homeschooling

[JBI]

No, you're mis-associating facts.

I'm telling you that almost all people who style themselves as "white nationalists" homeschool their children.



That would by necessity involve several incorrect assumptions, so we don't need to worry about it. No insinuation is involved if you've read the post correctly.

Amen, quite honestly, arguing with Zealots who only really care about one post on the forum is kind of silly. The truth is, if you google the facts, the bulk of homeschooled people in the United States are not from families seeking to create well rounded individuals. Regionally, things become even clearer that large pockets of them are adherents to rather particular beliefs, and homeschool as a way of repressing certain ideas, rather than others. Geez, you can like the system all you want, but you defending its every breath is kind of silly. Quite simply, homeschooling depends on the parent, and if the parents are no good, chances are the children turn out no good too, almost certainly if the child is homeschooled, as correction has a lesser chance of seeping in.

All the data on homeschooling is ultimately skewed - the vast majority of people homeschooled, for instance, are from two-parent families, who are, clearly, well off enough that one parent can take the time to go out and teach the kid. What that essentially means, is that the demographic of homeschooled kids teaches one nothing about the success, as it factors into other grounds. A fair study, of which I cannot find at the moment, would compare the income brackets of the families to ones of similar income, and check the success rate amongst those people relative to the ones attending school - I am sure, ultimately, the most successful will still be the prep-schooled rich white old blood that has had generations at Harvard anyway. Demographics are everything, homeschool advocates are just as good at fabricating facts as everyone else.

The truth is, all those stats are essentially meaningless. On the whole, the greatest preforms in the most objective subjects, notably mathematics, have come from countries where homeschooling does not exist, or is illegal. Hong Kong, for instance, has homeschooling illegal, and homeschooling in Japan is illegal. They by far score better on average than Americans in Mathematics - the only possible indicator - so there must be something to real education.

Lets be honest, mediocre parents make for mediocre students - at least in a school there is some standard control, and the kids are exposed to new teachers - at home, mediocrity gets full reign, and closed mindedness (over 30% of homeschooling parents in the States cited religion reasons for homeschooling, and over 12% cited that they don't want their children learning what is being taught in school) flourishes. Besides which, lets be honest, homeschooling is the most class-obsessed form of education. It essentially says, that in order to get what you deem a "better" education, a parent must be educated, and must have the time to teach their children on their own, and not have to work to support them. That's simple rubbish, and as an institution, the fact that that can get any support is a little disturbing.

Of course, I am not a big fan of the American education system as a whole (especially the university system, which actually dumped quite a few students, most from New England, in my university to get "lower" fees, which happen to be about twice as much as I pay, without the subsidies that I get either) but to fix that problem by introducing, or giving credit to a class-obsessed, rather idiotic alternative is beyond me. So far I have been nice, and tried to give both sides a fair case, but ultimately, your reluctance to a)discuss anything outside of this topic, and b) admit flaws in the system seem to me that for one preaching the open mindedness of a system, one seems to be absorbed quite into it.


But then again, homeschooling seems a very typical sort of American approach - rather than demand better from a government that fails, and an education system that has problems, as should be, alternatives and blame games are played - quite simply, homeschooling is the Ron Paul answer to the problem - rather than demand what is deserved, simply stop the system all together, and let everyone fend for themselves. There is a reason why people turn to homeschooling, and it isn't that parents are better, but that the system is flawed, and it is easier to fix the system for oneself assuming you are able to afford it by homeschooling than to go for any real significant change, and hey, on the way, you may even be able to cut a few % points off the education fund for some other unlucky, albeit poorer sucker's child.

I mean no direct personal attacks Dave, but quite simply, your die hard faith makes arguing at all tedious, as you are quick to defend, yet seem unable to humor anyone else's perspectives for very long. In order to understand, one must ultimately entertain the perspective of the other side, as a means of finding meaning, and with such a one directional exchange, I perhaps may have come off a bit too aggressive, at which, I meant nothing against you personally.

[The Atheist]

Amen, ...

Not often you and I agree entirely, but I'm with you every word of that.

Most important point - comparing like with like. I like it!

[Dave Scotese]

...over 30% of homeschooling parents in the States cited religion reasons for homeschooling

Thanks, I didn't realize it was that low. Where did you get this info? I would love to look over those stats.

It essentially says, that in order to get what you deem a "better" education, a parent must be educated, and must have the time to teach their children on their own, and not have to work to support them.

You might want to look up "unschooling". If you're interested. My own experience is that we learn without teachers. I am happy to find that authors who interest me often write about this fact. I think what kids need is love, shelter, food, and opportunity. But someone to tell them which subjects they need to "learn," and then "make them learn it"? Definitely not.

But you are right that public school serves a babysitting purpose for many families. At least in America, it is horrible how business and competing corporate interests have exploited it as a tool of indoctrination into consumer culture.

So far I have been nice, and tried to give both sides a fair case, but ultimately, your reluctance to a)discuss anything outside of this topic, and b) admit flaws in the system seem to me that for one preaching the open mindedness of a system, one seems to be absorbed quite into it.

Yes, I am pretty absorbed by it. What other topic do you want me to discuss?

What flaws are you talking about? That white supremacists use it? That advocates of strong political doctrine and people of faith use it (really only 30%)? That students must seek out knowledgeable individuals when they need guidance if they aren't in school where such people are supposedly already available? I would happily admit any flaw that is real, but these are propaganda and so I am compelled to challenge them.

But then again, homeschooling seems a very typical sort of American approach - rather than demand better from a government that fails, and an education system that has problems, as should be, alternatives and blame games are played - quite simply, homeschooling is the Ron Paul answer to the problem - rather than demand what is deserved, simply stop the system all together, and let everyone fend for themselves.

Very good! You do frown on letting people fend for themselves, eh? But rather than helping them, which you'd be free to do with any money you'd save by having lower taxes, you would instead "demand better from a government," which, I believe, is what the people controlling those taxes are really after. I think we should at least be free to fend for ourselves - and those around us, if we care to, which we would much more if the government weren't always trying to (and being encouraged to!) get in the way.

... you may even be able to cut a few % points off the education fund for some other unlucky, albeit poorer sucker's child.

That would be a great argument if I really wanted socialism. I think it's important to recognize that when someone is forced to do something good, the natural tendency to do it is crippled. Hence, the idea of "fending for ourselves" - which I agree is "typically American" - seems scary or bad because people taken care of by their government are no longer naturally prone to taking care of each other. That is a basic flaw in socialism that remains even after you solve the problem of individual self-interest in politicians.

I mean no direct personal attacks Dave, but quite simply, your die hard faith makes arguing at all tedious, as you are quick to defend, yet seem unable to humor anyone else's perspectives for very long. In order to understand, one must ultimately entertain the perspective of the other side, as a means of finding meaning, and with such a one directional exchange, I perhaps may have come off a bit too aggressive, at which, I meant nothing against you personally.

I have become more aggressive recently, quicker to defend, and more authoritative than I used to be. However, I am very good at seeing things from the other side, which is why I understand socialism as well as I do. It is attractive until you see the details of how it must work, and the damage it must do to the human spirit in order to function at all. I am watching my own country, which always seemed to me the one that could hold onto individual freedom the best, become more socialist with every new law from Washington, and my anger burns my soul. You can probably smell it.

If anyone out there who thinks I'm on to something valuable has advice on toning down my aggression, defense, or authority, please let me know!

My single-topic disposition, I think, is defensible. Do you think Thomas Paine engaged in much other than Independence during the years between writing Common Sense and the day England finally gave up? All the time I am willing to use a computer to engage others, I spend promoting the things I think can protect children from the damage that school does - the damage that creates people who are attracted to socialism and who are unable or unwilling to see enough of its ugliness to reject it.

I figured people that read a lot would tend to see the light. When I agree, I don't reply, and I think a lot of people are like that. You're giving me the opportunity to provide them with something to agree with, so I will continue to engage if you are willing to continue.

[andave_ya]

Excuse me. For the first time, I understand what people mean when they talk about "experience." I offer twelve years experience of being homeschooled, having graduated valedictorian from a class of nine less than six weeks ago. When we began homeschooling in the 90's, the homeschool movement had only just begun in California.

Since then it has grown in leaps and bounds, and as "veteran" homeschoolers, my parents are known in three or four different circles of homeschooling, all of which are from varying walks of life. The first one (from first till sixth grade, I think it was) was comprised of one-income families, where funds were very tight. We clip coupons, when my dad works twelve hours and we still don't have everything, we get our clothes from thrift shops, we barter, we don't get anything superfluous, we don't have cable, we borrow from each other, we cook every meal and rarely ever go out. We still do it! Our field trips were rarely ever to places very exciting, unless they had free days like the zoo once a month. But we had community classes taught for free by people who loved topics like writing, or PE. People who knew the Bible, and were not afraid of being ridiculed for teaching it. People who did their best to LEARN, only differentiating between people who knew the subject and people who didn't. We grew together, and that really helped to build on the foundations my parents were teaching me.

The next circle I was introduced to was in high school, from a family at church. They encouraged me to take speech and debate classes. This was a higher-class group of people, people who made enough money to be able to take their students all over the States to debate and formally present speeches in the NCFCA, a Christian speech and debate league. I took several classes in speech and one in debate and the lessons I learned there are still with me. I formally presented speeches only once or twice before we decided to back out because many of the tournaments were just too far away.

The third circle is one I'm still only just getting into now, having made some friends there. We are much alike, loving books, like the Bible and classics, and music and old things. People who are really searching out what God wants for them.

And the fourth group is one I haven't been formally introduced to quite yet: the college I will attend, Lord willing, in the fall for a degree in literature. Every single one of the faculty and students are Christians, and are taught not only from Christian curriculum but secular as well, and thoroughly. Over 70% of the students were homeschooled. The college has won countless awards in speech and debate and moot court (against even Oxford!) and has alumni working around the world!

If you would like a further reference for my character in person, ask Virgil. We've met in person. That said, here is where I posit that you are wrong.

Amen, quite honestly, arguing with Zealots who only really care about one post on the forum is kind of silly. The truth is, if you google the facts, the bulk of homeschooled people in the United States are not from families seeking to create well rounded individuals.

And the public system does? If I go there, will I be taught both evolution AND creationism? Will I be taught both the pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints? Will I be taught Keynesian economics or Adam Smith's economics? Will I be taught the negative side of socialism and the positive side?

A fair study, of which I cannot find at the moment, would compare the income brackets of the families to ones of similar income, and check the success rate amongst those people relative to the ones attending school

I agree with you! But the results may surprise you.

On the whole, the greatest preforms in the most objective subjects, notably mathematics, have come from countries where homeschooling does not exist, or is illegal. Hong Kong, for instance, has homeschooling illegal, and homeschooling in Japan is illegal. They by far score better on average than Americans in Mathematics - the only possible indicator - so there must be something to real education.

Why objective subjects? Are not subjective subjects just as important?
I don't like math. However it may interest you to know that I brought my math SAT score up 130 points over an 18 month period, with the help of books and relatives with a talent for math!

at home, mediocrity gets full reign, and closed mindedness (over 30% of homeschooling parents in the States cited religion reasons for homeschooling, and over 12% cited that they don't want their children learning what is being taught in school) flourishes. Besides which, lets be honest, homeschooling is the most class-obsessed form of education. It essentially says, that in order to get what you deem a "better" education, a parent must be educated, and must have the time to teach their children on their own, and not have to work to support them. That's simple rubbish, and as an institution, the fact that that can get any support is a little disturbing.

mediocrity gets full reign? and close-mindedness? We know what we believe, if that's what you mean, but I'd caution against calling all of us closed-minded. There is mediocrity and laziness - in increasingly few homeschooling families. When a student is in speech and debate they juggle writing and researching and memorizing and planning and thinking and discussing ON TOP OF all their other homework, extracurricular activities (which are many and varied, such as sports, choir, ballet, etc.) jobs, chores, church. JBI, do you know what you're talking about?

But then again, homeschooling seems a very typical sort of American approach - rather than demand better from a government that fails, and an education system that has problems, as should be, alternatives and blame games are played

What on earth can our government give us??? It's grown too ruddy big for its britches. It will refuse to teach us both sides, JBI, it will give us bread and circuses and your fabled mediocrity because it's gone socialist. We'll learn some trumped up idea of "equality" and "civil rights!" Government - what brought government into education in the first place? My college, PHC, refuses government funding so that it doesn't have to follow the Department of Education's insipid rules. No, JBI, education shouldn't be the government's business.

I'd really suggest a bit more research into homeschooling before posting so absolutely about it.

[Zee.]

From what i know, people i've spoken to and documentaries i've watched, the majority (NOT ALL) of children home schooled are well, home schooled by their parents as a way of preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts. If a child is home schooled, a parent can decide and dictate what ideas that child encounters and that is a pretty dangerous thing.

[Lynne50]

This discussion has been very interesting, but one thing that hasn't been addressed is, How do children get a quality education from parents that may be educationally challenged themselves?. When and how to they get remediation and how are delays dealt with? Do homeschoolers have access to child study teams that evaluate potential problems and give clear cut solutions? Many families do not even know what is available to them. It's a shame that their children have to suffer because of their ignorance. That is not a condemnation of the parents, just a simple fact.
Not all homeschooling is created equal. Not all public schools are created equal. But if I had a child who had learning disablities, I would have to defer to an expert in the field. I don't think I would have the resources to do it alone.

[Dave Scotese]

From what i know, people i've spoken to and documentaries i've watched, the majority (NOT ALL) of children home schooled are well, home schooled by their parents as a way of preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts. If a child is home schooled, a parent can decide and dictate what ideas that child encounters and that is a pretty dangerous thing.

Dangerous to who or what? The state?

"Preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts" is bad?? Impressionable young people are ripe for exploitation by anyone with an agenda of oppression. It seems unlikely to me that their parents are more likely to have an agenda of oppression than the state (which runs the public education system).

There are ideas and thoughts in school that most would agree have negative effects. For example, the idea that it's dangerous to allow children to be raised by their parents instead of the public education surrogate is certainly a negative effect - at least to those who have children. Consider Andave_ya's college and the good it has done. The idea that homeschooling is dangerous would diminish that good. For another example, take a look at Lynne's reply:

How do children get a quality education from parents that may be educationally challenged themselves?. When and how to they get remediation and how are delays dealt with? Do homeschoolers have access to child study teams that evaluate potential problems and give clear cut solutions?

One effect of public school is the idea that education is received from someone else. Education doesn't "come" from anyone. It is created by the learner herself. School burns into us the idea that it "comes from" a teacher, and that externalization of the motor of learning we're all born with is certainly a negative effect.

The idea of "remediation" is another negative effect. Remediation is the repetition of training in order to produce a specific target behavior. It is not constructive to the human spirit. It may be constructive to human intelligence, but at what cost? (The cost of Hitler, if you ask me.) Everyone with a job that requires specific knowledge has manuals at the ready, and for the first few days, weeks, or months, they remediate themselves every time they use those manuals - until they are memorized, automatically, thanks to the human brain.

Lynne, I do not mean to avoid your questions: If public education were not wasting most of the public's educational resources trying to train humans to conform to the soulless prototype "human resource" represented in education law, there would be several more solutions to the problems you mention, many of which would be better than those that homeschoolers use today - simply because the market for them would be free and vastly larger. Meanwhile, having decided to "homeschool", and without the crutch of public school there to atrophy their resourcefulness, the homeschooled children of poorly educated parents will grow that much more resourceful at finding ways to learn what they want to learn. If they need or want teachers, they will find them. It's only natural.

[Zee.]

Dangerous to who or what? The state?

"Preventing the influence of certain ideas and thoughts" is bad?? Impressionable young people are ripe for exploitation by anyone with an agenda of oppression. It seems unlikely to me that their parents are more likely to have an agenda of oppression than the state (which runs the public education system).

Dangerous. Period.
Any form of brainwashing/attempts to control the mind is dangerous to both the person and other people.
Take a look at the nazis.

[The Atheist]

And the public system does? If I go there, will I be taught both evolution AND creationism?

This is not really a benefit, and while I admire your defence of homeschooling, the mere fact that you're unable to tell the difference between science and fantasy isn't a great advertisement.

You won't be taught creationism at school, just as you won't be taught the physiology of cryptids, the life cycle of the Loch Ness monster, or the genetics of the colours of the Cottingley Fairies' eyes.

It seems to me that your parents are a classic example of wanting to teach to a specific agenda - christian creationism - and avoiding schools for that reason rather than any quality concerns. I do find that a bad thing.

[Zee.]

This is not really a benefit, and while I admire your defence of homeschooling, the mere fact that you're unable to tell the difference between science and fantasy isn't a great advertisement.

You won't be taught creationism at school, just as you won't be taught the physiology of cryptids, the life cycle of the Loch Ness monster, or the genetics of the colours of the Cottingley Fairies' eyes.

It seems to me that your parents are a classic example of wanting to teach to a specific agenda - christian creationism - and avoiding schools for that reason rather than any quality concerns. I do find that a bad thing.

I tend to agree with you a lot

[andave_ya]

This discussion has been very interesting, but one thing that hasn't been addressed is, How do children get a quality education from parents that may be educationally challenged themselves?. When and how to they get remediation and how are delays dealt with? Do homeschoolers have access to child study teams that evaluate potential problems and give clear cut solutions?

Lynne, many homeschooling families join support groups comprised of people from all walks of life. We did - those are some of the different groups I talked about - and we went on field trips galore and had used book sales and discussion groups and classes hosted by people within the group who specialized in something or another and parents nights and dozens of other functions all designed to make homeschooling better and more efficient.

This is not really a benefit, and while I admire your defence of homeschooling, the mere fact that you're unable to tell the difference between science and fantasy isn't a great advertisement.

Atheist, I've run up against you enough times regarding evolution for you to know my viewpoint on the whole thing. From the basic research I've done (which, I've done apart from my parents' influence), evolution asks too many questions and creationism answers too many questions for me to just swallow up evolution like a dose of medicine. I am tired of being told I should. I refuse.

It seems to me that your parents are a classic example of wanting to teach to a specific agenda - christian creationism - and avoiding schools for that reason rather than any quality concerns. I do find that a bad thing.

It may comfort you to know that my mom made me take an astronomy class from a community college. I was taught the evolutionary point of view - but I still saw God's handiwork. I think the Big Bang theory just takes the Creationist theory and packages it up sans God!

And also, I took an evolutionary psychology course and all I got were more questions!! Atheist, it is not for lack of trying that I don't see how evolution works! It has nothing to do with my parents!

What is a quality concern? The quality of the food? How clean the school is? Do the kids get too much homework? Do the teachers hit them?

[Lynne50]

Dave You haven't answered my questions because I do not think you have any real, practical answers. You spoke of remediation as simply as reading a manual. What if you can't read, can't follow directions,can't interpret what you read? You will not be able to figure out what is causing your reading difficulties until you 'discover' a teacher or remediate.
I'm curious, though, did you go to public school? Was it that bad an experience?

[Dave Scotese]

Dave You haven't answered my questions because I do not think you have any real, practical answers. You spoke of remediation as simply as reading a manual. What if you can't read, can't follow directions,can't interpret what you read? You will not be able to figure out what is causing your reading difficulties until you 'discover' a teacher or remediate.
I'm curious, though, did you go to public school? Was it that bad an experience?

After second grade I attended private schools.

I think the remediation problem you pose is this: How do we make children learn the things we decide they ought to learn when they're as old as we've decided they need to be to learn them?

Since I think it is a mistake to make children learn (rather than facilitating their learning), the problem I see is that we're control freaks. Rather than controlling the pace of the child, we should marvel at the pace she sets for herself and provide opportunities where appropriate. But your question still applies in a different incarnation: When and how do children get appropriate opportunities if their parents can't supply them? On that front, I think Andave_ya has given us some info.

I think another unfortunate effect of schooling is the idea that we need to establish a system for everything. There is no system in place to prevent young children from eating poisonous plants or wandering into the street, or to teach them to walk or talk. We pretty much rely on parents to handle those responsibilities. When they need specific help, such as if their child is allergic to wheat or peanuts, they seek it out. The same solution ought to apply to education.

When a good system is invented to solve a problem, as long as the government doesn't get in the way, private enterprise will put that solution to work. As a proponent of freedom and individualism, I'm very interested in seeing that happen, and it bothers me a lot when the government does get in the way. In the area education, according to Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the US Department of Education, the government isn't just in the way, but actually pushing us backwards.

Any form of brainwashing/attempts to control the mind is dangerous to both the person and other people.
Take a look at the nazis.

Right. I agree. But I don't think the Nazis were brainwashed by their parents:
"Following the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Hitler established a Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels. The Ministry's aim was to ensure that the Nazi message was successfully communicated through art, music, theater, films, books, radio, educational materials, and the press."
No mention of parents. I added the emphasis. This is from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005202 And I believe that homeschooling was generally illegal (and still is) in Germany.

One of the beautiful things about letting parents raise their own children is that the people that do get brainwashed tend to cancel each other out. When you take that freedom away so that most brainwashing is applied through a monolithic institution like public education, no opposing force is large enough to cancel out its errors.

[The Atheist]

Atheist, I've run up against you enough times regarding evolution for you to know my viewpoint on the whole thing. From the basic research I've done (which, I've done apart from my parents' influence), evolution asks too many questions and creationism answers too many questions for me to just swallow up evolution like a dose of medicine. I am tired of being told I should. I refuse.

This is where I feel you lose credibility for your claims.

I don't mind that people don't understand evolution, there's a lot to understand, but the problem is all about creationism. Inside creationism, there isn't a single claim which can be logically tajen to be correct. Behe admitted in open court that creationism "is not science" - it is pure myth and is not supported by any science whatsoever.

You have turned the problem into a "one must be right" of these two, and that in itself is flawed thinking.

Can I suggest you stop thinking about evolution entirely and concentrate on your view of creationism. Just apply those same critical thinking skills to creationism, because I know it won't stack up.

Don't worry about what to believe if creationism is wrong, deal with one thing at a time; there are other potential answers than what is broadly described as "Darwinism".

It may comfort you to know that my mom made me take an astronomy class from a community college. I was taught the evolutionary point of view - but I still saw God's handiwork. I think the Big Bang theory just takes the Creationist theory and packages it up sans God!

This highlights what appears to be another problem. Where does evolution come into astronomy?

And also, I took an evolutionary psychology course and all I got were more questions!! Atheist, it is not for lack of trying that I don't see how evolution works! It has nothing to do with my parents!

Evolutionary psychology? I had to use Google to even find out what that is!

If you want to ask questions about evolution, ask a biologist or geologist, not a psychologist. How on earth did you end up studying that kind of stuff? It's an attempt to put the cart before the horse, which I don't like, but again, it's irrelevant, because you don't even need to think about evolution.

What is a quality concern? The quality of the food? How clean the school is? Do the kids get too much homework? Do the teachers hit them?

Quality of education.

I find it interesting that your thoughts tended towards logistics rather than learning.

While I like my kids' schools to be clean and violence-free, my major concern is that they learn the basics of some subjects academically while developing social skills.

[TheFifthElement]

Well, we're seriously considering homeschooling for my son before the efforts of primary education (age 5-11 in UK) completely turn him off learning. All will depend on whether he gets a new teacher next term or if he stays with his current one. I don't think he can endure another year of this teacher who is incapable of listening or speaking to the children like they are people; criticises first and determines the facts later; teaches things which are incorrect and which my son, through observation and some critical thinking, works out correctly for himself. It's an awkward situation but I find I have to question the value of the education he's receiving compared to what he could receive at home. At present, he could probably learn what he learns in school in half the time, which means there's 3.5 hours each day he could spend on extended learning beyond that which he would gain at school. Neither, we find, does the school encourage independent, critical thinking but would rather have a class of 20-30 compliant little robots that don't challenge the teachers to do any independent thinking themselves.

The only thing which has put us off homeschooling so far has been the concern over socialisation, but he is now reaching an age where he has more independence and he is beginning to make friends locally, outside of school hours. So I think he can socialise independent of the school system. Educationally, as things stand, he would be better off being schooled at home. Certainly until he reaches the end of primary education anyway. After that he would be exposed to a variety of subjects and a variety of teachers and I think, at that point, the school system could do better for him that my husband and I could.