Homeschooling is a Double-Edged Sword
Cato@Liberty on homeschooling:
A home schooler, 13-year-old Evan O’Dorney, is once again the winner of the Scripps National … Spelling Bee. In fact, home schoolers took fully one third of the top 15 spots in the Bee, utterly out of proportion with their share (about 1/40th) of the U.S. student population.
…
Imagine what heights America could achieve if every family had the freedom to choose from among homeschooling, public schooling, independent schooling, or some combination of the three[.]
Yes, certainly, but let’s not ignore the other major reason that parents choose to homeschool:
According to the US government’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 72 per cent of home-schooling parents interviewed said that they were motivated by the desire to provide religious and moral instruction.
Translation: Radical Evangelical parents less interested in providing “better” education for their children and more interested in providing “pure” education — complete with creationism, the War of Northern Aggression, “condoms don’t work” and “homosexuality can be cured.” Anyone think these kids can spell a multisyllabic word more complicated than “Leviticus”?
Keep the “joy of homeschooling” in mind when you see reports like this:
“Poll after poll shows that approximately one out of two people in America reject evolution. They think the scientists, teachers and textbooks are wrong,” [an education professor] says. An even higher proportion of home-schooling parents may reject evolution, [he] thinks. “And they’re going to be teaching science?”
Radical Evangelicals have now created (“creationisted”?) an entire generation of homeschooled Christian ignoramuses. Which probably explains the rise of substandard radical Evangelical institutions such as Patrick Henry College and Liberty University, which are charged not with educating but with reinforcing dogma (which is increasingly homeschooled dogma).
Libertarians, who are absolutely correct to praise legitimate homeschooling, should not ignore the problematic underbelly of the movement. There is bitter to go with the sweet.
Even in a libertarian paradise, there would be no right to neglect your children. Under what circumstances religious homeschooling constitutes child neglect is an open question.
Similar Posts:
- California Court: No Right to Homeschool
- More on Evangelical Madrassahs
- Homeschooling and Pierce as Sword Rather than Shield
- What Kind of People Support Mike Huckabee?
- Why Does Mitt Romney Hate Utah?
Filed under: Children v. Parents; Homeschooling
I was partially homeschooled for non-religious reasons. When we did it the first time when I was in second grade, we didn't use a curriculum. My 'schooling' consisted of me going to a library, museum, etc and just wandering around until something caught my eye. Since I'm an info omnivore, this worked out great!
I don't think it would work out very well for most people. Without mandatory public schooling, I suspect most people wouldn't learn anything at all. They'd be happy to do absolutely nothing with themselves, or just learn what they need to practice a trade with no eye to breadth.
—
The statistics they quote for public acceptance of evolution are somewhat incorrect. It's worse. No one ever believes me when I tell them 40% of Americans are straight-up young earth creationists.
Ah, but Kip — parents and children alike have the same rights, including the right to be unbelievably ignorant and stupid.
If someone wants to believe that the earth is only 5,000 years old, that dinosaurs were farm animals for homo erectus, and that flying/lending money/technology is the spawn of Satan, so much the better for me. It's that much less competition that me and my family have to deal with in the world of high-tech reality.
Also, are we really at the point where we consider the ability to spell alone as a sign of intelligence we should all aspire to? I spell relatively well, but so what… that's what spell check is for. Can the kid think? That's what I would care about if I had kids. The simple things, while certainly worth learning, can be looked up in a book or on the internet a lot easier than the solution to a complex problem.
For the true libertarian, the debate isn't over whether or not parents have the right to teach their children according to their desires, faith, knowledge, etc., rather whether or not the state has the right to force their perception of facts onto the child. Unfortunately, what I have noticed about public schooling is that it condemns independent thought. For the most part, the teacher says it's so and so it is. Discussion to the contrary will usually get you ridiculed before your peers and possibly reprimanded if you hold your ground. I was labeled is slow by public schools. It wasn't until later in life that I learned that meant I just didn't think like a sheep. Government run schools teach a bias toward central planning and socialism. It's the nature of the beast. They cannot teach otherwise without biting the hand which feeds them. If my son's education is going to be biased, it will be my bias. I have that right. The state does not. I've watched my son on the playground with other kids. (He's six.) By comparison, he's Albert Einstein. I remember kids with which I went to High School who weren't reading at his current level. He's studying music theory and can distinguish port and starboard as well as name and differentiate all of the standing and running rigging on a sailboat. Much more than that, he's not rude like the kids other parents desert to the state to fend for themselves among the bullies both young and old and even incorporates morals and ethics into his playing that seems to confound the government schooled trogs. As an anecdote, we were at a playground recently when two boys decided, (in play, of course, not seriously), that they should kill two of the other boys. My son looked at them and said, "That wouldn't be nice. They didn't hurt us." As far as evolution Vs. creation. They're both still considered "theories." Scientifically, that means there's still not enough conclusive evidence to support either one as fact, but that doesn't really matter. Statists will always advocate government sponsored theft to fund the advancement of their agendas against the wills of others. Libertarians, by definition, have no desire to force their opinions on others or to force others to pay for the advancement of their biases, but I guess it's too much to ask of a socialist to just be left alone.
I recently had a discussion with a rather self rightous liberal Catholic who presumed that since I am right of center on many issues that I am a creationist. I asked him if he believed in God. He said he did. I then told him that made him a creationist. He was too flabbergasted to form a cogent reply. But, if one believes in God then they must think that God made all this, right?
My point is that I grow increasingly cynical about surveys that claim that 40% of Americans are this or that with regard to evolution, because the lines get blurred too easily, especially with the way the questions are worded.
I am Catholic. I believe in God.
I am the son of a nurse and come from a family of teachers and science majors. I believe that evolution should be taught in science class. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I simply think that empirical study is the realm of science and education, which indicates that we should teach evolution. I also believe that religious precepts are the realm of faith and spirituality and that they should be taught in religious education. The two should only be mixed over cocktails.
The way they term these questions in these surveys is rigged to serve whatever agenda they want to perpetuate. There are a lot of atheists who hate religion and want to scare the hell of of people that if you believe in God then we'll create a generation too dumb to ever cure cancer. Overzealous religious do the same garbage. I'm tired of the battle over this shit. Science and religion are two different realms and do not mix. We should stop arguing. Neither one answers the other, nor should it.
As far as evolution Vs. creation. They're both still considered "theories." Scientifically, that means there's still not enough conclusive evidence to support either one as fact
No, scientifically it means you are an evolution denier who has no idea what he's talking about. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. When something is called a theory in science, it does not mean what people like you mean when they say theory. For example, germs? Still a theory!
—
J Philip,
The survey in question gave three options. There were three choices. You had to pick the one closest to what you believed. Humans evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years and god was involved, humans evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years and god was not involved, or humans showed up pretty much the way they are now less than 10,000 years ago. 38% of those surveyed chose option 3. There's really no way to look at that other than 38% of Americans are die-hard young earth creationists.
This is some strange logic. Only a small percentage of people are home schooled. If half the people in the country don't accept evolution and 98% of them attended public schools, it seems to me that public schools, not home schooling,are the problem.
Further, only a percentage of the small percentage of homeschoolers do not accept evolution and are evangelical homeschoolers.
Frankly, many home schoolers I know are more progressive than the schools in their community, and that is one reason they have their kids at home. That way they avoid the indoctrination of the schools/
CJ-
There were three choices, and they were formulated by an organization of scientists dedicated to protecting the teaching of evolution, and those three choices only lead to 2 conclusions. That is painting with a pretty wide brush in order to pigeonhole people into 2 very narrow categories. You've got millions of years vs 10,000 or less.
The people who chose (3) chose it because it was the closest option to what they think may have occured, but the survey doesn't say that the 38% oppose the teaching of evolution in science class. That they chose option (3) doesn't make them die-hard young earth creationists any more than my choice of the Motorola Q because the sales girl who showed me how to use it at circuit city had great knockers(and she did). Actually, that was a fairly good case for Natural Selection in and of itself.
I see where this is going, and it is disturbing. The lines are being drawn to pigeonhole mere belief on God as being against the advancement of science and the advancement of mankind. That would be too bad.
J Philip,
What criteria would you use to determine if someone is a young earth creatist?
Seems to me if they answered that they believe the earth is young and was "created" then by definition, they MUST be young earth creationists.
If your point is that not all young earth creationists want to see evolution yanked from science curriculum, that may be something to consider, however such policy positions have no bearing on whether one is or isn't a young earth creationist.
Further, if experience is to be believed, for every one young earth creationist who believes that the science classroom should be used for teaching science, there are a million just like Bryan above who don't even know enough about the topic o form an educated decision on what should or should not be taught. And to bring it back to the point of Kip's post, these are the ones who want to homeschool their children. It's the blind leading the blind.
Are you suggesting that all religious homeschoolers teach "Young Earth" literal reading of Genesis 1 beliefs? I could introduce you to many Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants, Jews, Mormons etc. who would fall under the 72% who homeschool for religious/moral reasons but are not Young Earth literal Biblical creationists.
Dolphin, they weren't answering a question if the Earth was young, just that Humanity was young. Also, they has two choices, one being 10,000 years or less, and the other millions of years. If you weren't paying lots of attention and did not follow this thing as passionately as some, and you watched that PBS special a few years ago where the geneticist said that we all descended from the sub-saharans who migrated 50,000 years ago, you might have chosen (3).
But let's take the case that that happened less than 1% of the time. Let's suppose that 37% really believe that humans arrived late out of a conscious act of God. SO WHAT. Everyone believes some line of bullshit about something. Tens of millions of French think they are atop the heap of civilized culture. In the original Star Trek, Chekov believed that almost everything good was "inwented by the famous russian scientist Igor Yadayadakov". 25% of people think that 911 was an inside job. Does that mean if one of these people holds a door open for you, or cooks you a hamburger or fixes your car as well as anyone else that the act was invalid? The nephrologist at Scott White who did brilliant, cutting edge work for my late brother in Texas was a devout man. He thought God had a hand in creating this mess we live in. It didn't make him a bad doctor, and harboring the idea that God made things look old doesn't make people dullards.
This is the flipside of why so many people hate religion. Believe as I believe or you are dangerous to what I think America should be. What good does that do?
Interesting. So a particular person's view on creation/evolution brings them under state control? Not actual harm to another, but an idea? Yes, 72% of homeschooling families do so at least in part for religious reasons. Given the incredibly high statistics suggesting that homeschooled children do better than public schooled children on tests such as the ACT, I'd say their spelling of Leviticus has helped them in something since I doubt only the secular homeschoolers are responsible for these numbers.
You make a lot of sweeping assumptions about what it means to be religiously motivated. Don't adhere so strongly to your stereotypes.
Ok J Philip,
While I think you're really reaching here, I'll give you that the way the question is worded, non-young earth creationists (though certainly they would still be distinctly creationists) could possibly have honestly answered option 3. It's a stretch, but at least you're reading what was written unlike Dana who has the wacky idea that Kip is advocating state control of anybody for anything in this post.
Dolphin,
My first paragraph was a reach, but not the second. Regardless, I'm sure you see my point.
Just found this blog, love it! I'm going to spend lots more time reading posts here, especially now that the wonderfully exciting campaign season is upon us!
I found this post interesting. I recently returned to school to work on a second degree in biology and was shocked (shocked!) to find that several of my fellow biology students were young life creationists. Hmm. They were all home schooled. And they all got D's in genetics (which involves a good bit of evolutionary theory). What, antibiotic resistant bacteria has evolved from non-resistant strains? How can that happen if God created everything 6,000 years ago? I think ideas like evolution and natural selection just make their brains hurt.
Also, Bryan says "As far as evolution Vs. creation. They're both still considered "theories." Scientifically, that means there's still not enough conclusive evidence to."
That's absolutely bogus. A "theory" is defined as a set of testable and repeatable principles that explain natural phenomenon. Theories have been repeatedly tested so much that they are widely accepted as true. Evolution is a theory because scientists have done extensive tests to study and observe evolution/natural selection, then other scientists have been able to successfully repeat the same tests and observations. Yes, evolution is still a theory… but so is gravity, plate tectonics, general relativity, and atomic theory. Just because gravity is a theory, I guess it's not real? Creationism on the other hand is neither testable nor repeatable, therefore not a theory. Can you set up some sort of test to prove that God created the world 6,000 years ago and can other scientists then repeat the same experiment and reach the same conclusions? No, so it's a theological argument, not a scientific theory.
Jennifer,
I don't think anecdotes work very well. Natural selection is not an issue to the creationist. Nor is the evolution of antibiotic strains. Nor the fact that labs are related to wolves. The only real difference is what happened "in the beginning." It is an issue of origins. And those very beginnings are not observable, measurable or testable.
Dana, not sure what point you're trying to make, but evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life, how or when the earth was created. It has everything to do with how organisms have changed over time as a result of evolution by natural selection. Biologists do not discuss or have theories on when or how life first appeared. The beef between biologists and creationists is the inconsistency of life evolving over tens of millions of years instead of magically appearing all at once 6,000 years ago.
[...] taken some flak on this blog for suggesting that parental rights have limits, particularly in the context of inadequate, religiously-based [...]