- Local every day in
Homeschooling, like most things, is a personal decision each parent will make. Most families don't have the luxury of the option. Those who do should seriously consider it.
Socialization is one of the main excuses I hear from people who are anti-homeschooling. I think that's a bunch of hooey. Children who have brothers and sisters must learn how to be part of a family, to take turns and to be considerate. Those are incredible socialization skills.
Also, there are lots of ways kids can learn to be social outside the home. Team sports, group activities, music lessons are all ways to be part of a community. How easily we overlook church activities and volunteerism as social structure.
When my nephew started kindergarten, he was adding and subtracting. On his first report card, the teacher told my sister that the school was proud to announce he could recognize his name. Ya think?
There are lots of great reasons, just like the one my sister faced, for choosing to learn yer kids at home. There are so many children who don't have the basics when they enter kindergarten. At the same time, so many are more advanced. Teachers face an enormous challenge of keeping everyone engaged.
Smart kids don't usually have it better in a public school setting. They get bored easily and find themselves in trouble.
There are religious reasons, too. A mom just told me she homeschooled her gaggle because she wanted them to learn her religion. She has a large family, so those kids definitely learned how to be good social citizens.
We probably won't homeschool our children. We are lucky enough to live near a great school with small classroom sizes. Then again, once we get started, if it's not the right fit for our children, I won't have any problem keeping them home.
Personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about homeschooling. I've already been told by relatives that I better not.
"You're not going to do that are you?," they said, looking down their noses.
I don't get that automatic mentality. Maybe I will. Maybe I won't. Each kid is different. Each school is different. Each situation is different.
As I've told my relatives, they've already had their chance to screw up their kids. This is my turn to screw up mine. Does it really matter where they get screwed up?
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
Mike Bruno
3:04 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
I would like to know just how many families elect to home-schooling simply to promote creationism over the established precept of evolution by natural selection. It would seem that, for many, this is a primary motivation. Popular home-schooling texts reflect this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-08-home-school-christian_N.htm
If so, they are doing a great disservice to their children.
dave
4:45 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
Maybe familys home school because American schools rank 17th in the Industrial world.
Sending their children to public schools to get a LIBERAL education seems to be a bigger disservice to them.
Mike Bruno
8:24 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
Just what do you mean by "LIBERAL" education?
K
6:54 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
Thank you Erin! I have elected to homeschool my son for the same reason as your sister. Like your nephew, my son is very bright and his preschool teacher already told me she was afraid he would only get bored in kindergarten. I too have heard the opposition and immediate negative assumptions from some friends and family, but I simply ignore it because he is my child and I am going to do what I feel is best for him. I have always spent a great deal of time teaching him things well before preschool and I have continued to do so. Real teaching always starts at home even for those children attending a traditional school. Teaching/learning should always extend beyond the classroom.
Mike Bruno
11:17 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
@Dave. I used to think that poor school performance was the primary motivation for home schooling. But I wonder now. The U.S. ranks just above theocracies when it come to evolution http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html. If there were a similar failures in understanding other scientific precepts such as atomic theory, I could blame it on a general failure of education. Evolution seems to stand alone as a unique failure of our students. I can't imagine any other motive than religion to deny our children the understanding of evolution that, effectively, every physical scientist in the world accepts as fact.
Justin Eggar
11:58 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
Mike,
Creationism vs Evolution has little to no impact on a persons life as far as the government should be concerned. You can get a job, make intelligent choices, be a good friend, or whatever else while falling into either category.
For instance, Liberty University is a Christian university. However, their debate team soundly flogs their competition year after year. Just to put this in perspective, Northwesterrn is 2nd, Cornell is 4th and Harvard is 7th on that list.
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=29389
These people are very intelligent. The fact that they attended a Christian university did not result in them being unemployable, bad citizens, or mutating into some other form of creature.
The statement about "physical scientist" is incorrect, but hopefully I've made my point. If you want to point to America's many failings, this doesn't make the top 1000 list.
dave
11:30 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
Mike have you seen any of the national spelling bees lately?
The winners are either Asian children who tend to excell in school or home school kids who know how to spell theocracies.
I don't care if you believe in Creation or Evolution. Or if you can spell Tomato or Towmawtow. I suspect neither do most people.
Mike Bruno
11:49 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
I don't doubt that any of that. I'm just saying that home-schooling parents seem to fall into two camps 1) those that want more rigorous academics for their child (good) and 2) those that want to deny facts that challenge religious ideologies (bad). If the popular home-schooling texts denigrate evolution, that concerns me. The most recent survey that I found (after a very brief search) showed that 36% of families do it for religious reasons. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/21/less-families-home-schooling-primarily-for-religious-reasons/. Hence I would argue that home-schooling is bad 36% of the time. If you need to deny facts to your child to maintain an ideology that you wish for them to accept, then something is wrong.
dave
12:01 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
That means that 64% don't, which in this political season is a landslide for your good.
How do you feel about people who believe in Chirst? Do you break that down as being good or bad? Are all parochial schools doing a disservice to ther students?
Jim Ryan
12:52 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
I think it might depend on which religious denomination the school is associated with.
As the product of a parochial education (Catholic K-12), I can tell you that both evolution and Darwinism are integral parts of the science curriculum at the high school level. Actually, the Big Bang Theory (not the TV show) is also taught as science.
Religion classes, on the other hand, work the non-science theories of the Bible. As part of our liberal education, we were taught that the two schools of thought are congruent. This line of science/religion carries into the liberal education at the college level - my daughter is a grad of St. Ambrose and was not taught creationism or intelligent design as part of her science or theology classes.
Mike Bruno
1:25 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
I would suggest that, after a good deal of research, supernatural belief is a "characteristic" of the human animal and neither intrinsically good nor bad. We are inquisitive creatures and want answers to things we can't answer...so we make stuff up...i.e. the sun is a flaming horse-drawn chariot that is pulled across the sky. Belief (Christian or non-Christian) is neither good nor bad, just a human trait. We prefer a conspiracy theory to no theory at all. I am 100% a proponent of religious liberty. What IS bad is when the first amendment is not respected and some try to foist their beliefs on others. We should note that the opposite of "secular" is "theocratic".
As far as good and bad: that is a person-by-person measure and I assume everyone is good until they demonstrate otherwise. If parochial schools deny scientific facts from their charges then, yes, they are doing a disservice.
Justin Eggar
1:48 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Mike,
Belief is one of the core characteristics of humanity. That doesn't have a whole lot to do with the validity of any religion (including Athiesm). Home schooling your children isn't foisting anything on anybody. However, forcing parents that are providing their children an education that is at least on the equivalent of the public school system to do what you believe to be best for them (public education) isn't what I would call following the heart or letter of the 1st amendment.
When home schoolers do force you to do the same please tell me - I'll stand behind you 100%.
Jim Ryan
12:01 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Interesting thread that caught my eye. Dave, I'm guessing you're neither Asian nor home-schooled as more than one family is families and to perform at a very high level is to excel.
Also, since you typed liberal in all upper case, I would take that to be noteworthy or a pejorative. Either way, I found this to be an acceptable definition - http://www.aacu.org/leap/what_is_liberal_education.cfm.
dave
12:11 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Jim you caught me. I'm a public school graduate which is no doubt responsible for my poor grammer. At least I got towmawtow right.
Paul Bryant
1:05 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Hey dave,
Wouldn't "grammer" be what you buy from the guy hanging out by the 7-11. LOL.
Just messin' with you. Thought I would interject a little humor before the grammar police came back.
Mike Bruno
2:02 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
@Justin,
Setting aside that both Forbes and U.S. News place Liberty University way at the wrong end of their school rankings...I would agree with you to some extent. Without exposure or an opinion on evolution, one has a good chance at functioning just fine in society. Now if one has and *opinion* on evolution, then they should be familiar with it. In my experience those that deny evolution are grossly unlettered in their scholarship on the matter. A while ago, I took the liberty of condensing an excellent one-hour lecture on evolution into a 20-minute speed course on *a smattering* of the evidence. You can watch it here: http://youtu.be/Tc6SvoxIhjU
There are also quite a number of excellent books two of which are : http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU and http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795
On "physical scientists" and such...
"Scientist" is a broad term. I, myself, am an applied scientist by education and vocation. Many scientists at the "applied" end of the spectrum never *have* to consider evolution vs. creation in their life. Those scientists that look at origins (biologists, cosmologists, etc) have to confront these questions head on. If the National Academy of Sciences (our most august body of scientists) is any measure, they accept evolution to a person.
Justin Eggar
3:13 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Mike,
I'm more than happy to discuss the methodology used for school rankings by Forbes and US news. Let's see:
Forbes:
1. 17.5% of the score is based on ratemyprofessor.com. Wait... what? I know right.
2. 10% listing of alumni in "Who's Who of America". It's good to be a rich Harvard grad at this point.
3. 15% Salary as listed on Payscale.com: If Liberty were a standard secular school that might stand up. However, inflated #s of people going into the mission field or working for not for profits will skew this # dramatically in this case.
4. 17.5% = Student Debt: This has nothing to do with educational excellence.
Us News:
1. 22.5% undergraduate peer reputation: This one should be self explanatory based on your own bias in the area. Secular institutions will automatically view religious institutions negatively.
2. 8% Faculty salary? Faculty don't join Liberty University for the pay, it's not great.
3. 15% Selectivity - Almost anybody can go to Liberty, it's not selective. I have a hard time blaming them for that though (being too exclusive would negatively impact what they are trying to accomplish).
4. 10% Financial Resources - Liberty apparently doesn't fall into the category of most universities in trying to bilk their students and their parents out of a fortune annually. Apparently that's bad.
Anyways, 50% of the points used by both of these ranking systems are trash and completely suspect.
Mike Bruno
2:12 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
@Justin
I am not saying that home-schooling in any way the parent wishes is a violation of the first amendment. I think we consider it lawful and for a parent to teach their children that black people are inferior, but that doesn't mean that I am not uncomfortable with it.
(btw: atheism is not capitalized, it simply means a-theism or without theism. It would be a religion like bald is a hair color)
Justin Eggar
3:27 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Once it became your belief structure it became a capital A. When an atheist becomes unable to separate what they want to believe from what they can objectively prove there is an issue.
I've found that, no different than any religion on the planet, if proof fell out of the sky on an atheists head they would still choose to believe in atheism. I'm not casting stones at that, I'm just saying that perhaps when people are emotionally vested in something to such an extent they shouldn't beat up others who portray the same characteristics they profess to despise.
I find it someone concerning that you consider religious people, that is 85% of the worlds population, in the same class as racists. You are going to say you weren't implying that, but I would suggest that subconsciously you do believe that (which is why that analogy came out as such).
Mike Bruno
4:44 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
@Justin
Really? Really? Of the various ways to interpret the analogy and you accuse me of calling the majority of the population racists (or an equivalent). Now that I know what I am working with, let me state it differently....
I (and the Constitution) will support the right of any parent to teach anything they want to their child. That doesn't mean that I might not be uncomfortable with them teaching some things that I think do that child a disservice. Denying a child knowledge or promoting objectionable ideologies makes me uncomfortable. Period.
...and I will go wherever the evidence takes me.
Justin Eggar
4:59 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
@Mike - Hopefully you can appreciate that I am highly uncomfortable with somebody making an analogy to racism in regards to home schooling and religion.
Parents deny their children knowledge all the time. I would venture that parents homeschooling their children are less concerned about their children having knowledge of evolution than they are with society treating them like they are an inferior being for believing differently. We could always ask them though - I think that would make an interesting Patch poll.
dave
6:03 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Mike are you saying that the Sun is not a flaming horse drawn chariot?
What's next? Are you going to tell me there's no Easter Bunny.
Justin Eggar
6:17 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Dave,
@dave
Making smart comments doesn't actually make one intelligent. Just like being a bigot doesn't make one better than somebody else.
dave
9:15 pm on Monday, February 6, 2012
Justin
Being able to make smart comments is a sign of intelligents.
Being a bigot is a sign of ignorance.