If you really need to depend on a textbook as anything more than a handy reference (whose contents even so need to be critically evaluated, not taken on faith) and source of homework problems (but not a substitute for the ability to write those yourself), you are not qualified to teach that subject. Period. Including if you happen to be employed as a teacher (we all know there are many like that, but that doesn’t make homeschooling by half-educated parents any better of an idea).

Grampa: That’s the Wright Brothers’ plane. At Kitty Hawk in 1903, Charles Lindbergh flew it fifteen miles on a thimbleful of corn oil. Singlehandedly won us the Civil War, it did.

Bart: So how do you know so much about American history?

Grampa: I pieced it together, mostly from sugar packets.

“Is it just that fundies so dominate home schooling that the everyone else home schoolers feel they either create those alliances or languish in loneliness?”

Yes.

Steve, I agree, but even professional school teachers aren’t held up to that standard.  The leap to home schooling isn’t that far if you think about it from that perspective—-I can imagine you’re thinking, well either that knows-very-little or I teach it, but at least when I teach it, I can give the student more individual attention.

The thing with home schooling is the Oprah problem.  A lot of critics of Oprah admire her general politics, but point out that her solutions are individual and self-help-oriented, instead of truly collective and political.  Which is true, but then again, an individual has a right to self-protection and self-empowerment.  If your school district is fucked, then yes, the ideal solution is to fix it.  But one person can’t do that, and they may instead see pulling a kid out of school as the solution. I’m sympathetic to that.  Being actually in high school especially did very little for me and may have hurt me in fundamental ways; I was a happier, smarter kid doing extracurricular activities.

The best place I found for textbooks to supplement the ones my children used at school were used bookstores, expecially in college/university towns.  There used to be a lot of on-line resources that weren’t half bad.  I know this not because I ever considered homeschooling myself (I’m not that crazy), but beccause my mother (who is a reading specialist with a MA & Spec Cert from WA and liscensed teacher in the state she lived at teh time) homeschooled my youngest brother who was dyslexic and had other reading problems.

Well if you only take the pill about half the time it’ll only work about that much.  The “but I was on the pill” pregnancy is ridiculously common in my neck of the woods.  I don’t think its magical thinking so much as a way to avoid admitting a deep seated apathy. 

Then again, I have heard far too many people around here say they aren’t so sure about evolution as if they expect scientific theory to be pitched directly to them on Oprah.

Steve, I agree, but even professional school teachers aren’t held up to that standard.

But any GOOD teacher meets it. And contrary to popular belief they are not that rare in decent school districts- my daughter has had more teachers who could meet that standard than not.  (It’s certainly one I held myself to when I was a college professor, as well.) And individual attention from somebody who doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about is educationally worthless (or worse) and at least for younger kids it’s that much MORE pernicious when the somebody is a parent, whose word pre-teens will implicitly believe.

I wonder what % of the “for religious reasons” was in fact “a bunch of Godbag fundies moved into my school district, stacked the schoolboard, and is trying to teach my child that the earth is only 5000 years old and that the pill causes herpes.”

Probably vanishingly small, because most parents feel they can just roll with it if they care at all, but I’m still curious.

This is really just the tip of the iceberg.  I’ve been following some ex-Quiverfull blogs, and their idea of homschooling is ridiculous.  Of course they don’t teach about science; even many public schools ignore the topic of evolution.  But they also teach a very strange view of history, and of course health is taboo, especially when it’s related to reproduction.  It’s really strange because many daughters are trained to be midwives, or at least help with the birth of younger siblings, yet they are often not told how pregnancy happens until they are “betrothed” and about to get married.

Anyway, even the very basic subjects like arithmetic and phonics often aren’t rigorous and don’t build on previous lessons.  I’m going to link to a personal account of one woman’s experience with fundie homeschooling:

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/03/03/the-49-character-qualities-of-ruth-10-basic-training-ii/

It’s really appalling that so many kids are being indoctrinated this way.  It’s a cult, and their main purpose for homeschooling is to isolate kids from learning about reality.  Plenty of them will claim that they just want to spend more time with their kids, but even the Duggars just sit their kids in front of a computer screen or a written worksheet and let them do it on their own.

There are many great reasons to homeschool, but too many people are twisting it in a way that is detrimental to their children.  I don’t know that the answer is, but we could start by regulating homeschool textbooks and curricula.  A big problem is that education is generally handled on a state level, but the people who write these books sell them all over the country.

We homeschool - and we’re atheists. We homeschool because our son needed the sort of attention the school couldn’t (or wouldn’t) give him. We are part of an active group of homeschooling families here in New York and no one I know in that group is homeschooling for religious reasons. And no one I know is dumb enough to buy a science textbook from Bob Jones University.

And by the way, my homeschooled son’s team won last year’s Paleontology Knowledge Bowl at Yale University.  The team was all homeschoolers as was the team that came in third. So enough please about homeschoolers not knowing their Darwin, thank you.

David, fair enough, you know Darwin. But you sure as hell don’t know reading for comprehension.

David, do we homeschool or does your partner home school? 
While there are some men who do home school just as there are some men who are primary caregivers to their children (e.g. my spouse for about 18 months after our 2nd child), when most men say “we”, they are greatly exaggerating.  In reality, usually the mother is home schooling while the father adds a little here and there in evenings and on weekends, much of it of little value.  Not universally, but typically.

Oh come off it, Steve.  Most school districts wouldn’t let a teacher so deviate from the curriculum anymore, most teachers are too scared to try.  Thanks to NCLB they’re all too busy teaching to the test.  In the year my ds was in public school, I saw not one original worksheet or question come home with the kid or in the folder of completed work, other than an art project.  The directions for the “science fair project booklet” were done by a committee that was too damn lazy to even change to standard the fonts from the different net sources they copied from.  and this was considered a “good” school district by many. 

As a university prof,  tailoring materials to one’s own strengths and scholarly interests is key and generally profs who just go with just a text are either new, rushed, lazy or in the process of designing a course(sequential, required courses an exception).  The colleagues I respect would sneer at using a text - unless they’d written it.  Anthologies are an exception.

Because of how dumbed down the elementary and even middle school programs are at many schools, in large part because of the education degrees at many universities suck - a parent with a subject matter college degree really can do a comparable job.

Spreading the dumb is that much more pernicious when it’s multiplied by 25 instead of two or three.  And this will increase as colleges and universities face increasing threats against academic freedom by the fundernuts.

I am painfully dismayed at the general level of science knowledge these days, even amongst people who are very educated.  Is it a general trend towards the only “true American” being one who is not educated?  Is it the “I know what feels right, so I know what is right” mode of thinking so popular right now?

It’s like people are approaching science as an intepretive subject like philosophy or literature - it doesn’t matter what the science says, if I don’t like it, I’ll believe what I want.  And this scares me, because it leads to a nation that will be unable to adapt to the changes required to maintain our standard of living.  Homeschooling can be a very good thing, especially for children who need more attention or more stimulation than they receive in class, but it seems to have become a bastion of cult indoctrination, leaving people who homeschool for good reasons tainted by the general Godbaggishness of 90% of homeschoolers.

Science is not a touchy-feely “I’ll believe what I want, despite the evidence against it” kind of discipline.  Like math, there are actually right and wrong answers.  And this seems to be profoundly upsetting to larger and larger swathes of the US.  I worry.

Ponygirl - my oldest was reading Harry Potter in Kindergarten.

Helen - he’s sitting in the room next to me right now working on a report on how the colonists’ lifestyles compared to that of native americans in pre-revolutionary New York. Later we’re heading out to a local museum to see an exhibit on 16th and 17th century map making.

I wonder what % of the “for religious reasons” was in fact “a bunch of Godbag fundies moved into my school district, stacked the schoolboard, and is trying to teach my child that the earth is only 5000 years old and that the pill causes herpes.”

Probably vanishingly small, because most parents feel they can just roll with it if they care at all, but I’m still curious.
Comment #8: Mighty Ponygirl on 03/09 at 09:54 AM

At least one here, so thank you, MPG.  It doesn’t even have to be that blatant rolled into town.  Simply meeting a woman socially who happened to be a teacher in the district and hear her say “well, of course WE’RE Christian and so are most of my fellow teachers” with a hell of a lot of condescension in tone , was enough. 

Amanda is right about the homeschooling as an individual solution - by the time one fights to get a voice at the table, then gets them to listen to the voice, then watches as implementation of policy takes years and one’s kid ages out of the system - sorry, easier to DIY it.  I’ll be hapy to fight - when I don’t have to also raise the kids and actually have some time. Which is why many a school board seems stacked with grandparents.

LOL, David, you prove my point.

Oh come off it, Steve.

Come off it yourself. My daughter is a senior in high school and I have closely monitored her education since kindergarten, both the good and the bad, in 3 different districts due to moves. I have also taught myself, albeit at the college level. The empirical basis of YOUR statements is??

Yes, even in “good” districts US public education is not what it should be. But neither is as universally hopeless as the bashers would have it. I repeat, my daughter has had as at least as many good teachers, who could meet the standard I outlined and who were not “slavishly” following anything, as inadequate ones. In particular her high schools science teachers were outstanding. I, a Ph.D. scientist, could not have done a much better job than they by homeschooling her even had that been feasible. That goes 1000-fold for the vast majority of homeschooling parents who don’t have anything like my credentials.

What’s going on with the other 17% is probably a grab bag of stuff—-bad school districts (or the perception of that), resentment towards the training-you-to-be-compliant aspects of public education, general hippiness—-but what I find interesting and sometimes amusing about the other home schoolers is that they seem, to outsiders, way too interested in looking at the religious wackos with a forgiving eye.

In the Internet forums catering toward that 17%, the most frequently asked question seems to be “is there a curriculum out there that isn’t influenced by Xtian nutbars?” There’s not a lot of forgiveness in those discussions, just resentment that religious fantasists have hijacked the only reasonably priced alternative many middle- and working-class parents have to dysfunctional public school systems.

Hey Helen - just to let you know - you’re coming off as an ignorant bitch with an ax to grind.  Homeschooling for non-religious reasons very often means that each parent teaches the subjects that are their strengths.  So this means both, whatever their sex.  Every single “homeschooling because the schools can’t meet the kids’ gt needs” family that I know (and I know quite a few) have fully shared responsibility for education.  In many a family in this recession, the woman’s earning power is more, so she may be the one working outside the home.

Dave Parmet,

I hate to be mean like this, but I have to say it.  This isn’t about you.  There has been a lot of discussion lately about some terrible things that go on among certain homeschooling families, and every single time someone has to come in and defend something that we’re not even talking about.  Some homeschooling is great; some of it sucks.  We’re talking about the bad stuff that happens but is not universal.  If you’re a good homeschooler, then this isn’t about you.  The world doesn’t revolve around you, and this isn’t a judgment about you and your homeschooling.  I’m so tired of every thread getting derailed because someone takes a legitimate criticism and pretends it’s meant to insult them personally.

Thank you phylosopher - I don’t know how any family could homeschool with only one parent doing all of the work.  Then again, I never heard of these Quivers before I read this blog post.

Evolution enthusiasts feed into this notion that Darwinism is some kind of alternative religion that people “believe in” by glorifying Darwin as a uniquely crucial figure in the history of biology and doing embarrassing stupid shit like making a big whoop about “Darwin Day” and prancing around the Internet listing “FCD” (Friend of Charles Darwin) after their names. The fact is that regardless of whether Charles Darwin himself ever lived or wrote the shit he wrote, the facts of biological evolution would have made themselves clear in short order to other scientists.

Shit like the Nobel Prize gives the false impression that the arc of the history of science actually depends on unique “genius” individual scientists. It doesn’t. There may be a little wiggle room in the margins for exactly how soon shit gets discovered depending on the actions of particular individuals, but in the long view, no single scientists makes the slightest bit of fucking difference to the historical progression of scientific understanding of objective reality.

Yes, even in “good” districts US public education is not what it should be. But neither is as universally hopeless as the bashers would have it.

Really, Steve? The empirical basis I have is dealing, as an educator, on a daily basis with the products of those systems.  At least 10% of students do not know what a paragraph or sentence is.  At least 50% do not understand or practice basic critical thinking.  Most do not keep up with current events (whether on the net or hardcopy or other media), most do not know the difference between a peer-reviewed article and a blog on the Internet - some haven’t learned this by junior year.  They are, as a rule apolitical and terminally apathetic.  And no, I’m NOT at a community college.

The rate of real work in high school is again, appalling - granted these are self-assessments - but over ten + years of teaching at a couple of institutions, I’ve found that a large majority 60-75% of traditional students can count on one hand the number of papers they had to write in high school.  Only about 30% would need two hands. WTF are they doing in public ed these days?

Having done work on high school education—very, very little education takes place at the high school level.  what you know in 8th grade is pretty much what you know in 12th, plus your APs.  The main reason for this, so far as I can tell, is that math education is so bad.  Which is to say that homeschoolers aren’t losing much of anything, sadly.

Meanwhile, schools increasingly become prisons.

Hey Helen - just to let you know - you’re coming off as an ignorant bitch with an ax to grind.

No Helen, you aren’t coming off that way.  I think you made some valid points, and it is true that in many families, even progressive ones, men underestimate the amount that they contribute compared to their wives.  Men won’t step up and contribute equally if we ignore their privilege.

And you should probably take “bitch” as a compliment, since someone who claims to be feminist is using and of course they wouldn’t use it as an insult.

catgirl—especially when Amanda went out of her way to point out that there are legitimate reasons to homeschool, and actually gave numbers to prove that not *everyone* who homeschools is a fundie godbag. But it’s also valid to point out that not being a fundamentalist is not some pass card that you’re doing a great job.

You see, this is why my proposed Anecdote Ban would be useful.

The empirical basis I have is dealing, as an educator, on a daily basis with the products of those systems.

I’ve done that too. I don’t know the demographics of your student population, but I taught at a good Eastern liberal arts college that’s a popular safe school for Ivy aspirants, and your statements are flatly untrue of students from the better suburban districts.  Kids at my college certainly were not on average prepared as well as I would have liked (especially in math) but on the other hand the picture was not remotely as dire as the one you paint.

There is a large (unacceptably large to put it mildly) variance in the quality of public K-12 education in the US, and it’s wrong to tar all districts with the same brush.

<blockquote>what you know in 8th grade is pretty much what you know in 12th, plus your APs.

The “plus your APs” kind of invalidates your point for good students in good districts that can offer a wide range of AP courses, since that will comprise MOST of their high school education (as it did my daughter’s). And a lot fewer parents are prepared to homeschool effectively on that level than imagine they are. (Notice, for the reading-challenged, that I said “fewer”, not “none”.)

my daughter has had as at least as many good teachers, who could meet the standard I outlined and who were not “slavishly” following anything, as inadequate ones. In particular her high schools science teachers were outstanding. I, a Ph.D. scientist, could not have done a much better job than they

I don’t doubt you, but you’re not taking into account the fact that even an excellent teacher is often forced to tailor the curriculum to the “lowest common denominator” in a class of 20-30 adolescents. It gets even worse when you throw in misguided national initiatives like Prince Bush’s NCLB. The result are the “flawed products” that phylosopher and other college profs have to waste time remediating.

Individual attention also makes a major difference in some cases. For parents with children who have special needs without meeting the local board’s bureaucratic definition of special needs (and often, for fiscal reasons, these definitions are often very narrow), and who can’t afford a pricey secular private school, a one-on-one tutorial approach (i.e. the smallest class size) might be a better option.

“Fundies are just pushing us further down the path we were already on, where scientific ignorance is normal and practically expected.”

I would argue that among many fundies and the Real American™ Teabaggers, etc., being scientifically literate is a cause for suspicion and a sign that the person is a closeted liberal who is not to be trusted…

“I am painfully dismayed at the general level of science knowledge these days, even amongst people who are very educated.”

Agreed…

“Is it a general trend towards the only “true American” being one who is not educated?  Is it the “I know what feels right, so I know what is right” mode of thinking so popular right now?”

Yes. 

It’s something I’ve been aware of for most of my life (I’m damn near 50), but it seems to have been picking up pace the last couple decades or so.  The America that had the skills and knowledge to send men to the Moon, and was a leader in most areas of science, is fading out.  In many cases we’re coasting along on the brains of people who brought their minds, education, and skills with them from some other country while in search of the American Dream.  But as that dream is strangled by the ignorant among us, we’ll lose them too.

America cannot remain competitive based only on the efforts of thieves on Wall Street, craven politicians in a dysfunctional government, and a broad base of ignorant, improperly educated, unskilled, and superstitious proles.  If we have any hope of avoiding the fate of becoming a third-world nation, a proper scientific education must be part of the solution…

Meanwhile, schools increasingly become prisons.

And teachers end up being unwillingly drafted into the job category economist Samuel Bowles calls “guard labour”:

In short, in a very unequal society, the people at the top have to spend a lot of time and energy keeping the lower classes obedient and productive.

Inequality leads to an excess of what Bowles calls “guard labor.” In a 2007 paper on the subject, he and co-author Arjun Jayadev, an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, make an astonishing claim: Roughly 1 in 4 Americans is employed to keep fellow citizens in line and protect private wealth from would-be Robin Hoods.

The job descriptions of guard labor range from “imposing work discipline”—think of the corporate IT spies who keep desk jockeys from slacking off online—to enforcing laws, like the officers in the Santa Fe Police Department paddy wagon parked outside of Walmart.

Which brings us back to yesterday’s discussion about corporate lock-down of the Internet.

Catgirl, as a homeschooler and a professional educator, I think I get to claim expert here - (ditto for David) and if the expert opinion differs, then you, as someone who hasn’t spent time looking at the curriculum that’s out there - gets to STFU, until you do. 

I appreciate that Amanda is recognizing what some see as a problem, that homeschooling numbers and thus materials are skewed towards religious homeschoolers, but, in a population that is largely religious (don’t most surveys of the US show something like 75% of the population believing in a sky buddy ?) this isn’t surprising.  Heck, look at many of the businesses and even secular kids sports schedules - most operate on an assumption that Sunday mornings will be occupied with church services, amirite?

Finding the secular stuff isn’t hard, for those with a bit of confidence and those not having to jump through hoops to appease disapproving family.  IMO, the problem seems to stem from new homeschoolers looking at the easy “boxed” curriculum.  Yeah, those are usually religious based - works with their regimentation and lack of imagination.  But it’s also counter homeschooling to get a boxed set - the reason many non-religious homeschoolers are doing so is the asynchronous development of children.

But the curriculum problem being highjacked religiously isn’t confined to homeschool material.  Didn’t Amanda just have a post up about Texas’ bible thumpers influencing national curricula? 

Really, there are a ton of resources out there - from full virtual schools (I doubt Johns Hopkins or Stanford or even K-12 teach creationism)  The Teaching Company utilizes top university lecturers, etc.  There are great hands-on kits in many basic sciences.  The problem with teaching science to little kids is the mess factor, something even schools don’t want to deal with - the science kits at my ds’ public school remained largely untouched- they did worksheets.  This seems to be the case at least statewide here.  Add to that the shortage of math and science teachers for middle and high schools - yet they fill those posts with teachers who have no more science experience than the average parent does because they need a warm body in the classroom.  Further, homeschoolers can weave particular real life disciplines together (math + science) can’t be done in a subject segregated school.

I was homeschooled for some on my education, and I plan to do the same for any children I have. I think Amanda has hit the nail on the head when she says:

If your school district is fucked, then yes, the ideal solution is to fix it.  But one person can’t do that, and they may instead see pulling a kid out of school as the solution.

Because there is definitely a tragedy of the commons going on with our school system. I’m not going to get involved in the Steve LaBonne derail, but back on point: it is difficult to find non-religious textbooks in the homeschooling community and - for that matter - in the community at large in Texas. I know from previous experience that Bob Jones is shorthand for “crazy”, but they don’t style themselves that way and I can see how a sane parent who was trying homeschooling for the first time for health reasons or something, might be unaware of the sheer amount of looney that can go into the textbooks - particularly if you hail from a district that was fairly progressive. I sympathize.

what you know in 8th grade is pretty much what you know in 12th, plus your APs.

This isn’t true for me.  I didn’t take any AP classes AND went to a fairly crappy school, and here’s a list of things I learned in high school that I didn’t know in 8th grade: precalculus, statistics, trigonometry, Spanish, French, a little bit of German, geography of Asia and Africa, American Government, world cultures including many religions, chemistry, physics, and some new biology concepts like evolution and Mendelian genetics.  And I got all of that in only 3 years.  I’m sure I could have learned 10 times as much if I had had the chance, but it certainly wasn’t completely useless.

I don’t doubt you, but you’re not taking into account the fact that even an excellent teacher is often forced to tailor the curriculum to the “lowest common denominator” in a class of 20-30 adolescents.

Did you read what I wrote about paying close attention to what went on in my daughter’s classrooms? Where the hell do you get off telling me what I have or haven’t taken into account?

Reality is neither Utopia nor the kind of negative caricature that you’re bandying. As in most things, it’s somewhere in between. My daughter had her share of bad teachers, but the good ones did NOT teach the way you describe. Curriculum guidelines are sufficiently vague and general that they constrain a really knowledgeable and imaginative teacher less than you think. (And not at all for advanced and/ or AP science courses; as I’m sure you know, the content of AP courses is not prescribed on the local level.)

I have a lot of bones to pick with American public education. Even the best districts are not where they should be (particularly in math) and the worst are unmentionable. But reflexive, undifferentiated bashing makes one part of the problem, not of the solution.

You see, this is why my proposed Anecdote Ban would be useful.

See, I agree. There was this one time when I was trying to tell someone about how important it is to not use anecdotes when attempting to argue rhetorically. Then they started telling me about how one time in debate club, and anecdote won the round. And then I punched them.

Steve, I’m going to suggest that with a PhD in presumably physics, you didn’t get a lot of average students - average students don’t aspire to be physicists, or even to take a college level physics course - they generally gravitate to the visible career path programs and take the basic, minimal requirements to get there.  My department has a few service courses, so I see a better cross section.

There is a large (unacceptably large to put it mildly) variance in the quality of public K-12 education in the US, and it’s wrong to tar all districts with the same brush.

These is an important point. There’s a large variance even within a given state. Fixing the funding system for public schools would be a start toward implementing real standards.

your statements are flatly untrue of students from the better suburban districts.

Given the variance, and given that wealthy districts are in the minority, phylosypher is left with a similar dilemma to the K-12 teacher’s—he has to dumb down his own curriculum to deal with the students who didn’t live in those better suburban districts, but got into the same college by dint of the fiction that all public schools in a given state are equal.

Catgirl, as a homeschooler and a professional educator, I think I get to claim expert here - (ditto for David) and if the expert opinion differs, then you, as someone who hasn’t spent time looking at the curriculum that’s out there - gets to STFU, until you do.

Listen closely please.  This isn’t about David’s opinion or yours.  In fact, this isn’t about you at all, so get over yourself.  This thread is about crappy homeschooling.  Unless you’re a crappy homeschooler, then this has nothing to do with you.  And since we all know that you’re so perfect in every way, then this clearly isn’t about you.  It doesn’t matter if you’re a good homeschooler, because we already know that exists.  Seriously, this isn’t about you unless you are a bad homeschooler.  Are you seriously defending an anti-evolution curriculum?  If not, then you get to STFU.  Nobody said that good curricula are impossible to find, so we don’t need you to tell us what we already know.  Nobody said that every single homeschooler has this anti-science attitude.  You’re defending yourself against claims that we’re not even making.  Some homeschooling is good.  We get that already.  We’re not nearly as dense as you like to believe.  That is not the point we are discussing.  That issue has already been settled.  You can stop trying to prove that some homeschoolers are good, because we already believe you.

Finding the secular stuff isn’t hard, for those with a bit of confidence and those not having to jump through hoops to appease disapproving family.  IMO, the problem seems to stem from new homeschoolers looking at the easy “boxed” curriculum.

In other words, if secular homeschooling parents have a hard time, it’s because they’re lazy and don’t work as hard as you do.  If they would only do what you did, they would never have any trouble homeschooling and marshmallows will rain from the sky whenever they want to have a backyard sleepover.

You do realize how pompous you sound, right?

This is why I hate these discussions so much—there are few people out there more self-righteous than homeschoolers, both secular and religious.

This is why I hate these discussions so much—there are few people out there more self-righteous than homeschoolers, both secular and religious.

Mnemosyne, you should know by know that phylosopher is self-righteous and pompous about everything.  It’s certainly not limited to homeschooling.  Dontyaknow, marshmallows really would rain from the sky if everyone were exactly perfect like phylospher is.

There’s not a lot of forgiveness in those discussions, just resentment that religious fantasists have hijacked the only reasonably priced alternative many middle- and working-class parents have to dysfunctional public school systems.

It’s only reasonably priced if you discount the oppotunity costs of living in a single income home - something which is out of reach for most middle- and working-class households.

Back to the anecdote in the post - Any homeschooling parent who buys texts from a religious publisher and doesn’t at least plan ahead to supplement the text with reality-based education is a terrible teacher.

Steve, I’m going to suggest that with a PhD in presumably physics,

I’m a molecular geneticist. Biology and chemistry departments do a lot of service teaching for premeds who aren’t that interested in science for its own sake. At a competitive college they are, however, literate and reasonably though not ideally numerate. And there were not many private school graduates at my college.

Again, indiscriminate bashing obscures the really serious problem, which is the huge class-based divergence in the quality of public education.

Did you read what I wrote about paying close attention to what went on in my daughter’s classrooms? Where the hell do you get off telling me what I have or haven’t taken into account?

I did read what you wrote about paying close attention in your individual case. I also noted that, while you correctly focused on teaching quality (both paedagogy and subject-area knowledge) as a general (as opposed to anecdotal) factor, you didn’t discuss class size as a general factor.

Curriculum guidelines are sufficiently vague and general that they constrain a really knowledgeable and imaginative teacher less than you think.

Curriculum guidelines aren’t the only influence on teachers in public K-12 schools, especially those who have over-crowded classrooms with students of wildly varying ability—there are administrators desperate to juke the NCLB test stats, there are behavioural problems, there are all manner of built-in HR-Culture distractions (sporting events, assemblies, etc.), and the usual paucity of time and resources.

There are best practises that professional teachers can follow in order to deal with in-class issues (there was an informative article about this in the NYT Magazine), but there are all sorts of other, systemic, dysfunctions that they’re left to fight.

Mighty, every time you write about home schooling, you get comments that are basically OT, just people issuing practiced defenses against perceived attacks. They may just be c/p-ing them.

It’s only reasonably priced if you discount the oppotunity costs of living in a single income home - something which is out of reach for most middle- and working-class households.

Very true, but different families will calculate those costs differently depending on the nature of the household. Some two-income families will go the private school route instead of home schooling.

phylosopher, you need a heaping dose of shut-the-fuck-up. What in hell makes you feel it’s appropriate, on a feminist blog, to call someone an “ignorant bitch” when she points out that childcare and homeschooling are often gendered, with the majority of the burden falling on the mother?

Adding that, for a variety of reasons, homeschooling is clearly not a viable option for precisely the low-income kids who are worst served by the public schools. I have nothing but praise for those who see the need to opt out of the sytem, are financially able to do so, and who do a good job of educating their own kids, and nobody here is denying that they exist. But it does nothing to address the huge societal problem.

Ah, this makes me sad.  I was actually contracted to spend the year helping to develop a REAL curriculum, including a science program, for homeschooling parents….but the funding fell through.

I’m not thrilled about, you know, being jobless, obviously. But I’m even less thrilled that this means more parents stuck trying to use the bullshit coming from the fundie publishers, because, sorry parents, the publishing industry proper has got jack shit for you.

Frankly the educational publishing world has got jack shit for anyone except the wackaloons on the TX state board.

I am skeptical of the idea that feminist-minded men, who have been shown over and over to do less housework than their female partners and to overestimate their housework and child care, suddenly are actually doing 50% the second that home schooling enters the equation.

@ Punditus - yes.  I am increasingly amazed at the number of homeschoolers who had planned on going to public/private high school, encounter some bureaucratic problem getting into the school, end up taking an SAT or ACT, and the entrance/placement exam for college/university and passing easily, entering and succeeding.  It seems that many a high schooler could be doing college level work, but they don’t think to do so because we generally don’t challenge institutionalized tracks (BTW as a very personal anecdote, I also did accelerated entrance).  And, I’m not alone in challenging high school attendance as unnecessary for some students - Leon Botstein, President of Bard College had an op ed a few years ago saying the exact same thing. 

HI conclusion was that we should allow/expect/encourage more students to do so.  Then school resources could be better spent on those who need more time to meet college requirements.

Finding the secular stuff isn’t hard, for those with a bit of confidence and those not having to jump through hoops to appease disapproving family.  IMO, the problem seems to stem from new homeschoolers looking at the easy “boxed” curriculum.

Many reality-based secular homeschoolers don’t see why it should be hard to find a “boxed” curriculum that’s Jeebus-free. Yes, it’s important to research and tailor, but a lot of these parents find themselves in the weeds about homeschool curricula for reasons other than laziness.

phylosopher, just got to your comment @ 13.  While it is true that a parent with specialized knowledge may teach that subject better than a public school teacher, it is highly unlikely they will teach EVERY subject better, or even nearly as well.

Adding that, for a variety of reasons, homeschooling is clearly not a viable option for precisely the low-income kids who are worst served by the public schools. I have nothing but praise for those who see the need to opt out of the sytem, are financially able to do so, and who do a good job of educating their own kids, and nobody here is denying that they exist. But it does nothing to address the huge societal problem.

Absolutely agreed. And that societal problem first has to be addressed by equitable public school funding on a state-wide, per-capita basis. Unless that happens, it’s unrealistic to imagine many of the other remedies being implemented.

Also, you completely ignored the example I gave of a father as a primary caregiver was my own spouse.  Yeah, I’m the one coming across as a bitch.  Thanks to those of you who actually read what I said.

I mean, obviously there are exceptions to every rule, so please don’t try to anecdote me to death.  I just have a strong feeling that even in families that label themselves as liberal, secular home schoolers, women do most of the work, just as they do most of the housework and child-rearing in those families that put their kids in school.  They probably do a bigger percentage, in fact, as the numbers I’ve seen on feminist marriages indicate that the work is more egalitarian not because men do more, but because women do less, and the houses are just messier.  Doing less isn’t an option in home schooling.

David @ 16: Cool.  Do you think most parents could manage that or do you recognise how lucky you are?

If you’re smart enough (or think you are) to home-school your kids, you should be smart enough not to get your biology textbooks from Bob Jones University.

I have to admit to mixed feelings about homeschooling.

On the one hand, I think in a free society, parents ought to have the option of homeschooling.  (And, to show that I have good reading comprehension, let me say I am not claiming anyone here has argued otherwise.)  I have also met a handful of non-crazy homeschooling families that appear to have done a great job educating their kids.

On the other hand, the prevalence of homeschooling has given control-freak parents an opportunity to isolate their kids from mainstream society and feed them a skewed version of reality that will leave them terrified of doing things like, oh, entering marriage without their parents’ approval or enjoying any kind of egalitarian relationship with a member of the opposite sex, or using any kind of birth control. 

I think what disturbs me is not so much the notion that these kids will get a substandard education, although that is also unfortunate.  After all, plenty of kids in America get a substandard education in the public schools.  What bothers me is the absence of any opportunity for these kids to have direct, unfiltered exposure to lifestyles or ideas with which their parents disagree.  What bothers me is the degree of control homeschooling allows parents over every aspects of their children’s intellectual development. 

Yes, I understand that not all homeschooling parents are like that. But I am disturbed by the opportunity homeschooling gives to parents who are so inclined (and there are plenty) to completely crush any mental freedom whatsoever in their children. 

I am not sure whether there is any acceptable solution to this, other than to encourage the free marketplace of ideas and hope that some of these kids get some exposure to it at some point before it is too late.

It’s funny about “Darwinism”, I’ve never heard of gravity referred to as “Newtonism” or relativity referred to as “Einsteinism.”  Evolution gets singled out.

HI conclusion was that we should allow/expect/encourage more students to do so.

Surprisingly, this is an area in which Ohio is quite enlightened, and believe me, that’s not something I get to say very often!. HS juniors and seniors here can take as much of their course load as they wish, up to 100%, at local colleges at no charge subject only to acceptance by the college This year my daughter has taken only AP English literature at her school, everything else including calculus (taught much better than the AP sequence at the high school- and yes, infuriatingly, they treat AB and BC as a required sequence rather than as alternatives) at a small private 4-year college a few minutes’ drive from our house. More states should have this kind of program.

@ Amanda #53 - Yes, homeschooling can be work, but it can also be great fun in a way scrubbing the toilet can never be And if it is a subject one enjoys anyway, but now has an excuse to indulge…. well, hey.  Remember homeschooling isn’t like classroom teaching - keeping 25 kids settled down and then entertained with a PC school and NCLB constantly looking over one’s shoulder.  It’s more like bringing a friend who’s interested but a novice to your fill-in-the-blank club - and kids don’t mind what in an adult world might be considered a bit boorish/obsessive teaching/lecturing. 

Yes, anecdote/illustration - teaching the kids about gastro-intestinal processes and how gas is produced and expelled - what adult male could resist a legitimate reason to indulge in some bathroom humor with a totally approving audience?

83% of home schoolers report that they pulled their kids out of school to give them “religious or moral” instruction, i.e. that they’re fanatical Christians who want to exert firm control over their children until they’re sure that they’re brainwashed enough that they won’t stray from the path.  (That this system ensures that wives have no interests or time outside of the family is just a bonus.)

I agree with the vast majority of what your post, but the above strikes me as incorrect. I can speak from some experience here; though I’m now a leftist atheist pro-science type, I was raised evangelical and homeschooled K-12. The vast majority of the home schoolers I know do indeed worry about public schools, for reasons both creepy (they’re teaching SCIENCE!) and completely reasonable (low educational standards, potential dangers, lack of focus on academics).

It’s also not clear to me that fundie kids who were home schooled are any more or less likely to grow up to be hardcore fundies themselves than non-home schooled kids. Certainly, home school kids often excel in higher education.

Now, I’m not a home school defender. I don’t recommend it, and the drawback of terrible science teaching is a very obvious one, and highly destructive. In general, I’m put off by religious indoctrination of young children, but at least in a home school it’s the parent’s direct choice, which is often preferable to what goes on in some private schools, and in more public schools that we’d probably like to admit, if the number of lawsuits brought over such indoctrination is any indication.

But in general I think most home schooling parents choose home schooling for understandable, if often misguided, reasons. Given that I’ve seen plenty of home school kids excel in school and leave behind the most odious aspects of their upbringing, I’d say the biggest problem with home schooling aside from the huge problem in curricula isn’t that it’s creating brainwashed zombies, but that it creates socially awkward kids who have trouble adjusting to real world social situations.

In short, I guess South Park got it right on this issue.

Wow. Phy, you’re generally pretty clueless, but that last comment just blew the clueless bar away.

Well done, sir. Well done.

It’s funny about “Darwinism”, I’ve never heard of gravity referred to as “Newtonism” or relativity referred to as “Einsteinism.” Evolution gets singled out.

It’s a deliberate rhetorical trick employed by creationists, who are trying to drag science down to their level. False equivalence between scientific knowledge and religious beliefs is what they’re all about.

Well, I have a degree from a hoity-toity university.

And I think home-schooling would be damn hard.  Most people seem to think that any old mom can just teach the kids at home.  “If you can’t do, teach” bullshit.  Teaching is HARD.

My kids go to public school…but even so, we are victimized by the Texas School Board control over books.  I’ve whined before about how Liz Fucking Cheney is an author in the reading book and how the “Under God” line in the Pledge was defined as meaning our country is ruled by God.  This in a public school.  In a blue state.

There really needs to be regulation.  As a democracy, we need an educated populace.  Allowing a subset of the country to deny reality is damaging to the whole—and it’s not just confined to the cultists.  They get on the Texas board and fuck up the books for the whole country.

Unfortunately, Obama election or not, regulating a public service or putting money into it is sooo out of fashion.  We should cut taxes a bit more, b/c that fixes everything.

Reading comprehension Bagelsan, first, hwh characterized homeschoolers derogatorily as mentally unstable (gee why not PC her use of “crazy” - isn’t that an ableist word? ) then went on to characterize not the 83% religious,but rather the 17% non-fundie homeschoolers who are MORE likely to have non-traditional roles because they already questions something as institutionalized as schools, and questioned an the veractiy of another poster as to his experience in a particularly nasty/snarky way. 

Call it my personal campaign to take back language. 

Perhaps you’d prefer a new coinage - one that means being both ignorant of and disparaging towards in a particularly snarky tone whenever the subject is raised- hmmm… woulfd “palinlike” do?

Perhaps you’d prefer a new coinage - one that means being both ignorant of and disparaging towards in a particularly snarky tone whenever the subject is raised- hmmm… woulfd “palinlike” do?

I suggest “phylosopheroid”.

About the burden on women—in the Quiverfull families, homeschooling sounds like a total nightmare for the woman. It is hard enough to coordinate and perform the cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, errands, and laundry for 5 or 10 kids without also having teach each of them reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, etc.  The No Longer Quivering blog does a great job describing the intolerable stress these women experience.

And while I would expect the craziness to be less in secular homeschooling families,  I am also skeptical that many of these families successfully divide the burden 50-50 between the parents.  If one parent is giving up an income in order to homeschool, it is most likely to be the mother.

I suggest “phylosopheroid”.

Seconded.

phylosopher, just got to your comment @ 13.  While it is true that a parent with specialized knowledge may teach that subject better than a public school teacher, it is highly unlikely they will teach EVERY subject better, or even nearly as well.
Comment #56: helen w. h.  on 03/09 at 11:37 AM

Helen, how much specialized knowledge do you think the average teacher has?  First, you need to look at state licensure requirements, or ed programs at the university and separate out for each level, usually k-4 or 5, then middle/jr high 5 or 6-8 or 9, then high school.  Then, you need to look at the the loopholes and the reality in your district (teaching in other than one’s subject area is often allowed in shortage - which in math and science are chronic,  it is also used as a way to punish teachers- giving a high level teacher the remedial class-often in the hopes they will leave because they are too expensive).

We’ve had this discussion ad infinitum - most school districts prefer to hire teachers with Bachelors’ degrees because they are cheaper.  Very rarely will one ever find someone with a PhD teaching in K-12, especially in the public system.   

Classroom management skills are just not necessary when teaching 1-1 or even 1-3 or 4.

Many a homeschool parent does exchange teaching chores with other homeschoolers - should it be necessary we have the opportunity to have the ds’s taught physics by a professional physicist or a mechanical engineer in exchange for our specialties taught to their kids.

To self: proofread:
question something as institutionalized as schools, and question the veracity of another poster as to his experience in a particularly nasty/snarky way.

Call it my personal campaign to take back language.

Perhaps you’d prefer a new coinage - one that means being both ignorant of and disparaging towards in a particularly snarky tone whenever the subject is raised- hmmm… would “palinlike” do?

Part of me wishes that fundie home schoolers found that raising children to deny basic reality will have a long-term detriment to those kids’ futures

Apologies if this was already addressed earlier, but my reply to you Amanda is that they probably won’t, because the Religious Right already has an infrastructure in place for them.  After the kids complete their equivalent of 12th grade in home schooling, there’s plenty of Christian colleges happy to accept them, then after that there’s internships that serve as a pathway to serving with right wing conservative Republican legislators, in government agencies during times when conservative Republicans hold the presidency or the governorship of various states, or with “think tanks” that espouse a religious right perspective.

I believe it was Michelle Goldberg who observed that these people have managed to create a parallel “reality” for themselves.

to Laurie @ 62

Then why aren’t you out there criticizing the private religious homeschools, beginning with the RCC ones?  Isn’t it worse to have parents and peers willing to make you walk in lockstep?  Private schools in many states are also allowed to be non-accredited, to indoctrinate, to be exempt from NCLB requirements -just with more bells and whistles and a higher out of pocket cost than homeschooling. 

These schools are proliferating.  Where’s the outrage?

If you’re smart enough (or think you are) to home-school your kids, you should be smart enough not to get your biology textbooks from Bob Jones University.

This is kind of condescending, isn’t it? In my experience, a lot of people go into homeschooling in a rush, because of a family emergency. Like, say, Junior got really sick and can’t finish out his year of school or maybe won’t ever be able to go to school ever again, so OMG, I guess we’re homeschoolers now and, uh, gee, I guess we need a textbook or something.

So you pull up a homeschooling website, you find a nice shiny box set of textbooks that AREN’T stamped “Crazy McCrazerson’s Bible Based Texts” and you order them, not realizing that there aren’t any federal guidelines to guide you here. There’s no FDA of textbooks putting a stamp on the side certifying if a science book is evolution-free.

And, yeah, the teacher/parent probably doesn’t sit down and read the text from front to back when it arrives because it’s 700 pages long and Junior needs schooling now. And because you - the poster - have probably never seen a homeschooling science text before, you don’t realize that everything is pretty fine until you get to the “evolution denial” section.

Seriously, some of the Bob Jones texts I saw back in the day had actual, real science. Gravity and rain cycles and even intro to electrical engineering stuff. So, yeah, I can see how a parent could be lulled into assuming that the text book they had was kosher and clean if they hadn’t known anything about Bob Jones going in and hadn’t had time to research it thoroughly because of the circumstances. And, of course, after the crisis has past, you’ll keep using Bob Jones in the future because that’s what we used last year right? And Junior learned so much about plate tectonics, even when he was sick.

All of which to say, please don’t assume that someone is too-stupid-to-teach just because they made a research failure on their text of choice. Especially when they may not be relying on that text 100% of the time - as many homeschoolers have MULTIPLE texts they teach from.

Thanks.

@ Laurie - a little bit of education for you about homeschooling, since you don’t seem to know any?  many?

Among secular homeschoolers, there seem to be quite a few professionals in various fields, a large number of academics, and quite a few entrepreneurs.  Homeschooling really doesn’t need one full time parent at home.  In some cases caretakers do some of the work - exactly what depends on the age of the child.  Some parents work different shifts or alternate days to accommodate the schooling.  The rise in many a professional’s ability to work from home IMO has allowed more people to homeschool.  Homeschooling also allows for a much shorter day for basics because one doesn’t have the constant distractions of other kids in a classroom.  That “extra” time can be used for pursuits the child does on their own, sports, music, reading etc. that a parent doesn’t directly supervise beyond the younger ages.  Add to that oter technolgoy and yes, one can teach and work in certain fields.

In other cases, what one parent can earn outside the home in this recession may not make all that much of a difference if sending the kid to public school creates a great amount of stress in the family.

Hele #60 - In our case, I work from home (my wife works out of the house three days a week) so I get the brunt of the driving, teaching, cajoling, etc. But even so, leaving this to one parent is rarely a practical option. There’s just too much work involved.

Phylosopher at 77,

Why would you assume I am not critical of certain private religious schools?  This was a post about homeschooling so I addressed the topic at hand.

That said, there are aspects of homeschooling that I believe exacerbate the problem of religious indoctrination.  At least when you spend all day at a private school, even a religious one, you are likely to be rubbing shoulders with kids whose families may not take it quite as seriously or have exposure to other things, etc.  In a school setting, there is not quite as much opportunity for parents who are so inclined to control everything about their kids’ lives. 

I also believe homeschooling can exacerbate any family dysfunction that might exist and can, even among the most liberal homeschoolers, exaggerate the degree of parental influence over children to an unhealthy degree, even if that is not the intention.

“I am painfully dismayed at the general level of science knowledge these days, ...”

Oooo, that rang a bell:  I was chatting with a barista one day, whose BUSINESS is hot water, and he didn’t know what the boiling point of water was.

!!!!!

He was a bit of a surfer/fixee/indyrawker type, but….. the boiling temp of water!?!?!?  He was 25!

Phy @ 50:
Once again go back and read what I said. 
I noted that my spouse had been a primary caregiver, so was commenting on the usual state not the necessary one.
I noted that my mother had homeschooled my youngest brother.  @5 I mentioned that there had been some resources on-line and that I knew it because she had been doing so.  This was nearly 20 years ago, so I would not speak as current. 
I probably should have said I am not egotistical enough to think I am the best teacher, on all subjects, for my children. 
As I considered teaching as a carrer & dicovered I really am not suited for it, had not yet finished college, was working fulltime while going to college, etc, it also would have been crazy for me to think I could do so even marginally well without having us end up homeless or with me never finishing my own education.
Not being egotistical enough clearly is not a problem for you.  Jumping to conclusions based on your incomplete reading or lack of comrehension of what you have read very clearly are.

One thing this thread has taught me:

A blog thread that combined home schooling, pro-vax, and pro-choice would probably get a lot of hits because the discussion would really hit the fan…

Phylosopher at 79,

I don’t question that it is possible to share homeschooling duties between parents. I do question whether it is possible.

I have personally encountered a handful of secular homeschooling families over the years, and yes, in those cases, the woman has done 100% of the homeschooling.  I don’t claim that the families I know are representative, but you asked whether I knew any, so that’s why I bring it up.  I know from my reading of fundie blogs, that in those circles, the vast bulk of homeschooling is performed by the mothers with dad “supervising” or showing up to give an occasional lecture. 

I also don’t doubt that a number of families choose to have a parent give up an income in order to stay home with the children for either homeschooling or other purposes.  But the point is, that parent is usually the woman.  The family as a whole may indeed decide that the trade off of giving up that extra income is worthwhile under the circumstances.  But that does not take into account the individual hit she takes in terms of future earning power and professional credibility, a hit that men are much less likely to take in order to stay home with kids.

“This is why I hate these discussions so much—there are few people out there more self-righteous than homeschoolers, both secular and religious. “

I got one group: Hard core bicyclists.

Oops. My first sentence should have read:

I don’t question that it is possible to share homeschooling duties between parents. I do question whether it is COMMON.

Wow, is phylosopher really trying to convince readers of a feminist blog that “bitch” is an acceptable insult?  Really?  On a feminist blog?  And actually thinks s/he might be successful in convincing us that it’s an appropriate insult?  I mean, this is getting pretty close to trolling territory.  How is this any different than some privilege dood telling us that it’s ok to use “gay” as an insult because it doesn’t mean what it used to. 

Phylosopher, you’re blatantly wrong on this one.  The correct response in a situation like this is to own up to your mistake and make a better effort in the future to avoid making the same mistake.  You will not convince any of us that it’s actually ok for you to do this because you couldn’t be bothered to come up with a better term.

And for catgirl @ 42.  Yes, I take it personally.  Because even when Amanda tries to make a clear distinction between homeschoolers -fundie, homeschoolers secular she also misses the middle - homeschoolers somewhat religious but not wanting the indoctrination who teach from a secular perspective and leave the religion to Sunday school.

And, as usual, these threads descend into broad-brush slams about homeschooling in general
a) that a teaching degree is required to teach at all, any number of kids, at all levels of K-12
b) that all homeschoolers lack social skills

The evidence presented for both of these, but particularly the second, is anecdotal.  Yet these folks are allowed to make those comments without a definition of what socialized means, or any evidence of knowledge that homeschooling is the cause of social awkwardness - since a lot of Aspie kids end up homeschooled… hmmm.

Gee. I’ve met a lot of kids who were bullies, ill-behaved, etc. and were public schooled.  We also have a lot more public school kids who obviously see themselves as prisoners justified in escaping and using violence to do so, it’s no longer just Columbine, the list has become a litany…

So why aren’t the public school bashing comments given equal time and weight? You know- of all the public schooled kids I’ve met, the majority are socially awkward with adults, unable to cope in any but an artificial cohort setting, apathetic or hostile to education…

MikeEss—don’t forget spanking!

In my experience, a lot of people go into homeschooling in a rush, because of a family emergency…And, yeah, the teacher/parent probably doesn’t sit down and read the text from front to back when it arrives ...

Perfect description of a parent who is NOT going to do an adequate job of homeschooling.

And by the way, what school district doesn’t make any accommodations for sick / disabled kids? I’d like to hear some specifics, please.

And, as usual, these threads descend into broad-brush slams about homeschooling in general
a) that a teaching degree is required to teach at all, any number of kids, at all levels of K-12
b) that all homeschoolers lack social skills

Please, show me the quotes of people making these claims on this thread.

“This is the essence of todays liberalism.  People are just too stupid to teach their kids themselves so the state will have to.”

Yeah! 

And what’s with all this crap about buying food at the “supermarket”?  Real Americans™ grow their own damn food — they don’t wait around for some corporation to get it for them!

And Real Americans™ ride horses so they don’t need a bunch of “roads” and “bridges” and stuff.  Clean water comes from a well you dig with your own hands, not some liberal “city”.  Clean air is perfumed with the sacred essence of whatever comes out of the smokestacks of Capitalism.  You cut down the trees yourself that you use to build your own home (maybe with your neighbor’s help, but not much).

It’s about time Americans returned to the values that made this country strong!...

Biology is one of the basics.  Evolutionary theory is the current understanding of biology. A textbook is an overview of the current knowledge on a particular subject, not a journal of new research, therefore a textbook on biology that does not teach evolutionary theory fails to teach biology.  If educators, homeschooling parents or classroom teachers, use such a textbook they are not teaching the basics.  Teaching biology is not pushing a liberal agenda unless one defines currently understood theories of biology as liberal.  If that is the case we must look at why biology is so viewed by some people and what is the evidence for the perceived flaw in the current understanding of biology.  If, as is the case with the Christian homeschoolers that I know, they disapprove of the teaching of the currently accepted theories of biology because biology as it is understood conflicts with certain religious teachings, there seems to be little doubt that there is a religious agenda for homeschooling, and that the basics are intentionally left out of the curriculum.

And, as usual, these threads descend into broad-brush slams about homeschooling in general
a) that a teaching degree is required to teach at all, any number of kids, at all levels of K-12
b) that all homeschoolers lack social skills
The evidence presented for both of these, but particularly the second, is anecdotal.  Yet these folks are allowed to make those comments without a definition of what socialized means, or any evidence of knowledge that homeschooling is the cause of social awkwardness

Phy, try responding to the thread on the screen instead of the one in your head. I know it’ll feel new and strange at first, but eventually you might even come to like it.

I know a lot of smart people who haven’t managed to get past the incorrect idea that the pill “tricks” your body into thinking it’s pregnant.

And right I was so impressed with myself when I read that Washington City article for actually knowing something.

re Laurie # 85:

But I do believe from the stats I’ve seen, that in non-fundie families the trend is moving at least to a discussion of who should stay home (for whatever reason), based on career-point, earning power, etc.  Today, that may well be the male stays home and the female works outside.  The discussion is happening and that in itself is a switch and a damn good trend.

Again, in some families the discussion isn’t necessary because of increasing technology enabled flexibility. 

At a recent conference, fellow academics and I were discussing what we’ve come to call the empty corridor syndrome on campuses.  Many choose to spend research time, which is increasingly computer and net based at home.  Add in a few online courses.  Couple that with an academic spouse or one that works in a field that allows telecommuting. Depending on the field, one can successfully homeschool with two working parents.  That doesn’t mean working from home isn’t working, but rather that one does both outside the traditional time frame.  Add in no commute time (in my case a total of 3 hours per day,) plus the dress and prep for work (add in 45 minutes to an hour?)  Right there are almost 4 hours to school.

Re: the Pill Tricking the body by making it think it’s already pregnant: The reason a lot of people believe it is because a lot of schools taught it in their sex ed courses. I was taught it. Not as part of abstinence-only ed, but as part of comprehensive sex ed.

I think a lot of it was just outdated information: didn’t previous versions of the pill contain progesterone?

phyl @65: Why is it that it’s men and only men that tell me, “Yes, attending to my parental responsibilities is work, but I have so much fun doing it that it doesn’t feel like work.”  It does nothing to soothe my concerns that men get the fun parent work and women get the ass-wiping work.

Lauire, I guess you missed Pam’s post yesterday about the Boulder, CO school that has kicked a same-sex parented child out of their preschool - for having same-sex parents?  Many private religious schools have documents that parents must sign about their religious beliefs, manly to ensure a homogenized student body.

This is the essence of todays liberalism. People are just too stupid to teach their kids themselves so the state will have to.

Apparently, for Knute “todays” [sic] = “more than a century’s worth of” (this is in line with the conservative desire to roll things back to the Gilded Age). The good news is, he likely doesn’t have kids of his own to homeschool.

This is the essence of todays liberalism.  People are just too stupid to teach their kids themselves so the state will have to.

Hey, Knute, you’re too stupid to teach kids.  I’d actually be surprised if you could manage to tie your shoes, and fully expect that you skate by with Crocs.

I realize you want kids to be as dumb as you, because people like you resent anyone who has an intellectual or sensual pleasure not directly tied to feeding the corporate coffers. 

But the grown-ups are having a discussion.  And they don’t hate the idea of a child being genuinely intelligent.

And, as usual, these threads descend into broad-brush slams about homeschooling in general

And if they’re not, you’re going to pretend they are so you can get on your high horse.  Either way, win!

And by the way, what school district doesn’t make any accommodations for sick / disabled kids?

Um, given the fact that this blog has a discussion of arrests for using markers on desks, I think you’d need to prove that districts do make accommodations for sick/disabled kids, especially with learning disabilities or mental illness.

But I do believe from the stats I’ve seen, that in non-fundie families the trend is moving at least to a discussion of who should stay home (for whatever reason), based on career-point, earning power, etc.

Meh, this is nothing new.  Deciding who loses out on a career based on finances is an excuse I’ve heard many, many times.  It’s no secret that women tend to earn less money than men, even for the very same work.  On top of that, it’s more common for men to be slightly older than women when they get married, so statistically women are less advanced in their careers when the baby comes.  It still ends up with the woman leaving her job in most cases, but the men get a convenient excuse to go along with it.  Now with the recession a lot of men are getting laid off, and it will be very interesting to see how many men are willing to stick with this reasoning and stay home with the kids while their wife works.  My own brother didn’t have a job when my niece was born, but she went to daycare full-time even though my brother would have had enough time to do a job search if she went to daycare only 2-3 days a week, and they could have saved a lot of money.  Now my brother has a job but my sister-in-law got laid off.  Now, when the situation is reversed, my niece goes to daycare only part-time while my sister-in-law searches for jobs.

Phy, try responding to the thread on the screen instead of the one in your head. I know it’ll feel new and strange at first, but eventually you might even come to like it.
Comment #97: Well, what?  on 03/09 at 01:18 PM

Right, so let’s start with #9 which brings up a quiverfull blog (yes, even if it’s a used to be) when Amanda is talking about secular homeschooling.

Then we go to Steve Lb’s three very privileged school experience quotes where he makes just the kind of generalization that I cite.

Then,  there’s

Given that I’ve seen plenty of home school kids excel in school and leave behind the most odious aspects of their upbringing, I’d say the biggest problem with home schooling aside from the huge problem in curricula isn’t that it’s creating brainwashed zombies, but that it creates socially awkward kids who have trouble adjusting to real world social situations.

In short, I guess South Park got it right on this issue.
Comment #66: Evil Bender on 03/09 at 11:49 AM

Now which thread were you talking about?

Laurie @ 81: “Why would you assume I am not critical of certain private religious schools?  This was a post about homeschooling so I addressed the topic at hand.”
Phylosopher @ 102: “Lauire, I guess you missed Pam’s post yesterday about the Boulder, CO school that has kicked a same-sex parented child out of their preschool - for having same-sex parents?”

Reading comprehension’s not your strong point, eh, Phylosopher?

Well, Amanda, could it be that women have had SAHM models for so long and when men stay home they get to write their own script, which is always more fun than following someone else’s? When there is no bar/standard to live up to, that takes away a heck of a lot of stress.

Then we go to Steve Lb’s three very privileged school experience quotes where he makes just the kind of generalization that I cite.

Quote them, or bite me, dumb asshole.

Here’s something I actually I DID say way back at #51: “I have nothing but praise for those who see the need to opt out of the system, are financially able to do so, and who do a good job of educating their own kids, and nobody here is denying that they exist.”

OK, yes, I’ve got it now. One snarky comment referring to a TV show = an entire thread. I like your world, dude. It must be fun to be so ragingly righteous at all times. Tell us again about how we’re all too lazy to cook multi-course organic meals after our second job ends at 11 p.m., oh won’t you Phy?

Phylosopher at 102,

I understand that religious schools are often homogeneous.  I am not a fan of that kind of homogenized schooling.  I value exposure to a diversity of lifestyles and ideas in children’s education.  I understand, and have met, homeschooling families that bend over backwards to provide that exposure to their kids. 

But my concern about homeschooling stands.  It is conducive to an exaggerated parental influence.  This can be a bad thing in even liberal families and psychologically healthy families.  It is devastating in fundamentalist families or abusive families.

And yes, there is a disctinction between that and home schooling.  Even in a homogeneous Christian school, there is going to be more diversity and less parental control than when the parents hand-pick all of the child’s contacts and experiences.

And to Amanda at #105 - I suggest you also look at #108.

Do I bring some baggage to the posts - like everyone else - yep, comes from living in the real world, where finally, I don’t always get met with the fish eye when I mention homeschooling and the assumption that we’re doing it for religious reasons.  It’s new, and solely secular homeschoolers are @ 300,000 nationwide (using your %) so, yes, if it’s a blog I frequent, I’m going to be pissed about misinformation/false impressions out there.

Many private religious schools have documents that parents must sign about their religious beliefs, manly to ensure a homogenized student body.

Urban catholic schools are pretty diverse, though their student bodies are obviously more heavily catholic than average.

That said, lots of people suck, and sometimes parents want to expose their kids to a better set if social experiences than are going to be available at the local schools.

>what Catgirl said<

(and thanks for the ex-quiverful link, sad story)

Now with the recession a lot of men are getting laid off, and it will be very interesting to see how many men are willing to stick with this reasoning and stay home with the kids while their wife works.

Not many, and wives won’t push it because it’s so miserable being unemployed, and they’ll sympathize with them.  When the roles are reversed, women are pretty much expected to be delighted to stay home with children, and so they don’t have as much room to be pitied.

Well, Amanda, could it be that women have had SAHM models for so long and when men stay home they get to write their own script, which is always more fun than following someone else’s?

It could, but there are so few stay at home fathers in this country that they aren’t a meaningful statistical category at all.  I’m talking about men who do have jobs and feel they share parenting duties.  I suspect they benefit from women’s habitual tendency, trained in us from a young age, to make life easier for men and hide the work we put into it.

Um, given the fact that this blog has a discussion of arrests for using markers on desks, I think you’d need to prove that districts do make accommodations for sick/disabled kids, especially with learning disabilities or mental illness.

Almost missed this one- another reading-comprehension (or logical relevance- take your pick) challenged individual, I see. There was a claim made that a parent could be FORCED to homeschool because the kid got sick and couldn’t physically attend school. I asked for this claim to be backed up. Still waiting.

Then we go to Steve Lb’s three very privileged school experience quotes where he makes just the kind of generalization that I cite.

To be fair, you’ve also made a lot of assumptions about homeschooling based in class privilege, discussing situations where one or more parents have advanced degrees, where a single earner can support the entire household, and where religion is not the priority. Many of those people live in local districts where the public school is well-funded and responsive to parents. That situation, more than anything else, is why the percentage of secular homeschoolers is relatively small (300k kids nationwide fits that scenario).

If we’re talking about the more common case of a middle-class two-earner secular household that’s dissatisfied with the public system, they’re more likely to go the private school route, find a charter or magnet school, or (lacking those options) just tough it out in an on-going battle with the public school.

Amanda, remember “A League of their own”? the woman who dragged her bratty little boy (Stillwell) along. When asked why her unemployed husband couldn’t take care of him she answered “he says he’s busy reading the want ads.” 

And it was damn difficult to manage to be unemployed during WWII!!!!

If we’re talking about the more common case of a middle-class two-earner secular household that’s dissatisfied with the public system, they’re more likely to go the private school route, find a charter or magnet school, or (lacking those options) just tough it out in an on-going battle with the public school.

And that’s before we even start talking about poor families, especially those with only a single parent. With rare exceptions they’re plain screwed with no recourse at all. And there’s no evidence that charter schools or vouchers, which were touted as helping these people, are doing so at all. (It goes without saying that discussions of homeschooling are of absolutely no relevance to them. A poor single mom who dropped out of her own inadequate high school and isn’t working may have the time, but through no fault of her own she certainly doesn’t have the tools.)

And individual attention from somebody who doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about is educationally worthless (or worse) and at least for younger kids it’s that much MORE pernicious when the somebody is a parent, whose word pre-teens will implicitly believe.
Comment #7: Steve LaBonne on 03/09 at 09:39 AM

That’s one that implies it’s better to have a dumb teacher teaching 25 kids than a dumb teacher teachign one.  If that classroom teacher gets backed up by a roomful of students how is that not more deleterious? 

In particular her high schools science teachers were outstanding. I, a Ph.D. scientist, could not have done a much better job than they by homeschooling her even had that been feasible. That goes 1000-fold for the vast majority of homeschooling parents who don’t have anything like my credentials.
Comment #19: Steve LaBonne on 03/09 at 10:26 AM

That most parents would try to teach AP (which you claimed elsewhere your daughter took extensively and which are essentially college level courses) is insulting to their judgment. Talk about a strawman argument there -find me the homeschooling parent who s not a PhD in the field trying to teach their child through college).

And lack of reading comprehension back at you.  One of my earlier posts was about homeschooled students skipping high school entirely for community college or university.

Our state also has what is termed dual enrollment - it is little known and little publicized and the logistical hassles that occur can be a nightmare because the district is totally non-supportive.  Like getting a non-driving student to and from h.s. and to and from the local campus added to conflicting schedules.  Add that to the silly requirements like phys ed when the kid may already be competing in AAU which is 10x as rigorous.

That’s one that implies it’s better to have a dumb teacher teaching 25 kids than a dumb teacher teachign one.  If that classroom teacher gets backed up by a roomful of students how is that not more deleterious?

FAIL. That’s not a negative generalization about homeschooling- I have acknowledged and praised those who ARE qualified to do it.  Also you can’t read, because I explained exactly how it can be the case that more attention from an unqualified teacher, especially a parent whose word is not questioned by young children, can be worse. If bad teaching is bad (duh), it shouldn’t be too difficult to entertain the possibility that more of a bad thing could be worse than less of a bad thing. I hope your academic field doesn’t require much use of logic.

And that’s he only example of a “generalization about homeschooling” that you even imagined you had! So, bite me. I’m not feeding you any more, troll.

And yes, there is a disctinction between that and home schooling.  Even in a homogeneous Christian school, there is going to be more diversity and less parental control than when the parents hand-pick all of the child’s contacts and experiences.
Comment #113: Laurie on 03/09 at 02:01 PM

Again, Laurie that’s is a false picture of secular and even some religious homeschooling.  Tell me how I handpick ALL my child’s contacts - do I vet the other kids on the town sports teams?  The theater program?  The university sponsored science summer camp (that attracts international students)?  The National Park Jr. Ranger program participants?  The regional chorus members? The customers he meets at our business?  My university students he meets on and off campus? 

Now, were my child in the local public school, seeing only his own age cohort from the district, I can measure just how much LESS diversity he would get.

First all kids same age wise, then it’s pretty homogenous income wise - low end of middle class, newer money.  By looking, I saw almost no POC and town demographics confirm a less than 1% minority population - even the Spanish surnamed kid was a blue-eyed blond.  I neither heard about nor saw any same-sex families. 
 
Again, you have an impression.  From experience, and LOTS of it, both in the real world and on blogs, it rings false.

It could, but there are so few stay at home fathers in this country that they aren’t a meaningful statistical category at all.  I’m talking about men who do have jobs and feel they share parenting duties.  I suspect they benefit from women’s habitual tendency, trained in us from a young age, to make life easier for men and hide the work we put into it.
Comment #118: Amanda Marcotte on 03/09 at 02:24 PM

Sorry, thought we were talking about secular homeschooling families, which as I pointed out, already think outside the box - both men and women.

Do I bring some baggage to the posts - like everyone else - yep, comes from living in the real world, where finally, I don’t always get met with the fish eye when I mention homeschooling and the assumption that we’re doing it for religious reasons.  It’s new, and solely secular homeschoolers are @ 300,000 nationwide (using your %) so, yes, if it’s a blog I frequent, I’m going to be pissed about misinformation/false impressions out there.

Can someone explain to me if Phylosopher @ 114 is saying he (assuming he due to the gastro comment) is new to the real world, new to a world where people don’t automatically assume homeschooling is for relegious reasons, or that homeschooling is new?  Seeing as how my parents had freinds homeschooling and co-schooling 40 years ago and my mother homeschooled 20 years ago (relegious, but at that point still mostly keeping religion out of the school part), the secular homeschooling being new really is a fail, and I don’t know how to take the other possibilities.

Steve, you’re a real fucking asshole.  Excuse me if I didn’t read and memorize EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS AS IF IT WERE GOSPEL - did it occur to you I might be writing one of my own?
Go bite yourself and I hope you pull a muscle trying.

Excuse me if I didn’t read and memorize EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS AS IF IT WERE GOSPEL

No, I won’t excuse you for making up shit I didn’t write. Fuck off, lying troll.

Helen, may I guess that you are either east or west coast?

And yes, I am quite aware of John Holt and Dr. Moore. 

However, thanks to organized efforts like HSLDA to speak for all homeschoolers, the first assumption by many (especially in areas that did not have large counterculture populations in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, which would be most of the midwest outside Chicago) is still that if one homeschools, one is doing so for religious reasons.  Yes, I have had to explain to those not familiar with it that yes, it is legal, no, I don’t need teaching certification, etc. 

HSLDA’s efforts have been extremely successful in presenting all homeschoolers in lockstep - at least that has been my impression based on the reactions of others to “discovering” that we homeschool.  Even religious homeschoolers buy into it - I have been asked a few times, “Why in the world would you homeschool if you’re not Christian?”  It’s an attitude I encounter - not mine, obviously.

Considering the statistics Amanda pointed to, the assumption is a fair one. If it were even close to 50/50 and not 83/17, then the assumption that people homeschool for religious reasons would not be a valid one.

Phylosopher at 125,

You are not listening to me.  I totally believe that you provide your kids with diverse exposures.  As I mentioned in the very comment to which you are responding, I personally know homeschooling families who do a good job with that.  So I am not sure why you are challenging me on whether you handpick your kids friends in their Ranger Rick program or whatever. 

What I am saying is that there are parents out there who are control-freaks, and homeschooling is a great way to completely isolate and control your kids if that is what you are into.  And there are plenty who are doing exactly that.

Oh! See! Even Marcotte doesn’t believe in Darwinism!! Her idol of Charles D is gathering dust, and she hasn’t sacrificed a single goat to it since she moved to Babylon on teh Hudson!

Foolish heathen - navigating NY traffic is a daily Darwinian ritual, and everyone prays while doing it.

could it be that women have had SAHM models for so long and when men stay home they get to write their own script, which is always more fun than following someone else’s?

This is drifting dangerously out of even being within hollering range of the topic, but: it seems to me like the reason there’s a “model” for SAHM work like childcare and housekeeping is because there’s a certain irreducible set of tasks those things are composed of. No matter how you slice it, there are dirty diapers to change, cries and neediness to attend to at the drop of a hat, and repetitive, never-finished, tedious menial jobs to be done every day.

Do men who opt themselves largely out of those things have more fun and feel more rewarded doing the tasks they do take on? Probably! But I expect that has everything to do with the freedom of picking and choosing which tasks they handle, not so much that they escape some kind of creative block the poor SAHMs are just too dreary/ stagnant/dumb to realize is there.

In other words, it’s not that SAHMs buy into a “script” for what our roles should be, it’s that someone needs to be doing that scut work, and male partners leave it for us even when they think they’re “doing their share” by taking on the cream of the fun, rewarding tasks.

I would argue that among many fundies and the Real American™ Teabaggers, etc., being scientifically literate is a cause for suspicion and a sign that the person is a closeted liberal who is not to be trusted…

The correlation between being scientifically literate and having doubts about the whole wingnut-God-and-guns thing is probably immediately apparent to them.  I’m not sure they have the causation correct, though.

It’s something I’ve been aware of for most of my life (I’m damn near 50), but it seems to have been picking up pace the last couple decades or so.  The America that had the skills and knowledge to send men to the Moon, and was a leader in most areas of science, is fading out.  In many cases we’re coasting along on the brains of people who brought their minds, education, and skills with them from some other country while in search of the American Dream.  But as that dream is strangled by the ignorant among us, we’ll lose them too.

Yes, we’ve noticed.

the other 17% is probably a grab bag of stuff—-bad school districts (or the perception of that), resentment towards the training-you-to-be-compliant aspects of public education, general hippiness

It’s also used as a cover for abuse.

Kristin, I think people of both sexes go through it (or just unconsciously adopt what they were raised with).  Mother Phylosopher (I like and am adopting Dark Avenger’s naming convention there- nods)  back in the day used to wash walls at least twice a year, because that’s what was done in HER childhood. Took some pointing out that the walls didn’t need that because we had natural gas instead of coal, and lived in a generally more soot free environment thanks in large part to pollution controls.  Mother wasn’t dumb, and yes that’s an anecdote, but she felt somehow she was slacking if she didn’t keep up with the schedule.  Males are pretty anal about car care and lawn maintenance for the same reason. IMO - waxing a car even if the new polymer paints don’t really require it, or mowing the lawn weekly even if the lawn hasn’t grown enough to warrant it.  One requires actually assessment and taking responsibility for judgment, the other is programmed thinking and is responsibility free - tempting.

If a given task is something for which our gender hasn’t given us a model to emulate, then I think we’re more willing? likely? to make our own.

Someone secular who chooses to homeschool already has experienced the “well, just because that’s the way it’s always been done (yeah that’s not true but it is the perception out there)  doesn’t mean that’s the way WE have to do it.  They’re also more likely to have looked at a bit of John Holt or unschooling descendants of and really think about re-designing the entire structure.  That questioning of existing models and institutions is insidious - happily.

I’m reminded of those be a dad today commercials in which men are urged to do things like play with their children and ask how their day went, and are told that ‘it’s not hard! although sometimes we fall short.” Even though that sort of thing isn’t the day in day out monotony of wiping behinds all day.

What I am saying is that there are parents out there who are control-freaks, and homeschooling is a great way to completely isolate and control your kids if that is what you are into.  And there are plenty who are doing exactly that.
Comment #133: Laurie on 03/09 at 03:22 PM

I am reading what you write, Laurie, very closely.  Yes, your post did allow that some homeschooling families do seek exposure to diversity.

But you then went on to make the claim that homeschooling is conducive to non-diversified experience when I’ve just shown you that some public schools are WORSE.  Let’s just skip the age-cohort thing.  There are even schools that are further segregating as grade level centers; my district keeps a completely walled off and separate fifth grade and freshman center within their respective schools, but it’s homeschooling parents we need to worry about?  When such segregation is standard practice in public schools?

This is kind of condescending, isn’t it? In my experience, a lot of people go into homeschooling in a rush, because of a family emergency. Like, say, Junior got really sick and can’t finish out his year of school or maybe won’t ever be able to go to school ever again, so OMG, I guess we’re homeschoolers now and, uh, gee, I guess we need a textbook or something.

So you pull up a homeschooling website, you find a nice shiny box set of textbooks that AREN’T stamped “Crazy McCrazerson’s Bible Based Texts” and you order them, not realizing that there aren’t any federal guidelines to guide you here. There’s no FDA of textbooks putting a stamp on the side certifying if a science book is evolution-free.
Comment #78: Essie Elephant on 03/09 at 12:23 PM

In fact, the woman in the story chose the book because it was recommended by a friend.  She probably thought her friend was trustworthy. 

I wonder if they’re still friends now.

Phylosopher,

You “showed” me that public schooling is worse than what? 

Sure, a determined homeschooling parent can expose their kids to more diversity than a public school will if the homeschooling parent is so inclined. 

But the point is that these Quiverfull, homeschooling parents are NOT so inclined.  They are inclined the opposite way.  Some of these fathers have a “multigenerational” family vision, whereby they hope to dictate what their kids and grandkids will be doing for generations to come.  They expect to control their kids’ choice of marriage partners and career choices.  They expect their daughters to stay home to “serve” their vision well into adulthood, unless they get married, which they can only do with the father’s consent.  These parents do not want their kids exposed to happy and healthy families that let their kids, and especially their daughters, have more autonomy than that.

So, yeah, your average public school is going to have more diversity than that.  It will at the very least expose kids to others from most every kind of family represented in that school district. 

It comes back to my original point.  Homeschooling in itself does not mean religious indoctrination or control-freak parents.  But whether you love it or hate it, it does exacerbate the opportunity control freak parents have to isolate and control their kids—and it attracts parents who want to do just that.

Yeah, right Keshmeshi - but no more so than public schools.  My little local paper had the superintendent of the next county over’s prosecutor having to explain why in the last week there have been three unrelated and school affiliated personnel charged with having child porn.  That’s not including the students terrorized and sexually assaulted on a school bus this year, nor the two or three incidents in the last month of coaches sexually inappropriate actions.

Yes, there have been horrid cases of abuse among some extremist homeschoolers - but I would suggest those could just as well have happened over a school summer break etc. and the one was of a toddler - so are you suggesting that we institute home-visits by DCFS for all kids?

Laurie, you’re doing it again.  Paying lip service to the idea that there are liberal parents who may actually do a better job than even the better public schools.  But then you bring up the extremist Quiverfulls and set them up as a strawman.

But fine, let’s say that I see your point - parents who want to isolate their children are drawn to homeschooling, although I hope you’ll agree that parents in many private schools do, too.  How do we combat that, short of making public education mandatory for all kids?  And how do we deal withthe problems that would cause?

Oh, comment #144. :p Dammit, Laurie, stay off-topic like phylosopher likes! All this talking about the actual point of the original post (access to decent material and education is difficult for home-schoolers, parents have more control over their child’s experiences and the fundies like it that way, etc) is bullshit! He needs to tell all of us, yet again, that the homeschool-hatin’-liberal strawman is wrong wrong WRONG! And that he is the bestest smartest dad in the whole damn world (also: women = bad at thinking outside the box? Phyl says maybe!) and his wife never has to do anything (he knows this ‘cause he’s certainly never *noticed* any particular effort outta her!) and why don’t people liiiiisten?? *stomps dainty foot*

And he and his kid are gonna go to the museum and the science fair and the park and get ice cream and you guys are jerks and they’re gonna have so much fun without you.

Also, even though this was quite a while ago: phylosopher, you are not allowed to reclaim “bitch.” So go ahead and shove that ill-conceived idea right back up your pompous, entitled ass where it came from. Cheers. ^^

Right, Bagelsan, which is why I posted this:

“Kristin, I think people of both sexes go through it (or just unconsciously adopt what they were raised with).”

Because I meant just women.

Sure I can, just like I won’t stop using retarded or handicapped or disabled or niggardly in appropriate situations - and I find blog posts to be appropriate. Amanda wants to ban me - her prerogative.  It’s my central finger to the language police.

You don’t like it, stick your fingers in your ears, eyes or any other orifice that floats your boat.

(I’m not trying to dog on anyone here; I know a lot of smart people who haven’t managed to get past the incorrect idea that the pill “tricks” your body into thinking it’s pregnant.  It actually just maintains your hormones at a level that isn’t the one required to ovulate.)

Hmm, that the pill “tricks” your body into thinking it’s already pregnant is exactly what my high school’s pro-contraception sex ed class taught and what I, consequently, believed to be fact up until a couple of minutes ago. Why the Clark County, Nevada pro-contraception sex ed curriculum lying to students about this?

Hmm, that the pill “tricks” your body into thinking it’s already pregnant is exactly what my high school’s pro-contraception sex ed class taught and what I, consequently, believed to be fact up until a couple of minutes ago. Why the Clark County, Nevada pro-contraception sex ed curriculum lying to students about this?
Comment #149: Sara Pulis on 03/09 at 05:31 PM

Yeah, I’ll admit that I too thought the pill “tricks” your body into thinking it’s pregnant. I had abstinence-only sex ed, but got my information about contraception/reproduction/stds from various feminist texts. Why are the feminists lying to me?

Since the internet tends to be full of both good information and misinformation, does someone want to either explain how the pill actually works, or link me to a good explanation? I thought the sources I was reading before were reputable, but obviously they weren’t.

Um, yeah . . .

I am a little confused at how Quiverfull homeschoolers can be a “strawman” when they are the prime example of the very phenomenon about which I am concerned.  Phylosopher seems to be under the misimpression that any criticism of any kind of homeschooling is an attack on all homeschoolers.

And yes, the question of what (if anything) can be done about the isolation and indoctrination practiced by homeschoolers like the Quiverfulls is a concern to me.  It was indeed the very question I entered this thread (at comment 62) hoping to discuss.  It strikes me as an interesting and challenging issue of how to fairly and effectively balance the freedom of families to homeschool with the protection of children whose parental influence and control is not diluted in any way by going to school. And, no, I don’t pretend to have the answers.

It’s my central finger to the language police.

Well, some of those words aren’t inappropriate in *any* situation…sooo…okay? (Niggardly != a bad word. Didn’t get that much-vaunted Ph.D. in English, huh?)

And as for the ableist words—that’s pretty much just a middle finger to PWD, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I just hope you never teach a daughter or a kid with a disability, ‘cause the former would be an “ignorant bitch” if she disagreed with you, and the other would apparently be a “retard” behind their back. So yeah, I’ll take my chances with my district’s not-actively-verbally-abusive public school teachers, thanks. 9.9

Yes, Laurie.  And again, you seem to be falling into an atack on all homeschoolers.  Quiverfull is considered pretty extreme even by some fundies - like the ones who have reasonable size families and participate in American consumerism, which, in my area seem to be the majority of hsers.  The last number I saw on quiverers was a few thousand worldwide.  To use them as than example in an thread that was titled to be about the difficulties of secular homeschoolers - yes, I’d call that a strawman.

I don’t have the answers either - just as I’d really like to get a tax rebate (voucher) to enroll the kids in a great online program because the local school district does a piss poor job, but am appalled at those same vouchers being used for religious indoctrination. 

My argument with you, Laurie is I don’t see how a child being sent to a strict Calvinist/Baptist/conservative Catholic school is any more balanced - and it bothers me that you aren’t concerned about those students.  Yes, I know this is a homeschooling thread, but it boils down to a prejudice against homeschoolers if you don’t acknowledge that almost all religion-based education is fundamentally flawed - therein is the problem.

Well, some of those words aren’t inappropriate in *any* situation…sooo…okay? (Niggardly != a bad word. Didn’t get that much-vaunted Ph.D. in English, huh?)

And as for the ableist words—that’s pretty much just a middle finger to PWD, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I just hope you never teach a daughter or a kid with a disability, ‘cause the former would be an “ignorant bitch” if she disagreed with you, and the other would apparently be a “retard” behind their back. So yeah, I’ll take my chances with my district’s not-actively-verbally-abusive public school teachers, thanks. 9.9
Comment #152: Bagelsan on 03/09 at 05:56 PM

Actually, Bagelson, I was referring to the flap by some about the word - and was one of those writing the rebuttals in etymological defense.  Like I said, when apropos.  Describing a child as mentally retarded, i.e. their mental growth was slowed by genetics seems to me clinical description - that it is used as an insult - any word that is used will, over time come to be seen as such.  I believe mentally retarded was the replacement for imbecile.  So now we’ll have person with an intellectual disability - meet you here in ten to twenty years to hear how ID’s or some other form of that has become the new slur.  Do we now have to refer to the “short bus” as length challenged, because “rode the short bus” has already become the new “retarded?”

The recent flap, like that over Family Guy shows that being PC isn’t driven by honest concern for the feelings of whatever group the—challenged, Down Syndrome, African-Americans, etc.  but rather it’s a gotcha game to play with one’s political opponents.  And I’m not playing.

OK, phylosopher, I think at this point there can be no doubt that you are trolling. You are apparently just trying to get me to repeat over and over that I have faith in many homeschooling families and yes schools can be bad places too.  Please believe me, phylosopher!  Let me keep saying the same thing until I somehow manage to satisfy you, even though you clearly have no intention of giving a fair reading to anything I have to say. 

Of course, those points that you seem to want me to fall over myself trying to convince you of are beside the point. 

My bottom line position is this:  homeschooling has pitfalls unique to homeschooling—i.e. the problem of exaggerated, magnified, and undiluted parental influence and control.  Motivated homeschool parents can and do avoid that problem but there are significant numbers (as you said, thousands worldwide in just the Quiverfull movement alone) who are attracted by that very opportunity for virtually unlimited control over their kids until and even well into adulthood.  Whether they are a minority or not is irrelevant.  As an analogy, child abusers are a minority of all parents.  Does that mean we shouldn’t talk about child abuse?

Good Imaginary-Sky-Fairy, are you now saying that Family Guy is the repository of knowledge and goodness?  Because last time I checked, I still didn’t think rape jokes were teh funny, and Family Guy is just a fucking awful show all around.  But, you know, keep listening to all those straight white dudes!  They know the ultimate troofs!  As we all know, if it hasn’t been said by a straight white guy, it might as well not have happened.

I’m with Dan and his Bananas Foster - phylosopher seems incapable of making any statement not ALL. ABOUT. HIM.

Regardless of the word, it’s the tone and context in which it is used that is objectionable to me.  As in, your opinion is beneath my contempt as are you as a person, so here’s an ugly word to try to shame you into STFU.  In other words, it’s disrespectful in a petty, cruel way and phylosophers should not use such words in that way.  Nor should anyone.

I am surprised to learn that there is any such thing as “secular homeschooling.”  My entire experience of homeschooling has been of fundie religious types wanting to protect their children from contact with the unrighteous and polluting impressionable minds with their heathen teachings.  I also thought it was illegal for kids not to be in school during the day, which means homeschooled kids are just as much imprisoned as school-bound ones.  Also, how does one get admission to university if one is homeschooled?  I thought you needed to have a high school diploma to certify that you at least theoretically had a basic education.  Do all homeschooled children get GEDs?

ANd what I’m trying to point out to you, Laurie is that your concern is somewhat misplaced if you think that it is only homeschoolers.  The same problem Amanda first highlighted how curricula is being increasingly Christianized is happening in public schools, too. That religious schools also indoctrinate and gee - isn’t having a tag team of teacher and parent just as or possibly more controlling?

Yeah, I’m happy to end the conversation with you.  I feel like I’m arguing with one of those people who criticizes Obama and when it’s pointed out that both Bush and Clinton did something very similar or exactly the same, they still go on with a thousand qualifications about how Obama doing it is different - racist there, no unh unh not them.

Rob, did you know that the Maryland Senate was considering a bill to change the term “mentally retarded” to “person with an intellectual disability” - I kind of doubt the the Maryland Senate was using it in a contemptuous tone - don’t you?

Helen, please take note:

Rob, thank you for proving my point that even an enlightened reader of pandagon can be unaware of the legalities of homeschooling.  These vary by state, but,  daytime curfews have been struck down in almost all states; one has never needed to be a high school graduate to enter university, whether homeschooled or regular schooled.  ACT/SAT and an entrance exam if offered are the first steps.  Often proficiency/placement exams in subject areas.  Or portfolios of the student’s work.

In my state, a homeschool is considered a private school, just like other unaccredited private schools.  As such, it can issue a diploma.  The GED is more often required for trade schools and other licensure type things.  If I remember correctly, you need a GED to get a real estate license. 
But a homeschooler has a diploma, so…

Good Imaginary-Sky-Fairy, are you now saying that Family Guy is the repository of knowledge and goodness?  Because last time I checked, I still didn’t think rape jokes were teh funny, and Family Guy is just a fucking awful show all around.  But, you know, keep listening to all those straight white dudes!  They know the ultimate troofs!  As we all know, if it hasn’t been said by a straight white guy, it might as well not have happened…

Comment #157: Mimi on 03/09 at 06:44 PM

Uhh Mimi, what are you talking about - I was referring to the recent FG episode with the Down Syndrome girl, the resultant Palin tantrum, and the smackdown of Palin by Andrea Fay the actress who played said character who has Down Syndrome.  Beyond the clips of that episode, I’m not a Family Guy fan or watcher…

@Sarah Pulis
  Oh my. Another graduate of Clark County Nevada? Did your health teacher have to call in the school nurse to go beyond “these are the horrible diseases you will catch”?

I am surprised to learn that there is any such thing as “secular homeschooling.” My entire experience of homeschooling has been of fundie religious types wanting to protect their children from contact with the unrighteous

Yeah, actually, more people than you might think choose to homeschool their kids to escape the fundies.

The problem is that not every godbag who wants their kids protected from “contact with the unrighteous” sees homeschooling as the solution. An uncomfortably large number of them instead try to accomplish their goals by flushing the public school system of unrighteousness, meaning, of course, anything not fundie-approved. So, tantrums over Halloween being celebrated in elementary school; tantrums over sex ed in middle school; tantrums over evolution in high school; tantrums over The Gay at every level, and so on.

Enough of those tantrums are successful in enough schools to make them uncomfortable places for families who value having their kids learn critical thinking, facts and non-discrimination. I’m lucky and live in an area where fundie nuttiness is the exception rather than the rule so my kids’ schools are pretty sane, but if I lived, say, in the Bible Belt, and the godbags were taking over my kids’ schools, I’d seriously consider homeschooling.

Comment #158: Linnaeus, Thank you for the link. It sounds like you’re right, and that saying the pill “tricks” the body into thinking it’s pregnant is just an ultra simplified way of explaining how the pill works, with an unpleasant side effect of being shitty phrasing.

Watching the two animations made me love my BCP all over again. Seeing the hormones staying nice and level is a reminder of one of the main reasons I’m on the pill (the other being “to prevent pregnancy” of course.)

Shorter phylosopher:  First it’s idiots, then it’s mongoloids, then it’s retards.  Now that’s not good enough.  So what are we supposed to call them now?  Differently intelligented?  Buslength deficient?  It’ll never end and they’re just doing it to fuck with us.  They may be retards but they’re clever like that.

Also, did you see her face when I said “niggardly”?  LULZ.

Seriously Old feminist do you think it’s going to sound any kinder when someone says - “You know, that idea is so stupid it sounds like it comes from a person who is intellectually challenged” versus “that’s retarded.”  BTW, I’m paralleling Henry Louis Gates on campus speech codes* there. 

*“Contrast the following two statements addressed to a black freshman at Stanford: (A) LeVon, if you find yourself struggling in your classes here, you should realize it isn’t your fault. It’s simply that you’re the beneficiary of a disruptive policy of affirmative action that places underqualified, underprepared and often undertalented black students in demanding educational environments like this one. The policy’s egalitarian aims may be well-intentioned, but given the fact that aptitude tests place African Americans almost a full standard deviation below the mean, even controlling for socioeconomic disparities, they are also profoundly misguided. The truth is, you probably don’t belong here, and your college experience will be a long downhill slide. (B) Out of my face, jungle bunny.(5)”

We’re wasting a lot of energy and throwing away some very good talent when we focus efforts on such window dressing instead of looking at the larger picture.

@Steve LaBonne:

I’ve done that too. I don’t know the demographics of your student population, but I taught at a good Eastern liberal arts college that’s a popular safe school for Ivy aspirants, and your statements are flatly untrue of students from the better suburban districts.  Kids at my college certainly were not on average prepared as well as I would have liked (especially in math) but on the other hand the picture was not remotely as dire as the one you paint.

There is a large (unacceptably large to put it mildly) variance in the quality of public K-12 education in the US, and it’s wrong to tar all districts with the same brush.

Seriously? “I taught suburban students in a good liberal arts college, so there are no problems with K12 education”? How many variables there are skewing your results? Let’s count: college, good college, suburban…

@phylosopher:

even when Amanda tries to make a clear distinction between homeschoolers -fundie, homeschoolers secular she also misses the middle - homeschoolers somewhat religious but not wanting the indoctrination who teach from a secular perspective and leave the religion to Sunday school.

No, you’re missing the point - a religious person who homeschools from a secular perspective is a secular homeschooler. That’s why the distinction wasn’t “religious homeschoolers vs. atheist homeschoolers.”

Now, were my child in the local public school, seeing only his own age cohort from the district, I can measure just how much LESS diversity he would get.

Because a group of religious fundamentalist children of varying ages is so much more diverse than a public school that might have people of different national backgrounds, religions, sexual orientations…

Seriously Old feminist do you think it’s going to sound any kinder when someone says - “You know, that idea is so stupid it sounds like it comes from a person who is intellectually challenged” versus “that’s retarded.”

Neither statement is appropriate.

throwing away some very good talent

I’m sure you mean yours, but you might want to re-evaluate that.

I don’t care what Family Guy or Sarah Palin says, and I don’t think you’ve proved anything other than that you’re a big jerk with a serious superiority complex who should probably sit back for a minute and consider, once again, with feeling, that this ISN’T ABOUT YOU.

No, you’re missing the point - a religious person who homeschools from a secular perspective is a secular homeschooler. That’s why the distinction wasn’t “religious homeschoolers vs. atheist homeschoolers ” ....
Comment #168: Rebecca on 03/09 at 09:20 PM

Rebecca the study Amanda is using is self-reported and limited to the bias of survey questions - there was no follow up to see what perspective someone actually taught from.  Amanda is using the numbers from the 2008 NCES survey.  The survey is quite a bit more nuanced than she makes out.  The survey breaks down the self-reporting into reasons that apply and primary reasons.  It is a lot less one sided than that 83% figure seems.  But you can read the survey and methodology for yourself:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf

And I really have a huge problem with grouping moral and religious reasons together - as if they meant the same thing - WTF?

I’m sure you mean yours, but you might want to re-evaluate that.
Comment #169: Rebecca on 03/09 at 09:22 PM

No, as a matter of fact, I was referring to the witchhunts that we’ve seen taking place on people like Van Jones and Rahm Emanuel.  Fortunately, in Emanuel’s case, it has not succeeded completely, but surely it hinders his work, having to do a constant mental edit.  Remember, the man was in a private meeting working on some pretty charged issues.

My question is, why the hell are homeschoolers using textbooks?  It seems like textbooks—books that claim to be able to present everything you need to know about Topic X in a single book—are exactly what’s wrong with the public education system.  The idea that education is monolithic, and can be achieved without listening to different viewpoints, is preposterous.

(fuller treatment here: http://somesectionsofthemiddleclass.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-which-textbooks-are-all-that-is.html)

And I really have a huge problem with grouping moral and religious reasons together - as if they meant the same thing - WTF?

The actual answer, if you follow your own link, is not “religious or moral reasons,” but “a desire to provide the child with religious or moral instruction.” They don’t mean the same thing.

No, as a matter of fact, I was referring to the witchhunts that we’ve seen taking place on people like Van Jones and Rahm Emanuel.  Fortunately, in Emanuel’s case, it has not succeeded completely, but surely it hinders his work, having to do a constant mental edit.  Remember, the man was in a private meeting working on some pretty charged issues.

Dude, if you can’t open your mouth without being offensive, you have no business being in politics.

Ok, religious or moral instruction - that still means they conflated two non-conflatable things -  again, I’m an atheist who homeschools - if you asked me if was I giving my children moral instruction and did I see that as a lack in public education - my answer would be yes to both.  And, you might want to look at the rest of the survey methodology,  that 83% comes about only when it is included as one of many reasons that apply.  So again, as an atheist homeschooler I would be counted in that 83%.  ANd yes, there are other homeschoolers who think as I do, so no, it’s not about me. 

And do you really think that behind the scenes politicos aren’t human?  My guess is that most of the people in that room weren’t offended and have used the word themselves.  Rahm could say good morning and folks would get offended - they’re looking for an excuse - calling for Rahm’s firing but Limpballs gets away with it as satire - you play directly into the right’s hands with over-concern about political correctness.  Do you really think that having Rahm be PC is going to be more beneficial to disabled children than pushing through healthcare reform so their parents can have one less worry?  Like beign healthy enough to take care of them?

Ok, religious or moral instruction - that still means they conflated two non-conflatable things - again, I’m an atheist who homeschools - if you asked me if was I giving my children moral instruction and did I see that as a lack in public education - my answer would be yes to both.

They were not separate questions. If you were asked “are you educating your children at home out of a desire to provide them with religious or moral instruction,” would you say yes?

(I agree that the conflation of religious and moral is problematic, but that’s totally not the focus here.)

Do you really think that having Rahm be PC is going to be more beneficial to disabled children than pushing through healthcare reform so their parents can have one less worry?  Like beign healthy enough to take care of them?

The fact that you think these two things are mutually exclusive is telling.

Oh, also.

Rahm could say good morning and folks would get offended - they’re looking for an excuse

Sarah Palin is looking for an excuse. The head of the Special Olympics is not.

It is the focus when one then goes on to say, as Amanda does,

“i.e. that they’re fanatical Christians who want to exert firm control over their children until they’re sure that they’re brainwashed enough that they won’t stray from the path.”

I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive for the next generation, perhaps.  But how much do you know about Rahm and his rep and tactics?  His rep is not as a diplomat, OK?

It is the focus when one then goes on to say, as Amanda does,

“i.e. that they’re fanatical Christians who want to exert firm control over their children until they’re sure that they’re brainwashed enough that they won’t stray from the path.”

How? Can you conceive of a person who pulls their children out of school in order to give them religious instruction - religious instruction, mind you, that in the real world exists separate from non-religious instruction - and is not a fundamentalist? Or of a person who feels that they can’t adequately give their children moral instruction in the hours not taken up by school?

But how much do you know about Rahm and his rep and tactics?  His rep is not as a diplomat, OK?

Abrasive and aggressive are not synonymous with offensive. Personally, I think the value of having an attack dog on your side is diminished when that attack dog starts attacking bystanders.

Sarah Palin is looking for an excuse. The head of the Special Olympics is not.
Comment #177: Rebecca on 03/09 at 10:24 PM

The head of Special Olympics, like any good non-profit, is looking to keep his group’s constituents in the general consciousness.  Real long-lasting reform is a hard way to do it - a quick politically charged campaign with deep pocket attack dogs on one of the opposing sides is easy.

I’ve got work to do, Rebecca, but I’ll come back and play later if I have time.

“...the troll Phylosopher saw that his pathetic attempts to derail the conversation were not working. His homeschool-hating strawman wasn’t powerful enough to fully make the conversation about him! In a desperate bid to regain attention he started throwing out other strawmen: ‘Retards!’ he cried! ‘Niggar…dly!’ ‘Affirmative action!’ ‘Rahm Emanuel!’ Surely one of these would do the trick! But to no avail! No matter what he whined about, absolutely no one gave a shi—”

“Honey! Language!”

“—eesh. ...Eventuallyhegaveupandscamperedoffinahufftheend. Goodnight, sweetie! Kisses!”

@lemur
Actually, I hardly ever heard a word from my health teacher for the entire semester as it was the student teacher who taught us everything and she seemed very well-informed. She showed us the typical/perfect use chart and instead of doing what my middle school health teacher did - which was to try to convince us that it’s all for naught - emphasized conscientious use of birth control methods, punctuated with lots of pretty pictures of untreated STIs. That was Fall of 1998; I wonder if she’s still allowed to teach proper use of birth control and STI prevention.

And then the Bagelshit, needing to see its reflection to convince itself of its own existence made one more lame try at making a point - alas, it’s efforts were met with the usual result - abject failure.  It crawled sadly back under it’s rock - or is that just a lump of fatty cream cheese?

Use of the work “lame” and a fat joke too? Phyl is the gift that keeps on giving. :D

“word” natch

I’m really offended by this idea of any one can teach anything k-12, or at least that you can if you have enough experience in a specific field, I’m a Education Student and 50% of our time is spent on our core subject, in my case, social science and the other 50% on Prac, curriculum, and Teaching units, so you don’t think you need the Prac and Teaching units, I’d argue that you do, but whatever, that still leaves you with up to 70% of my course load just to be able to teach Social Science in a high school up to year 12 and one other unit until year 10. You Do Not Have the Education To Teach K-12 In Every Subject, You Just Don’t.

“I taught suburban students in a good liberal arts college, so there are no problems with K12 education”?

Jesus, there are a lot or reading comprehension issues around here. Yes- AS I REPEATEDLY SAID ABOVE- there are significant problems even in “good” districts (especially wrt math), but BY FAR the bigger problem is the yawning chasm of class-based disparity in the quality of school districts. (And for the latter problem in particular homeschooling is no answer at all.)

Sure I can, just like I won’t stop using retarded or handicapped or disabled or niggardly in appropriate situations - and I find blog posts to be appropriate.

One of these words is not like the others ... one of these words is kinda the same…

The fact that you put “niggardly” in the same category as “retarded or handicapped or disabled” tells me all I need to know about why you choose to use any of those words.

Once in a while I’ll use “niggardly,” and if challenged (it’s never happened) I could easily come up with one or more genuine stylistic justifications for using the word. Note that one of those justifications wouldn’t be the ability to say “ha, it only sounds like ‘n*gger,’ you uneducated PC fool—it really means miserly. Gotcha!”

[and before anyone accuses me of self-censorship for using that asterisk, I do so because certain keywords in comment forums either trigger spambots or attract truly vile trolls]

This just in: leading creationist in Texas Board of Ed sent packing:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/creationist-cum-mccarthy-booster_rejected_by_texas_republicans.php

Now, were my child in the local public school, seeing only his own age cohort from the district, I can measure just how much LESS diversity he would get.

Wow, now you are actually parroting Jim Bob Duggar!  Congratulations, but are you really sure you’re homeschooling for a different reason than he is?  It’s so silly to pretend that kids at public school never get to see kids of other ages.  When I was growing up, my best friends were rarely in the same grade that I was.  I had friends of all ages.  I even shared some friends with my mom when I was just a teenager.  On top of that, the age segregation ends right after elementary school.  I always had students who were younger and older than I was in all of my classes from 7th grade on.

Also, even though this was quite a while ago: phylosopher, you are not allowed to reclaim “bitch.”

Yes, “reclaiming” means that people who have been oppressed by it get to choose to identify themselves with it in a positive connotation.  “Reclaiming” does not mean that anybody gets to take it back to use as a bigoted insult because they’re too damn lazy to give a real criticism or come up with an insult that doesn’t bring misogyny along with it.  I can say I’m a bitch when I’m explaining how proud I am that I stood up to some wrongdoing when I would normally be expected to be meek and quiet.  You don’t get to use bitch in that situation as a way to put me in my place or to dismiss my valid concerns because I’m a woman.  Even if you’re also a woman, you don’t get to use bitch as an insult to other women.  That’s not what reclaiming is.

Is it just that fundies so dominate home schooling that the everyone else home schoolers feel they either create those alliances or languish in loneliness?

Dragging things back on topic: I’m just going to reiterate the ‘yes’ that came at the top of the thread.

The home-schooling families I know, who aren’t religious in the slightest and are closer to the ‘hippiness’ end of the spectrum, are part of a co-operative which holds weekly shared lessons and activities that includes lots of very religious families. It’s either that or work in much smaller groups. The religious/non-religious rationale probably divides closer to 50/50 in this particular part of the US than the national average, but that doesn’t change the motivation to work together.

It’s so silly to pretend that kids at public school never get to see kids of other ages.

It’s not pretending, though. My daughter is in kindergarten and they have a different recess time from the other grades (grades above K do mingle at recess). Children in different grades share the same lunch periods, but each class sits at its own table, children are not allowed to leave the table except to throw garbage away or go to the toilet, and there’s a constant emphasis on being quiet at lunch (no talking) and besides they only have 20 minutes for lunch and what kid can talk *and* eat their food in 20 minutes?

Grades are not mixed for library. Grades are not mixed for PE. Grades are not mixed for computer lab. Grades are not mixed for music class. Seems like most of the socializing between classes is in the 5-10 minutes when all the students gather in the gym to wait for the school day to start and even then they’re supposed to be in individual class lines not mingling (but at least it’s not well enforced). Special needs kids are pretty much completely segregated from the rest of the students, so they almost never interact even in the same age group—when the special needs classes come out for an assembly or whatever the other kids openly goggle and whisper.

And really? This shit is ridiculous. OK, so true, it’s not *never*, everyone seems to snatch contact/make a friend from another grade somehow between the lines, but it’s hardly enough to justify the claim that public school assists in “socializing” children. At best the socialization factor of public school (in schools like my daughter’s, which is not unusual) is neutral. At BEST. Just because Jim Bob Duggar points this out doesn’t make it untrue; even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Quoting myself:

it’s hardly enough to justify the claim that public school assists in “socializing” children. At best the socialization factor of public school (in schools like my daughter’s, which is not unusual) is neutral. At BEST.

To clarify, I mean this in the context of socializing children with different age groups. It’s true that children at most public schools get way more exposure to people of different races/faiths/family types than they would if insular parents were homeschooling them. However, obviously, not all homeschoolers are insular, and Jim Bob Duggar (‘s wife) homeschools their kids explicitly to shield them from other races/faiths/family types, not age groups, so comparing Phylosopher to the Duggars was disingenuous.

20 minutes for lunch? no talking? that is the weirdest shit I’ve ever heard, socialising is an important part of the school experience, and how can teachers honestly think that they can effectively teach students that have no time in the day to blow off some steam.

How can teachers honestly think that they can effectively teach students that have no time in the day to blow off some steam.
Comment #196: Leah Jaclyn on 03/10 at 09:35 PM

Uh, what?  It isn’t the teachers demanding that the kids have 20-minute lunches.

no but they are presumably the ones making the kids be quiet and sit down the entire time

I can’t say I blame them, really. I don’t know if it’s this way everywhere but here the lunch hour is one of the times teachers have an opportunity to plan lessons and prepare materials (most of them do it after school too, of course, and for not enough pay, of course). So they rotate lunch duty, with maybe an ed assistant to help them. Two adults is woeful understaffing for supervising a whole cafeteria full of lively kids, and wanting them to stay in one place and basically shut up is understandable when you’re trying to keep 75 or 100 kids from dancing on the tables and flinging their Tater Tots around.

Oldfeminist is right, it’s not the (mostly female) primary grade teachers who decide this shit—they’re trying to do the best they can with what the (majority male) school district boards hand down and the (male) principal decides is a good “behavior goal” for the whole school. It sucks for those teachers.

Thanks, for the D, Kristen.  We’ve seen an interesting trend in our area, too. Grade centers are being proposed.  Right now, the first year of middle school (5th grade) and freshman year of high school are in the respective buildings, but completely segregated from the rest of the school.  If grade centers go through, each current school will be designated for a certain grade - if that’s not total cohort only socialization - then what is?

Right now, the first year of middle school (5th grade) and freshman year of high school are in the respective buildings, but completely segregated from the rest of the school.  If grade centers go through, each current school will be designated for a certain grade - if that’s not total cohort only socialization - then what is?
Comment #200: phylosopher on 03/11 at 03:00 AM

I can see the point of the current system of first year of middle and high school segregation.  It is keeping kids who may not have the maturity or physical size to defend themselves away from the (minority but dangerous) bigger, stronger, more manipulative, violent, drug dealing*, alcohol-offering rapist kids in the same building with them. 

They can become acclimated to a new school first without having to also acclimate to kids who have gone through puberty before they have, or who have become predatory adults.

Total grade segregation through all those years, though?  A different facility for each year of school?  Sounds like a construction company’s wet dream more than anything else.

* I’m not talking about “I’m buying a larger quantity than I use, I can sell among friends and we all get a better deal/the difference pays for mine.”  I’m talking about the ones who don’t care who they sell to or even what they sell, first one’s free.

Wow, australian schools and american schools a very different.

Leah Jaclyn, I did say that the violent and predatory kids are a minority.  But they will pick on the smallest and least sophisticated kids.  Prepubertal fifth-graders are juicy targets for the bigger meaner eighth-graders.

I would be very surprised to learn that there are no such children in Aus schools.  Especially after Googling on the words school, violence, and Australia together.

I can see the point of the current system of first year of middle and high school segregation.  It is keeping kids who may not have the maturity or physical size to defend themselves away from the (minority but dangerous) bigger, stronger, more manipulative, violent, drug dealing*, alcohol-offering rapist kids in the same building with them.

Keeping kids in separate compounds even for that first year kind of smacks of lord-of-the-flies defeatism, though, doesn’t it? It seems to me like admitting that all the school does is warehouse the kids in mobs, and whatever they get up to can only be handled by separating the bigger kids from the smaller ones. I would think that if only there were adequate funding for these kids to be supervised, and actually socialized, it wouldn’t be that much of an issue.

Also, I was picked on in middle school to the point of wishing I could die and having panic attacks, and I can’t think of a single offender who wasn’t in the same grade as me. In several cases the older kids had were the ones with a “can’t you get over this crap and grow up” attitude towards the bullies who waged such a relentless campaign of persecution against me.

They can become acclimated to a new school first without having to also acclimate to kids who have gone through puberty before they have, or who have become predatory adults.

Total grade segregation through all those years, though?  ...
Comment #201: oldfeminist on 03/11 at 10:50 AM

Uh.. you do realize that first statement is self-contradictory?  For the fifth graders, how are they acclimating, since they don’t get to change rooms or teachers for subjects, like “real” middle schoolers do?  At the high school level, it also keeps advanced frosh from participating in any upper level classes which is supposed to be one of the bennies of being in high school.

At least in my area, they already have most of the infrastructure… but it means a heck of a lot more petro wasted because there will be no neighborhood school.  Bus company wet dream, for sure.

OK, and that’s where I’ll tout homeschooling, again.  My kid is in a sport that has 17 down to 9 y o.  Absolutely no bullying, the older kids will often help out the younger ones, and then younger ones really like to sit back and watch (and hopefully learn) when the older kids practice between themselves.  All homeschooled.

Shit, even in their other sport, which has predominantly public schooled kids, the 10-14 year olds often practice and scrimmage together.  My kids learned a lot from that - and the older kids do hold back some with the smaller stature kids - it’s a contact sport.  I have no problem with them all in a locker room together and sometimes it is one coach and @ 35 kids - lots more than a classroom. 

But in a school this causes a freak out - just not getting it.

But in a school this causes a freak out - just not getting it.

...Because academia =/= sport?

Uhhh, Rebecca you’re kidding, right?  The point wasn’t sports versus academics it was kids of various ages being together and the result.  It was Oldfem who brought up separation by size.  Which is why the contact sport example came to mind.  Again it’s a pretty fucked up attitude on the part of schools (or pretty clueless on the part of those who criticize homeschooling because of its perceived lack of socialization versus the presumed (falsely) wonderful socialization gets get in schools.  WHEN EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

Old feminist, I know, we do get some kids that are as bad as any over there,  but I can’t imagine a school in australia getting away with making kids sit for the entire lunch break, our obesity rates are coming up to America’s and there would be a huge backlash against making kids more sedentary than they already can be.

I think as well that australians teachers get a better deal than american ones, DOTT (duties other than teaching) time is rostered, and we get paid well enough that there is a reasonable expectation to get your classes sorted at home. When you said that teachers were doing their class planning at lunchtime, I was kind of shocked that that would be considered ok over there, but then I remembered how poorly teachers are paid over there, and it makes sense.

No, I’m not kidding. A sports environment is completely different from an academic environment, and the problems involved in controlling kids are also different.

I also don’t know why you keep touting homeschooling as something that Makes Kids Socialize. This is not an inherent component of homeschooling; that is what you choose to do, as a homeschooling parent, and a parent who sends their kids to public school is equally capable of putting them in extracurricular activities. When you act like a scientist and control for other factors, homeschooling involves less socialization. That’s the nature of being at home instead of in a social environment.

Linnaeus @ 158:
Your last paragraph is pretty much what I was taught in my Comp sex ed class in the late 70s/early80s.
Phylosopher,
I was born in IA; grew up in CA, WA, TX graduated HS in ID.  My mother homeschooled my youngest sibling in MT in the 80s.  I live on the East Coast.  Try a little harder if you want to paint me as oblivious; some of us aren’t stuck in one place.

<blockquote> a parent who sends their kids to public school is equally capable of putting them in extracurricular activities </blocquote>

No, Rebecca.  That is a priori reasoning, not scientific.  (It would seem so, but studies show otherwise - and if I have time to find the one I’m remembering, I’ll be happy to post it.)

In the meantime anecdote is what we’ve got to go on. The public school cohort system which is increasingly rigid is taking away opportunities to socialize outside of one’s narrow cohort.  The increasingly longer school days are also making it more difficult for public school kids to participate in extracurriculars.  We’ve just lost a business in my town, and the owner was quoted in the local paper as “with all the in-school after school programs, there are no kids coming in here, like they used to. ”
We have middle schoolers getting off the bus at 4:30 p.m. - When the hell are they supposed to participate?  Yes, our various sports associations are noticing - we’ve just had a meeting about it and are petitioning to get some flexibility in bus drop off so kids can get right to their sports venue instead of home first and back. 

Break on my part.

OK, took time to do the research.  tried to stay away from any HSLDA/NHERI stuff because it’s usually just cheerleading:

http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d94.html (scroll down to “Socialization of Children”)

Yes, these studies are over a decade old.  Yes, more research is needed. 

But one thing I noticed, was that the definition of socialization seems to have changed.  You are talking about exposure to others who are diverse.  But that can be bad or good - to a caucasian adolescent, prison would probably offer an opportunity for socialization with persons not of his/her background because our screwed system makes people of color more prevalent in it, but I don’t think that socialization would be beneficial- do you?  In many school systems people self-segregate anyway, esp. by color and at younger ages by gender.

Socialization in these studies has a different meaning and the studies look for measurable outcomes, not just opportunity.  How well is the child able to function in society at large - and homeschoolers seem to hold their own at least or even do better. 

SO, while you point out correctly, that homeschoolers CAN be isolated, or badly socialized, so can public school kids - ask Dylan Kliebold how well that opportunity he got to socialize at public school turned out.

Helen I wasn’t trying to paint you as anything.  I’ve looked at the history of homeschooling, and secular homeschooling.  It just wasn’t a midwest thing - it’s also a midwest thing that trends reach us later than either coast.

But you were born in IA, other than that, for the most part, you’ve lived on surprise, the coasts.  OK, MT, ID - but after CA where you, or more relevantly your mom, would have had exposure to those ideas and examples and movements.  If you were in CA, wasn’t Ray Moore out there?  And John Holt was East Coast.  We simply had no similar voice here in the midwest, and that is reflected in our later adoption of secular homeschooling. Geez.

That is a priori reasoning, not scientific.

No, no, it’s fairly scientific to say that in order to determine the effect of a factor, you have to make sure that the two groups you are measuring are as similar as possible in all other factors.

“A parent who sends their kids to public school is equally capable of putting them in extracurricular activities” is a priori reasoning. I am aware of this, which is why the sentence directly following was “When you act like a scientist and control for other factors, homeschooling involves less socialization.” Did you just not read it, or are you purposefully ignoring it?

I found no reference to the Shyers or Smedley studies outside of pro-religious-homeschooling sites. (Taylor’s study was done at a religious institution, which, while not automatically discrediting it, does call its results seriously into question.) Nor do any of the studies you showed me explain their methodology. If they don’t say what factors they controlled for, the data is worthless.

“with all the in-school after school programs, there are no kids coming in here, like they used to. “

Why are you quoting this to support your point? It’s an example of the school providing kids with opportunities to socialize.

But one thing I noticed, was that the definition of socialization seems to have changed.  You are talking about exposure to others who are diverse.  But that can be bad or good - to a caucasian adolescent, prison would probably offer an opportunity for socialization with persons not of his/her background because our screwed system makes people of color more prevalent in it, but I don’t think that socialization would be beneficial- do you?

No, I’m talking about any socialization. Not race/religion/background diversity, not age diversity - just being in the company of other people.

While we’re on the topic, why don’t you tell me why it’s so much better for a white religious fundamentalist child to be exposed to white religious fundamentalist children of varying ages than to children of the same age, but of different races, religions, sexual orientations, and economic backgrounds?

In many school systems people self-segregate anyway, esp. by color and at younger ages by gender.

Which never happens in sparkly wonderful homeschooling activities!!!1!!one!

SO, while you point out correctly, that homeschoolers CAN be isolated, or badly socialized, so can public school kids - ask Dylan Kliebold how well that opportunity he got to socialize at public school turned out.

Obviously a child can be badly socialized whether in homeschool or public school. For that reason, I would love it if you would stop producing garbage like “those who criticize homeschooling because of its perceived lack of socialization versus the presumed (falsely) wonderful socialization gets get in schools.  WHEN EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.”

You have been pretending, for this entire thread, that homeschooling provides children with a magical opportunity to socialize. You have had it explained to you that this is not true. I can only conclude that by repeating this idea, you are bragging about how special you are because your children are socialized.

    They can become acclimated to a new school first without having to also acclimate to kids who have gone through puberty before they have, or who have become predatory adults.

  Total grade segregation through all those years, though?  ...
  Comment #201: oldfeminist on 03/11 at 10:50 AM

Uh.. you do realize that first statement is self-contradictory?  For the fifth graders, how are they acclimating, since they don’t get to change rooms or teachers for subjects, like “real” middle schoolers do?

The student is learning the way to school if walking, or the buses to take if taking a bus.  The student is learning to navigate the general school area, and any shared areas like maybe athletic fields.  By the end of fifth grade the kid isn’t going to as easily get cornered or lost.

The student is learning about changing classes, going to a new room rather than staying in the same room through the whole day except for gym and music class and lunch.  This is a big difference for a lot of kids.

The student is learning the rules of the junior high school where they are different from that of the elementary school.

The student is meeting new kids from other elementary schools and getting to know them.  There’s a new peer group even excluding new kids from other grades.  They will get to know these kids before going out into the bigger pond.

All these may sound irrelevant, but for a kid who’s still young and vulnerable, they’re not.  Familiarity with the physical environment is huge.  Familiarity with the processes and procedures is huge.  Hell, having a teacher you bonded with last year one building away and technically in the same school, if something horrible happens, is huge, too.

I’m not saying every kid should only socialize with kids her own age!  It’s just that the public school experience makes dropping them into the same big mixing bowl with 15-year-olds when they’re only 10 or 11 can have some pretty unpleasant results.  Limit the exposure, monitor the exposure, and give the exposure a common purpose, like the sport example you give, rather than putting them in lunch B with everyone else.

Wow…So much here…OK, more anecdata. Just brace yourself.

Living in Texas, the ONLY kids I’ve seen home schooled come from fundie parents. That’s anecdata, I know. And, I know it doesn’t give me much room here to note my reticence about homeschooling but here goes.

People who teach their own children remind me of people who represent themselves in a court of law. It’s just not a good idea. Not only do you lack real expertise on issues beyond subject matter such as child development and educational psych, you are too close to your child to be objective. Too many parents (not just homeschooling) are VERY loath to see any challenges their children may have. Or, they may be quick to push and push and push an academically gifted child without ever giving them breathing room.

Here’s what I do know…I am a literacy volunteer. One subject. Determined, dedicated adult students. I have a master’s degree and a very high IQ. I can NOT BELIEVE how difficult it is to plan lessons for them (I was an English major, should be second nature, right?) and how much I worry about keeping things relevant and level appropriate for them.

And, that 83% stat seems low. I’ve always seen stats of higher than 90% being evangelical/fundamentalist. So, it’s a ridiculously small number of people we’re talking about who ARE teaching their home schooled children adequately with regard to science (esp. evolution and global warming and the like). Getting into a twist and taking this so personally is understandable but no one is talking about you for the sake of this discussion. I don’t even mean that in a contrarian way. It’s just not about you this time.

and PIATOR? I heart you!

I found no reference to the Shyers or Smedley studies outside of pro-religious-homeschooling sites. (Taylor’s study was done at a religious institution, which, while not automatically discrediting it, does call its results seriously into question.) Nor do any of the studies you showed me explain their methodology. If they don’t say what factors they controlled for, the data is worthless.

So now you’re looking at who is quoting a study instead of the neutrality of the study itself - this was Shyers dissertation at U of FLA - last I heard, not a religious institutions.  Sand Smedley is from Radford a Virginia public university. 

  “with all the in-school after school programs, there are no kids coming in here, like they used to. “

Why are you quoting this to support your point? It’s an example of the school providing kids with opportunities to socialize.

But only with other kids of their own age - even the afterschool programs are age cohorted.  Ad because of your contention that parents of kids who public school can also provide the extracurricular social opportunities homeschoolers do - I’m trying to show you that there just isn’t time - we’re seeing more and more overscheduled, burned out, stressed out kids. 

No, I’m talking about any socialization. Not race/religion/background diversity, not age diversity - just being in the company of other people.

Then that’s just pretty silly - your saying that being in a crowd is always better than not?  Crowds are often stressful.

While we’re on the topic, why don’t you tell me why it’s so much better for a white religious fundamentalist child to be exposed to white religious fundamentalist children of varying ages than to children of the same age, but of different races, religions, sexual orientations, and economic backgrounds?

I don’t know - perhaps it’s because I never said and certainly don’t think that?  Public schools (obviously area dependent) can be very segregated both by income and race - mine certainly is as in99% causcasian.  The city next to my town is also hugely segregated - 95% African American.  Need I say it - my homeschool group often includes people of diverse races, incomes and abilities.  One can have a lot more diversity in a homeschool group - and certainly if one can take a child to various activities outside of their own community.

    In many school systems people self-segregate anyway, esp. by color and at younger ages by gender.

Which never happens in sparkly wonderful homeschooling activities!!!1!!one!

Never said never, and if it did, it can be a lot easier to correct.  E.G. just how would you suggest, that someone would correct a school district that is as heavily caucasian as mine?   

SO, while you point out correctly, that homeschoolers CAN be isolated, or badly socialized, so can public school kids - ask Dylan Kliebold how well that opportunity he got to socialize at public school turned out.

Obviously a child can be badly socialized whether in homeschool or public school. For that reason, I would love it if you would stop producing garbage like “those who criticize homeschooling because of its perceived lack of socialization versus the presumed (falsely) wonderful socialization gets get in schools.  WHEN EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.”

You have been pretending, for this entire thread, that homeschooling provides children with a magical opportunity to socialize. You have had it explained to you that this is not true. I can only conclude that by repeating this idea, you are bragging about how special you are because your children are socialized.

Well, Rebecca, no pretending about it since I see and deal with it - not just IME, but within the larger homeschooling movement - you see, the parents aren’t exactly isolated either - and I really don’t need it explained to me from an arrogant non-homeschooler like you. 

A factor that you’ve really overlooked is the socialization that occurs in a cohort group - I would call it bad socialization or acculturation to view ones potential friends as only from one’s cohort. That’s what happens in schools - especially with the increasing cohort trends I’v erepeatedly been pointing out - which leads to next post…

The student is learning the way to school if walking, or the buses to take if taking a bus.  The student is learning to navigate the general school area, and any shared areas like maybe athletic fields.  By the end of fifth grade the kid isn’t going to as easily get cornered or lost.

Do you really want to tout the idea of school as a gauntlet or maze to be run, as fellow students to be predators out to get you on a daily basis - and then ask with a straight face why homeschoolers think the myth of socialization at public schools is a tale of horror not a Disney story?

The student is learning about changing classes, going to a new room rather than staying in the same room through the whole day except for gym and music class and lunch.  This is a big difference for a lot of kids.

Can you frickin’ read?  They don’t get to change classes in the 5th grade.  Everything still takes place in the homeroom, except gym.  It was one of the reasons my kid said, “why bother?”  No science in a lab, no chance to begin taking a modern language and practice conversationally with others. 

The student is learning the rules of the junior high school where they are different from that of the elementary school. 

The student is meeting new kids from other elementary schools and getting to know them.  There’s a new peer group even excluding new kids from other grades.  They will get to know these kids before going out into the bigger pond.

Not necessarily.  For special ed at either end of the spectrum, they keep cohort kids together here, because of the way the buses come in (that’s the scenario as it was explained to me - really - it’s not a school, it’s a widget factory.

All these may sound irrelevant, but for a kid who’s still young and vulnerable, they’re not.  Familiarity with the physical environment is huge.  Familiarity with the processes and procedures is huge.  Hell, having a teacher you bonded with last year one building away and technically in the same school, if something horrible happens, is huge, too.

I’m not saying every kid should only socialize with kids her own age!  It’s just that the public school experience makes dropping them into the same big mixing bowl with 15-year-olds when they’re only 10 or 11 can have some pretty unpleasant results.  Limit the exposure, monitor the exposure, and give the exposure a common purpose, like the sport example you give, rather than putting them in lunch B with everyone else.

But, but… isn’t it the whole socialization thing that’s supposed to make those public schooled kids so much more capable of handling life later on.  Esp. versus my poor home-confined homeschooler - the one who will probably be attending university at 14 or 15 with horrors, students who are older then him by a good 4-5 years,  using city buses at 12 to get to his summer university program?

Your whole defense of isolating fifth graders and freshman oldfem, is that they need protection form the rest of the student body. Could it be because that student body hasn’t been properly socialized to you know, to be kind to newbies,  to see those more vulnerable as to be helped, not as prey.  Either way, you haven’t exactly painted a picture of public schooling as a successful method of socialization.  But hey, thanks for trying - I’m sure the public schools appreciate such blind loyalty.

So now you’re looking at who is quoting a study instead of the neutrality of the study itself - this was Shyers dissertation at U of FLA - last I heard, not a religious institutions.  Sand Smedley is from Radford a Virginia public university.

If you can provide me with the studies, I may revise my opinion, but I can’t find a place where they are available online - I only find biased sites quoting the results.

You have also ignored my comment that the sites you linked do not describe the methodology of the studies and that without proper controls, they are worthless.

Ad because of your contention that parents of kids who public school can also provide the extracurricular social opportunities homeschoolers do - I’m trying to show you that there just isn’t time - we’re seeing more and more overscheduled, burned out, stressed out kids.

Er, at the risk of sounding tautological, an extracurricular activity is an extracurricular activity. It’s not +10 Extracurricular Activity just because it’s not associated with the school.

Public schools (obviously area dependent) can be very segregated both by income and race - mine certainly is as in99% causcasian.  The city next to my town is also hugely segregated - 95% African American…..E.G. just how would you suggest, that someone would correct a school district that is as heavily caucasian as mine?

I don’t know whether by “someone” you mean a parent of a child in that school, or a legislator…what my town did decades ago was make the elementary schools in low-income and minority areas into magnet schools, and close down one of the high schools so that everyone went to the same one.

Need I say it - my homeschool group often includes people of diverse races, incomes and abilities.

Anecdotal evidence. As I’ve said, I’m sure you’re a special snowflake, but this doesn’t say anything about homeschooling in general.

One can have a lot more diversity in a homeschool group - and certainly if one can take a child to various activities outside of their own community.

You keep using that word. “Can.” I do not think it means what you think it means. Either that, or you’re suffering a lot of cognitive dissonance from saying both ” ‘public school parents can send their kids to extracurriculars’ is a priori” and “one can have a lot more diversity in a homeschool group.”

Then that’s just pretty silly - your saying that being in a crowd is always better than not?  Crowds are often stressful.

You’re just pulling my leg now, aren’t you.

I don’t know - perhaps it’s because I never said and certainly don’t think that?

Then why do you continue to stress in this comment the importance of age diversity over other forms of diversity?

Well, Rebecca, no pretending about it since I see and deal with it - not just IME, but within the larger homeschooling movement - you see, the parents aren’t exactly isolated either - and I really don’t need it explained to me from an arrogant non-homeschooler like you.

Ah, yes - you’re arguing that the form of schooling you, personally, have chosen has some supernatural superiority, and I’m the arrogant one. Of course.

Moving past insults and dealing with substance, if you’re up to the pressure, are you not denying that you think homeschooling provides children with a magical opportunity to socialize? Despite having it explained to you that decisions about extracurriculars are dependent on parents’ choices and not on the form of schooling?

A factor that you’ve really overlooked is the socialization that occurs in a cohort group - I would call it bad socialization or acculturation to view ones potential friends as only from one’s cohort.

Which never, ever happens in homeschooling, where children have so much freedom to choose the others with whom they will socialize, and so large a group to choose from.

You’re describing things that happen in society, not in public schools. Maybe you really believe that because your kids have managed to make friends outside their cohort (which? their age cohort, the only one that matters?) that that’s a universal feature of homeschooling, but anecdotes are not data.

Oh, and since we’re bringing in anecdotal evidence, I may as well say that I went to public school, was never involved in fewer than three extracurriculars, have friends of varying ages, races, religions, and sexes, and appear to have turned out fine, on the whole.

* economic backgrounds, national backgrounds, sexual orientations

TexasKaren - would you kindly LOOK at the STUDY.  The 83% is high.  Unless you think that all people who claim a religious affiliation are creationist flat earth fundernnuts.  Or do you deny that there are some fundernuts who know the difference between learning about and believing in.  Which is why as an atheist, my children are still being taught about the bible (as literature or historical influence) and the Koran and the Tao I Ching.  There is a large homeschooling group of mainstream religious parents - by that I mean their religion is largely of the services on Sunday type - who today can’t afford the increasing tuition at private denominational schools in this economy, but who don’t, for various reasons see the public school as an option. 

AS for your contentions about child development:
do you think learning only occurs in a classroom - for educated adults that is? That a college educated person can’t read a book on CD and develop an understanding? Isn’t that what a college education is supposed to do? be fecund of further learning?

Yes, some parents will always refuse to see their child’s shortcomings.  I think that is more likely to happen (and see it quite often) with the current consumerist model of public education/seeing the teacher as other,  and in opposition to the child - helicopter parents, lack of respect for teachers, seeing everything that cannot be directly tied to a career as extraneous and irrelevant are all symptoms.

That very closeness you disparage can give a parent great insights into how a child learns - yes, genetics can play a role - an unrelated teacher can never have those insights. 

As for your difficulty with lesson plans - uhm, no it won’t be second nature.  And the high IQ can make it worse.  (From my experiences: What do you mean you can’t read 14 novels in eight weeks, or understand x just by reading the chapter?)  Were you a lit major?  If so, literacy is a different ballgame as you probably know, though I’m surprised you are having such a difficult time.  Have you looked at some of the latest that is out on language acquisition? Are you using a whole language or a grammar-structure approach?  Or are you trying to do too much in a limited amount of time?

phylosopher, you are deliberately misrepresenting the results of the survey. For the edification of anyone else who may still be reading, I will repeat that the 83% is not the figure for homeschooling parents who claim a religious affiliation, but rather for those who kept their children out of school in order to give them religious education.

Hey Phyl? Fuck off. I’m not referring to THIS study. I’m saying I’VE SEEN other studies that quote it at a much higher percentage…As for the rest of the paragraph, you’re babbling…

Ugh…And the rest of it as well. Forget it. You’re rambling isn’t worthy of response…

Though, BIG gold star for throwing fecund in there…

I mentioned my IQ in a bit of an ironic way and the “should be second nature” quip in a sarcastic one. Cute. You missed them both…It was in response to your own nonsensical prattling about your education and intelligence.

And, no, sport. Reading a book ain’t education…You need a bit more of a framework around things lest you, oh I dunno, go off all half cocked thinkin you have all the answers…

As for what I’m doing in my classes, don’t you worry. I have plenty of actual educators as friends to help me with the rough spots. Your little buzzword bingo there was not lost on me, I just don’t feel like pandering to it…

And that you think parents can be that objective about their children is utter hooey and based on your own inability to see the matter objectively…NOWHERE is this stated or implied in ANY scientific research or studies. Parents are invariably lacking in objectivity when it comes to their children.

This isn’t always a problem, even if your’e homeschooling. But, to pretend this is not the case is completely disingenuous. And seriously? Genetics?

rebecca - go look back at the survey - notice the 36% number as religion being the primary reason. THat prioritization corrects for errors in past surveys. 

OK two issues 1) The 83% number says that religious/moral instruction is ONE of the reasons for homeschooling.  Note how those totals on fig. #2 add up to a whole lot more than 100%?

2) - Rebecca, I’m an ATHEIST - GODAMIT - and I would have said, had I taken the survey, that I was homeschooling because I want to give my kids moral instruction, or heck, even religious instruction, as in how to analyze and avoid it.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf

Gee, Rebecca - you don’t like anecdotes, so I give you studies, as in a bibliography at the end of the article from a reputable source ABOUT the studies including a critique of the methodology, then you refuse to recognize the validity of the studies or misread them.  Sorry, but I’m not wasting my time on your lazy ass anymore.

I focus on the age diversity because it’s the fucking 800# gorilla that everyone ignores in favor of any other kind of diversity - which frankly isn’t necessarily a component of public schools.

You’re a dislikable little twit - hopefully you’re childless.  If that ever changes, I’m sure you’ll send your kids to a public school and you and they will get your just desserts - just because life is kinda like that.

Speaking of dislikable twits…It’s only unfortunate that there isn’t any infinite wisdom controlling the universe that would keep you childless…

well let’s see TK, first , the fucking’s mutual and since you’re first texas, I’m sure you’ll understand - AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON. 

Yeah, you’ve seen other studies - so FUCKING posst’em - oh, wait a minute they’re NHERI studies, right?  HAHAHAHA toilet paper!HAHAHAHa

AS for the rest of your post - cute, you can’t communicate, or take responsibility for doing same - no wonder you’re having a problem with your class.

Reading a book ain’t education…

Good lawd you ARE from Texas. Again…. hahahahahahahaha Why don’t you tell that one to your students, to your volunteer coordinators.  I FUCKING DARE YOU.

And therein lies the downfall of the public education system in the US - the idea that an intelligent, educated (post secondary or graduate even) cannot possibly handle raw information but must have it spoonfed and predigested for them by some pedagogicrat.  Heavens, where in the world can new ideas come from, after all, we cant learn without being explicitly taught by the experts. 

Objectivity has a heckuva lot more to do with the individual than their role - whether that be the teacher or the parent - which is why we have objective tests for a number of academic issues.  Very often, the tests prove the parent correct - even in the face of “expert” opinion otherwise, sometimes the tests prove the parent wrong. But you want to use “invariably,” huh? All that means is one exception proves your argument wrong.  But hey, go for broke. So where ARE those studies?   

And yes, genetics.  Whether it’s an LD like dyslexia or a gt issue, the, at least partial, genetic basis which causes the LD,  and then experience with the specific type of LD can render a parent the best teacher.  One who has been there knows it from the inside - no amount of study can create that perspective.  So yes, genetics, seriously.

But, but… isn’t it the whole socialization thing that’s supposed to make those public schooled kids so much more capable of handling life later on.  Esp. versus my poor home-confined homeschooler - the one who will probably be attending university at 14 or 15 with horrors, students who are older then him by a good 4-5 years, using city buses at 12 to get to his summer university program?

Your whole defense of isolating fifth graders and freshman oldfem, is that they need protection form the rest of the student body. Could it be because that student body hasn’t been properly socialized to you know, to be kind to newbies, to see those more vulnerable as to be helped, not as prey.  Either way, you haven’t exactly painted a picture of public schooling as a successful method of socialization.  But hey, thanks for trying - I’m sure the public schools appreciate such blind loyalty.
Comment #218: phylosopher on 03/13 at 12:08 AM

You seem to be claiming that homeschooling means you deal with nice people all the time.  This is a problem.  If all the older people you deal with are “socialized to be kind to newbies and see those more vulnerable as to be helped” then FSM help you when you hit the real world.

Learning to deal with a lot of different people, some of whom may not care about you, a few of whom wish to rip you off or hurt you or sexually assault you or treat you like shit, is important.  That doesn’t mean you should learn it all at the end of a firehose.

Socialization isn’t just learning to be nice with the nice people who are nice.  It’s learning to discern people’s motives.  It’s learning to deal with people in situations that aren’t ideal and in fact can be pretty seriously bad. 

You don’t best do that by being separated from such situations for your whole life, nor do you best do that by being dropped into the cauldron at age 3.

rebecca - go look back at the survey - notice the 36% number as religion being the primary reason. THat prioritization corrects for errors in past surveys.

...which is still over 50% higher than the next highest answer, nor does it negate the fact that 83% kept their children out of school for religious instruction.

The 83% number says that religious/moral instruction is ONE of the reasons for homeschooling.  Note how those totals on fig. #2 add up to a whole lot more than 100%?

Yes, amazingly, public school did teach me simple addition. It’s still 83% of homeschooling parents who kept their children out of school in order to give them religious education. Whether it’s one factor or the only factor, it’s still keeping a child out of school to give him/her religious education. There is no way around that.

Rebecca, I’m an ATHEIST - GODAMIT - and I would have said, had I taken the survey, that I was homeschooling because I want to give my kids moral instruction, or heck, even religious instruction, as in how to analyze and avoid it.

Then you are either lying or stupid. (Both would also not surprise me.) I cannot fathom why anyone with a grain of sense would describe secular education about religion as “religious or moral education.”

Gee, Rebecca - you don’t like anecdotes, so I give you studies, as in a bibliography at the end of the article from a reputable source ABOUT the studies including a critique of the methodology, then you refuse to recognize the validity of the studies or misread them.

I cannot misread a study with which you have not provided me. I ask you for links to the studies, not to fawning over them, whereupon you promptly ignored me and started spitting bile.

No, the links do not offer a critique of the methodology. I asked you numerous times to prove that the studies controlled for relevant factors like economic class and/or number of extracurricular activities, and you have not done so.

(For your future reference, Learn in Freedom is not a reputable source. I sincerely hope that this is not the kind of science research you “teach” your children.)

I focus on the age diversity because it’s the fucking 800# gorilla that everyone ignores in favor of any other kind of diversity - which frankly isn’t necessarily a component of public schools.

And I asked you why age diversity is so important, whereupon you promptly ignored me and started spitting bile.

I see no reason why a homeschooler would not use reputable college textbooks from reputable universities.  Why anyone would think Bob Jones is reputable is beyond me.  However, it’s clear that standard elementary and high school textbooks often suffer immense political interference (Texas School Board anyone?).  Fundie textbooks are clearly worse, so it really is hard to pick a good textbook.  I suppose one could order the UK state school textbooks but it’s probably hard to get them over here….

Oh, Phyl? You moron! Nice assumption and clueless about the fact that someone may not remain, forever in the same place. You MORON! I live in Texas. I have lived here for ten years. I am originally a New Yorker. I was educated in NY. You moron…

And, as for my students just reading a book and calling education, you moron…They don’t, you moron. They do it, with other students, and a tutor who (ostensibly) knows a bit more, in a classroom setting. You moron…

With regard to genetics, you moron. I’m aware of HOW MUCH A ROLE GENETICS plays…YOU asserted that parents would be better equipped to note learning disabilities and other genetic challenges sooner. You moron. This is patently false statement, you moron…