbery was easier against disarmed commons than against armed ones. Do you deny that home robberies are much more common outside the US than inside?

So, Jade, because I'm a libertarian, you get to pretend that your ignorance doesn't exist?

Please, explain to me, how is home schooling some new phenomenon that is destroying public education?

Please, explain to me how strict gun control has "always" been around in Europe.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | March 7, 2010 9:03 PM

PZ (@146):

Your taxes go into a pool that the state distributes to the schools. How much money a school gets is directly tied to enrollment, which makes sense. But it does mean schools suffer when attendance drops.

That's admittedly the way it has been in most places I've lived, but here in CT, schools are operated by towns, and though there's some educational funds that come from the state government, the vast majority of public school funding comes directly from local property taxes via the municipal budget... which, horrifyingly enough, is subject to direct public referendum. This means school funding is always at the mercy of "my kids are all done with school; why should I pay for somebody else's kids?" (Note that I've actually heard that argument made explicitly — more than once, and apparently with no trace of shame! — at public budget hearings! grrrrr)

Historically CT has supported its schools pretty well, ranking high among states in per-pupil spending and in teacher salaries... but in recent years, our population has begun to age and we've been seized by the everything is free anti-tax religion, and I fear very deeply for the future of education here.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 9:16 PM

One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. It's even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat."

�? In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
�? Government is the Great Satan. All evil comes from government, and all good from the market.
�? We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest are fucked.
�? Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownerships, marriages, and anything else but government.
�? Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
�? Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
�? Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work."
�? Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
�? Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
�? Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the Protocols of the Elders of Statism.
�? Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
�? Abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.

Posted by: dfminardi | March 7, 2010 9:36 PM

"Furthermore, certain types of guns (like fully automatics) are prohibited and can only be legally owned by very few people."

Hey, just like the U.S.!

You mean they can get their hands on "assault weapons" in Canada just like they can here in the U.S.? Why isn't their murder rate as high as ours!? Surely it was almost as high as ours before Canada instituted their HIGHLY EFFECTIVE gun registry.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 9:54 PM

dumbshit looneytarian,

Most murders in the US are by handguns, not assault weapons. Even a dumbshit looneytarian should be able to figure out that if Canadians can't get handguns easily, then there'd be fewer murders by handguns in Canada.

Or am I estimating the intelligence of dumbshit looneytarians too high?

Posted by: dfminardi | March 7, 2010 10:07 PM

Explain to me why the US's non-gun murder rate is higher than the total murder rate of most nations (including Canada), please. Please give me a simplistic explanation that blames guns.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 10:16 PM

So, Jade, because I'm a libertarian, you get to pretend that your ignorance doesn't exist?

Please, explain to me, how is home schooling some new phenomenon that is destroying public education?
Please, explain to me how strict gun control has "always" been around in Europe.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 7, 2010 10:20 PM

Yawn, typical liberturd. Always showing his ignorance. Strawmen killed right and left, but no cogent points. Has to get the last word. Typical arrogance. BINGO. We have a winner...

Posted by: ckitching | March 7, 2010 10:41 PM

Explain to me why the US's non-gun murder rate is higher than the total murder rate of most nations (including Canada), please. Please give me a simplistic explanation that blames guns.

In order to own a fully automatic weapon in America, you must go through an intrusive background check, pay fee, register your gun, and get your application personally signed by the chief law enforcement official in your area.

Regardless, it is much easier to get a rifle or handgun in the US than it is in Canada. There are also a lot more restrictions on the use and storage of those firearms. I was not able to find a statistic on handgun ownership in the United States, but I'm willing to bet it's many times higher than Canada's 2%.

Posted by: tomh | March 7, 2010 11:02 PM

Gun laws are being liberalized in many states around the country, with the biggest new item on the gun rights agenda being open carry laws.

Posted by: dfminardi | March 7, 2010 11:10 PM

So, the last 150 years is "from the beginning of time," now? Who's using straw men, now?

Where did I accuse you of blaming the rise of homeschooling on anything? It was MY contention that homeschooling is coming back in vogue because public school is getting worse, while it is your contention that homeschooling is a "major" contributor to the weakening of public schools, which I see no support for in fact.

Posted by: dfminardi | March 7, 2010 11:24 PM

What do you even have to add to any of these discussions, Nerd? Would you like to support the assertion that homeschooling is a major contributor to the decline of public education?

Was it opinion when I made clear the process of obtaining a fully automatic weapon in America? Is it my opinion that our non-gun murder rate is higher than the total murder rate of virtually all of Western Europe?

You don't even offer an opinion on anything relevant here, so what are your posts worth?

Posted by: ckitching | March 7, 2010 11:35 PM

Would you like to support the assertion that homeschooling is a major contributor to the decline of public education?

Posted by: dfminardi | March 7, 2010 11:50 PM

"Plenty of people already have. School funding based on enrolment and tax credits given to home schooling parents, just to name two."

You're counting the same money twice and assuming that public schooling would be better with slightly more funding. You're not showing any actual causation between home-schooling and the actual declining quality of public education. I don't buy it.

Posted by: ckitching | March 8, 2010 12:19 AM

dfminardi, you seem to want people to point to one single cause. There is no single cause for the decline of many public schools. Everything from increased homeschooling to private school voucher programs to No Child Left Behind to continued tax cuts to curriculum decided by the loudest political voice have all contributed to continually relaxed standards. Homeschooling is a contributor. Perhaps not the largest contributor, but it is part of the system that is slowly bleeding the schools dry.

"No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood"

Posted by: Rorschach | March 8, 2010 1:30 AM

It's not like people don't frequently survive gunshot wounds to non-vital areas.

Ah, that's alright then !!

*facepalm*

Posted by: cancilla | March 8, 2010 2:31 AM

My wife publishes Secular Homeschooling magazine, and I can definitely say that there are plenty of intelligent, science-positive homeschoolers out there. Her magazine has had articles on skepticism, Darwin, and evolution, all of which were well received by subscribers.

And this may really blow some people's minds, but some of her readers are religious people who are homeschooling for reasons other than religion (disabilities, etc.), and are very interested in trying to find pro-science materials that are appropriate for homeschooling.

Don't let the high-profile homeschooling religious nuts make you think that all homeschoolers are trying to "protect" their kids from science.

Posted by: skeptifem | March 8, 2010 3:35 AM

"One argument against home schooling - regardless of how it is organized - that hasn't been mentioned is this: if my kid learned something wrong in school, I could rectify it. If my kid learned something wrong from me, the school could rectify it. If I were home schooling, that mechanism of quality insurance would simply be gone."

If you taught your kid to LOOK INTO THINGS instead of blindly accepting them from the nearest authority figure they could rectify it themselves when needed, like we all do constantly. I have been wrong countless times in my life, I didn't need someone to hold my hand to fix it.

Oh yeah, I forgot one other criticism of school- it is like they avoid teaching things that actually matter. You have to sign up for a special class to know how to deal with finances and budgeting, you learn virtually nothing about the law and courts, very little information about health and first aid are given out, etc. I didn't know what to do when you are in a car accident until I was in one, and that is a really crap time to learn. You don't even get much education on how to get a job. But they will know how to write in cursive! that's important, right?

Posted by: skeptifem | March 8, 2010 3:46 AM

I am seeing a lot of quotes about class inequality, and that homeschool is only for the rich. It didn't used to be that way, teaching kids used to be the responsibility of the community in addition to schooling. I help unschool a kid along with her mother, father, grandmother, and a homeschooling family. We all have different things we know well, and it is honestly pretty fun when the responsibility is shared. I understand economic disparity can make this tough on a lot of people, but many people who do not have tons of money can work out arrangements like this when they can't devote one care taker to education. I would actually say it is preferable to expose children to many different kinds of people with different kinds of knowledge. Communities of people working together can achieve a lot, and make the burden pretty light on each individual member.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 8, 2010 4:12 AM

Take a trip to a homeschool store sometime. I found multiple books for different age levels about logic and critical thinking the first time I went.

Have never been to a homeschool store.
Just a question : are you certain that all books that can be found there are meeting sufficient standards of quality, and if not, what stops parents from picking the bad from the good ?

Posted by: skeptifem | March 8, 2010 4:58 AM

@186 The problem with having heavy government involvement is that not everyone learns at the same pace or is ready for material at the same rate. It doesn't make anyone stupid or unteachable, just different. Learning would still be a chore, and non learning activities are important. Sometimes kids need time to work on emotional/social/personal things in addition to learning academic material. It is extremely difficult to standardize. And like I pointed out before, the state mandated cirriculum has a habit of doing things like making history courses into cheerleading for US foreign policy.

Posted by: Legion | March 8, 2010 6:30 AM

Blaming parents who home school (for the demise of failing schools) is like blaming a fireman, who rescues a child from a burning building, for setting the fire.

It's true that in many cases, each time a child is pulled out of a failing public school, the school looses funding and support, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. Maybe, the only way to improve education overall is to take the terminal schools off of life support and let them die. In doing so, we're making room for better public school alternatives.

Here's one anecdotal example. A public school, mindful of the losses they were seeing to home schooling, began reaching out to home schools by encouraging home school parents to enroll their children in the school's PE and music classes and allowing home school kids to join the school's sports teams.

Take this idea further and imagine a home school parent who's weak in math or science who could enroll their child in just the school's math and science class.

It's not a perfect solution but it keeps the child, the parent and some revenue invested in the schools.

As secular home schooling grows and schools began to realize that they have to compete for some of the best students and most engaged parents, this might actually serve to improve the schools overall as they are forced to improve their 'product.'

Anyway, it's nice to see so many atheists and free thinkers standing up for home schooling.

Posted by: dfminardi | March 8, 2010 7:06 AM

Of course, lost funding due to home schooling could ultimately destroy public if public school's have already completely lost public confidence and if they've lost the majority of America's youth. But that just facilitates home-schooling. It's certainly more of a feedback loop than a direct cause.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 8, 2010 8:04 AM

Tragically, they are overrun by religious and conservative special interests. They approve notoriously error-ridden texts.

But isn't that the problem right there ?

Seems to me that very often in these discussions people argue that the government isn't doing its job properly, therefore get the government out of there, or the government shouldn't regulate.
This is a recipie for disaster, it's true for the education system, the economy, etc...
No, it should be : make sure the government does its job properly.

It almost becomes a self-fullfiling profecy, there is such general distrust of government in America and so much entrenched religious conservatism that you end up getting the kind of government you expect : an untrustworthy religious conservative government making all kinds of stupid mistakes.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 8, 2010 9:05 AM

...make sure the government does its job properly...

Ah, right. Who's going to bell that cat?

The members of the Texas Board of Education are elected. Given that there's so much entrenched religious conservatism in the voting population of the state, how are we (that is, the minority who wish to change to status quo) to go blithely "making sure the government does its job properly?" Before you suggest that we get out there and campaign and try to sway the voters, I suggest you review the original worldwide optimism over the election of our current President.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 8, 2010 9:27 AM

True, Walton, it isn't child abuse in the dramatic sense of harsh physical and sexual assault. But if you teach children that they are wholly dependent on an invisible, unknowable, all-powerful being who is responsible for taking care of them, and the children see that they have no way of talking to or interacting with said being in any sense, except that they are told whispering their secrets to this unexperienceable being by talking essentially to themselves in strict privacy, you are essentially presenting them with an evil mixture of an absentee father and Big Brother. Going on to tell them they must love this mixture, and that everything they do right is because this being is possessing them while everything they do wrong is because they are being possessed by a malevolent being of the same type, is the horrifying icing on the miserable cake.

To do such a thing deliberately strikes me as emotional abuse. It doesn't matter if the teachers and parents mean to do harm, any more than it mattered whether they meant children to be harmed by laudanum or child labor or corporal punishment or any other outdated forms of widespread abuse seen as being done for the child's own good. It doesn't matter whether the religious abuse is as sickeningly obvious as blows or molestation. It results in the same cowed, emotionally damaged child who has to undergo a lot of healing and self-actualization to function as a full human being.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 8, 2010 9:39 AM

Education standards and textbooks should be decided nationwide by the best professionals in the respective fields.

And I absolutely agree with you, and I was utterly shocked to find out it wasn't the case. I don't know why I was shocked, though. Telling children what to think is not a prize that politicians and priests would willingly forgo. However,

...I'm not discussing what I would do... if..., but how I think it should be....

is not essentially any better than standing around saying "The markets should be free." I just can't see how you get from here (Texas Board of Education; abusive actions in business) to there (a board of incorruptible savants; the invisible hand).

Posted by: ambook | March 8, 2010 9:42 AM

This is a great example of poorly worded questions yielding iffy polling data. I'm a Jewish/Buddhist non-believer homeschooler, and I homeschool my kids for religious and moral reasons - I want my kids to learn ethics from me rather than from Nickelodeon and whatever other pop culture icons are current in public schools. I want my kids to read Richard Dawkins, watch BBC and PBS documentaries as schoolwork, collect bugs and fossils, and use the scientific method in daily life instead of just in "science class."

I have not removed myself from the educational community - my teen kids and I volunteer one entire day a week at a nature education center in our community and do a lot of work to bring evolution into our presentations. (Alarmingly enough, the government-funded park system that operates the nature center actually forbids mention of the word "evolution" in our programs because it's considered "insensitive," so instead we talk about "descent with modification" and include fossils and geological ages in all our talks.) But until our public and private schools are safe and nurturing for all kids, until our curricula improve across the board (it's not like the literature or history standards are so great either!), until there are adequate resources for both gifted and LD kids, I will not be willing to sacrifice my kids' education in order to support institutional schooling.

For those worried about teacher qualifications, I don't teach my kids everything. My kids take art, music, blacksmithing, and martial arts lessons from other teachers, and as they get older, they'll do online and tutorial classes in subjects that I don't know well enough to teach. Homeschooling parents are facilitators, not just teachers.

I also want to request a summary of what kids should know about biology before entering college. (Right now I'm using the AP biology curricula available from the College Board, which I'm going to figure is probably sufficient.)

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 8, 2010 9:45 AM

badgersdaughter @#201:

I see your point, but I think it has to depend on the specific type of religion being forced on the children. I'm perfectly prepared to acknowledge that what Fred Phelps does to his children, for instance, is emotional abuse. Similarly, indoctrinating children with the kind of conservative beliefs that make them feel guilty for having normal sexual urges is, probably, borderline emotional abuse; it can cause them psychological problems for the rest of their lives.

But I myself, and lots of other people I know, grew up in moderate/liberal religious families. None of us were "abused" by being taught about religion; I find that suggestion frankly absurd. As you know, I now think that all religious belief, even of a liberal or moderate type, is nonsense. But that doesn't mean that I hold anything against my parents for sharing their beliefs. While all religion may be irrational, this doesn't mean that all religion is equally harmful.

Posted by: Steve N | March 8, 2010 9:46 AM

On the whole the comments from those opposed to homeschooling are suffering from that most irrational of afflictions, a belief system. If you want to mandate that my kids attend any kind of system the onus is on you to show me that the vast majority of children coming out of it have mastered the material, are happy, socially connected, successful, and still exhibit the thrill of learning that they were born with. If you can not do this, then you are exhibiting a belief that you can not support. If you can not do this, then it is not just my right, but my solemn obligation to do what I think is best to see my children educated and socially adjusted. If you further try to mandate my compliance in that system, without that evidence to support your belief, then you are following in the footsteps most totalitarian regimes by forcibly indoctrinating children into your specific beliefs. Let that one rattle around your mind for a minute.

Further from reading those comments I'd also hazard a guess that the majority of them are from individuals without school age, or older children, and therefore cannot begin to grasp the magnitude of the obligation that parents carry towards doing what is best for their children. I would further hazard that those who have perpetuated the "unsocialized" homeschooler myth have done so out of ignorance. Again, show me your evidence. I have personally met quite a few homeschooling families, and I have found the kids to be far more socially adapted than their public school peers. These homeschooled kids are generally being socialized in an environment with mixed age groups and grown ups. As they tend to revolve in social circles and activities dominated by homeschooling families. They generally don't see the grownups as enemeis, or unquestioned authority figures. Until you can present empirical evidence that contradicts the considerable anecdotal evidence before me then you are the ones pervaying an irrational belief system founded on supposition and ignorance.

Posted by: Steve N | March 8, 2010 9:51 AM

On the whole the comments from those opposed to homeschooling are suffering from that most irrational of afflictions, a belief system. If you want to mandate that my kids attend any kind of system the onus is on you to show me that the vast majority of children coming out of it have mastered the material, are happy, socially connected, successful, and still exhibit the thrill of learning that they were born with. If you can not do this, then you are exhibiting a belief that you can not support. If you can not do this, then it is not just my right, but my solemn obligation to do what I think is best to see my children educated and socially adjusted. If you further try to mandate my compliance in that system, without that evidence to support your belief, then you are following in the footsteps most totalitarian regimes by forcibly indoctrinating children into your specific beliefs. Let that one rattle around your mind for a minute.

Further from reading those comments I'd also hazard a guess that the majority of them are from individuals without school age, or older children, and therefore cannot begin to grasp the magnitude of the obligation that parents carry towards doing what is best for their children. I would further hazard that those who have perpetuated the "unsocialized" homeschooler myth have done so out of ignorance. Again, show me your evidence. I have personally met quite a few homeschooling families, and I have found the kids to be far more socially adapted than their public school peers. These homeschooled kids are generally being socialized in an environment with mixed age groups and grown ups. As they tend to revolve in social circles and activities dominated by homeschooling families. They generally don't see the grownups as enemeis, or unquestioned authority figures. Until you can present empirical evidence that contradicts the considerable anecdotal evidence before me then you are the ones pervaying an irrational belief system founded on supposition and ignorance.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 8, 2010 9:52 AM

is not essentially any better than standing around saying "The markets should be free." I just can't see how you get from here (Texas Board of Education; abusive actions in business) to there (a board of incorruptible savants; the invisible hand).

Where did I suggest that "markets should be free", or talk about the invisible hand (an imaginary myth loved by libertarians and other free market ideologues ?).

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 8, 2010 9:57 AM

Bowling for Columbine is stupid, dishonest, and incoherent. It tries to make the point that guns are bad but then undermines its own point with lies and by pointing out the fact that news coverage of murders goes up even while murder rates are going down. And Michael Moore makes more stupid movies about the epidemic of violence even while murder rates are going down. Irony much?

Evidently the movie was too complicated for you. Its points are more subtle than you expected. Watch it again… this time for understanding.

We have a higher crime rate because we have a bigger police state and we punish drug dealers and drug users too severely.

Those two factors certainly don't help, but… what makes you think they are the biggest factors?

I simply said that in general robbery was easier against disarmed commons than against armed ones. Do you deny that home robberies are much more common outside the US than inside?

I certainly do. Show me I'm wrong.

One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. It's even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat." […]

I'm reminded of why you were awarded OM membership. Lest I forget!

"speedwell." Gee, I thought everyone knew.

:-o

That makes some sense in hindsight, but I'd never have found out on my own. Did you announce your name change somewhere?

and also to avoid compulsory Welsh language instruction!

What? Is there something bad about getting a language delivered home for free?

Children stay childish because they don't get to make any decisions for themselves, school is done to them.

I stay childish anyway, though.

It almost becomes a self-fullfiling profecy, there is such general distrust of government in America and so much entrenched religious conservatism that you end up getting the kind of government you expect : an untrustworthy religious conservative government making all kinds of stupid mistakes.

"Almost"?

I've already said it: it was the Raygun government that spread the word that government was inherently bad.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 8, 2010 10:04 AM

Welsh language instruction is only mandatory in Welsh state schools.

Since in order to going to a Welsh state school you must be resident in Wales I fail to see what the problem is. Unless being ignorant of the culture in which you live is your goal.

Posted by: a.human.ape | March 8, 2010 10:05 AM

But that doesn't mean that I hold anything against my parents for sharing their beliefs.

The vast majority of Christian parents don't "share" their beliefs. They teach religious ideas as fact. The child is forced to join the religion of their parents, and the parents, with the assistance of the local preacher man, make sure those kids learn to love Jeebus or else. It is child abuse, and Christians must never be allowed to forget it.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 10:14 AM

seriouslystupid @ #208

If he bothered to look at the statistics [like the good little scientist he claims to be] instead of ranting out of his biased assumptions [like the maudlin mockstar he is], he'd know that homeschoolers typically score higher than public school counterparts. How is this a "sub-standard education?"

Citation please... (it's customary around here to provide citations with assertions, especially when citing statistics).

Oh, because Squiddy wants our kids indoctrinated in a rosy one-sided argument for evolutionism

Ahh... I see... you couldn't give a rat's ass about the actual topic.. this is just a stupidity laden screed against evolution.

with no mention of its weaknesses or of competing theories.

Moron... your bus is laving...

There are no scientifically valid competing theories, liar.

And here's another way homeschoolers are one up on public schooled kids: our kids actually know both sides of the issue.

Umm... what you did there is actually present a weakness... You do know the difference, right? For example, teaching both sides of the "round earth / flat earth" debate isn't a strength. Savvy?

But you can be damn sure I'll fight for my Constitutional right to freedom of religion - not freedom from it for a minority of atheists who don't like democracry because it means the majority gets their way.

No such right to teach kids religiously based (and frankly silly) views in favor of actual science exists, bub, except in your head. Thankfully you're not the one calling the shots, simpleton.

Oh, and by the way... you're not a hero... this isn't a civics issue. You're only making it one because you know damn well you don't have any science on your side. If you can't make it about the science (and you can't), better make it about the politics. Right?

It's also statistical fact that the majority of kids who are taught evolution [in public schools] as scientific fact largely go on to reject religious truth wholesale.

a). Again, citation please.

b). So? It's also a fact that kids who suddenly notice their parents putting wrapped gifts under the tree stop believing in Santa. There's a reason for this. It's obvious.

because you can't mention God in public schools

Liar.

And even when evolution is taught in a "Goddidit" sense in churches and private schools, it doesn't take a genius to see that millions of years of evolution and the Genesis account are completely incompatible.

The only sensible thing you've said thus far. Bravo!

the authority of God's revealed Word to the presumptive authority of fallible men who weren't there and don't know everything

Hmmm... do you go to the Dr? Use a computer? Drive a car? Ride a train? Drink pasteurized milk?

Seems like your list of things that "fallible men who don't know everything" should be trusted to "know" is awfully fucking selective.

Hypocrite, Liar, moron for Jesus... get lost.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 10:23 AM

NoR #222

Dammit... really?

How the hell did I miss that? It's an excellent Poe, then.

*sigh*

Posted by: cheeseburgerbrown | March 8, 2010 10:26 AM

Wow -- aside from the gun control sidebar gone bananas, this is a very interesting thread. As an atheist homeschooling parent who chimed in earlier, I'd like to respond to a few of the general points that seem to keep rising to the surface:

1. Regarding the concern that there is no safety net to catch factual errors in the teaching materials, my own experiences in public school did not convince me that error correction is managed very well. Misinformation from teachers (outmoded theories at the best of times, outright balderdash at the worst of times) was not uncommon. My own parents would not have been equipped academically to correct such errors. As an earlier poster said, the idea is to teach your children research and critical thinking skills so they can ultimately perform their own verifications (as those of us who went through the public system had to do anyway).

2. Regarding the idea that the educational purpose of school is secondary to its purpose as a socialization engine, I think if such a thing were true it would represent a monumental waste of resources. Over a decade in an institution in order to learn how to hang out and make friends? Seriously? That's a woefully warped point of view.

3. Regarding the idea of mandated examination to ensure homeschoolers are covering the provincial curriculum, I think that's a fine idea and I was shocked and appalled when I found out there was no such requirement in my home province. I would happily submit my kids to such tests/benchmarking/exams/whatnot as often as once per academic year. I agree with some of the posters here that it is criminally irresponsible not to enforce basic standards of education, regardless of the venue or mode of teaching.

Yours,
CBB

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 8, 2010 10:28 AM

you guys decide to equivocate evolution as "change over time"

WTF!?! Evolution is descent with heritable modification. Period.

and, guess what? Creation just happens to be a better fit.

Look, why don't you talk about things you actually understand, for a change? Surely there must be some.

As for the unConstitutional assertion that US citizens be required to teach our children evolution as fact when it so obviously goes against the cherished beliefs of those who hold to the historical veracity of the Bible

Teaching religion as truth is unconstitutional, because it requires preferring some religions over others, which the First Amendment (as amended by the Fourteenth) forbids. Fuck "cherished beliefs". I repeat: fuck them. When they're religion, teaching them as truth is unconstitutional.

Never mind the contradictions in the Bible. Which is it – were man and woman created at the same time and last, or was man first created, then the rest of the world, and then woman?

Both wrong. Both demonstrably wrong. Both laughably obviously wrong.

and can demonstrate how the evidence can also be interpreted to support our claim

Show me.

Communist China already does this.

"Communist" China? The place without public health insurance? The place where old people just die at home? The place with separate hospitals for rich people and for poor people?

Slowly but surely, the Communist Party of China (as it still calls itself) is metamorphosing into the Republican Party of the USA. Well, except for the religion thing perhaps (that was ditched when Mao died). It's about time you noticed.

But you can be damn sure I'll fight for my Constitutional right to freedom of religion -

Ooh, are we having hero fantasies today.

Nobody is even proposing to take away your or anyone's right to believe whatever they like. The Constitution just says the government – schools included – doesn't have the right to prefer one such personal belief over any other, because that would be unfair.

not freedom from it for a minority of atheists who don't like democracry because it means the majority gets their way.

<sigh>

<tapping on Serious? Not!'s little head>

My son, a constitution is a set of laws that a simple majority cannot overturn. The explicit purpose of this is that the democracy doesn't become a tyranny of the majority. If 51 % could become happier by killing the other 49 %, should they have the right do it? You are saying yes. I'm not sure you've noticed.

You guys that support this unConstitutionl screed simply because he's PZ Myers need a lesson in independent thought and a course on American civics.

Good I never bought an irony meter. I'd need new ones all the time.

so they're being indoctrinated in practical atheism.

Lack of indoctrination is indoctrination in atheism? Right. And bald is a hair color, and off is a channel on the TV, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

This is so old…

as a gradual surrender of the authority of God's revealed Word to the presumptive authority of fallible men who weren't there and don't know everything - so long as they make their claims in the name of science.

You simply claim that anything is "God's revealed Word". If you were wrong, how would you know?

That nobody knows everything is the very point of science. It's the very reason the scientific method has been developed.

DefendingGenesis.org

Because the LORD God Himself cannot defend it.

Think about this.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 8, 2010 10:36 AM

Celtic_Evolution, #208 is a Poe (say his name aloud). He/She is a periodic visitor.

…and has never made a single funny point.

In fact Welsh language is very much a minority language.

Again, what's wrong with getting a language delivered to one's home for free?

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 8, 2010 10:40 AM

If I did so, and you had noticed it at the time, what would be different?

I wouldn't be so surprised now. :-)

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 8, 2010 10:44 AM

Still nice for you to admit that you are happy to live in a country and cannot be bothered to learn to speak the language.

I wouldn't use that particular argument, because some parts of Wales have been English-speaking for centuries… but I still don't understand why anyone would actively avoid having their children learn a language.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 10:54 AM

Been trying to keep up with the comments in this thread... it's been an interesting topic (agree with CBB above about the derailment into the gun control issue... for another thread).

I sympathize with many of the opinions being expressed here on all sides. I do appreciate PZ's (and Jerry Coyne's) points on homeschooling and the dangers of a farily unregulated environment potentially crippling an innocent child's academic and social development, but as far as this thread pertains, I also see the points of some of our more intelligent and thoughtful commenters who home-school themselves or see the merits of it.

I think the issue for me, and the problem that I have with PZ's post, is that he paints homeschooling with a very broad brush and seemingly makes blanket assertions that I don't think are appropriate or representative of all homeschoolers.

And it also does not surprise me that we would find a large contingent of home-schoolers in this thread that are the clear opposite of what PZ describes. This place tends to attract some fairly intelligent and thoughtful people.

I think it would lend the OP more credibility if PZ were to qualify it by referring to Christian or religious-based home-schoolers, specifically. Even then, you are going to find exceptions where some home schoolers, even if christian, will keep the religious part of things out of the schooling and keep a fairly secular curriculum.

I personally agree with PZ, that in an ideal world, we would have a system of public and private schools that were well funded and required to meet secular standards. But I also do see where, for many parents, this situation doesn't come close to existing and home-schooling is, in their mind, a far better alternative. And I can see where PZ's post might come across to those people as narrow-minded and a bit myopic.

I personally prefer to send my daughter to public school and then work within that system to assure that it has the highest education standards for not only her but her classmates. I think the social aspect of her school environment is a critical component to her development process, which I'd have a very difficult time recreating if I home-schooled her.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 8, 2010 10:59 AM

I say that as someone who would love to learn Welsh, but not in place of physics and calculus, if I ever attend an engineering school in the UK.

The requirement only extends to age 16.

However for adults who want to learn, or improve, their Welsh there are a wide ranges of course, daytime, evening, intensive and so, available either free or at nominal cost.

Posted by: Kevin | March 8, 2010 11:05 AM

@Celtic_Evolution (#235)

In reaction to that. My homeschooling was actually done in a Christian family. Although our studies in Biology were lacking and we did have some religious bible study added to the curriculum, it was... different.

My bible study teacher was one of the pastors at the church we went to. He was, by far, the best teacher on the bible I've ever had. While other pastors will talk to you about the morals and implications and 'Jesus this, Jesus that,' this pastor would go far, far more in depth. We took years to finish the book of John (never did, because he got kicked out of the church.) He taught barely a few words at a time, explaining in huge detail about etymology and history and relating parts of the book to previous books and how they worked together and what was meant by the authors.

It was as secular a bible study you could get at a church. The replacement pastor was the kind of touchy-feely 'Jesus loves us' kind of guy.

But I feel I've veered off the point of my post. Even though I had a Christian upbringing, my mother understood that learning was the important part of the experience.

Posted by: LadyShea | March 8, 2010 11:21 AM

"I think the social aspect of her school environment is a critical component to her development process, which I'd have a very difficult time recreating if I home-schooled her."

You and I may have very different ideas as to what "social aspects" are important, and how best to include social development, however it's not as hard as you may believe between sports, music, clubs like 4-H and various community activities.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn7nC_SOspWbA-gblf5JA78ckCJ0cylCq8 | March 8, 2010 11:29 AM

ckitching
In most states homeschoolers do NOT receive tax credits.

Your argument about enrollment could also be leveled at couples who choose not to have children or single people who choose not to marry and have children. People are not obligated to have children in order to keep enrollment high.

Also since one of the problems in the Public Schools is large class sizes, one would think that homeschooling or sending a child to a private school would be seen as a plus to the public schools as it would reduce the class sizes.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 8, 2010 11:35 AM

FrankT: It's not just about academic achievement, performance on tests, or cramming young people's heads full of maximum knowledge. (Indeed, too much attention to jumping through hoops and maximising test scores is a large part of the problem with the school system.) The problem with conventional schools is the harm they cause to young people's personal, emotional and psychological development, and the fact that they promote conformity, unquestioning obedience and "discipline" enforced by "punishment", rather than encouraging young people to reject authority and think for themselves.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkGyiXAV-PH4_PSj8uwvYCFWQWQwYaVHWc | March 8, 2010 11:47 AM

To add another data point to the discussion, my wife decided to homeschool our eldest son for a few years. We know now that he as Asperger syndrome and was the stereotypical "little professor" that Hans Asperger described in his research. Our son learned to speak very precisely at an early age and soaked up knowledge, particularly mathematics, like a sponge.

We initially tried enrolling him in a well-recommended private school for kindergarten at significant cost to try to support his abilities, but we soon found out he was poorly-suited to the school environment. He had gone into the school being able to glance at a group of objects and tell you how many there were, knowing simple arithmetic, and understanding three-dimenisonal solids like spheres. We decided to take him out when the kindergarten teachers had reduced him to counting on his fingers and telling him that, no, it wasn't a "sphere" it was a "ball". He also showed difficulties interacting with his peers that the school missed an opportunity to diagnose as relatively clear-cut AS.

So, for a few years my wife and I (though mostly my wife) endeavored to home-school our son. Both of us were college-educated and he took to it very well. We finally ended up enrolling him in a local charter school that used progressive education techniques that fit him better, and they were more willing to work with us to handle his social retardation.

Home schooling isn't always a road to entrenched ignorance, but I admit it's hard to get right.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 11:55 AM

The problem with conventional schools is the harm they cause to young people's personal, emotional and psychological development, and the fact that they promote conformity, unquestioning obedience and "discipline" enforced by "punishment", rather than encouraging young people to reject authority and think for themselves.

Walton, I think this needs serious citation... specifically the part about the harm caused to "personal, emotional and psychological development". I don't recall seeing statistics or studies that specifically bear this out (although I may not be aware of them, in which case, kindly point them out so that I might learn more), and it smacks a little anecdotal to me...

Posted by: dfminardi | March 8, 2010 12:03 PM

David:

"Evidently the movie was too complicated for you. Its points are more subtle than you expected. Watch it again… this time for understanding."

It's been since the movie was in the theater since I watched it, but I know how much he lies about everything in that particular movie. But if there is some interesting thing in the movie that makes a good point and makes it honestly, I would enjoy a summary if you would like to continue this discussion in private.

"Those two factors certainly don't help, but… what makes you think they are the biggest factors?"

I think drugs and our prison-industrial complex are bigger factors because they make more sense to me than to simply blame guns which makes absolutely no since to me given global evidence.

"I certainly do. Show me I'm wrong."

If you're really interested, I can try to look up the statistics after school. Perhaps there is a discrepancy in international crime statistics that I am unaware of. Again, we can discuss this off this thread if you wish. I'm certainly not averse to polite discussion.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 12:10 PM

but I know how much he lies about everything in that particular movie.

I'm getting tired of saying this already... but...

Fucking citation please.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 8, 2010 12:20 PM

Learning to cope with bullying or other social / anti-social behavior is a skill best learned at a young age, IMO. And yes... it often sucks. And no, it's not confined to school. Happens at any place where social groups gather.

Right, it prepares them so well for how to get along in prison.

Posted by: Kevin | March 8, 2010 12:24 PM

@Celtic_Evolution (#252)

In a case such as mine, I think being pulled out was the better thing. I was, for lack of a better term, tortured by the bullies in my 7th grade school. I don't know if it was because I refused to pick on the kid with Aspberger's or I was smart and polite, or because they just saw me as an easy target, but I was the subject of every last bully in my class's ridicule.

It was me (at 5'4, probably 100 lbs) versus about 6 taller, stronger, meaner kids. My grades were slipping because I spent most of my energy figuring out how not to be killed on the playground or walking home from school rather than remembering my studies.

Of course, the summer after I was pulled out, I got my growth spurt, shot up to 5'10, towered over the bullies, and was still smarter and nicer than the lot of them. So, even if I wasn't pulled out, seventh grade would likely have been my last year of official bullying.

(That brings to mind a couple of, I'm guessing dual-enrolled students, at my community college who were picking on me during class. I calmly turned around, glared at them and reminded them that "we're adults, stop behaving like adolescents and listen to the lesson.")

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 12:43 PM

Right, it prepares them so well for how to get along in prison.

Eh? Am I to read that as typical school behavior = prison behavior?

If not, please explain what you mean... if so, have you attended either? Again, I have not seen any studies that bear this out beyond anecdote... and it certainly doesn't jibe with my data, anecdotal as it is (my own experience plus 2 teachers in the family and involvement on school boards, PTO, etc...).

Again, I'm willing to be convinced, but I'd like to see the data.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 8, 2010 1:10 PM

Celtic_Evolution, I am aware that I am only familiar with government-run schools in the US. The following article is about schools across the country, but I could tell you point-for-point how my local Texas schools meet this description, and then I could go on and tell you even more.

http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid;=19280

Posted by: nigelTheBold | March 8, 2010 1:20 PM

My mom has been a school teacher for a couple of decades now (after her career as professional student, and then a brief stint as a biologist). After all of these years of listening to her gripe about the school system, it seems there are three primary problems with the system:

1. Students.
2. Parents.
3. Administrators.

Most parents don't give a damn about their kids' education, unless school is teaching something they don't like, such as evolution or other things that promote a liberal agenda. Try to teach their kids something useful (like actual science) and the parents get all irate. Otherwise, they don't care, as long as their kid is getting babysat for 6 hours a day.

Couple that with that fact that many kids are antagonistic to learning, and administrators who prefer rules and regulations over educational content (coming in at #3 on our list), and you have the makings of our flawed educational system.

My mom teaches what she can to as many kids as she can in the framework she's given. (She teaches science to a bunch of future NBA stars, and future fishermen who will be on The Deadliest Catch. This is a big show where she works, as it's filmed there -- St. Paul Island, in the Pribilofs. But you don't need no science to fish, or to play basketball for the Lakers.)

Homeschooling seems like a really good idea. Let's put the hopes of the future in the hands of a bunch of recalcitrant kids who really would rather not get an education, and their apathetic and lazy-ass parents. That's a crackerjack idea.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 1:32 PM

Cathy - #260

Very good post. I think I might be poorly representing my own views on education and school in general, so far ,and am in danger of getting into an unintended tete-a-tete with badgersduaghter, whom I respect immensely... so let me try to sort through it a little better, using some points from your post...

a look at how the system is set up shows that it is NOT set up along lines to best help kids learn (how to be good citizens, or reading/math, or whatever). It is set up to be convenient for adult jobs (i.e., babysitting) and to sort kids into categories of winners and losers (grading and testing).

While these points may be true (I'm not sure about the babysitting thing... school was set up much the same as it is now from before the 60's, when there was usually one parent always home ion most families... it may be a convenient baby-sitting function, but you haven't convinced me that's it's intended to be such), I think they are incomplete. The system is also set up to provide as comprehensive an education as possible for a fairly large population with a fairly small amount of resources. This obviously leads to many of the problems you're talking about, of course. But the intention is not to simply sort and supervise, as you seem to imply. There is an actual desire to educate, IMO.

That grades and test scores really mean something about the kid, his/her abilities and knowledge and future possibilities... If schools were really about learning, kids would be exposed to concepts, subject areas, and skill sets in a positive way, would be urged to engage with group projects that are meaningful, would be allowed to do individual study when appropriate, would be challenged to go further with a personal gift or interest, and so forth.

While ideal, and certainly would be of immeasurable value to the individual student, is this type of personal level of attention for each student realistic, even if we doubled the amount of resources available? Especially in densely populated urban areas? I'm not saying there isn't a ton of room for improvement, but this level of personal attention to individual development is something only realistic in small, expensive and privately funded schools. Am I wrong there?

Wait--it seems that the kid didn't really get that concept! Clearly, the kid doesn't know what you mean by "borrowing." Shouldn't we stick with that until he/she DOES get it?

Perhaps not... and such a child deserves some special attention to work on difficult concepts. But do we have that resource available? And if not, what of the rest of a class? Stagnate while the lone resource available is devoting attention? Are there enough tutoring options? I'd vote for that while continuing to move the curriculum along, assuming it's being given at a fair pace that most can stay with. I don't know... What's the right answer? Again I feel like it's a resource issue and there is certainly room for improvement, but to the level you're speaking of? I'd love it, but is it realistic? Does this happen in other countries? (I'm asking, not being sarcastic).

As a tutor I work with a lot of kids who are doing terrible and also a fair number of kids who are doing great in school. (Because parents of "winners" want their kids to get A's in geometry, too, for example.) But one thing I do for every kid and their parents is to subvert the system. I teach them, first and foremost that they CAN learn XYZ, that grades and test scores are pretty much meaningless, that they were born with everything they need to be able to succeed with decimals, say, or reading.

This is laudable... I really respect what you are doing. But as a tutor you are able to provide that personal level of attention. Is that available, realistically, to every kid in an inner city school district?

There's alot more to your post and I could go on for another page going over each example and detail... suffice to say I really like some of your ideas... and I really respect the passion you have for properly leading kids towards being intelligent and thoughtful, and not just being "smart". I guess what I would ask is, I agree that at a very basic level our system of education is broken. But home-schooling is really not an option for about 90% (or more?) of the population to properly educate our youth. And resources for public schools are scarce... and even for some private schools. Do you think your ideas and approach are realistic on a public-school in a large urban area scale? What would be the one thing, above all else, that you would change to "fix" the system?

Oh... and one point about testing and grades. I agree, it's a limited system that says too little about the student and his or her ability to learn. But, is there a better way for a state public school authority
to ensure, on some level, that a student body has a basic level of understanding of the curriculum? Again, there are not rhetorical questions... I'd like to hear people's thoughts. I am currently on the local school board and I want to hear ideas I can use to make our schools as comprehensive and positive an experience as possible.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 1:38 PM

badgersdaughter #261

Thanks for the link... that's along the lines of what I was looking for. Looks like some good info with links there. I've got some reading to do, but what I read so far does open my eyes quite a bit...

I'm still not sure I'm ready to buy in to your "school behavior = prison behavior" analogy fully. But I do see where you're coming from, to a degree.

Posted by: Steve N | March 8, 2010 1:47 PM

Nigel #263
You made sense right up until your last paragraph. In my experience the homeschooling parents are the ones that do "give a damn" more than others. That's why we won't send our kids into your broken system. And the homeschooling kids are obviously not the "antagonistic" kids causing the problems in your schools. And we are not hampered by the framework in in which your mom works. In my prior post (211) I asked specific questions of those that would mandate my sending my kids to public school. So far no one has even tried. Your little rant about how bad the schools are does nothing to make me want to send my kids there.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 2:12 PM

You made sense right up until your last paragraph. In my experience the homeschooling parents are the ones that do "give a damn" more than others.

You're missing his point... he's saying that most parents don't reallygive a damn about their kids education on any level that really matters, at least to the level that you would not want them attempting to home-school if that was the actual requirement.

That's why we won't send our kids into your broken system.

You're making the mistake of assuming all home-school parents have the same motives for home-schooling that you do. Not sure you can make that claim with any authority.

As to the rest of your post, I think you are taking it too personally. I think nigelTheBold's point isn't that home-schooling should be banned or that kids should be mandated to public schools. His point (I think) is that the solution of home-schooling would be a monumentally bad idea for most of the general population.

Posted by: FrankT | March 8, 2010 2:16 PM

You guys understand that bullying and group behavior happens in corporations too, right? Dealing with that kind of unpleasantness is a valuable, even necessary life skill.

But all anecdotes aside, the American highschool graduate is more productive and more competitive for jobs then ever before. Whether you personally value the kinds of knowledge that the American school system gives its children is fascinating and all, but the fact remains that society at large clearly does.

Of course the education system can and should be improved. But it hasn't gotten worse, and it's not bad. It's the best we've ever had. And as long as we keep fighting the Creatards trying to take it apart, it will keep getting better.

You do your child no favors by trying to keep them from learning how to sit at a desk for eight hours a day and complete arbitrary assignments for authority figures that they don't know or like. Because that's what modern society actually gives you food and services in exchange for.

Posted by: Kevin | March 8, 2010 2:53 PM

@FrankT (273):

The thing is, though, that the average high school graduate will most likely transfer into college, where schooling is done correctly. Where classes are more suited to what you want to learn, group assignments are more plentiful, and responsibility for your actions get put on your shoulders.

One of the first things we were told in our freshman orientation (though I was a sophomore, technically) was that high school teaches you how to learn, while college focuses on teaching you to learn.

Posted by: Kevin | March 8, 2010 2:59 PM

@LadyShea (276):

Not ALL the time - my sister was homeschooled and didn't go to college.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 3:06 PM

I think you're missing my point. I'm involved in a couple homeschooling communities. And on the whole the parents are doing it precisely because they are highly involved and interested in their kids education.

Ok. No argument there, but I don't think that has anything to do with NigelTheBold's post, nor my point.

I acknowledge that people do it for a lot of different reasons, some that I don't agree with.

Do your homeschooling communities include religious home-schoolers? I think that's a huge portion of the home-schooling community and I think within that group, the motives and quality of education are questionable... I think that's the point, at least in my view.

I wouldn't make that statement about the home-schooling community in general, though, and I've said that several times.

But it's a lot of work and sacrifice. It's by no means the easy or expedient path that someone who is disinterested would take.

Which is exactly the point, and why it should not be recommended as a solution for the general public. It requires a level of intelligence, dedication, care and attention that is not common enough among parents to be a useful solution.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 8, 2010 3:07 PM

Yeah, stick your head in the sand, ostrich-boy. Better yet, let's see your 3 Monkeys impersonation so we don't have to listen to your hubris. Your denialism doesn't disprove the validity of competing theories.

Which competing "theories"?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 8, 2010 3:16 PM

Speaking of haphazard, that was me being haphazard with the submit button.

One problem here, you creationist types are haphazard with your use of well established scientific methods to the point that any and all evidence (which is all evidence) that goes against your pre-determined conclusion that the bible is inerrant gets tossed, denied, obfuscated or ignored.

fixed

There's a good reason creationism is not regarded as a fair equivalent to the scientific point of view. It's because the former fails to pay attention to the physical evidence, while the latter is built, not on presuppositions, but on that evidence.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 3:18 PM

Here's your citation: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

Thanks... all I did was ask for a citation at that point. The citation is appreciated. And also thanks for being an asshole. Do you reply like that to every person that asks you to back up every assertion you make? Or do you just assume every person has exactly the same info you do and citations are superfluous?

Yeah, stick your head in the sand, ostrich-boy. Better yet, let's see your 3 Monkeys impersonation so we don't have to listen to your hubris. Your denialism doesn't disprove the validity of competing theories.

Cute... but umm... did you forget to cite the competing theories accepted by the scientific community in that there little spasm? Somehow I missed it...

Your refusal to actually site any competing theories and the scientific literature in which they can be found speaks volumes. Care to provide them? Nah... you're not gonna do that are you, cupcake? Can't provide that which doesn't exist.

And now Celty doesn't understand science.

Heh... made even funnier when followed up with this:

You've conflated science with evolution.

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaa. Wait... ti gets better... then this:

Bad science propped up by the US Government on our tax dime with no competition allowed versus good science that actually affirms God's revealed Word.

Dude... you wouldn't recognize science if it jumped up and bit you right in the bible. But thanks for revealing your ignorance on such a grand level. I've wasted enough of my time on you. You might be one of the more ignorant trolls I've seen round these parts in an age.

Moving on...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 3:22 PM

Those are the parents that send their kids to PUBLIC SCHOOLS. ~Alasandra

Hey look! It's another broad, narrow-viewed generalization!

- A kid whose parents sent him to public school.

Posted by: FrankT | March 8, 2010 3:27 PM

I do not plan to tell my kid that he is destined to do mindless boring desk work as a career.

Perhaps you'd prefer they grew up to be a janitor?

I'm in medical school. I'm going to be a doctor. I'm still going to have to do a bunch of mindless boring desk work for my career. This is the modern bureaucratized world we live in. In exchange for the marvels of personal computing, flight, antibiotics, and refrigeration... we have to do a bunch of paperwork.

Your children have to come to grips with that fact. And you, as a parent, need to come to grips with the fact that your kids have to come to grips with that fact.

If you try to keep your children trapped in a fantasy world where they don't have to spend a period of time doing the same electric bill payment paperwork every month, you are setting up your children to wake up to a very dark day.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 3:36 PM

Wow. False analogy. Awesome. So you've actually seen evolution [vis. dinosaurs turning into birds] happening right in front of your eyes. Dude, how old are you?

Couldn't let this gem go.

That's what you think evolution is? Dude, how ignorant are you?

The Santa analogy is perfectly apt. Young adults realize that the silly, childish hogwash they learned in the bible about how life came to be as it is simply can't be possible once you actually look at the evidence. And that frankly it was pretty silly to have ever believed such far-fetched balogna.

Similar feelings arise upon observing parents put gifts under the tree... c'mon... you can work that out in your head. I know ya can, sport.

Posted by: raven | March 8, 2010 3:37 PM

religious kook lying:

The Origins Argument isn’t about facts. The creationist and the evolutionist have exactly the same evidence: we have the same universe, the same Earth, the same physics, mathematics, rocks, fossils – the same facts. And FACTS are not self-explanatory. Facts must be interpreted… usually according to our pre-existing beliefs and assumptions.

This is simply the standard lie of the creationists. The creationists don't have the same facts. They ignore 95% of the facts and twist, pervert, and lie about the other 5%.

The "Origins argument" sure isn't about the facts. It is about religious kooks lying a lot versus the real world and the truth. The attempt to cram a 13.7 billion year old universe into two pages of bronze age mythology failed centuries ago.

Posted by: LadyShea | March 8, 2010 3:44 PM

Perhaps you'd prefer they grew up to be a janitor?

That's the only alternative to a mindless, boring desk job? False dichotomy much?

If he chooses a career that spends time at a desk that's fine, I do it myself, but your statement made it sound like that's the only type of career that exists.

I'm in medical school. I'm going to be a doctor. I'm still going to have to do a bunch of mindless boring desk work for my career.

8 hours a day, to "complete arbitrary assignments for authority figures that you don't know or like"?

This is the modern bureaucratized world we live in. In exchange for the marvels of personal computing, flight, antibiotics, and refrigeration... we have to do a bunch of paperwork.

If you try to keep your children trapped in a fantasy world where they don't have to spend a period of time doing the same electric bill payment paperwork every month, you are setting up your children to wake up to a very dark day.

I am not arguing that we don't all have some paperwork. But "some" paperwork is not 8 hours a day as your career. Some paperwork isn't even arbitrary, and not all desk jobs are boring or mindless.

You painted a very dreary picture of the work world is all.

Posted by: raven | March 8, 2010 3:46 PM

religious kook going hysterical:

Yeah, stick your head in the sand, ostrich-boy. Better yet, let's see your 3 Monkeys impersonation so we don't have to listen to your hubris. Your denialism doesn't disprove the validity of competing theories.

Your total ignorance of science and evolution proves nothing except your total ignorance and that fundie xianity produces uneducated, hostile people.

She is getting hyterical here. What fundies do when someone asks them to do the impossible, that is to think coherently. Next step. Tell everyone they are going to hell. Spout some bible verses. Maybe toss in a few death threats.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 3:57 PM

And I think your implication that professional teachers are likely to show more "dedication, care and attention" for students in a classroom of 20-30 than their own parents can in a one on one situation is frankly preposterous and bizarre.

I find your assumption that most average parents would have more dedication, care and attention in home-schooling their kids than a professional teacher who CHOSE such a career is frankly preposterous and bizarre, and an insult to many, many dedicated, attentive and caring teachers.

So that only leaves "intelligence" left in your list of qualifications. So I'd be interested to see any studies done about the average intelligence of public school teachers.

And once again I'd ask you to back up the simply ridiculous assertion that teachers are NOT more intelligent than the average population. In most states a degree is required to be a teacher, and in many an advanced degree in the subject being taught is expected. What is the percentage of the population with degrees? That would be about 27%. And advanced degrees? That would be about 9%. There's my citation... care to provide yours refuting it?

I think you're continuing to make the mistake of being overly defensive against a position I'm not taking.

In my view, home-schooling can be an excellent and advantageous alternative to traditional schooling, if it is done by parents with the correct level of care, attentiveness, and dedication. It sounds like YOU are one of those parents. And I applaud you for it. However I will not accept that it is a better proposition for the population at large. And I'm not saying that you're making that argument... I'm saying that was Nigel's original point, wherever it was directed.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 4:03 PM

RBDC #294

This ignorant

Wow. That's pretty ignorant. I'm sorry I asked. Really.

Posted by: Steve N | March 8, 2010 4:08 PM

Celtic #299
For the most part we are in violent agreement :). But the reason you will find homeschoolers touchy is that our rights to homeschool are constantly under legal pressure and challenge. It is not just an academic discussion. And we are always lumped together with religious fundamentalists. Which granted are a portion, but I haven't seen anything showing them to be a statistical majority.

Posted by: raven | March 8, 2010 4:12 PM

Evolution is not observable, testable, repeatable science; it's not subject to the scientific method because it deals with singularities [past events] that cannot be directly tested, observed or repeated. You did know this right?

Total lies. More standard creationist lies.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Fact. Life changed through time.
Theory. How life changed through time.

It is also both a historical science and an experimental science.I couldn't tell you how many evolution experiments are running on any given day, probably hundreds at least, more likely thousands or tens of thousands. I've run more than a few myself.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Tai Dam lum Pun | March 8, 2010 4:15 PM

Do you not reading any journal or magazine the pretains to science?

I've spent too much time on Engrishfunny.com.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | March 8, 2010 4:22 PM

But the reason you will find homeschoolers touchy is that our rights to homeschool are constantly under legal pressure and challenge.

I totally understand... and I'm sorry it's such a pain in the ass.

And we are always lumped together with religious fundamentalists. Which granted are a portion, but I haven't seen anything showing them to be a statistical majority.

While I understand that you may be involved in a home-schooling group where this is not the case, unfortunately the statistics do not remotely support your claim. According to the NCES, 83% of home-schoolers cited "a desire to provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason for home schooling, and nearly 36% sited it as the most important reason. This was by far the largest reason given above all others.

I'm sorry to say that you are lumped in with religious fundamentalists because they make up the largest portion of the home-schooling population. That doesn't mean you should be, however... and I want to make that clear.

Posted by: raven | March 8, 2010 4:25 PM

wikipedia: Experimental evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In evolutionary and experimental biology, the field of experimental evolution is concerned with testing hypotheses and theories of evolution by use of controlled experiments. Evolution may be observed in the laboratory as populations adapt to new environmental conditions and/or change by such stochastic processes as random genetic drift. With modern molecular tools, it is possible to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work. Because of the large number of generations required for adaptation to occur, evolution experiments are typically carried out with microorganisms such as bacteria, yeast or viruses.[1][2] However, laboratory studies with rodents have shown that notable adaptations can occur within as few as 10-20 generations (see below) and experiments with wild guppies have observed adaptations within comparable numbers of generations.[3] keeps going

I realize the current fundie creationist chew toy has probably shredded down by now.

But this is a new lie of the creationists. That evolution is a historical science like astronomy that we can only observe.

It is false of course. Evolution is also an experimental science and quite a lot of work is done in this area. The wikipedia entry is not good, way too superficial and incomplete.

Besides standard lab experiments a lot has been done with in vitro molecular evolution of aptamers, computer programs, and natural experiments.
The new swine flu was predicted decades before it occurred as well as some of its properties. Those have so far been proven correct. Just another year, another pandemic, and another correct prediction of an important and powerful theory, TOE.

Posted by: nigelTheBold | March 8, 2010 4:53 PM

But the reason you will find homeschoolers touchy is that our rights to homeschool are constantly under legal pressure and challenge.

It's a thin line to walk. How do we maximize education within society, while still providing parents with political choice?

Myself, I'm of two minds about homeschooling. The reason you're lumped in with folks who homeschool for religious reasons (like my ex) is because they are the majority. And I've seen the terrible results.

Yet I was essentially homeschooled. I attended high school in southeast Alaska. I graduated with 3 other people. For two years, I was one of 13 high school / junior high students in a one-room school. I was far ahead of the teacher in math, science, and computers. So I basically got to take college-level correspondence courses in, well, everything.

On the third hand, the good homeschool parents (like you) have removed yourself from the public education system. Teachers have even less help, less encouragement, and fewer voices of reason on their side.

There's a lot of complexity here, at the center of which is a flawed education system that nobody seems to know how to fix. Those who might be most interested in getting it fixed have voluntarily removed themselves from the solution (whatever that might turn out to be).

It's a complex issue. I certainly don't hold homeschooling against you -- that's your kid you're talking about. I know how important your kid is. Mine is very important to me.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 8, 2010 4:56 PM

But Japan, where they kill themselves more than we kill each other, is your shining example of blissful gun control? I'll pass.

Either way, if guns were only used to commit suicide, I wouldn't object to them. Nonetheless, were you going to address the actual point I made? Here's the recap.
"Police States and gun control laws create crime; Guns reduce it"
"Japan has more of the former, less of the latter, and less crime. Please explain."

Posted by: LadyShea | March 8, 2010 4:58 PM

a desire to provide religious or moral instruction

It's complicated by that "or". I am an atheist, I wish to give my son moral instruction, I may choose that answer as one of multiple reason I choose to homeschool, correct? Does that make me a religious fundamentalist?

Posted by: LadyShea | March 8, 2010 5:05 PM

It said "or" and the survey allowed multiple reasons to be chosen.

Certainly I wouldn't be in the 36% listing it as the most important reason, but I wouldn't have shied away from the morality clause just because it was poorly worded and lumped in with religion.

Posted by: LadyShea | March 8, 2010 5:35 PM

The question was "what are your reasons for homeschooling" and you could choose as many as you wanted from the options offered. All I am saying is that I might have check marked it as one of many, and so it's not a very useful stat.

It certainly doesn't follow that 83% are fundamentalist Christians teaching creationism...that's pure projection.

Posted by: dfminardi | March 8, 2010 5:50 PM

"Nonetheless, were you going to address the actual point I made? Here's the recap."

I explicitly said that I meant to refer to our prison system, not our surveillance state, which is not nearly as vast or oppressive as that of many others. The way we fight our war on drugs is certainly not conducive to actually winning it and it does little but facilitate violence.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 8, 2010 6:01 PM

Oh, and thirdly, using "Police State" to refer to the War on Drugs is prety much a Godwin, don't you think?

Posted by: Kevin | March 8, 2010 6:14 PM

@Tis Himself, OM (322)

No, that would be from not grammar-checking my posts before making them.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 8, 2010 6:42 PM

You guys understand that bullying and group behavior happens in corporations too, right? Dealing with that kind of unpleasantness is a valuable, even necessary life skill.

That's the problem. It shouldn't have to be.

As the regulars will know, I was an advocate of Friedman-Hayek-style orthodox libertarianism for quite some time. But I have since realised that, while libertarians are right to fear the expanding arm of the state, they fail to take into account the fact that the employment relationship can also be highly coercive in practice, and that it is necessary to redress the gross imbalance of power between employer and employee.

Libertarians tend to conceive of the employer-employee relationship as a voluntary, non-coercive one; after all, they argue, an employee can leave his or her job at any time. But this disregards the fact that, in societies without a strong welfare safety-net to provide financial security to the individual, a person doesn't always have a realistic option to leave his or her job, however oppressive, unpleasant or humiliating it becomes. If it's a choice between working in a given job or starving on the streets, can this really be said to be a "voluntary" relationship?

This is why, although I generally support a regulated capitalist economy, I am also in favour of the welfare state. Everyone should be guaranteed a minimum level of financial security: because if a person is being bullied, oppressed or humiliated in the workplace, he or she should be able to quit the job, without having to worry about making ends meet afterwards. This redresses the imbalance of power between employer and employee, and guarantees that an employee is not forced to comply with arbitrary and unfair treatmet by employers.

However, there is also an accompanying cultural element. We need to get rid of this culturally entrenched idea that there is some sort of moral obligation for everyone who can work to do so, and that there's something "wrong" with choosing to claim welfare benefits rather than take a job in which you are denied basic human dignity and autonomy. In the end, it's not a matter of "sponging off taxpayers". Our society creates plenty of excess wealth, and we have more plentiful consumer goods than in any other society in history. We can easily afford to support a sizeable non-working population.

Posted by: Legion | March 8, 2010 6:56 PM

Kausik Datta:

Many of these schools in the third world countries are beset with the exact same problems faced by the broken public-school system in the US, such as lack of funding, lack of good, dedicated teachers, uninspiring curricula and so forth.

Given that you're talking about cultural, political, and economic groups that are, in some cases at least, substantially different from what one finds in the U.S., it's a bit of a stretch to say that a school in, say, Ethiopia is beset with the "exact same problems faced by the broken public-school system in the US..."

Can one say with certainty that the children in these countries do not get educated?

No, nor can we say with certainty that they do get "educated."

Do they not become equipped to deal with life's vicissitudes? Do they lack any intellectual capital or technical know-how to compete with the best of today's world?

Probably yes in some cases, and in other cases, probably no. Your questions are so broad and there are so many variables to consider, that we're not really sure what you're going for here.

We think that a key problem many atheists have with home school is that they can't separate the concept from the religious indoctrination that is, unfortunately, linked with it -- even though they're aware that home school can be accomplished in a secular environment as well.

So let's try a thought experiment. What if we got rid of the term "home school", which admittedly carries a lot of baggage.

What if we called it...
1. private education
2. on-demand tutoring
3. personal learning
4. private tutoring
5. Targeted teaching
6. Personal learning empowerment

Further, what if a home school teacher was actually an accredited teacher who taught school in the student's home. Would it be better then?

What if that accredited teacher taught his own child at home?

Finally, regarding requests for citations that show evidence of the efficacy of home school over public school, where are the peer reviewed studies in support of the premise that a public school education is inherently superior to a home schooled one -- or are we just making an assumption that it is, based on our own personal anecdotes?

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 8, 2010 7:02 PM

...I think Walton just became more of a liberal-leftist than I am. I have whiplash.

:)

Don't worry, it's equally confusing to me. Especially as I'm still, ostensibly, a supporter of the Conservative Party.

I wish my outlook on life was a bit more coherent. :-(

Posted by: dfminardi | March 8, 2010 7:28 PM

"Second off, you're still not actually addressing "No guns, low, low violent crime"."

What is there to address? Do you see anywhere that I've claimed that lack of guns produces crime? I've claimed why I think our crime rate is high, and I doubt you can genuinely thank gun control for Japan's low crime rate. The United States is a violent society; as I've pointed out, our non-gun murder rate is higher than the overall murder rate of most "civilized" countries, Japan included. So why do we kill each other with things other than guns at such a higher rate than the Japanese?

Posted by: Kausik Datta | March 8, 2010 7:54 PM

Legion,

Your questions are so broad and there are so many variables to consider, that we're not really sure what you're going for here.

Now, the system can be considered broken for various reasons and its brokenness evaluated by various parameters, right? In keeping with the
cultural, political, and economic realities of various groups in the world (that you justly mentioned), these reasons and these parameters would vary from group to group - that's also true. However, the basic premises remain the same: there is a broken system, and how to deal with it.

The homeschoolers deal with it by pulling out their children and trying to provide them with an education as best as they can. You spoke of accreditation. I don't know (I admit) how many of the homeschooling parents take the trouble of accrediting themselves, or whether such a system of accreditation of sundry parents seeking to homeschool at all exists or not. If it does, and if they do, more power to them. Whatever the benefits will go to the child.

Citizens of many non-US/UK countries (I don't know why you chose Ethiopia as your example, but - anecdotally - Ethiopian graduate students and postdocs that I have met in the US have always been highly educated and articulate achievers)... Anyway, citizens of many countries do not have that luxury of pulling their kids out of the school system. They deal with the situation by complementing their children's education by various means. Many of these children, when they grow up, are no less competitive and no less able, compared to others. When parents take responsibility for their children's education and academic well-being, it has a positive impact on the child.

In contrast, if you scan the comments of the homeschoolers upthread, you'd see that they are glowing with the certainty that their way is the best, because they know what is best for the child.

Joys, disappointments, situational difficulties are parts of life, and in a public (by which I mean, not a homeschool) school, a kid finds himself/herself in those situations day in and day out. Learning to deal with those situations - is that not a valid education? Do you really contend that a child will learn better and become a well-rounded individual under the protected environment of one's own home?

regarding requests for citations that show evidence of the efficacy of home school over public school, where are the peer reviewed studies in support of the premise that a public school education is inherently superior to a home schooled one -- or are we just making an assumption that it is, based on our own personal anecdotes?Are you referring to my question to Walton? If yes, that's not what I said. Walton made a categorical statement:

The problem with conventional schools is the harm they cause to young people's personal, emotional and psychological development...

Posted by: LadyShea | March 8, 2010 8:21 PM

[blockquote]Joys, disappointments, situational difficulties are parts of life, and in a public (by which I mean, not a homeschool) school, a kid finds himself/herself in those situations day in and day out. Learning to deal with those situations - is that not a valid education? Do you really contend that a child will learn better and become a well-rounded individual under the protected environment of one's own home?[/blockquote]

All of those things happen in families, clubs, and with teams and playmates. Most homeschooled children are not locked up and hidden away, they are about in their communities.

And, I am aware of at least three different school districts in two states that now enforce total silence at lunch, I wonder where and when they are supposed to socialize at school. Add zero tolerance ridiculousness with handcuffing for writing on a desk, and full on smiting for saying the word "meep", expulsion for a simple hug, and you have, in my opinion, a prison, not a learning environment.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 8, 2010 8:28 PM

dfminardi, why don't you move to the looneytarian utopia of Somalia. There you can have all the bang-bangs and other penis substitutes your little heart could possibly desire.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 8, 2010 9:12 PM

Wow, I lost a really long comment just now. I was responding to Walton's post where he said:

We need to get rid of this culturally entrenched idea that... there's something "wrong" with choosing to claim welfare benefits rather than take a job in which you are denied basic human dignity and autonomy.... Our society...can easily afford to support a sizeable non-working population.

In fact, I am now having a hard time seeing why I was so taken aback. It is true that a just and humanist society should provide for people who are mistreated until those people can regain the capacity to function independently. Anything a society can do to further the liberty and dignity of individual citizens makes the society a better one. When the rights of workers to keep what they have earned are balanced against their obligation to support the necessity of the society to redress violations of basic human rights, you come up with a finite quantity to contribute toward the welfare effort. Recovering some of the cost from employers who are ascertained to be at fault would increase this quantity, but here due process must ensure that the human rights of the innocent workers at the company at fault do not suffer human rights violations in turn.

A free and just society must recognize that squalor and sickness are impediments to proper functioning. Mentally and physically healthy people wish to be functional, and sick and depressed people don't. The welfare system in the United States, as I have experience with it, has evolved to produce more suffering than it supposedly alleviates. Rather than helping individuals and families become healthy and functional, it carps about symptoms (You didn't buy milk this week! You're not taking care of your diabetes! Your child was truant from school! You aren't looking for work! You are drunk and high!) and refuses to consider long-term solutions (This is how you use your limited funds to shop frugally and prepare nutritious meals. Here is an appointment to a clinic where you can get test strips, medications, and suggestions for diet and exercise. This is how to check to see if your child is falling behind his peers academically. You seem depressed, let me refer you to a professional for screening. What do you need to get and stay sober and functional?). The "culturally entrenched idea" to which Walton refers is responsible for a lot of this treating welfare recipients as second-class citizens.

If there was an epidemic of physical illness that was as damaging to the society as our present inability to care for the vulnerable and distressed without rewarding those who mistreat them, no rational citizen would stand by and argue that the sick deserved their sickness and did not deserve help until they demonstrated that they were becoming well. It's religion, Christianity, that twists people's minds until they believe that AIDS patients, drug addicts, and the obese deserve their pain as punishment for sin. It's Christianity that instilled a "work ethic" that says that a person's sin is responsible for their substandard lot in life and for abuse heaped on them. Enlightened humanism says that there liberty, health, and productivity are human rights that a just society must protect for everyone in all situations, and that there is no "sin" that is punishable by the denial of basic human rights.

Sorry this so long... I don't know if I could have brought it in much shorter. Furthermore it's just an attempt to understand some of the liberal ideals I am learning.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 8, 2010 9:35 PM

And it's 18-year-old Glenfiddich, not 7-year-old. I don't know what I was thinking.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 8, 2010 10:16 PM

Do you see anywhere that I've claimed that lack of guns produces crime?

Gun control "works" in Europe because people can kill each other with whatever they want, but there are less incentives for violent crime and robbing people is a lot easier when the commons aren't armed.

Unless I'm to not count implication.

I doubt you can genuinely thank gun control for Japan's low crime rate.

The United States is a violent society; as I've pointed out, our non-gun murder rate is higher than the overall murder rate of most "civilized" countries, Japan included.

a credit to Japan, is that it has no guns, and high, high police oppression.

All you have to do is read the Wikipedia article on law enforcement in Japan to see that your assertion is utterly false.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 8, 2010 10:33 PM

from such a blinkered POV as the one presented by dfminardi.

Posted by: Legion | March 8, 2010 10:38 PM

Kausik, you make some very good points at 337, but you're still making some critical and erroneous assumptions that are skewing your whole argument.

citizens of many countries do not have that luxury of pulling their kids out of the school system.

For most home schoolers, it's not a luxury. In fact, there's usually a severe economic penalty associated with home schooling, as the family must rely on a single income. Generally, people with money send there kids to private school. Home school is the poor man's private school.

They deal with the situation by complementing their children's education by various means.

Complementing a child's substandard public school education seems like a good idea. Sometimes it can work, but sometimes it doesn't.

What if the environment and peer pressure at school turns your child against the idea of education. No amount of supplemental education will make a difference if a child decides that she doesn't want to learn.

What if a child is getting beat up at school? How does a parent supplement that? What if the child has a learning disability and the school lacks the ability to address the child's needs?

In contrast, if you scan the comments of the homeschoolers upthread, you'd see that they are glowing with the certainty that their way is the best, because they know what is best for the child.

Are you actually asserting that no parent, under any circumstances could know what was best for their own child? Do you really believe that a one-size-fits-all public school education is better than a customized private one?

Look at it this way. If you wanted to learn how to fly an airplane. Do you think you'd learn best by reading a book in a classroom with 30 other students, or by actually getting into a cockpit with a qualified instructor?

Joys, disappointments, situational difficulties are parts of life, and in a public (by which I mean, not a homeschool) school, a kid finds himself/herself in those situations day in and day out. Learning to deal with those situations - is that not a valid education?

It's clear from the above paragraph that you don't have much, if any, real experience with home schooling. It sounds like you think home school students remain chained to their desks at home, under the watchful eye of their parents, and never see the light of day. In fact, home schoolers often spend far more time out in the real world interacting with people across a wide range of age groups.

It is true that some experiences cannot be recreated at home, but that truth also works in reverse in that there are beneficial experiences that home schooled children have that cannot be recreated in school.

Do you really contend that a child will learn better and become a well-rounded individual under the protected environment of one's own home?

In some cases, yes. We really don't understand why you find this so unbelievable? You're an adult. Are you actually saying that you're intellectually incapable of teaching a child their ABCs and their multiplication tables. If you are a parent, do you keep your child locked up in his/her room? If not, then why would you think a HS parent would?

HS kids go to the library, movies, parks, science and art museums. They join baseball, football, basketball, and soccer teams. They play with their friends. They go on dates. They learn about birth control and sex (at least the secular ones do). They volunteer in the community and tutor other kids. They get in fights with their family members and friends. They make mistakes, have disappointments, and experience triumphs just like any other kid.

It's also not uncommon for home schoolers to have more than one teacher. As we said upthread, our children were part of a home school co-op which had a number of educated professionals in business and science as their teachers (medicine, molecular bilogy, business, etc.)

Last year, we took our two home schooled children to see a theatrical performance of the Scopes Monkey Trials. Prior to the performance, we enjoyed a lecture on evolution. Another time, my wife took one of our kids to school to check out an autopsy that was being conducted for her anatomy and physiology class. And just recently, our other child went to the Winter Olympics.

Are you suggesting that they're somehow being injured by this parental "abuse."

But lets say you're right about home schooled children being "protected." What exactly do you have against protecting children? Isn't that the role of the parent or do you prefer the Dickinsian model of child rearing?

You charged home schoolers with making the assumption that their way (home schooling) is best, but aren't you doing something worse? They're saying they know what's best for their own child, while you're saying you know whats best for all children.

If you're interested in the subject, you should really find some secular home schoolers and find out what their lives are really like. I think much of what you're saying is true with regard to some religious home schoolers, but even then, despite the insanity of religion, their are some religious home schoolers who are doing a pretty good job of educating their children.

Posted by: LadyShea | March 8, 2010 11:41 PM

And I'm talking about getting involved in the governance of the schools, through PTO/PTA membership, going to parent's night religiously, meeting with teachers and principals, attendance at school board meetings, even running for school boards: Really, the public schools are the most accessible of all democratic institutions, if one bothers to try.

This assumes that your local schools have any kind of autonomy in governance. Where I live everything is handed down by the state as far as curriculum and regulations, the local school boards don't make policy.

My sister in law did all of these things (in a supposedly top notch district), and remembers her kids schooling as an endless series of fights to improve things. I don't want to waste my only child's entire childhood fighting bureaucrats, thanks.

Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | March 9, 2010 5:39 AM

Rose, that's the spirit!

Although in general the schools our kids attended were all right, we also had to fight a religious extreme-right director of a public school who discriminated out daughter because she did not took the religious indoctrination courses. And my wife was the one the solved the problem by having him sacked and thrown out of his job. ¡A la puta calle! Nothing is more dangerous than a mother protecting her kids :-)

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 9, 2010 7:25 AM

The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century, so if public education comes to and end I am sure our democracy will survive.

Oh goodie, there wasn't a national Interstate Highway System in the United States prior to the second half of the 20th century, so if that one comes to an end, you are probably also sure our democracy will survive.

What kind of an argument is this ?

Posted by: LadyShea | March 9, 2010 9:44 AM

Must be nice to have choices.Public School or home- schooling.As a single mother when my first child started school I did not have a choice

Are you saying that if you had not been a single working mom you would have chosen homeschooling? In my admittedly limited experience, those that say things like "Must be nice" have not really researched the option fully, and probably wouldn't have chosen it even it seemed feasible.

What did you do with your child before he was school age? What did you do with your child during school vacations? I assume you had some kind of caretaker while you were working?

My son is not old enough to go to school yet due to the age cut off in our state, so we already have to have caretakers while we work. We decided to do a test run of homeschooling by doing Kindergarten type work this year. We figured if we can do it now, we could continue doing it. It's working well. We do lessons before and after work and on weekends. There's no reason school must happen between 8am and 3pm Monday through Friday.

I am not saying homeschooling is the best choice for everyone or even most. I believe it is the best choice for us though, especially given that our school district is about to lose accreditation, has teachers doing building maintenance due to layoffs of custodians, and have increased class sizes due to teacher layoffs as we are in a serious budget crisis.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 9, 2010 10:32 AM

Walton,

it makes no sense whatsoever to argue that
[a critically important public service didn't exist 50 or 100 years ago when democracy existed therefore doing away with this major public service wouldn't be a threat to democracy].

We don't live in the 50s or in the 19th century anymore, we don't need to play those hypothetical games.

Let's focus on making those public services better. That's a much more fruitful discussion.

I don't know how strong the causal connection is, since, AFAIK, there are no studies testing this hypothesis (and I doubt it would be possible to conduct a scientific study on this, as one couldn't control for all the other factors involved in a person's political behaviour).

So on what basis do you continue to argue about this ?

Posted by: LadyShea | March 9, 2010 11:08 AM

http://www.nheri.org/index.php?option=com_content&task;=view&id;=171&Itemid;=47

Home Educated and Now Adults: Their Community and Civic Involvement, Views About Homeschooling, and Other Traits by Brian D. Ray, Ph.D

This unique study takes a look at the lives of over 7,000 adults from across the United States who were home educated during their elementary and secondary school years. The purpose of this study was to describe and gain more understanding about these adults. In particular, the focus was on their general demographics, attitudes toward their own home-education experiences, and successes in life. Success was evaluated with respect to civic, social, educational, employment, and worldview traits.

Statistics on the direct civic involvement of home-educated adults and the general United States population are presented. For all civic activities (e.g., working for candidate/political party/political cause, voting in national/state elections) and at all age groups, the home-educated adults in this study were more civically involved than the general population.

Posted by: Red Foot Okie | March 9, 2010 2:17 PM

Bill Dauphin, you said a lot of what I was thinking, although a lot nicer than the way I was thinking it.

What I was thinking was that some doth protest too much...

I've had a lot of experience with the home-schooled. Emotionally stunted, logically challenged, gotta-be-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room-or-they-will-pitch-a-fit homeschooled. So, nah, I'm not a big fan of it.

In fact, I wasn't a huge supporter of 'individuality' back when I was actually in public school-- at least when the expression of individuality was to be an insufferable ass.

Nor, honestly, am I big fan of their parents, with their hand-wringing and bemoaning the end of education as we know it. Lucky they have the financial power to take matters into their own hands! Pity they don't often don't get the fact that they may not be as smart as they think they are.

Not saying that in some cases the school or a particular situation at school is justifiable to pull a kid, but, uh... honestly I don't care how far ahead your second grader is-- that ain't that hard, lunchbox. Come back and talk to me when he/she is 22 and see if they're still leading the pack.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NjpAsp0pj.R6xUs6AwI0z3sPNPdMSRU-#e7837 | March 9, 2010 6:55 PM

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/B/E/3/homescholers-for-perry.jpg

Posted by: Kausik Datta | March 9, 2010 7:17 PM

Thank you, Legion and LadyShea, for your reasoned responses to what is obviously an emotional topic for many. Legion, one clarification: "luxury" was perhaps a poor word choice in retrospect; what I meant was the opportunity or the option of having your children homeschooled, not in an economic sense.

Let me recount an anecdote of a place that is culturally and politically different from the US, and economically, a lot weaker than the US. Where I grew up, it was not an option for my parents; but that did not stop my housewife mother from sitting down with me every single day after school, going over the day's lessons, supervising my homework (yes, we were given homework to do) and helping me with maths, languages, history and so forth. She was a lot less qualified than many of the homeschoolers speaking here (who have advanced degrees); yet, I managed to do pretty well in school. Over the years, there were a few subjects in which I found myself to be deficient to begin with, and the school arranged for teachers to take special remedial classes, after school - not to gain 'credit hours' (we didn't have that system), but to get at par with the rest of the class. Similarly, those students that proved to be above average in certain subjects were allowed to take advanced classes to learn more and explore.

Was/is this school system fool-proof? Of course not. But the workforce of an entire nation (actually, five nations that I can think of off-hand) comes off this schooling system. I am not going to compare (because it is not possible to) the school students in the US and in these countries, but young people from these countries are spread all over the world, doing quite well for themselves.

We had uniforms in our school. Yes [Gasp!] uniforms. The only thing it ensured was that as long as we were in the school premises, it didn't matter whether we came from a rich or a poor family, didn't matter what our parents did; we were there for only one purpose, to learn, to explore, to wonder. It didn't matter if we all looked alike from a distance, because the teachers knew who we were. Intellectual creativity was encouraged; at school, we had no separate urge to express creativity through wearing different clothing, different hairstyle or hair color. We all did that in our own time, and the school officials did not keep a Big-Brother-like watch either!!

When I look back, I find that this approach has worked for many, many of us, because the school instilled a sense of discipline (a swear word in Walton's dictionary, probably) and personal responsibility. If you tell me that these are not virtues, I'd have a hard time believing you. Discipline did not make us pin-fixed butterflies. In order to succeed, even geniuses need sufficient mental discipline. We studied hard, because we knew that it was our only chance. Belonging to a lower middle class family, I was taught that the education was our only wealth.

I understand I am VERY old-fashioned about this, and most of you have personal examples that would contradict mine and put me in my place. LadyShea (AFAIR) said it best, that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to educating a child, but I think that is truer for advanced countries such as US and UK where there is a surfeit of choices. If you can exercise those choices and bring up your children to be true citizens of the world, kudos to you; it certainly ain't easy.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn7nC_SOspWbA-gblf5JA78ckCJ0cylCq8 | March 9, 2010 8:16 PM

Kausik Datta

Yes you may. My screen name is Alasandra and I blog at Alasandra's Homeschool Blog.
http://alasandras.blogspot.com/