…and this is a 
Demand higher standards for homeschooling!
Category: Academics • Creationism
Posted on: November 10, 2006 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Spank me and make me cry. Or just read this freakin' terrifying article about homeschooling kids. First, start with the arrogance of Patrick Henry College:
"Christians increasingly have an advantage in the educational enterprise," he says. "This is evident in the success of Christian home-schooled children, as compared to their government-schooled friends who have spent their time constructing their own truths." The students, all evangelical Christians, applaud loudly. Most of them were schooled at home before arriving at Patrick Henry—a college created especially for them.
Then take a look at what their truths are like.
These students are part of a large, well-organised movement that is empowering parents to teach their children creationist biology and other unorthodox versions of science at home, all centred on the idea that God created Earth in six days about 6000 years ago.
Their "advantage" and "success" is completely artificial, the product of years of gutting standards so they can cultivate these little, self-satisfied, ignorant homeschooled kids in a hothouse of ignorance…and then they need to set up special colleges to maintain the illusion that they know anything.
Home-school parents are able to teach their children this way thanks mainly to a group called the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a non-profit organisation based in Purcellville—like Patrick Henry College (PHC), which the HSLDA founded. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the practice was largely illegal across the US. "The mechanism that was causing home-schooling to be illegal was teacher certification," says Ian Slatter, director of media relations for the HSLDA. In 1983 two evangelical attorneys, Michael Farris and Mike Smith, founded the organisation to defend the rights of home-school parents. They fought to remove requirements that parents be certified to teach their own children. Through an impressive run of legal battles and political lobbying, they managed to make home-schooling legal in all 50 states within 10 years. "We rolled back the state laws," says Slatter.
At my department, we just got the requirements for state licensure of education students, and we've been given the task of making sure our course content delivers what future teachers will need. It's not trivial getting licensed to teach; but any idiot can declare themselves to be a teacher for purposes of homeschooling, and apparently many idiots do.
Please. Can we bring those laws back?
…there is virtually no government regulation of home-schooling. "Some states say you need a high school diploma," Slatter says. "But we really don't have many problems getting people, shall we say, qualified." In Virginia, for instance, parents need a degree to teach at home, but there is a religious exemption, so those running a home-school for religious reasons don't need a degree. In contrast, a public high school teacher must have a bachelor's degree, and in some states a master's degree, plus a state-issued teaching certificate. Thirty-one states require teachers to take additional exams to show proficiency in their subject matter.
A religious exemption? A religious exemption? I call that the freedom to abuse children. This is shameful. The article talks about how, if they only get enough people to adopt homeschooling and pull their kids out of the public school system, public education in the US will collapse—and they speak of this as a good thing.
I'm serious. We need to stop this. I think any politician who professed to be concerned about educating the children of this country, by supporting the NCLB, for instance, ought to be required to support increasing the qualifications and standards for homeschooling…and if a district doesn't have the resources to monitor the competence of homeschool teachers, they ought to simply refuse to allow the kids to be pulled out of school.
Otherwise, we're going to increase the percentage of idiots like creationist Jay Wile in our next generation.
"Home-schoolers are going to be leaders in their field," says Wile. "They are going to change science and how science is done."
That's a horribly true statement.
(via Jim Anderson)
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I'm not worried about a subculture of scientists schooled in creationism, any more than I'd be worried about a subculture schooled in alchemy.
Creationism doesn't work. It can't possibly produce useful results, so the graduates of these schools won't be successful as scientists.
Posted by: O-dot-O | November 10, 2006 6:24 AM
"parents need a degree to teach at home, but there is a religious exemption"
Yet Xtians still believe they are persecuted and it's everyone else who gets special privilege. Doesn;t this fall under the seperation clause?
Posted by: James Orpin | November 10, 2006 6:29 AM
Doesn;t this fall under the seperation clause?
No, because the exemption applies to any religion. A SubGenius or a worshipper of Tezcatlipoca could claim the same exemption.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | November 10, 2006 6:53 AM
I have a hard time believing that anyone homeschooled is going much of anywhere without significant intervention of some sort, later in life.
While recognizing that the plural of anecdote is not data, every homeschooled individual I've known has had some sort of significant cognitive or social defect.
I've had this conversation, and received this reponse, with people from all walks of life, from MN to CA to TX:
Them: Seriously, what the hell is wrong with that guy/gal?
Me: Dunno, but.... s/he was homeschooled.
Them: *blink* Ooooh. Gotcha.
Posted by: Fox1 | November 10, 2006 7:14 AM
"Their "advantage" and "success" is completely artificial, the product of years of gutting standards so they can cultivate these little, self-satisfied, ignorant homeschooled kids in a hothouse of ignorance...and then they need to set up special colleges to maintain the illusion that they know anything."
Sounds more like brainwashed and abused kids to me...
I do want to raise a question. I myself was raised in a religious family but by the time I was about 13 or so I was well on the way to being an atheist and having serious doubts about the veracity of the bible. Why did that happen? did I have some kind on natural immunity to being brainwashed? Was I born with superior critical thinking skills? Are there any scientific studies on why some people do not become intellectual vegetables despite being brought up in this kind of environment? Just curious, as I guess I always have been...
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | November 10, 2006 7:18 AM
It is entirely possible that it is simply luck. There may have been things that predisposed you to questioning the faith you grew up in, or there may not. You may merely be an example of statistics.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 7:36 AM
This is why I think your pessimism regarding successes against creationism is valid. The fundies, when not attacking science, have been busy raising a very large generation of super-fundies. These kids are way more steeped in this crap than their parents ever were. They're going to be a huge problem in the future. Even if you reverse all the laws that made this possible, you're still stuck with thousands of angry, brainwashed "God warriors."
Posted by: poke | November 10, 2006 7:39 AM
Coming from the liberal NorthEastern side of the country I don't have a whole lot of experience with homeschooled fundies. Most of the parents I know that homeschool do so because the local school district sucks horrible and they either cannot afford to pay for a private school on top of taxes OR the only decent private schools in the area are Catholic or Lutheran run schools.
But then we have certain standard (which unfortunately vary greatly by school district) and many internet courses available to supplement the homeschooling. Our local colleges (esp the community colleges) take students as young as 15 for many classes so HOPEFULLY we aren't losing too many through the cracks.
Posted by: flame821 | November 10, 2006 7:48 AM
I know people who homeschooled their autistic kids because the local school would not give them an apropriate education as required by law. My current school is great-we choose to move to a place with high taxes to get great special ed. If we had stayed in our old district, I would probably ended up home schooling (I have a MS in med chem).
Posted by: Ruth | November 10, 2006 8:03 AM
To forbid homeschooling would be a basic infringement on ones personal freedoms. To ensure kids are properly schooled is an essential government function. To expect homeschooling parents to be professional teachers is over the top, but they have to be up to the job. The answer would seem to be that the state sets the courses, provides the materials and runs the tests. (No religiculous exemptions). If the kids are learning and passing the tests, let the homeschooling continue. If they fail, sorry but you cannot abuse your kids - they have to go to school.
The courses would have to be state standard, not nutty religious twilight-zone specials.
Posted by: oldhippie | November 10, 2006 8:03 AM
The scariest thing about this school is that these kids actually are going to be shaping policy in this country in some capacity in the not-too-distant future. According to a recent article in the Independent (you can find it reposted at: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0421-09.htm) 7 of 100 interns working at the White House in 2004 were from PHC which at the time had only 240 students, and was not and is still not accredited (though it is a candidate). And it's not just PHC, did anyone hear of the recent sucesses of the Liberty debate team? It seems like these kooks have moved past simple indoctrination and are now trying to give them the rhetorical skills to launch propoganda campaigns that would put Karl Rove to shame. Im already shuddering in terror.
Posted by: Eukaryote | November 10, 2006 8:04 AM
I've known a few people who were homeschooled, and seem to be well-rounded human beings, and I don't see the problem with homeschooling qua homeschooling, I do agree that anyone educating children must, absolutely, know what they're talking about and should be held to the same standards as state educators.
Certainly, the curriculum should be at least as rigorous as those mandated for public schools. Crap like this shouldn't be allowed.
So, overall, I'm in favour of homeschooling, so long as it's done properly, and not just because parents don't want their kids to actually learn this 2+2=4 nonsense.
Hrm, maybe I should have ended that last sentence after "learn"...
Posted by: wintermute | November 10, 2006 8:05 AM
Actually I was wrong in my last post, that article is 2 years old, and the link doesnt work as is, you have to remove the parenthesis, sorry folks.
Posted by: Eukaryote | November 10, 2006 8:07 AM
There are exceptions. After moving to the country from an urban area, I asked my parents to remove me from school because I was being bullied mercilessly and the subjects I was studying were far too simple.
My parents handled my education for the rest of my primary education and when it came time for me get into high school, they enrolled me in a correspondence course from the US with the goal of getting me into a university down south.
Most of the homeschooled kids I met were either extremely religious or like me, somewhat geeky and not well-adapted to the school system.
My point is this:
There need to be standards in home-schooling and parents are often negligent when it comes to enforcing them. Does this mean we should ban home-schooling? Why should I be forced to go to a substandard public school and study biased and incorrect texts while peer pressure and academic indoctrination take their toll?
An education is what you make it and having spent most of childhood buried in all kinds of books, I can say I had a better education than a lot of my peers, a gap which has only recently narrowed somewhat in my sixth year of undergraduate studies. I'm grateful for my education.
That being said, I would agree that quite a few parents are ill-equipped to teach their kids at home and religious conservatism combined with a general separation from one's surrounding community can contribute to some really fucked-up minds down the road.
Perhaps regulation is the key but what should the requirements be, how should they be followed up on and what should the process of applying for this exemption entail?
Posted by: japhet | November 10, 2006 8:15 AM
If you meant fundie homeschooled, than sure. But people like Erik Demaine was homeschooled by his dad (for non-religious reasons) and managed to get his doctorate at 20 and is a tenured professor in computer science at MIT as of age 24. Oh, and he also managed to pick up one of those MacArthur "genius" fellowships at age 23. I think that counts as going "somewhere". I knew both father & son when I was a postdoc at Waterloo (where Erik was doing his doctorate), and have to admit they are far from typical people so the process probably isn't that generalizable to the public as a whole though.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | November 10, 2006 8:15 AM
I always wanted to be a concert pianist. Didn't like to practice, though, so nothing ever came of it. Could I get a religious excemption, pretty please?
Posted by: Petter Hesselberg | November 10, 2006 8:21 AM
Jay Wile, nuclear physicist, is a prime example of the failure of homeschooling oneself in a discipline that one has no knowledge of. His writings on biology are ridiculously uninformed and stupid.
Posted by: slpage | November 10, 2006 8:28 AM
Well, PZ, how about moving to Europe? It would be nice to have people like you on our side when the inevitable war with the Christian Nationalist USA starts.
Posted by: valhar2000 | November 10, 2006 8:34 AM
Thomas Edison was homeschooled, because the teacher said he was "addled". I know a couple bloggers who homeschool their 'handicapped' kids because the local school systems just aren't up to the task.
But you read religious publications and they crow about how kids who were homeschooled can spell and do basic arithmetic. Fine, but they never learned to "construct their own truths" which could be otherwise phrased as critical thinking. Inability to think critically guarantees a citizen who can be led around by the nose.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | November 10, 2006 8:38 AM
The basic test of whether a power can appropriately be granted to government is to imagine that power falling into the hands of your worst enemies. If the goverment is controlled by people whose ideology you absolutely oppose, would you still grant them that power?
Some of you seem to be in favor of society dictating what all children will be taught, but I think it's only because you think children will be taught what you want them to be taught. And who isn't in favor of people doing what they want? But you don't seem to be in favor of Dominionists and the like teaching kids nonsense. Presumably, if they took control of the public school system, you'd be demanding the right to have your own children homeschooled if necessary.
Ergo, I conclude that your desire to end the freedom of parents to teach their kids whatever they want is not ethically valid.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 8:38 AM
Upon a brief and light discussion about homeschooling, my mother, a teacher, told me that homeschooled children are required to to take a government-issued test to ensure that they are meeting government educational standards, lest the parents face grave legal consequences.
Posted by: Stanton | November 10, 2006 8:41 AM
The fundies are not representative of homeschoolers. There are about 2 million kids in the US educated outside of the school system. About 300 attend college at Patrick Henry. The fear of them taking over government was overblown to begin with, and is especially overblown in light of Tuesdays election results.
No self respecting science organization is going to hire a biologist that believes Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs. And there are only so many jobs available at that creation museum in Kansas. This would seem to be a self correcting issue.
The press likes to focus on the 20% on either fringe of any group. The 60% of homeschoolers in the center are doing just fine. But nobody every wants to interview us.
Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 8:41 AM
I hope your don't consider all homeschooled kids are taught just that. Well hell I've only been to church about 12 times in my entire life. I never had bible study as one of my subjects in school.
I'm 14yrs old, I've graduated high school and I'm starting college in the Fall. My mother homeschooled me. I can pass my ACT's and SAT's. On my free time I'm studying Genetic Engineering, Evolution, and Charles Darwins On The Origin of Species.
I read everything, I love to learn. When I start college this Fall, I'm going to study to be an R.N and specialize in Anesthesiology. I'm going to the community college of Southern Nevada.
I already know all the bones and processes of the skull and spine. I actually know all the bones of the skeleton and where their located. I chose to be what I want to be. Nobody ever told me I had to read, or that I had to go into the medical, I chose to do it.
I'm currently reading every book I can find on Evolution, Genetics and Astral Projection. Next week when I go to the library I'm checking out some books on Quantum Physics, and Space Anamolies.
So no I've not been raised on Christian standards. So if you choose to categorize every homeschooled child like that then you need to take a step back and think about it.
Just remember I'm 14yrs old and I'm smarter than a hell of a lot of adults that I've met.
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 9:04 AM
I hope your don't consider all homeschooled kids are taught just that. Well I've only been to church about 12 times in my entire life. I never had bible study as one of my subjects in school.
I'm 14yrs old, I've graduated high school and I'm starting college in the Fall. My mother homeschooled me. I can pass my ACT's and SAT's. On my free time I'm studying Genetic Engineering, Evolution, and Charles Darwins On The Origin of Species.
I read everything, I love to learn. When I start college this Fall, I'm going to study to be an R.N and specialize in Anesthesiology. I'm going to the community college of Southern Nevada.
I already know all the bones and processes of the skull and spine. I actually know all the bones of the skeleton and where their located. I chose to be what I want to be. Nobody ever told me I had to read, or that I had to go into the medical, I chose to do it.
I'm currently reading every book I can find on Evolution, Genetics and Astral Projection. Next week when I go to the library I'm checking out some books on Quantum Physics, and Space Anamolies.
So no I've not been raised on Christian standards. So if you choose to categorize every homeschooled child like that then you need to take a step back and think about it.
Just remember I'm 14yrs old and I'm smarter than a lot of adults that I've met.
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 9:05 AM
Can we consider home schooling to be Darwinian? Those for whom it is a useful adaptation will thrive. Those for whom it is a hindrance will not thrive. Future generations will then have the benefit of this winnowing.
Posted by: Matt M | November 10, 2006 9:18 AM
Just remember I'm 14yrs old and I'm smarter than a lot of adults that I've met.
Except for the double posting, of course.
(Kidding! Everyone double posts now and then! By Murphy's law, this will now double post as well.)
I don't think PZ was advocating for the abolishment of homeschooling altogether, just that it needs to meet the same standards that all other educational facilities must meeet. It's very similar to another problem that's finally being noticed regarding daycares. Religious daycares do not need to meet state standards in most states, and there has been some investigation into that lately because it turns out that those have higher incidents of accidents and claims of abuse (surprise). Being religious should not exempt anyone from minimal requirements of safety or education.
I know a few homeschool families (all fundie), and they do have to pass state tests every year to advance to the next grade, and their curriculum has to be submitted and approved by the state ed department. They do of course have the room to focus heavily on whatever they want, and if they so choose can teach for the test while telling their kids not to believe certain parts, but it is some amount of oversight.
Posted by: Carlie | November 10, 2006 9:22 AM
Not being from the United States, I find it quite difficult to accept the entire home-schooling idea, because in my country, the public-private school divide does not have the same context, and all schools, no matter what, have to teach a common State-validated curriculum. And students do not have to be bound to a particular school because of their parents' residence. There are also many residential schools as well, of very high quality. All schools are judged by their students' performances in State-level or National-level school leaving examinations.
I would think that the same idea could successfully apply to the homeschooling procedure also. It is, after all, supposed to be equivalent of a 'school'. This idea was raised earlier in this thread by Oldhippie and Stanton: the State should set up a curriculum and take periodic tests for all students, including the home-schooled ones. If the home-schooled children do not fare well, or even as well as their properly-schooled peers, there should be a review of those home-schooling systems and the child in question must be sent to a proper school.
Someone did mention the fact that the children are the foundations on which this country's future depends. What kind of foundation would that be if they are not properly educated and equipped to handle modern life and challenges?
Posted by: suirauqa | November 10, 2006 9:25 AM
I should think most smart homeschooled kids would be all in favor of higher standards. What we're seeing is a mob of morons who see "homeschooling" as a loophole (they've intentionally made it a loophole) to let them avoid educating their kids altogether -- and that's a rot that taints everyone involved in it.
I've known some homeschooled kids at UMM, and they're smart...but they have to be to get in here. There is selection going on. Unfortunately, it means lots of poorly informed kids are being selected against.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 10, 2006 9:29 AM
Can we demand higher standards for all schooling while we're at it?
One's feelings towards homeschooling are bound to be subject to a strong amount of confirmation bias. Specifically, I've noticed that people from the most anti-science, fundie part of homeschooling tend to wear their homeschooling on their sleeve, and point it out so that you can't miss it. On the other hand, how many unschoolers do you know?
Those who've claimed to have met several homeschoolers of the fundie type should have met some non-fundie homeschoolers, but even if they have, the remembered incidents likely don't hold with survey results. This survey found that only 72% of homeschooling parents do so "To provide religious or moral instruction". Would those of you who've met enough homeschoolers to form a general opinion about the practice say that the fundies outnumber non-fundies by more than 2.5 to 1? If so, I'd like to suggest that your mental image of homeschooling is distorted toward the fundie end.
I'll admit it, many large national organizations do their best to put the fundie face of homeschooling front and center. The HSLDA is especially notorious in this respect; they try very hard to be the face of homeschooling to the media and are themselves a hard-right fundie group. You don't have to hunt to find homeschooling groups strongly opposed to the HSLDA. However, a representative from HSLDA is always available to be quoted in any newspaper article on homeschooling.
I'm very glad that I live in a state (NJ) where homeschooling is legal and restriction free, even if we may decide for other reasons not to homeschool when our child gets old enough for public school. The only requirement is that home instruction must be "equivalent" to what's taught in the local public schools. Given that our local school manages to get only 53% of the students proficient at grade level in math (58% in science) on the state-wide 8th grade tests, that's a shockingly low standard.
Those scores may also give some indication as to why we're considering homeschooling - the choice we're facing isn't between homeschooling and some imaginary public school with well-funded classrooms, well-paid teachers, and violence-free schools. It's between homeschooling, the public schools we actually have, and figuring out how to budget for a private K-12 school.
Posted by: Daniel Martin | November 10, 2006 9:29 AM
Victoria,
If you're willing to listen to a physicist's recommendations on quantum physics books for the early college student, check out Heinz R. Pagels' The Cosmic Code, Feynman's QED, and Feynman's Lectures on Physics (it's a hard read in full, but his discussion of the two-slit experiment is the clearest I've found and you're going to have to take physics sometime.)
Posted by: jw | November 10, 2006 9:29 AM
PZ, this my first big disagreement with you since I started reading Pharyngula. Looking at the education schools in my state (my wife has an MEd from one, and there's another on campus where I teach), they clearly don't know what they're doing. Sitting on an IRB that regularly reviews educational proposals, it seems that many of the ed school faculty really fufill the stereotypes of people who don't know how to teach, don't understand students or learning, but are passionately attached to their theories. My wife says that only one of the "Education" courses she took to get her MEd actually contained useful, applicable content. Until the education schools are fixed, somehow - and I don't have a prescription for how - requiring them to credential homeschool teachers is the blind leading the half-sighted.
(Disclaimer: we homeschool, although our kids aren't yet mandatory-schooling-age)
Posted by: Tom H. | November 10, 2006 9:46 AM
Wow! The ignorance and stereotyping here is just astounding. A couple of factoids that might or might not interest you--
1) Not all homeschoolers are fundamentalists/creationists.
2) On the whole, homeschooled kids tend to do extremely well on standardized tests, averaging about 4 years ahead of their age-group (see Rudner)
3) Private schools are also not subject to the state's mandates for curriculum. IOW, they're free to teach creationism.
4) In this country, parents are presumed to have the best interest of their kids at heart and have extremely wide latitude in how they choose to educate their children (See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925)
Yes, my wife (M.S., Experimental Neuropsychology) and I (Ph.D., Physical/Analytical Chemistry) homeschool our four kids. We teach them real science, including evolution, the (estimated) age of the Earth and universe, radioactive dating, etc.
We're not all fundie yahoos. And, even if we were and were teaching our kids that Adam rode a dinosaur to work each day, that would be our right as parents. Just because you don't happen to agree with them does not give you (or the State) the right to dictate that their kids be taught something which goes against their religious beliefs. There's a good reason that Freedom of Religion is listed first in the Bill of Rights-- the founders thought that it was the most important.
Posted by: Daryl Cobranchi | November 10, 2006 9:48 AM
So just because if NAMBLA got in control of child sex laws they'd be reprehensible that means that there shouldn't be child sex laws? I don't buy it. If harm is being done, the government has a role to stop that harm.
Posted by: D | November 10, 2006 9:49 AM
Why is it that so many people here think state standards are the answer? Current state standards have led to the dismal test scores in math and science and the perception that the US is falling behind. How is more of that going to help anything?
Reporting requirements for homeschoolers vary by state. Some states require nothing, some are heavy on oversight. Here in VA, my homeschooled kids have to take a nationally normed aptitude test each year. We use the famous CAT9 tests that many of us took each year in school. They ace the test every year, usually missing only a few questions each. Neither of my kids are geniuses, and I would not even classify our curriculum as particularly rigorous. It's a testament to the effectiveness of one on one tutoring as the primary educational methodology.
This may be hearsay around here, but I believe the only "stuff" that everybody needs to learn is reading, writing, and math up through about Algebra I / Geometry. Everything else is optional. Given a solid foundation in the 3 Rs, a person can learn just about anything else they want. If science isn't on the list, so be it. A person can function just fine in life believing dinosaurs roamed the planet 6000 years ago. It may not be a life anybody here would want, and it's certainly not a life I want for my kids, but it is a life.
I think a commenter above put it best. Any restriction on home education is one you might have to live under one day. So imagine you have to homeschool your kids because Dr. Dino somehow avoided jail and now controls the schools, with all science classes being biblically vetted.
Do you really want that government telling you what to teach your kids?
Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 9:54 AM
I suppose I should clarified that, yes, I've primarily dealt with fundie homeschooled individuals, obviously, it can (or could) be done well, and there are certainly extenuating circumstances where it might be better than available institutional education.
That said, the 1 or 2 individuals I've know who were given a non-fundie homeschool education still had issues with social development (more than the average screwed up teen, I mean) immediately post-graduation. Again, anecdotal, and I make no argument for causation.
Posted by: Fox1 | November 10, 2006 10:07 AM
Perhaps because the question is not 'how do we make the education system perfect?' but rather 'how do we ensure a minimum standard for homeschoolers?'
Posted by: MartinM | November 10, 2006 10:07 AM
PZ: "I should think most smart homeschooled kids would be all in favor of higher standards."
Requiring parents to have teaching certificates or equivalent expertise in all required subjects would effectively end home schooling, so let's not throw out the baby (kids who are effectively home-schooled) with the bathwater (kids who are ineffectively home-schooled). I'd support kids having to pass tests before getting high school equivalent diplomas.
James Orpin: "Doesn't this fall under the separation clause?"
Mike Crichton: "No, because the exemption applies to any religion."
Both of these statements are incorrect. The First Amendment has no "separation clause." It has two clauses affecting religion:
The "establishment" clause - This says that the government can't "establish" any religious belief (i.e., make it the official religion, or do things that would lead there, such as mandating or paying for church attendance or religious education). If government acted to "establish" all religions equally, it would still violate the establishment clause. Thus, a menorah in the town square doesn't legalize a statue of Jesus there.
The "free exercise" clause says government can't constrain the free exercise of religious belief, e.g., worship services, religious education, etc. Content-based regulation - "This religion is nutty, we won't allow you to practice it" - violates the free exercise clause. On the other hand, the government does have the power to regulate various *actions*, as opposed to *beliefs*, for the public good. For example, if your worship of the Snake God compels you to release cobras in public schools, the government can stop you from doing so, though they can't constrain your right to believe in the Snake God.
The ability to be home schooled may, but does not have to, be grounded in the right to free exercise of religion - that is, people can and do home teach or receive home schooling without religious education being involved.
Posted by: Jud | November 10, 2006 10:08 AM
PZ: "I should think most smart homeschooled kids would be all in favor of higher standards."
Requiring parents to have teaching certificates or equivalent expertise in all required subjects would effectively end home schooling, so let's not throw out the baby (kids who are effectively home-schooled) with the bathwater (kids who are ineffectively home-schooled). I'd support kids having to pass tests before getting high school equivalent diplomas.
James Orpin: "Doesn't this fall under the separation clause?"
Mike Crichton: "No, because the exemption applies to any religion."
Both of these statements are incorrect. The First Amendment has no "separation clause." It has two clauses affecting religion:
The "establishment" clause - This says that the government can't "establish" any religious belief (i.e., make it the official religion, or do things that would lead there, such as mandating or paying for church attendance or religious education). If government acted to "establish" all religions equally, it would still violate the establishment clause. Thus, a menorah in the town square doesn't legalize a statue of Jesus there.
The "free exercise" clause says government can't constrain the free exercise of religious belief, e.g., worship services, religious education, etc. Content-based regulation - "This religion is nutty, we won't allow you to practice it" - violates the free exercise clause. On the other hand, the government does have the power to regulate various *actions*, as opposed to *beliefs*, for the public good. For example, if your worship of the Snake God compels you to release cobras in public schools, the government can stop you from doing so, though they can't constrain your right to believe in the Snake God.
The ability to be home schooled may, but does not have to, be grounded in the right to free exercise of religion - that is, people can and do home teach or receive home schooling without religious education being involved.
Posted by: Jud | November 10, 2006 10:09 AM
That comment from "Victoria Fox" was a joke, right? She says she's studying Genetics, Evolution, and...Astral Projection? She claims to be so smart she can be accepted by a college at fouteen, but she doesn't know the difference between 'there,' 'their,' and 'they're?' Then she double posts? I call shenanigans.
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2006 10:09 AM
By way of apology/explanation for my double post, I had trouble bringing up the display of my submitted post after previewing - in fact it was only the anti-abuse feature that prevented a truly embarrassing triple post.
Posted by: Jud | November 10, 2006 10:14 AM
I wonder if theyll start suing when their kids are not accepted to colleges based on their lack of knowledge of real science.
Religious discrimination! My belief in the age of the earth is religious! You can't force your scientism on me!
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2006 10:17 AM
No. This may difficult for you to accept, but sometimes external forces can only make a problem worse. No group, organization, or society can rationally be considered responsible to stop all forms of harm, and the power necessary to even attempt it would inevitably cause even greater harms if we tried to wield it.
There is also the matter of who decides what is a harm. I consider male circumcision to be a harm that is comparable, if not equivalent, to female circumcision. Yet many, many people would object rather violently (and in my view irrationally) to any attempt to protect children from this harm. So: if parents are to be given control over aspects of childraising that can affect the children for good or ill, which aspects? What powers are you willing to grant society over your children?
There was once a general recognition of the fact that appealing to mass opinion wasn't enough, that powers must be granted or withheld from society on a rational basis. Sadly, that understanding has been almost lost - and mass opinion in this country is increasingly falling into irrationality.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 10:18 AM
Where have you been, Steve_C? It's already happened.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 10, 2006 10:36 AM
I agree tat when these kids hit college they will be at such a disadvantage it will be hard for them to complete a four year program. Unless of course they enter a theology program.
Posted by: ckerst | November 10, 2006 10:41 AM
Daryl Cobranchi said:
Ummm, no. While I agree with the other sentiments of your post this statement is untrue. Children are not chattel that you may do whatever you want to. They are people, young citizens of this country, with rights, and who have a right to a proper education. The kids cannot properly consent to having this type of education shoved down their throat, and it would be exceedingly unfair to a child for a parent to teach them, for instance, that trees should be called zisomats, or that Israel doesn't exist, or that blacks are an inferior race (like those Prussian Blue girls).
There is a compelling state interest in children learning a basic set of facts about how the world works, how science works, how the US government works, etc. It is also in the child's interest that laws should exist that prevent parents from raising little bigoted replicas of themselves. Kids don't have a choice about their education, but they still have a right to a good one. That's the problem here, and why standards will be inevitable if they don't cut this shit out.
Posted by: quitter | November 10, 2006 10:42 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:46 AM
home schooled children become leeches and parasites on the rest of the culture much like the Amish. You notice that after the school shooting in Amish country they did not send the victims to a horse and buggy hospital. They went to a modern hospital with intensive care and the whole "fancy" panoply of modern medicine. They were happy to leech off a culture which they despise and to which they do not contribute. Creationists do the same thing. They are happy to take the flu shots and antibiotics designed by the evolutionists they hate.
Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | November 10, 2006 10:50 AM
The notion of standards and testing for homeschoolers is a bit silly. Not that we shouldn't track their progress, but kids in the public school regularly score below average (about 50% of the time). What does it mean if a given homeschooler scores below average?
In my state, homeschoolers have to get tested, but since the state can't guarantee a high score for kids in public schools, they can't demand that a low score from a home schooler require they be placed back in school.
The key question is how homeschoolers do in aggregate relative to public schoolers. Of course, it's easier and more fun to highlight the tail of the distribution and advocate policies based on that.
Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 10:51 AM
P.S. And I say that as one who at one point seriously considered exercising my right to homeschool my daughter because of the deficiencies of the public school where we were then living. So in no way, shape or form am I anti-homeschooling per se.
To Daryl C.: Fundie homeschoolers have every right to teach their beliefs to their kids. They do NOT have a right to keep them in purdah in order to try to shelter them from any contact with ideas that might conflict with those beliefs- that, quite simply, is at least incipient child abuse. Children are not their parents' chattel any more than they are the state's.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:53 AM
That's precisely the point. The people who set the minimum standards determine what children will be taught. When kids don't meet those standards, the government will then have power to intervene. Would you be willing to live in a society where the government demanded that your children learn religious doctrines that you didn't approve of as part of the minimum curriculum? What about interpretations of history that you think are wrong?
Giving absolute power to the State is just fine as long as you think the State will do what you personally think should be done. What protections will you demand be put into law to protect people who disagree from the State's coercive power?
Cutting a swath through the law to get to the Devil makes you vulnerable to the winds that blow. And what's blowing in the wind is that creepy versions of Christian Fundamentalism will be gaining more political power in the coming decades. Do you want to make it easier for that group to dictate what everyone's children must learn?
Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 10:54 AM
Steve LaBonne said, "Nobody is talking about anything but requiring minimum standards and requring some demonstration of basic competence- literacy, numeracy, grasp of basic historical facts and scientific concepts- by students."
Right. I'm all for testing to track how the HS population is doing. But I doubt that your local public school can demonstrate efficacy in any of these things for more than half of the students. When public schools demonstrate 95% of students working at or above grade level, I'll buy that they are better suited to education.
Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 10:54 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:55 AM
You're making a statement as to what you perceive as the absence of a moral right. Legally, they most certainly DO have that right - parents have almost absolute authority over their children. Whether that is a good thing or not (I would emphatically argue not), it's legal reality.
If you want to change the law, you'd better change it so that everyone's rights are protected - not just the rights that you personally think are being used well.
Christ, it's like the whole of Enlightenment politics has just skipped some people by. A byproduct of our school system, perhaps?
Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 10:57 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:57 AM
It's valid, actually. What you're suggesting is that members of a society have the right to openly flout that society's standards in any way they choose, based on any other standard they might wish to align with.
This is not how societies operate.
Deliberately lying to children, deliberately addling their brains, deliberately telling them blatant untruths about how the world operates is not a right. It is child abuse. Just as we do not allow parents the "right" do discipline their children by, say, locking them in a closet for a week, we must not allow parents the "right" to turn their children into lie-filled, zealous bigots.
As a society we have a right -- actually, an obligation -- to ensure that future members of this society will be functional, rational participants. Thus I refute your conclusion.
Posted by: Warren | November 10, 2006 10:57 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:59 AM
Caledonian said, "When kids don't meet those standards, the government will then have power to intervene."
Hell, I wish they would fucking intervene already. A few years ago in Florida, ~25% was a passing grade on the state proficiency test. Those damn homeschoolers, so stupid they can't even hit that bar? I doubt it.
Of course, the typical gov't response is NCLB. If that's not worrisome to liberals, consider how easily the legislature changes hands. A few months ago, theocracy was going to last forever. But don't worry, PZ has a plan. Give him your kids, and he will raise them right.... BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
At least, until the Dems lose out in his state, or on the local school board.....
Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 10:59 AM
This is a bit silly. My son was homeschooled, got a scholarship to Stony Brook and has a pretty good grasp of both science and politics. Parents who want to educate their kids in kooky science at home can send them to private schools that teach the same crap should homeschooling be stopped.
Don N.
Posted by: Don N | November 10, 2006 11:07 AM
This is a bit silly. My son was homeschooled, got a scholarship to Stony Brook and has a pretty good grasp of both science and politics. Parents who want to educate their kids in kooky science at home can send them to private schools that teach the same crap should homeschooling be stopped.
Don N.
Posted by: Don N | November 10, 2006 11:07 AM
Steve LaBonne said, "For you, evidently, it's easy and fun to ignore the fact that the tail consists of children whose prospects in life have been damaged, perhaps irreparably."
Yeah, because believing in God will land you in a homeless shelter with no prospects for employment at all. Please. The unschoolers and some of the ultra wingnuts may not be helping their kids, but then neither is the school bureacracy. And charter schools, vouchers, etc. are roundly opposed by many liberals.
I have no problem with some kind of minimum standards requirements, but for legal reasons it will have to apply to public schoolers, as well. I'm not convinced public schools can pass that test, so I'm not going to lose sleep over whether the damage is happening to kids in poor urban or rural schools, or in home schools. Public schools will have to get their own house in order before they can go bossing other people around.
Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 11:10 AM
I apologize for the double posting, I don't use message boards and forums that often. Thanks for the advice on quantum physics books.
By the way Paul, I was serious about what I said, I am 14yrs old and I do study those subjects. I also apologize for the misuse of my words, if you'd like to correct my grammar smartass go teach english class.
Yes the college will accept me, I've already checked with them and they are happy to let me enroll. I apologize for offending anyone, because none was meant.
By the way Victoria Fox is not my real name it's my internet name.
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 11:10 AM
Couple of things: first, I effectively do some home-schooling already supplementing and extending what my kids are already being taught at school; second, if I were to home school them exclusively, we'd all have to be committed after a week or so because, good grief, we need a break from each other from time to time!! Finally, unlike some of the commenters, I don't think that having a graduate degree automatically makes me a great teacher of my children in all the subjects they need to master. Regrettably, the Tinkerbell theory of teaching -- that any fool can do it if they want to do it hard enough -- is pretty widespread.
Posted by: Clare | November 10, 2006 11:10 AM
No, it's not. Children have no right of association. They have no right to make medical decisions for themselves, and cannot refuse medical treatment. They can be forced to attend religious services and go through religious rituals. Their freedom of speech is constrained by parental authority to restrict their access to public places and people. They can be forced to endure punishments that would constitute assault if levied against legal adults without their consent.
'Almost' is a very important word, Mr. LaBonne. I suggest you study its meaning carefully.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 11:11 AM
Actually, they do. It's called "being in a free country". Society's standards are NOT the law. In a free country, the law is restricted in what things it can regulate, what kinds of harms it can be used to seek redress for, and how majorities can exercise political power against minorities.
This is usually an ironic cliche, but in this case it's quite literal: what exactly do you have against freedom? Your words indicate that you have serious issues with the concept. Traditionally, the benefits associated with it are considered worth the risks in incurs. You seem to believe differently. Care to justify that belief?
Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 11:11 AM
While I believe all parents should do their best to supplement the work of the schools -- if only by having a substantial library that they give the child relatively free access, but better by actually working with the child on his areas of interest -- I tend to oppose home schooling in general, for several reasons.
First is the fact that schools do provide a diverse environment for the kids, intellectually, ethnically, sexually, and religiously.
Second because, like school vouchers, homeschooling can 'cherry-pick' kids from the public schools, leaving them only for the poor, and thus inspiring politicians to underfund them, making them worse in a self-fulfilling cycle. (A side note, btw. A public HS here in Brooklyn, James Madison, has just added a third graduate to the roll of current Senators, with Bernie Sanders joining Charles Schumer and Norm Coleman -- and alumni meetings in Washington could also include Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)
I still wonder how home-schooled students could be tested in the way PZ and I both would want. Would they have to be tested away from the home, and if not, how do you keep the parents from helping?
But, for 'Christian' homeschoolers particularly, there is a further 'dirty little secret.' Homeschooling is frequently chosen as a way to cover the physical abuse of children, abuse that is, in fact, encouraged by many "Christian child rearing' manuals, including those by James Dobson. I am not talking merely about spanking, but the use of sticks and plastic tubing, and not on unruly ten-year olds but on infants.
Here's a quote on suitable size instruments as suggested in the Fugates' WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ... ABOUT CHILD TRAINING.
Age 1-2 a "tot rod" -- 3/16" by 24" dowel
2-4 "mob control' -- 1/4" by 24"
4-8 "train or consequences" -- 5/16" by 27"
8-12 "the equalizer" -- 3/8" by 27"
12+ "the rebel router" -- 1/2" by 33"
Many of these manuals recommend homeschooling so that Child Protection Services cannot intervene to prevent the parents from giving their children 'proper Christian Discipline.'
(for more on this, you can read my
http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/10/jim-benton-on-bible-based-baby-beating.html
and follow the links. And, to be fair, one of the strongest groups opposing these ideas is StopTheRod.net which is composed of mothers who are, themselves, Christian homeschoolers.)
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | November 10, 2006 11:11 AM
I apologize for the double posting, I don't use mess