Pharyngula

Posted by: James Orpin | November 10, 2006 6:29 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: Fox1 | November 10, 2006 7:14 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: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 7:36 AM

Why did that happen?

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: flame821 | November 10, 2006 7:48 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: oldhippie | 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: wintermute | November 10, 2006 8:05 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: japhet | November 10, 2006 8:15 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: Petter Hesselberg | November 10, 2006 8:21 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: valhar2000 | November 10, 2006 8:34 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: Caledonian | 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: COD | 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: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 9:05 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: Carlie | November 10, 2006 9:22 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: jw | 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: Daryl Cobranchi | November 10, 2006 9:48 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: COD | November 10, 2006 9:54 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: MartinM | November 10, 2006 10:07 AM

Why is it that so many people here think state standards are the answer?

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: Jud | November 10, 2006 10:09 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 10:14 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: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 10:18 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.

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: ckerst | November 10, 2006 10:41 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: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:46 AM

Do you really want that government telling you what to teach your kids?

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 10:51 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: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 10:54 AM

Nobody is talking about anything but requiring minimum standards

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: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:55 AM

Of course, it's easier and more fun to highlight the tail of the distribution and advocate policies based on that.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:57 AM

But I doubt that your local public school can demonstrate efficacy in any of these things for more than half of the students

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 10:59 AM

Legally, they most certainly DO have that right - parents have almost absolute authority over their children.

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: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 11:10 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: Clare | 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: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 11:11 AM

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.

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: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 11:12 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 SMARTA$$ 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.

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 11:13 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 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.

PS: Paul I'd like to call you some really horrible names, but they won't let me post my comment if I do.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 11:14 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.

In my state, considered by homeschoolers one of the most onerous in terms of homeschool standards and requirements, you have to get a legit credentialed teacher to approve your curriculum, demonstrate actual progress, and submit to regular proficiency testing. This sounds a lot like what PZ is asking for. But. There is a large population of credentialed teachers, for religious reasons or from burnout from the shitty public schools, who are happy to ratify almost any curriculum. And demonstrating progress is trivial: 2+2=4 in September, and 10+2=12 in April, counts as having "learned."

And as I said above, the state proficiency requirement is just a joke: you can flunk it (just like a public schooler), and the state can't do dip. If the state kids flunk, nothing happens to the administration in those schools.

I do wonder, though, if enough gifted students pulled out for homeschool or early college, the school average scores would plummet, and that might initiate NCLB or some local equivalent. Or if the nerds got together and decided to hold the school's blue ribbon hostage for, whatever they want.

But the notion that we can somehow hold homeschoolers to a standard higher than we can hold public schoolers to is just silly.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 11:18 AM

Yeah, because believing in God will land you in a homeless shelter with no prospects for employment at all.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 11:20 AM

Children can be compelled by their parents to undergo antihomosexual "reparative" therapy. And I'm not talking about prayer sessions, but forms of conditioning, frequently utilizing psychotropic drugs and electric shocks. They have virtually no rights and quite limited legal protections. Convicted felons have a more-protected status.

Quite simply, Mr. LaBonne, you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: Becca | November 10, 2006 11:25 AM

to Fox1: you said
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.

One of the reasons to homeschool children is *because* they have some sort of cognitive or other defect that the public school isn't able (or willing) to cope with, in spite of what the laws say they need to do. My son has some neurological deficits, and I almost resorted to homeschooling because the local public school was so toxic for him. Fortunately, we have schools of choice, and I was able to get him into another school that is able and willing to make the accomodations that he needs, but until we worked that out, homeschooling was a definite possibility.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 11:27 AM

Caledonian, that stuff might fly in the most benighted fundie-heavy jurisdictions. I can tell you with great confidence (since I work for the prosecutor's office and know him well)that it would be prosecuted where I live, which is a rather conservative area. I'm not the one who knows not whereof he speaks.

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 11:32 AM

//Homeschooling is frequently chosen as a way to cover the physical abuse of children..//

I'd ask you to document that statement, but since I know the documentation doesn't exist, I won't bother. Yes, their are Christian wingnuts that believe in a level of discipline against their kids that most of us find abhorrant. And some of them homeschool. Big deal. Far more of them are in private school or public school.

Can we close any public school in which a teacher had a sexual tryst with a student? After all, since it happens in schools, the school must the problem, right? There were two in the news yesterday, in the right wing conservative bastions of Colorado and Oregon.

Honestly, I expected a higher level of discourse here. But we have anti Christian bigots resorting to the Nazi argument, outright expressions of anti religous bigotry, and now the famous closeted child beater argument.

Posted by: JamesR | November 10, 2006 11:36 AM

PHC is a breeding ground of GOP staffers. They have insinuated themselves into our politics and are fundamentally incompetent. As if you didn't know. I hope that we are seeing the worse of it and that this is as lasting as the Jim Jones cult.

The educational standards need to be clearly defined and firmly applied. Politics has brought us into this situation and it is up to us now to extricate ourselves from it. The recent wins on the board of education in Kansas is a very good sign. When people get involved, things happen. The religious got involved in the 70's and we now see the results of that.They did one thing and did it really well. The results are that they have redefined science in such a way that their own students don't have a clue. Fortunately for us they have not one iota of evidence suggesting that their redefining science has brought any better scientific progress. In fact their science isn't taking us anywhere. That is the unfortunate truth. And political science isn't science.

Posted by: RedMolly | November 10, 2006 11:38 AM

Our family homeschools--leaning toward unschooling. My mother, a public school teacher for 20 years, strongly supports our decision because of the politicization and catering to the lowest common denominator that necessarily happens in classroom schools. And I strongly object to standardized testing of homeschoolers for the same reason I object to it for any other learners: all it really measures is a student's ability to fill in bubbles with a #2 pencil.

If the State really wanted to know if, what and how kids were learning, we would have a portfolio- or interview-based assessment system instead of bubble tests. In fact, my mom's school district in California tried such a system... for all of one year. Apparently it was too time-consuming to administer. Much easier for the bureaucrats to just run a bunch of papers through an opti-scan machine.

When the public school system can demonstrate to me that it meets the needs of all types of learners (not just visual-auditory oriented kids who don't mind sitting still) and that petty regulation and political infighting are secondary to conveying real knowledge, then maybe I'll accept the idea that such a system has any right to assess my children's learning. Until then, we'll go on learning by reading real books and building hands-on projects and asking our own questions and staying the heck away from standardized tests. That seems to be working pretty well so far.

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 11:45 AM

The Bob Jones textbooks are a side effect of living in a free society. The state can not control the outcome for every possible kid. The USSR tried that, didn't work so well.

So yes, in a free society, some tiny minority of kids are going to be screwed out of a decent education by their ignoramus parents. I feel bad for the kids, but I'm not willing to limit the freedom of 300 million other people to fix it, if it even can be fixed. Hell, just as many other kids would then somehow get screwed by the system they were forced into. Life is messy, and science has yet to figure out how to reduce raising kids to a repeatable scientific process :)

And for the record, many, maybe most, parents are not homeschooling for religious reasons. My kids ace their standardized tests, but we'd keep homeschooling even if they just average. The freedom to not push them onto a bus every day at 0-dark-thirty, the freedom to go to a museum whenever the mood strikes, the freedom to change the curriculum on the fly to follow their interests, the freedom to go camping on civil war battlefields for a week while the other kids are in school, and the freedom to entirely blow off a day and go to a baseball game on a whim are the reasons we are homeschooling.

The fact that my kids are academically way ahead of their peers is just a fortunate side effect of one on one teaching.

Posted by: Warren | November 10, 2006 11:48 AM

[Me]

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.

[Caledonian]

Actually, they do.

[Me]

Wrong. There are plenty of things that are done every day which flout society's standards. Attend any open criminal court hearings to learn of just a few dozen -- before lunch.

[Caledonian]

This is usually an ironic cliche, but in this case it's quite literal: what exactly do you have against freedom?

[Me]

I'd appreciate your arguing with me, not a convenient straw man.

Reality is not up for referendum. Facts are not democratic. And when children are deliberately told lies -- indoctrinated, perhaps -- their ability to function in the real world is impaired. This is, at best, child abuse. It is systematically comparable to the way molesters seek to normalize sexualization of children as a justification for raping them.

I realize that's an emotionally hot comparison to make, but I think it's valid in terms of the methodology used. By slowly introducing the very young to extremely sexually-graphic material, a molester gradually turns sex into a normal mode of expression for his intended victim until his objectives are reached.

Similarly, those who seek to undermine the rational intelligence -- which is our birthright -- in the young by deliberately exposing them to lies which are contrary to the observable facts of the real world are committing a form of psychological rape the aftereffects of which may never be undone.

I have nothing against freedom. I think there's nothing wrong with homeschooling per se, unless it is used blatantly as a tool to raise a crop of reality-denying fifth-column anti-freedom revolutionaries.

And let's face it, that's what right-wing fanaticism actually is. It wants to establish a theocracy, to compel an entire nation to follow its extremely narrow, dogmatic and bigoted perspectives on life -- including those perspectives (such as creationism) which fly in the face of facts. This is dangerous. That is a simple truth.

I love freedom and I want to keep it. I'd ask you what you have against reality.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 11:54 AM

@ Warren:

The comparison of biblical literalists to child molesters is a bit over the top. Is there a corollary to Godwin for this one?

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 11:58 AM

Hello Becca, I'm not sure if you were referring to me when you said Fox. But I do not have any neurological defects.
I don't have any defects at all. I was homeschooled because when I was in kindergarten and my brother was in 1st grade at a public school, a 4th grader in the class next to my brothers brought a gun to school and threatened to kill the teacher and all the students. So our parents took us out of public school and homeschooled us.

So no you don't have to have a defect to be homeschooled, the people around could have a defect to cause you to be homeschooled.

"The Empires Of The Future, Are The Empires Of The Mind."
"Winston Churchill"

"Man Invented Language, To Hear Himself Complain."
"Lily Tomlin"

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 12:07 PM

Wrong. There are plenty of things that are done every day which flout society's standards. Attend any open criminal court hearings to learn of just a few dozen -- before lunch.

Criminal court hearings are for violations of law. Society's nebulous standards are not the law, and they are not enforced in court.

And you're all for freedom, except that you think society ought to be able to compell adherence to group opinion?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Posted by: Jeanne | November 10, 2006 12:17 PM

As a homeschool mom, I was sorry to see the inaccurate picture presented of homeschoolers. Many homeschoolers are indeed evolutionists. In fact, among the many homeschoolers I have known (and I've homeschooled in three states), it's the majority. But of course, if you ask evangelicals or visit an evangelical college, you will certainly find the bias toward creationism and against evolution. You'd have to come up with an, um, much more scientific sample to provide a conclusion about homeschoolers in general.

Many homeschoolers love real science and some of us, in fact, homeschool in part because we can provide a MORE scientific approach at home. As you may be aware, the teaching of evolution in the schools is a tricky business. Many schools spend as little time on it as possible in order to avoid raising the ire of some parents. At home, we can infuse evolution into many/all areas of science. In our home, in the last several days, we have been reading from Hakim's Story of Science Vol. 2, Hawking's A Brief History of Time, Davis' Don't Know Much About the Universe, and TIME magazine's article on Religion vs. Science. As for history, most recently we have been listening to the audiobook classical version of world history, Story of the World, vol. 1 by Susan Wise Bauer. I think you'd find any of these to hold up to an evolutionist's view of the world (my view), and I doubt you'd find most 16 year old public school kids (not to mention my 8 year old, who has listened avidly to all) exposed to this much evolution material in just a few days (especially noting that my family's current topics are more cosmological and physics-related than biological (since we are doing Big Bang, expanding universe, Newtonian vs. Einsteinian stuff) -- but we get to point out how it ALL works together and provide opportunities for real synthesis for the kids.

Please, do not broad brush homeschoolers. I'm an evolution-understanding, feminist, stay-at-home mom with the ability and education to do whatever I want in the world. I choose to nurture my children and provide them with the opportunity to LEARN. My 18 year old, who is currently an exchange student in South America, has participated in online debates defending evolution even tho' he is a humanities-oriented guy. He gets the basis for the science, and I'm proud that he got it from his homeschool experience.

If you go looking to support the stereotype of homeschoolers as narrow evangelicals who re-write history and science to support their beliefs, you will certainly miss the many homeschoolers who learn and understand evolution and have a non-providential view of history.

But I've heard this has happened before, right? That many scientists have, throughout history, been the victim of their own methodology in just this way, seeing only evidence that supports an existing stereotype or social norm, thus creating and perpetuating inaccuracy.

You'd think the scientific world would have learned the dangers of such from folks like Ptolemy and Tycho Brae. Alas, susceptibility to suggestibility continues to color the conclusions of the science community.

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 12:27 PM

Hello Jeanne, and the rest of you people who are debating.
I have to make this clear before anyone states their verdict about me. I'm an open minded person, I don't really care what other people beleive in. For all i care you can beleive that god decides when you die. I'm not going to try and change your beliefs or your opinions. It is up to you to decide what you beleive and don't beleive. Hell you can beleive that Barnie is real, I won't try to change that. Hey I beleive in Giganto-Pithicus
(A.K.A BigFoot) along with many other people who beleive in him. I beleive in a lot. Unless you can prove me wrong, then there is a possibility that it exists. But what would be the fun if you could prove that these things exist or don't exist, it would take the mystery out of life.

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 12:33 PM

Well I'm going to sign off, here in a little bit. So I'll talk to you people later. I respect your opinions, and beliefs. As I said, I have an open mind. Share you thoughts with me, I'd love to hear them. Hasta Luego.

Posted by: RedMolly | November 10, 2006 12:36 PM

...homeschooling parents have fallen through a loophole that doesn't require them to adhere to standards.

In many states, the "loophole" that makes homeschooling legal is setting up homeschools as private schools.

Just to judge from the trend in my (rabidly conservative) area, there are probably four or five times as many kids in fundamentalist religious private schools as there are being homeschooled by anyone, let alone by fundie parents.

What are your feelings on forcing these private schools to conform to public school educational standards? How much political traction do you think such a movement could get? It's much easier to pick on those wacky homeschoolers than on a well-entrenched establishment like private religious schooling.

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 12:40 PM

Insisting on universal minimal standards for education is not an abrogation of rights. It is a public good.

What happens if the fundies take over government and decide the the "truth" is that the earth was designed by an intelligent creator?

If you are going to use the force of government to impose your will you have to be willing to accept the consequences if you lose control of the government. I'm not willing to take that risk.

Posted by: Interrobang | November 10, 2006 12:43 PM

Jeanne, if you're really into science, why do you use the term "evolutionist"? Either you're playing for the other team, or you've managed to swallow their rhetoric so completely it has gotten into your head.

Victoria -- You may be only fourteen, but yes, you do need to brush up on your spelling and grammar, especially before you hit college. You more than likely will have to take essay courses there, and your instructors won't take kindly to confusions such as the ones you've made in your (multiply redundant) posts. Before you make some kind of snarky comment about my background, I have two degrees in English-related subjects and I have taught college-level English courses in the past. You might want to get yourself a copy of the Merriam-Webster Concise Handbook for Writers; it's available cheaply second-hand, and it will tell you more than you need to know about how English functions.

On topic, I'm also one of these people who believe that everyone should have the same basic core set of competencies, and that publicly-funded schooling is the most efficient way of achieving that end for the vast majority of people. (Caveat: I'm Canadian, and curricular standards work a little differently here; further, I'm a product of an excellent public education system, and several of my teachers were considered such leaders in their field they helped to author provincial and federal curriculum standards. YM, as always, MV.)

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 12:46 PM

Warren--Yes life still has it's mystery and wonder, especially in nature, I love nature. It's beauty, it's wonder and its grace.

All that I meant was that we need to beleive in monsters, we as a whole still need that mystery. If we beleived that there was nothin bigger than us out there, we would make a stupid move somewhere and possibly cause such irreversible devastation.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 12:51 PM

I wonder what the whiny thin-skinned libertarian freak Timmy Sandefur would have to say about all this.

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 1:02 PM

Interrobang.
Thank you Interrobang for the information, I appreciate it. But I'm perfectly aware of my faults and what I need to brush up on before I start my higher education. I've actually aced several english college courses. I'm just having an off day. I don't mean to be snippy at anyone, it just isn't a great day for me. I apologize to anyone that I've offended. I did not mean any of the rude comments, I was just blowing off steam.

Posted by: Warren | November 10, 2006 1:04 PM

Victoria:

If we beleived that there was nothin bigger than us out there, we would make a stupid move somewhere and possibly cause such irreversible devastation.

You might want to look at Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil. It's one of many recent texts that goes into how morality or ethics can be seen as natural evolutionary conclusions rather than outside ideas imposed by a divine will (or the fear thereof).

Put another way, if the only thing keeping us from making big mistakes is our fear of something bigger than us getting at us somehow, we aren't really much good.

What keeps me from (for instance) robbing my neighbor is my ability to understand how crappy I'd feel if someone were to rob me. Why would I want to make someone else feel that pain?

Contrarily, if I believe in an afterlife, and I want to enjoy it, then my motivation for not robbing my neighbor (I want to go to heaven) becomes selfish.

And, of course, if I believe in an afterlife, I can always comfort myself with the delusion that, even if I do rob my neighbor, he stands a good chance of going to heaven anyway, so I don't have to feel guilty about making his life miserable today.

I'm not trying to say you shouldn't have a faith, BTW -- I'm just suggesting reasons why faith isn't strictly necessary to explain human behavior, or to make ethically-sound, reasoned decisions which, in some circumstances, may even be superior to faith-based ones.

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 1:07 PM

Interrobang,
Thank you for the information, I truly appreciate it. I don't mean to be snippy at anyone, I'm just having an off day and I'm just blowing off steam. I've actually aced several college courses in english. I'm aware of my faults and I know what I need to brush up on. I apologize to everyone for the comments I've made, I really didn't mean them. I was just blowing off steam. I should not have done it in that way.

Posted by: Jeanne | November 10, 2006 1:09 PM

"Jeanne, if you're really into science, why do you use the term "evolutionist"? Either you're playing for the other team, or you've managed to swallow their rhetoric so completely it has gotten into your head."

Sorry you don't like my terminology, which was indeed selected as intentional parallelism with "the other team's" verbiage. I'm a writer who loves science, not a scientist. I will forgive non-homeschoolers' lack of understanding about homeschooling if they can allow my writerly self a bit of leeway here.

If they can't, then I fear those who understand evolution but don't homeschool will never find themselves approachable enough to have camaraderie with homeschoolers who also understand evolution and enjoy studying it. Probably a loss all around, I'd say.

Splitting hairs with "your own team" evolution-wise (is that permitted? That term? Is it okay? I don't want to seem inauthentic!) seems unlikely to create greater understanding. Unless having homeschoolers on "your own team" is such an anathema that alienation is the goal even if we share other viewpoints.

And yes, unfortunately, with about 50% of our publicly-schooled population "believing in" Creationism, there has been a lot of new language slipping into our lexicon. Just a few years ago, who would have thought of "ID" being such a recognizable term? (By using that, have I somehow now insubstantiated my arguments? Or did you understand what I meant?)

Anyway, I'll try to be more perfect. If I manage that, let me know if that qualifies me as recognizably being "really into science."

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 1:14 PM

I'm not trying to say parents can't indoctrinate their children into their beliefs. What I'm suggesting is that they should not be allowed to do so and claim (at the same time) that they are teaching them hard, incontrovertible facts.

What about this is so hard to grasp?

That makes no sense. If parents (or the church, or the government for that matter) are going to indoctrinate, they *HAVE* to claim they are teaching facts. How else are they going to successfully indoctrinate?

You are simply wrong. And luckily the law agrees with me.

There is nothing strawman about my fundie takeover argument. 8 years ago, who would have believed that in 2005, the POTUS would argue that he has the right to eavesdrop on anybody at anytime, with no disclosure or due process required?

There are very few certainties in life, but one of them is that if you give power to government, it will eventually be abused. Power used in your favor today can be turned on you after the next election.

What is so hard about that to grasp?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 1:16 PM

Caledonian

"The simple fact of the matter is that people have to be allowed to make their own mistakes. The people who choose wisely will prosper, and those who choose poorly will suffer. "

Simple fact -- LOL! Here's something "simple" -- kids are people. Now do something about the gaping hole in your argument.

Someone else wrote:

"What happens if the fundies take over government and decide the the "truth" is that the earth was designed by an intelligent creator?"

That's easy: those fundies are killed.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 1:20 PM

Warren said, "You can glibly raise Godwin parallels all you like, but such a rejoinder does not constitute an argument."

Let me be more explicit, then. You, PZ, and a few others seem to be saying that Creationism should be listed in the DSM-IV along side pedophilia, on the grounds that it's warped and ignorant and harmful to children. I just don't buy it; pedophiles leave actually harmed children in their wake. Creationism per se is not abusive. The beatings and hazings that sometimes go with it are, but criminalizing the failure to teach the glory of Darwin would lead to the indictment of as many highschool biology teachers as it would homeschoolers.

If you want to certify the 3r's for homeschoolers, I'm with you. If your goal is to get Creationism listed in DSM-IV, good luck.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 1:25 PM

criminalizing the failure to teach the glory of Darwin

Who suggested that the failure to teach the glory of Darwin be criminalized? Cite please.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 1:29 PM

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.

What about the right to teach your kids that "black people are animals who should be enslaved by threatening them with death if they don't obey?"

Is that your "right" as a parent? Seriously. You think that the Constitution provides you with the inalienable right to indoctrinate children with such "facts" because they are related to you?

Posted by: Warren | November 10, 2006 1:36 PM

[99 Bottles]

Let me be more explicit, then. You, PZ, and a few others seem to be saying that Creationism should be listed in the DSM-IV along side pedophilia, on the grounds that it's warped and ignorant and harmful to children.

[Me]

A fair critique. I was drawing a comparison to highlight a fundamental problem that I see with the idea of indoctrination.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's not simply creationism that I object to. It's the entire wingnut worldview, of which creationism is only a sliver.

But not even the worldview -- it's the aspect of the extreme radical right that I think can be argued to be abusive. The aspect that engenders toxic shame, that systematically undermines the capacity for reasoned and logical discourse, and that insists on the complete righthood of a given perspective at any cost to anyone who disagrees.

I think such outlooks are pathological and probably contrasurvival in a deeply-interconnected multicultural world such as this one. They were probably selected for (or at least not explicitly selected against) at some point in our primate history, but they are outmoded today and should probably be treated as the life-threatening memes they appear to be in many cases.

Hope that clarifies my POV, at least. I don't think we need a DSM inclusion, but I do think that if we can solidly argue that at least some ultra-religious wingnuttery is effectively a form of child abuse, we might be able to wake others up to the dangers of complacency in the face of zealotry.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 1:39 PM

COD -- Now it seems you have landed in the same camp as Caledonian, asserting absolute rightness while arguing that others cannot be right themselves. In other words, those who disagree with you in matters of opinion are "simply wrong", whereas you are not.

There is it - the representation of matters of fact as matters of opinion.

Are you sure you're not a Creationist? You have the patter down. You also advocate that children should be taught something that is grossly untrue - and you favor using the power of the State to enforce that teaching.

Posted by: RedMolly | November 10, 2006 1:41 PM

Is that your "right" as a parent? Seriously. You think that the Constitution provides you with the inalienable right to indoctrinate children with such "facts" because they are related to you?

Unfortunately, GWW, I think that's exactly what the Constitution does.

Fortunately, society offers a variety of corrective mechanisms: one being that no one, even the most insular homeschooled kid, exists in a bubble. Sooner or later, everyone's beliefs bump smack up against reality, and are tested in the collision therewith.

For most people (probably quite a few posters here among them, I'd bet), this collision results in a reevaluation and revision of one's own worldview. For some, it leads to a sort of kiln-firing of pre-existing beliefs, hardening them and proofing them against outside influence.

Happily, though, hard-fired porcelain is rather delicate and needs to be kept on a shelf all by itself... if it gets thrown into the dishwasher with everything else, it tends to shatter. For this reason, most people choose to fill their cabinets with plain ol' none-too-pure stoneware.

(Apologies for the admittedly strained metaphor!)

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 1:57 PM

Caledonian

"Actually, it doesn't define the right as inalienable, but it does grant to the people all rights not explicitly reserved to the states."

Are children people? Do children have a right to tell their parents to fuck off, the neighbor parents are better, buh-bye?

The point is this Caledonian and Molly: the shit ain't in the Constitution. It's read into the Constitution by the Supremes who read stuff in and out of the Constitution at their leisure, pretty much.

Just as is the case with gay marriage, the existence of the right waxes and wanes with the fervency of the belief.

Of course parents believe they have the right to teach their children whatever the fuck they want. In fact, if a parent teaches their kid that "black people are animals who should be enslaved under threat of death" and their kid decides to kill a black kid at school for not obeying his orders, then I think you'll learn something about the "rights" of parents to indoctrinate their children with bullcrap.

Kid's rights. It's next in the queue, after the rights of gay people and animals (yeah, animals -- that should tell you something about the way we treat human children in this country).

Posted by: Mimi Rothschild | November 10, 2006 1:59 PM

My name is Mimi Rothschild. I am a homeschooling mother of eight.

I would like to say that there are government regulations on homeschooling. Students are required to submit portfolios to the state each year, detailing their work. Also, if they hope to get into college, they'll still be taking standardized tests (and doing quite well I might add).

To the commenters above: No one deliberately tells their children untruths. Abuse shouldn't even enter into this equation. If you take the abuse argument to its logical conclusion, you will basically declare that no one should teach any ideas outside of what the government mandates. Could it be that public school students are the ones being brainwashed? Could it be that they are taught a rigid set of mass-produced "fun facts" rather than learning and exploring the world around them?

Homeschool students are allowed to get the big picture. They don't just memorize dates and famous people. Learning becomes an entertaining exercise when children are freed from the strictures of "big box" learning. Every idea is fair game. Children learn at their own pace and let their curiosity run wild.

Public school supporters seem to think that public school students are free to come up with their own opinions about issues. Nothing could be further from the truth! There is just as much indoctrination going on in the public school as there is in the home.

I encourage my children to explore opposing views of popular scientific, historical, and current events. The idea that homeschooled students grow up in this insular "hothouse of ignorance" is largely a myth. My children are very well-adjusted and quite forward-thinking in their beliefs.

Homeschooling works because I teach my children what I think they should believe, you teach yours what you think they should believe. To say that I'm forcing my beliefs down their throat is only assigning the same behaviors to yourself by having your kids attend public school.

Feel free to check out my full thoughts at my blog.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 2:01 PM

Oops, got Caledonian mixed up with COD. Gosh, how'd that happen.

Posted by: Jen in Texas | November 10, 2006 2:01 PM

Unless you can prove me wrong, then there is a possibility that it exists.

Victoria, no, No, NO! This is called the ad ignorantium logical fallacy - the appeal to ignorance. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here - I think you're quite bright, but your critical thinking skills need some work. I recommend Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World and Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things as good starting points. Both are available in public libraries. You might also want to Google Hume's Maxim when you get a chance.

But what would be the fun if you could prove that these things exist or don't exist, it would take the mystery out of life.

Solving the mysteries of life is actually fun! Knowledge is its own reward for the intellectually curious.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 2:02 PM

You're replying to COD, GWW. I'm Caledonian.

Posted by: RedMolly | November 10, 2006 2:03 PM

If you're so confident that homeschooling is great, that you can outperform those public school kids, etc., why is there always this freakout at the idea that we should regulate some minimal standards for homeschools?

Because, as detailed above, I have serious problems with the content and nature of those proposed standards. I don't think any governmental body should have the right to dictate what, when, how or where children learn. I fully support public education as the right choice for many--probably most--families. At the same time, the idea of my children being forced to spend six to eight hours a day in an environment that I don't feel is best for them, as individuals, is utterly repulsive. (Also, my experience helping to grade senior projects for alma mater has reinforced the notion that "public school standards" have no real bearing on educational quality. You haven't really lived until you've read a seventeen-year-old's twelve-page paper on "Why I Want to Be a Youth Minister.")

And I'm not looking for my kids to "outperform" anybody. I think the idea of matching kids up against each other in some kind of Education Death Match is utterly daft. Honestly, I don't care whether the seven-year-old down the street can read more words or compute more math facts per minute than my son. What I care about is my children having the freedom and encouragement to learn in a personal, supportive setting without all the conformist baggage that necessarily accompanies a classroom education.

(Sorry if I'm being "loud," PZ. I just feel that I have enough to contend with fending off the fundies who think that because I homeschool, I support their revolting political/religious agenda. Not really into having to defend my family's educational choices against people whose opinions I generally respect and agree with.)

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 2:05 PM

Caledonian

It becomes harder and harder for people who want to do things differently from the government-imposed norm to do so.

Boo hoo hoo hoo!!!!! You're doing it again, Caledonian. According to your "logic", every law is "bad" because it makes it "harder" for people to do what they want.

Boo hoo hoo hoo!!!!! Libertarian diapers. I think there's some serious money to be made there.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 2:09 PM

As a first step, let's get rid of all teaching degrees and certification. What a complete waste. College professors don't need them. Why should they be required in grades 1 through 12?

I can't make an argument as to why they should. As to why they are, it's quite simple: some method is needed to make some people stand out from others, to distinguish one candidate from another. When there are no objective qualifications, or people don't want to work to discover them, arbitrary symbols are used to substitute for them.

If anyone can teach, no teacher is in a privledged position. So we define something that's tedious and expensive to acquire as being necessary to teach. Now "professional" teachers can be distinguished from competent "non-professionals". It's a guild system, complete with hazing.

Posted by: Warren | November 10, 2006 2:12 PM

Caledonian -- This isn't a valid objection:

Setting minimial standards means that the government is now determining which things all children are required to learn.

But this is:

By requiring tests at certain times, it also determines when those things will be taught. The homeschoolers who have perfectly reasonable positions on what facts should be taught still have a variety of opinions of when and how. If students must pass a test on obscure state historical facts (as many in fact are required to do), that time cannot be used to teach other things - and that's presuming that they and their teachers feel learning those facts is worthwhile in the first place.

The first objection above isn't valid because it's reasonable to expect certain minimums to be taught in order for a functional social member to be created. Language skills, for instance; basic arithmetic; and -- yes -- history, though not in terms of memorizing obscure facts, but rather in awareness of context.

The second objection is well stated and I think a very strong argument in favor of homeschooling, as well as other nontraditional or explorational forms of group education.

My objection was, and is, that absolute twaddle such as creationism cannot be permitted to be taught as fact, because it simply isn't. The nonreality of creationism is indisputable. Therefore, attempting to argue that it should be taught as fact is siding with insanity -- even if your argument is based in the principle of maximal freedom.

The premise (freedom = good; more freedom = more good) is probably sound; the conclusion (therefore freedom to teach twaddle as truth = good) is not.

Posted by: Warren | November 10, 2006 2:18 PM

COD -- you very selectively argue only with "What I'm suggesting is that they should not be allowed to do so", and totally overlook what follows: "...and claim (at the same time) that they are teaching them hard, incontrovertible facts."

You can't argue with half a sentence.

How else do you propose to "not allow it" other than by the force of law?

For starters, public shaming by pointing out the foolishness of the system, just as PZ did with this post.

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 2:22 PM

Warren, again:

My objection was, and is, that absolute twaddle such as creationism cannot be permitted to be taught as fact, because it simply isn't.

Who is doing the permitting? If it's simply semantics and you have no intention of ever suggesting that there be rules or laws regarding what creationists can teach their kids, then I misinterpreted what you wrote several times and I apologize. However I can't thing of any other way you are going to be able to "not permit something" without passing a law against it.

Posted by: RedMolly | November 10, 2006 2:26 PM

But I do care if the seven year old down the street is learning that it is a scientific FACT that faggot kids are going to hell because they CHOOSE to be gay. Or that science has proven that black kids are sub-human animals. Or that scientists know that the earth was created in 6 days six thousand years ago.

I understand and share your concern--but am a bit puzzled as to how this argument can conflate with an anti-homeschool argument. Do you honestly believe that parents are not teaching their kids anything if the kids are enrolled in public school?

Most of the ignorant notions of this kind of which I've had to disabuse my kids have come from their public-schooled peers. When my son was in public kindergarten during the 2004 election, he came home wide-eyed one day and asked, "Mama, is it true that if John Kerry gets elected, women will have to kill their babies?"

(This was the same year that he got in trouble for announcing to the girl trying to proselytize him at lunch, "You know there's no such thing as God. Everybody knows that.")

Posted by: Jeanne | November 10, 2006 2:31 PM

Hhhmm. Before we began homeschooling, my oldest child came home from school asking about the "N Word" and why the white kids hated the black kids. I don't know about all public schools, but when we sent our kids to public school in North Carolina, that's where they LEARNED about racism.

Here in Virginia, homophobia seems to be much more prevalent within the rest of society than in our own home.

I'm glad homeschooling has given us an opportunity to counter prejudices, even those about homeschooling, so that our kids can grow up without internalizing stereotypes that are so often learned in school.

To paraphrase an earlier poster:
"I care very much about that and I think my reasons for caring are powerful and rational enough to trump whatever imaginary "right" you believe (the government has to facilitate the) brainwash(ing of) the young people that attend public schools."

Not sure where folks got the idea that homeschoolers are homophobic racist child molesters. That would be like my googling "Teacher arrested" and assuming that those results represent all teachers.

Homeschoolers are a diverse lot. Some of us are politically liberal or centrist, socially tolerant, and scientifically forward-thinking. You force us to ally ourselves with our homeschooling brethren who are politically ultra-conservative, religiously fundamentalist, and scientifically off-base, when you presume that government should regulate our educational choices for our own children.

My freedom to teach evolution may be dependent on their freedom not to. And I think we'll have reached "1984" when the government can come into my home and decide that for my family.

My teaching racial and gender tolerance makes me the odd one among many parents in the communities in which I've lived. (North Carolina, Virginia, Missisippi, etc.) I've been grateful for the opportunity to provide the world with some kids that haven't been schooled in the ways of prejudice.

Posted by: Jeanne | November 10, 2006 2:35 PM

Yes. Nervous about the potential to lose the right to homeschool? You betcha. Freedom is dear. When I hear how easily you all would give up my freedom, it does induce a bit of unease.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 2:37 PM

As a movement, homeschooling started in the 1960's by political leftists, "liberals", who didn't want their children's thinking to be influenced by what they perceived as harmful societal influences that dominated mainstream thought.

I find it remarkable how much confidence people at this blog invest in the idea of central authority and control. History demonstrates that societies that form around such ideas tend to become dominated by powerful interest groups which suppress all dissent and mandate specific ideologies, yet people still cling to the delusion that they can give more and more power to governmental authorities and still somehow ensure that the government obeys their personal desires and preferences.

Posted by: Warren | November 10, 2006 2:50 PM

Caledonian:

Our government is really bad at doing anything.

Taxes?

Deciding what is and isn't true isn't something it should be involved with - particularly when it would gain the ability to mandate indoctrination by making the decision.

Deciding what's true? What on earth are you thinking of? Evolution is a fact, creationism is not. That is no more up to "deciding" than 2 + 2 = 4.

Basic standards for government-sponsored schools, when there are other options available? Good idea. Basic standards for all teaching, making those other options more like the government option? Bad idea.

But there are not alternate realities from which to select. You can't be educated a given way for two decades, then get out into the real, unprotected world and see everything you were ever taught was wrong, and then expect (1) a do-over; or (2) the world to change to accommodate your dearly-held, utterly false belief system.

Choice in schooling, as in anything else, is fine, as long as the choices offered do not attempt to subvert or contravene reality.

(Whatever that may be, some are thinking, I'm sure. Might be a valid point too, but that is soooo not the topic under discussion, so I'll leave it for now.)

COD:

However I can't thing of any other way you are going to be able to "not permit something" without passing a law against it.

Making illegal the teaching of lies as fact isn't anywhere near as terrible as you'd like to make it sound.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 2:54 PM

The Great White Wonder said, "But I do care if the seven year old down the street is learning that it is a scientific FACT that faggot kids are going to hell because they CHOOSE to be gay. Or that science has proven that black kids are sub-human animals. Or that scientists know that the earth was created in 6 days six thousand years ago."

Right, these beliefs are utterly ridiculous. And naturally, if we force these kids into public schools it will TOTALLY end racism and creationism and homophobia. Because 6h a day, 250 days a year is enough to undo the rest of the damage. Just by being there, even.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 3:02 PM

Oh, and I forgot to mention:

PZ said, "I still don't understand why the homeschool fans aren't complaining about the fact that evangelical creeps have lowered the standards for homeschooling to near nonexistence."

In addition to what I said above about homeschoolers being, on average, at parity, there is the question of paperwork. None of the homeschooling parents want to have endless meetings with school officials, fill out stupid pointless paperwork, and so forth. They are too busy educating their children.

Why should they argue for higher standards? They're not the problem. And they all know that they're one law away from being illegal, anyway. So it makes sense to keep the bar low. Honestly, PZ. These people all told the system to fuck off. Why in hell would they willingly cooperate with it, let alone expand its jurisdiction and power?

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 3:06 PM

Making illegal the teaching of lies as fact isn't anywhere near as terrible as you'd like to make it sound.

I'm sure Galileo would agree with you. After all, the Catholic Church was 100% sure of the facts, right?

If somebody in power is arbitrating which facts can and can't be taught, them somebody is making judgement calls that are by definition going to occasionally turn out wrong. Those mistakes would have the potential to affect many more people negatively than individual parents making individual judgments for their individual kids.

I'm going to err on the side of the parents. You obviously aren't.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 3:16 PM

Who can spot the crucial difference between Warren's ideal system and the one set up by Stalin?

Anyone? Anyone?

Well, damn. Neither can I. I was hoping one of you could point it out.

Posted by: paperwight | November 10, 2006 3:28 PM

PZ said (in response to 99bottles:)

Those of you rationalizing homeschooling by arguing that the public schools perform poorly really need to read the blueberry story. Average public school test scores don't explain the situation because public schools are obligated to accept every student and do the best they can with them. They have the job of trying to raise the incompetent to the mediocre as well as encouraging the brilliant students who excell.

I think something that a lot of people seem to miss as well is the question of relative resources and class size. Home schooling almost always has a MUCH higher teacher to student ratio than public schooling. It also requires that the family be well enough off that only one parent works, so that the other parent can dedicate a FTE to teaching the children.

If we were to spend the money to make sure that there was a teacher for, say, every 4 elementary school students, I wonder how much better public school test scores would be. I also wonder why *nobody* ever seems to make this point. It's almost as if work at home isn't really considered work, even if it's the exact same work that we pay people to do outside of the home. Huh.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 3:36 PM

Who cares what Christians think of gays, so long as they don't act on those thoughts in a way that infringes on a somebody's civil rights?

Or brainwash another very susceptible person over whom they wield nearly absolute power to think in the same exact way that they do.

Try to focus on the subject at hand, mkay?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 3:40 PM

Right, these beliefs are utterly ridiculous. And naturally, if we force these kids into public schools it will TOTALLY end racism and creationism and homophobia.

Is that what you believe, 99? THat's pretty fucking stupid.

But maybe you're just flailing at a strawman.

Posted by: KS | November 10, 2006 3:42 PM

Warren-Traction aside, I don't think it's unreasonable to insist on minimal educational standards. That is, after all, the putative rationale behind "No child left behind".

The rational behind NCLB is to be that we need to have public accountability of publicly funded education. THAT seems reasonable. To hold non publically funded educational options accountable to the taxpayer does not seem reasonable.

As it is, schools can, on some level opt out of NCLB if they also opt out of funding that is tied to it. The level at which this can happen depends on the local laws and funding regulations. Few are willing to give up their federal money, so few have done so.

FYI from the text of NCLB
SEC. 9506. PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS, AND HOME SCHOOLS.
''(a) APPLICABILITY TO NONRECIPIENT PRIVATE SCHOOLS.--
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any private school that does not receive funds or services under this Act, nor shall any student who attends a private school that does not receive funds or services under this Act be required to participate in any assessment referenced in this Act.
''(b) APPLICABILITY TO HOME SCHOOLS.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect a home school, whether or not a home school is treated as a home school or a private school under State law, nor shall any student schooled at home be required to participate in any assessment referenced in this Act.
''(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL CONTROL
OVER NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect of any private, religious, or home school, whether or not a home school is treated as a private school or home school under State law. This section shall not be construed to bar private, religious, or home schools from participation in programs or services under this Act.
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL
AGENCY MANDATES.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any State educational agency or local educational agency that receives funds under this Act to mandate, direct, or control the curriculum of a private or home school, regardless
or whether or not a home school is treated as a private school under state law, nor shall any funds under this Act be used for this purpose.

Also, in my home state, CT, the first responsibility is on the parent as educator:

Sec. 10-184. Duties of parents. School attendance age requirements.

All parents and those who have the care of children shall bring them up in some lawful and honest employment and instruct them or cause them to be instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar, geography, arithmetic and United States history and in citizenship, including a study of the town, state and federal governments...

there's more detailing the requirements of those "causing their children to be instructed" but that's the meat of it in a very old education law.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 3:46 PM

paperweight said, "...Home schooling almost always has a MUCH higher teacher to student ratio than public schooling. It also requires that the family be well enough off that only one parent works, so that the other parent can dedicate a FTE to teaching the children."

This is true, though some homeschoolers pool resources and expertise into classrooms the size of many smaller schools.

"If we were to spend the money to make sure that there was a teacher for, say, every 4 elementary school students, I wonder how much better public school test scores would be. I also wonder why *nobody* ever seems to make this point."

Heh, lots of people make exactly this argument. I haven't read the literature in a while, but when I last looked at this issue the variance in per pupil spending was enormous: some schools spend $50k/year per student in rich districts. They don't do a lot better than those that spend $10k/year; what they get is computers and naturally the social network effects of their wealthy parents. So there are advantages to more money, but it's asymptotic.

The one thing that has emerged reliably in the literature (at leas, up to about 2001), is that parental attitudes towards education dominate over income per se (assuming some minimal level of funding).

My own bias is that elementary and secondary teachers should have their salaries increased substantially, entering wage around $60k, to attract better talent, and administrators (but not teachers) should have their salaries tied to test scores. I also think that standardized testing is a load of crap, whether done in public or home schools.

But there are two quite unrelated ideas in this thread. The first is that homeschool students are underperforming due to "low standards". As I said, there are good reasons why a 2nd grader taking Singapore math might test poorly at roman numerals and fractions relative to her peers in school. She will catch up and perhaps surpass her peers later, so "higher standards" simply don't apply. Similarly, there is little hope for a student testing at 35% of grade level at home who is "rescued" from that environment and sent to the racist/homophobic/crime ridden hell hole where she'll be "improved" to test at 45% of grade level. Assuming she doesn't drop out.

The second idea mixed into this thread is that, through some completely unarticulated and magical process, public schools instill diversity and tolerance into students. I think the advocates of this position are projecting their own current views backwards into their schooling, or else they attended some mighty rich schools.

More money might get the teachers and administrators on board with tolerance (assuming there is time left after math class, and you eliminate the drugs and bullying). But I think this view is fundamentally doomed: the kid spends more than 3/4 of her time at home. Public school might slightly reduce the prevalence of prejudices (though I doubt it), but I think forcing these standards will only further entrench the opposition. Jesus freaks go to public schools, too. Just observe them and count the number wearing a crucifix. Did we forget school prayer?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 3:53 PM

The second idea mixed into this thread is that, through some completely unarticulated and magical process, public schools instill diversity and tolerance into students.

What a load of bullshit, 99. Here, I'll articulate it for you: public schools actually do teach kids why racism and bigotry is bad and bogus, in American history, World history, and English class for starters.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 3:55 PM

Nor is regulation necessarily invasive or greatly limiting your activities. As an extreme example, there is a regulation which prohibits us from killing each other. I've never found that regulation particularly intrusive, and I doubt you have either.

Damn straight, Flex. But one of the traditional cornerstones of American political thought which I always agreed with was that governmental regulation/intrusion should be minimized to the minimum required to maintain certain basic rights - no going around killing other people willy-nilly, and so on.

The regulation we are talking about goes much farther than that, and it aims to control something very important. It's not just encouraging the outcomes that specific people desire, it's outright outlawing the things they don't like. Setting up that kind of power structure is dangerous for many reasons, not least because once it's in place, its target can be switched relatively easily.

Let people have their alternatives. If those alternatives are inferior, they will suffer for their choice. If those alternatives are superior, they will benefit. And if some are inferior and some superior, those who can best distinguish between the two will prosper. Leave the socialistic fascism to the Harrison Bergeron nightmare, I say.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 3:57 PM

The Quebec ministry of education has told unlicensed Christian evangelical schools that they must teach Darwin's theory of evolution and sex education or close their doors after an Outaouais school board complained the provincial curriculum wasn't being followed....

OMIGOD, the Stalinists are right next door!!!!!

Actually, we know how bad Canada's laws are because our professional sports leagues are the envy of the world. You can't stuff like NASCAR and Monday Night Football in an Orwellian nightmare world like Canada.

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 4:04 PM

If the parents are teaching the kids that faggots go to hell, they are almost certainly hearing the same thing from their preacher at church.

Is it the position of Great White that the state should also march into church and cuff the preacher? If you are going to make it illegal in the home, you can't very well allow it in church can you?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 4:05 PM

You and Warren keep saying that teaching a kid "faggots go to hell" is abusive or somehow within the purview of the people who oversee homeschools.

Of course it's "within the purview." It's a SCIENTIFIC FACT to some people. Or haven't you been paying attention to this blog for the past several years?

Really, you need to 1) demonstrate with empirical data that this is actually abusive,

What do you mean "actually abusive"? Why do I have to prove "actually abusive"? Why isn't it enough to prove that such viewpoints are scientifically FALSE and lead to ANTISOCIAL behavior in our society? Or do you think that kids who are taught from a very young age that niggers are subhuman animals or fags are filthy perverts are just as likely to believe the truth about blacks and gays as other kids? Where is YOUR empirical evidence because, uh, it seems like the public school system has sort of figured out what the answer is to your question.

and 2) make the argument that the state has a compelling interest in enforcing a curriculum beyond the 3rs.

You think that a state can't make a compelling argument that it has an interest in enforcing a curriculum beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 4:07 PM

Under what law, Mr. LaBonne?

Invasive "therapies" need to be administered by properly licensed therapists, not by fundie ministers and deprogrammers, to even have a presumption of being legal. Plenty of "tough-love" programs that even fall short of the extremes of what you described have found themselves shut down and their operators prosecuted in various parts of the country. I have to say that your ignorance really amazes me.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 4:08 PM

Daryl, you're full of shit, as I've told you in the past on your own site. That statement is the simple truth, not "doctrinaire". As a chemist, you're unqualified to tell biologists what's "doctrinaire" and what isn't.

Posted by: Touchstone | November 10, 2006 4:13 PM

I'm a homeschooler, and an evangelical Christian, and while I'm not at all comfortable with the meta-message of Myers' post here (Homeschooling should be regulated, less free), I do identify a widespread problem in the homeschooling community when it comes to science. Young earth creationism is much more popular and entrenched in the homeschooling community than I'd thought, and more deeply-seated than even in the wider evangelical/fundamentalist community.

I don't think regulation is the answer. As a free-market conservative, though, I lament at this trend -- so many homeschoolers so ill-equipped to function and succeed in the sciences. As Myers' says above, they will be and are being selected against at good schools, not out of bigorty, but simply because their homeschooling parents didn't bother to provide even nominal education in science.

More comments from an Evangelical Christian + Evolutionist perspective at my blog post on this subject:

http://evangelutionist.com/blog1/2006/11/09/pz_on_homeschoolers/

-Touchstone

Posted by: Daryl Cobranchi | November 10, 2006 4:13 PM

How much regulation should government establish to promote a minimal educational goal for all the citizens?

Answering it is difficult.

The SCOTUS answered this in Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925: "As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Pierce was almost a perfect parallel to the discussion here. The case hinged on an Oregon law that forbade private (i.e., religious) schools and forced all kids to attend (and be indoctrinated by) the public schools.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 4:15 PM

99 bottles

"So which is it, does the school have magical powers to get students to accept that racism is wrong? Or are they powerless against parents?"

So which is it? Is 99 Bottles a clueless retard who continues to refer to education as "magic" after it's been explained to him that it's not magic? Or is he just trolling like a jerkoff?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 4:16 PM

Some people seem confused about a basic fact. Homeschooling (which, again, I fully support as long as there is adequate oversight), pace libertarian fantasies, is not a Constitutional, or common-law, right in any way, shape or form. It is a privilege conferred by statute as an exception to compulsory schooling (which itself has been established by statute). The state has every legal right to exercise such regulation as is provided for by statute in any given jurisdiction. How much oversight is wise or necessary is something to be dcided by the democratic process.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 4:18 PM

A far as biology teaching materials go I am very definitely thus qualified, and I have a bachelor's degree and a Ph.D. (from Harvard and Northwestern, respectively) and years of additional professional training and experience to back up that claim. Your point?

Posted by: COD | November 10, 2006 4:19 PM

Have you noticed every time Whitey gets challenged on something he cries strawman and refuses to answer the question? I think I counted at least 4 or 5 times in the comments thread.

As Warren noted an hour ago - this has stopped being productive. I'm outta here.

Several of you are much more like the fundies than you would ever care to admit. The only difference is you have a different set of facts that you want to impose on the rest of us. The "fact" that your facts are way more supported by science today than theirs, does not make you right.

Posted by: KS | November 10, 2006 4:21 PM

Steve:

Here in CT it's not a privilege. It's our duty to either educate our kids or otherwise see that they receive an education. Thanks for thinking that you know the law everywhere.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 4:21 PM

The Great White Wonder, caught in his own contradictory logic, says, "So which is it? Is 99 Bottles a clueless retard who continues to refer to education as "magic" after it's been explained to him that it's not magic? Or is he just trolling like a jerkoff?"

You claim teaching creationism abusive and promotes antisocial behavior. You have neither linked nor cited any actual data to support this claim.

You claim that kids told that "faggots go to hell" over the dinner table are likely to believe it.

Then you claim that schools can undo this FALSE and ANTISOCIAL belief in history and English class, again without any data, and in direct contradiction to your earlier claims about what happens at the dinner table.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 4:24 PM

"Here in CT it's not a privilege. It's our duty to either educate our kids or otherwise see that they receive an education. Thanks for thinking that you know the law everywhere."

Steve's point is that if you don't "see to it" the State will, whether you like it or not. You have the opportunity to take up the State's task but that opportunity could be taken away if, e.g., you're a fucking idiot.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 4:25 PM

KS: your state can and does have the power to regulate homeschooling. The requirements happen to be pretty lax right now, but there is no question that the legislature has the authority to make them more restrictive than they are now should it so choose. I don't know what point you think you're making but it does not conflict with what I said.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 4:27 PM

@ Steve LaBonne:

I agree with you about statute and the democratic process, and the need for oversight. I think that getting oversight into things beyond the 3rs is problematic, particularly with the constituency of homeschoolers being more religious than others. I also think that, even if you could require some kind of scientific or tolerance training in the curriculum, it would be undermined by the parents.

And, contra Great White Wonder, I don't see any evidence that tolerance and science curriculum in actual public schools has reduced the teaching of so called FALSE and ANTISOCIAL behaviors.

My beef with PZ and others wanting more regulation is simply that it won't change the behavior they seek to change in any meaningful way, while it will inconvenience everyone and cost lots of money. Whereas I do think that focusing monies and efforts on public outreach and science education efforts (PBS, libraries, public debates, etc) does stand a chance.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 4:28 PM

I defend evolution. But in order to be sure I can continue to teach it in my home, I must defend other homeschoolers' right not to.

Quoted for Truth.

Also, a pre-emptive rebuking of GWW: you're not qualified to discuss the history of societal perceptions of childhood in any way. I, on the other hand, have sat through enough lectures on the subject to have an educated layman's knowledge of the matter. Shut your noise hole.

Posted by: Daryl Cobranchi | November 10, 2006 4:29 PM

Doctrinaire-- Of, relating to, or characteristic of a person inflexibly attached to a practice or theory.

I'd say that stating that anything is indisputable fits the definition. And the "siding with insanity" bit is just icing.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 4:31 PM

Great White Wonder, at 04:05pm:

"Why do I have to prove "actually abusive"? Why isn't it enough to prove that such viewpoints are scientifically FALSE and lead to ANTISOCIAL behavior in our society?"

Show me the data. What antisocial behavior? What kind of pathology? Or did you not mean "antisocial" in the DSM-IV sense? Or is it just that they are big meanies who hurt your feewings when they say so and so is going to hell?

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 4:32 PM

Perhaps that pre-emptive rebuke should have been directed at Mr. LaBonne, whose severe case of not-knowing-what-the-hell-he's-talking-about doesn't seem to prevent him from holding forth on all kinds of matters.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 4:33 PM

GWW nitpicked, "Once again, I never claimed that "science curriculum in public schools reduced the teaching of false and antisocial behavior.".

Oh, my bad. Sorry.

"American history, World history, and English class for starters."

Posted by: Jeanne | November 10, 2006 4:35 PM

oh, COD, you and I just reached the same conclusion re fundamentalists on different ends of the spectrum.

And Steve, a great many people disagree with your version of the derivation of the right to homeschool. There's some good reading on that topic, but I don't have time to dig it out with dinner needing tending. Yours is merely one of many viewpoints -- but not one that everyone agrees upon as a "basic fact."

Gee there we go again on which facts are the correct ones.

Posted by: 99 bottles | November 10, 2006 4:36 PM

@ Caledonian:

There are lots of different interepretations of constitutional interpretation, but Steve is essentially correct both de facto and de jure. Some might hope that alternative interpretations gain credence in the future, but I think it's unlikely.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 4:38 PM

GWW just can't wait to use the collective power of government to force things to be taught the correct way - his way. No more need to persuade, no more need to demonstrate, no more need to let the merits of his case prove his position superior, no more need to risk being shown to be wrong or suboptimal.

Why give people the option to choose differently and thus risk their choosing wrongly? GWW knows what's right, and he's perfectly capable of choosing for them. He's the Decider!

Are you sure your last initial isn't a 'B', GWW? 'GWB' seems like a collection of letters associated with that sort of position in my mind for some reason...

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 4:38 PM

Jeanne, there's a lot of liberatarian bullshit going around that claims all sorts of bizarre "rights". A glance at the acutal law is sufficient to show that it is bullshit. Every state has laws respecting the welfare and education of children, and the courts have been uphoding thsoe lwas for a very long time.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 4:39 PM

GWW just can't wait to use the collective power of government to force things to be taught the correct way - his way.

Caledonian just can't wait to attack strawmen. In fact, he does it in every comment. Why? Because he's mildly retarded or merely a gaping asshole.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 4:42 PM

There are lots of different interepretations of constitutional interpretation, but Steve is essentially correct both de facto and de jure.

Except that he's not correct de facto, which is exactly why people are complaining about the low standards imposed on homeschoolers.

I've read of arguments over slavery dating right back to the very writing of the Constitution. I don't ever recall the FFs discussing the necessity of imposing school on people. How remarkable that the nation existed for so long before those laws were passed without anyone noticing the Constitution required children to receive specific educations - especially given that apprenticeship was the dominant means of learning a trade at the time the document was written.

Posted by: SEF | November 10, 2006 4:42 PM

This is evident in the success of Christian home-schooled children

Yes, some of those home-schooled Christians can be very successful at growing up to be psychopathic killers - eg of those non-parasitic Amish who might conceivably have been better educated in their community school-house.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 4:47 PM

So, when someone cites Stalin their logic is silly, but when you cite Aushwitz it's right on target. Funny, that.

Nah, dipshit, it's not funny. Aushwitz really *is* where your data is. It's there. Right now. In 2006. You can go there and SEE the evidence which SHOWS what happens when people are indoctrinated to believe exactly that "niggers are animals" and "fags are dirty perverts". Need I mention what was said about the Jews and what happened to them? Even you can't be that fucking stupid.

Caledonian's Stalin bullshit, by contrast, is a bogeyman. Laws regulating what can be taught to children do not lead to fascism, whether those laws regulate public schools or "home schools." They just don't. So go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 4:49 PM

For quite a while, schooling children has been mandatory in this country. Whether this is a good or bad thing, or both, isn't relevant to this discussion. Public schooling, however, was never mandatory, and parents could always send their kids to private schools if they wished, and the requirements for those schools didn't go much further than teaching the 3Rs.

The more requirements, and mandatory topics, and mandatory testing patterns, that are placed on forms of schooling that aren't the government-instituted public schools, the closer those schools come to being those public schools. The public schools are failing for a variety of reasons, some of which have been discussed on this thread. People are trying to escape them, many of them with very good reason, and trying to trap them in a sinking ship is a very bad idea.

The people who started the modern homeschooling movement were liberal hippies and academics, after all.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 4:49 PM

I want her to learn at a pace that is natural for her - I don't want her to feel stupid because she is unable to learn a subject at the "average" rate and I don't want her to be bored by being forced to study material she already knows. I want my daughter to make good use of her time, not waste it in classroom management time sinks. I want her to learn about subjects that interest her and that her interests will drive her to excel in. I don't want her natural love of learning tamped down by schools that make learning a "means" rather than an "end." I want to expose her to a much more varied social situation than she would find in school. I want her to find pleasure and joy in learning and in life

So what are you going to do prepare her for the real world?

Posted by: wm | November 10, 2006 4:55 PM

RE: So what are you going to do prepare her for the real world?

Do you mean a life of boredom, intellectual constraint, wasted time, and limited possibility? Not a whole lot.

Posted by: Stogoe | November 10, 2006 4:56 PM

Wow. I just want so say, this topic has turned a whole bunch of people into jackasses (here's the stink eye right back at you, Caledonian).

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 4:57 PM

What those laws don't do is establish proscriptions for what must be taught.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 5:00 PM

The education laws of most if not all states, as well as most homeschooling statutes, prescribe in at least general terms (and sometimes in more detail) the subjects in which instruction is required.

And those laws are incredibly lax, filled with loopholes and exceptions, and are generally poorly enforced.

Which is why you've been arguing that they have to be tightened up, remember? How interesting that you seem to have forgotten what your own position was.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 5:10 PM

You only make yourself look like an even bigger idiot by continuing with this irrelevant qubbling.

Word.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 5:17 PM

Nice job, Martin- you didn't even manage to spell correctly the last name of this blog's proprietor. Guess you stand to lose your license.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 5:26 PM

Again, Daryl, so what? Where did I claim that the state's right to require compulsory schooling is not subject to any restrictions? My, the strawmen are marching thick and fast in this discussion.

Posted by: KS | November 10, 2006 5:54 PM

"It is a privilege conferred by statute as an exception to compulsory schooling (which itself has been established by statute)."

"KS: your state can and does have the power to regulate homeschooling. The requirements happen to be pretty lax right now, but there is no question that the legislature has the authority to make them more restrictive than they are now should it so choose. I don't know what point you think you're making but it does not conflict with what I said."

It's those pesky words. I didn't say the state didn't have the power to change the statute. You however presented as a fact that homeschooling is a privilege and an exception to compulsory schooling. I'm not sure if you meant compulsory education or compulsory attendance or both.

Connecticut has a compulsory education law for everyone, but parent directed instruction is not granted as an exception. It is written into the law as the first option for compulsory instruction. Compulsory attendance here is for those who are not otherwise being educated. We have the duty to educate and if we choose not to take on that duty ourselves, we have the option of choosing a private school or to utilize the public schools made available to us under other state statute.

I hope you can understand the difference between something that is required by law and something that is allowed by law. It may not be important to you, but is is different than your presentation as to the facts of homeschooling.

These distinctions make a bit of difference when dealing with government officials who do not take the time to actually learn the laws under which they operate. Sometimes they try to intimidate people based on their idea of what the law should be. It behooves us to learn about the law as it exisits to be an informed citizenry.

Understanding the distinctions can also make a difference when faced with potential changes in the law.

The original crafters of our law did not feel that it was the state's place manage the details of the education provided by the parents beyone requiring that certain subjects be presented.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 5:57 PM

The original crafters of our law did not feel that it was the state's place manage the details of the education provided by the parents beyone requiring that certain subjects be presented.

Oh, look, it's Baby Scalia again with his little theory. Did the original crafters of "our law" explain in the Constitution what legal theory was to be used to interpret "our law"? No?

Oops. Baby Scalia just pooped his pants.

Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | November 10, 2006 6:33 PM

My two cents on this looooooooooong thread...

What bothers me about homeschooling is the same thing that bothers me about laws in certain Middle Eastern countries that give the husband control over his wife -- whether or not she can travel, whether or not she can use birth control, what her rights are when it comes to divorce. Under a system like that, if the husband is a decent, reasonable guy, he'll choose to grant her equal rights in the family and not take advantage of his cultural and legal superiority, and the law then becomes irrelevant to her. But if the guy's an a**hole, her life will be absolutely miserable, and the law is behind him.

Same thing with homeschooling. If the parents are committed to science and real education, and actually know something about the subjects they're teaching, this can be a real boon to the kids. If however they're shoving nonsense in the kids' heads and rendering them unprepared for life outside the hermetically sealed bubble of the home, then who's going to stop them?

Of course the state doesn't always educate properly, and teachers are often woefully underqualified (elementary education teachers can be totally science-ignorant, as a previous poster said). But at least state education is transparent...a lot of people work together to contribute to setting the standards, and what's being taught is visible to the population as a whole (if they're interested in finding out). If parents don't like what's being taught, they can gripe. It's not ideal, but at least there's some accountability. This isn't the case with homeschooling, where it's all pretty much sealed inside the home.

Also, how on earth can you teach laboratory science in the home?? Playing with Drano and baking soda in the kitchen sink just doesn't cut it. Clearly one can't run a proper, safe chemistry laboratory in the house or backyard (meth labs aside, haha)...homeschoolers tend to get around this issue by either skipping lab science altogether, which is doing the kid a great disservice, or sending the kid to a nearby school to take a lab course...but of course then it's no longer really homeschooling.

As a PhD physical chemist, I would feel comfortable teaching a kid chemistry, physics or introductory biology...but how the hell could I teach Spanish, for example, when I don't *know* it?? In fact, how could any one person think they are competent to teach *every* subject to kids, often at various grade levels?

Most homeschooling parents don't hold postgraduate degrees, and some (especially the religious ones) only have high-school diplomas. The prospect of a parent with no postsecondary education trying to teach a kid high-school level physics, chemistry or biology (let alone calculus!!) is much worse, imho, than a science-phobic public elementary school teacher skirting the issues with 8-year-olds.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 6:38 PM

The prospect of a parent with no postsecondary education trying to teach a kid high-school level physics, chemistry or biology (let alone calculus!!) is much worse, imho, than a science-phobic public elementary school teacher skirting the issues with 8-year-olds.

The Family Research Council Education Package will make all your worries disappear! Only $2999.99, or thirty easy installment payments of $100/month!!!!!! Act fast -- this offer expires when Jim Dobson is caught with a penis in his mouth!!!!!

Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 10, 2006 6:51 PM

Holy crap, I missed this gem from COD:

The "fact" that your facts are way more supported by science today than theirs, does not make you right.

Post-modernism is alive and well.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 7:05 PM

Does that seem right to you?

Posted by: Kagehi | November 10, 2006 7:13 PM

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.

This is the only one I plan to cover, since it is at the heart of the whole bloody mess. What are state standards, really? On a basic level, they amount to, "If I ask this kid what 2+2 is and what water is made up of, are the answers going to be 4 and Silly Putty, or the right answer?" Yeah, real bloody useful. Anyone with the a photographic memory or **lots** of rote practice can come up with that answer. What is a whole hell of a lot harder, and isn't done, is questions like:

"You have a box that is X by Y by Z, cut it into pieces to form something that is instead A by B by C, with D left over." or "Given some theoretical substances, A, B and C, with this number of electrons, using the laws of chemistry defining how elements combine, what are the 'only' configurations possible using them." See, standardized tests can only determine if you can "identify" something well enough to give a rote answer, which is why even Fundie homeschooling can get by with "seeming" to be better. But, if they had to prove that they could "think"... And, more to the point, the tests "must" be conducted outside the hands of the parents, because some parents are going to pull something like that fallicited communication BS for severe autistics out of their asses, do all the students tests for them, then claim that they where never in the room when the child took them. Net result, you end up testing the "parents" knowledge, not the childs and in ***no*** case do you ever test "understanding", just raw, and meaningless without the skills needed to use it, facts.

And frankly.. The few, If train A is going at blah, and B is blah, blah, are the level of "skill" I would expect from someone that needs to figure out that you put the soup into the dish washer "before" turning it on, not the kind of skill needed to actually invent the next car, commercial aircraft or cancer cure. For that, you would need several more levels of complexity, at minimum. At most, it only proves they can diregard some really obvious red herring that is thrown in to trip them up, after which the math itself is generally rediculously trivial.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 7:18 PM

It happens to be correct, so why exactly shouldn't I? I would think anyone who quotes a statute would have the intellgence to realize that legislatures have the power to replace them with diffferent statutes.

Do you actually, after all this blather, have a point?

Posted by: Caledonian | November 10, 2006 7:22 PM

It happens to be correct, so why exactly shouldn't I?

I was just wondering whether the original argument or the counterargument that you put up against someone else's use of the argument was correct.

Very possibly both are correct, at least in the highly advanced math you share with Karl Rove.

Posted by: KS | November 10, 2006 7:30 PM

"Also, how on earth can you teach laboratory science in the home?? ...or sending the kid to a nearby school to take a lab course...but of course then it's no longer really homeschooling."

"As a PhD physical chemist, I would feel comfortable teaching a kid chemistry, physics or introductory biology...but how the hell could I teach Spanish, for example, when I don't *know* it?? In fact, how could any one person think they are competent to teach *every* subject to kids, often at various grade levels?"

There seems to be a common fallacy that if you homeschool you have to be doing it only in the home and only within your own family. Homeschoolers on the whole tend to be good at networking and finding community resources. Homeschool cooperatives that take advantage of skills within the homeschooling community are common. Other times parents will join together to hire someone proficient in a subject they are uncomfortable with. Finding mentors for kids with particular interests works too.

For lab science classes that would be better in a more professional lab setting (esp. chemistry and physics) there are plenty of colleges and universities which will enroll high school aged students. Some even offer reduced or free tution. I can't really see any reason to put a student through both a college track science course in highschool and repeat it with an introductory level college course. Been there done that--found it to be a waste of time.

Some of our community colleges are actively welcoming homeschoolers. I know of a group of homeschoolers that got together with a community college for language classes. They had enough students for the school to offer a section at a time convenient for them. The section open to any student at the college, but it was the homeschool group that met the initial enrollment requirement for the class to be held. Most of those kids are in also now enrolled in other courses. They may not be "home" schooling for all of their education, but they and their parents are directing it.

What you need more than competency at everything K-12 across the board is the motivation to find the resources you need to make it work for your family. As the kids get older, they get involved with this process too.

Someone mentioned earlier that income levels need to be high enough for one parent to stay home. It makes it easier certainly. But there are families that make the choice to have a lower standard of living (much as they might do to send kids to a private school). There are also single parents who homeschool. As with other choices in our lives, we have to decide on our priorities. Some people can't imagine changing their lifestyle to homeschool, other people can't imagine not doing it.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 7:37 PM

KS, I want to say that I agree there are parents without fancy credentials who, using the materials and assistance that are pretty readily available (the popular Singapore Math, for example, is a much better curriculum than the stuff most US public schools are using) are doing a fine job. That's why I believe oversight should ideally focus on a manageable amount of testing (once or twice a year, not NCLB-like insanity) to make sure that kids are learning what they should, rather than on the paper qualifications of the parents. Parents should also know their limitations, and many are in fact pretty wise about this, for example sending their kids to high school after homeschooling them in the earlier years which as I understand it is a fairly common pattern.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 7:56 PM

Not, it's not. Which is why genuine subject-matter experts need to be involved in it.

Posted by: wm | November 10, 2006 8:05 PM

That's why I believe oversight should ideally focus on a manageable amount of testing (once or twice a year, not NCLB-like insanity) to make sure that kids are learning what they should

I'm curious how you would define "learning what they should." What do you think would be the bare minimum for each child to learn and when? Do you think that it would be necessary for a child who not good at math to learn algebra/geometry in time for a particular check-point? Should a child with no interest in physics be forced to study it? What should happen if a homeschooled child can't read by the time she's 10? Particularly considering that some of her public school-educated peers also can't read by that age? Would it be such a tragedy if she learned to read by 12 or 13 instead?

My biggest concern with testing is that children aren't all the same. Some have an aptitude for math, others don't. Some are artistically gifted, others aren't. There seems to be a large distribution of ages at which kids learn to read, no matter the environment in which they learn. As an electrical engineer, I think that math and physics are great. But I also think that that it's possible to live a happy, productive life without learning much about them. I think that by trying to force all children into the same, round hole, many of them will have their edges smashed off in a way that isn't conducive to anything of benefit to them or the public.

Posted by: Jeanne | November 10, 2006 8:22 PM

Resources, folks. Y'all really do think we live in caves or something? As to how we learned Spanish: attended Spanish story time at the library, hosted a Spanish-speaking exchange student from South America for a year, made friends with Spanish-speakers on the soccer field who traded conversations with us, attended University of Virginia continuing education classes, used Rosetta Stone computer language program, read books in Spanish, watched movies with the Spanish subtitles on, attended Spanish worship services, traded Spanish lessons with a Spanish-speaking neighbor, attended conversational Spanish classes at a library in Mississippi, accosted Spanish speakers in the grocery store and arranged to take turns helping each other with language. To top if off, as I mentioned earlier, this year, our 18 year old is living in Ecuador, where he is teaching English to primary school students (and it has turned out to be quite an experience because he was supposed to be the assistant but the actual teacher seems to have dropped out of sight, so he now seems to have been promoted to THE English teacher position for grades 1 - 6 -- and he, an unschooler!) and learning more Spanish by immersion. (By the way, this might also address those concerns of "when are you getting him ready for the real world?")

Homeschoolers are resourceful. We're not thinking that we can all be experts in all things. When my kids got interested in engineering, we bartered with a homeschool dad who put together an engineering class for them and some other kids. When one of my sons wanted to build a computer from scratch, I helped him secure a mentor at a nearby computer store. When one of them wanted to pursue figure skating seriously, we made it work. My Salchows are not so hot, considering I grew up training horses and not spending a lot of time on the ice. But that doesn't mean I couldn't arrange for Salchows.

And now we know what Ricky Riccardo is saying in all the I Love Lucy re-runs. And you haven't lived until you've seen the donkey speak Spanish in Shrek.

Really, it's okay. We figure out how to meet our kids' needs. It's just not all in one box, but we like opening a lot of different boxes and finding the ones that contain "good fit" for each kid. It's actually really efficient. It's sort of like putting together a puzzle or figuring out how to arrange a good buffet.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 10, 2006 8:24 PM

Because if my kids are going to be tested, they are going to have to be taught to the test.

If I were home-schooling my daughter I would be administering standardized tests of some kind to her myself, since Ohio doesn't mandate them. As a responsible parent, I would want some objective check on how I was doing.

Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | November 10, 2006 8:27 PM

KS & wm -- your thoughtful comments are most appreciated!

A few observations. The incompetence of certain public school teachers (we all have some personal anecdotes to share, I'm sure, and I could tell you a doozy about my 7th-grade science teacher who was also the football coach) isn't in itself a sufficient reason to abandon the system for the capricious alternative of homeschooling. I hear this line of reasoning from a lot of homeschooling advocates -- X, Y or Z is wrong with the public school system, therefore the only alternative is to teach the kids at home. They seem to know exactly what's wrong with the system but have little interest in working to improve the schools -- a tough job, to be sure.

Since participation in "homeschooling cooperatives" and other resources is voluntary, once again it's up to the whim of the parents. A mom without a college diploma could realize she can't teach biology, and choose to find a tutor or a community-college class -- or she could try to stumble through it herself, or just skip it altogether. No transparency or accountability, unless the parent chooses to do so. And who evaluates the knowledge/capabilities of those "resources"? How does one know that they are reliable? Can you justify setting the bar high for public school teachers while tacitly approving no "bar" at all for those who homeschool?

I have serious reservations about so-called "dual enrollment" and homeschooled kids taking community college classes without having earned a high-school diploma. They may be able to handle remedial or "learning-assistance" courses, but usually have serious difficulty with the community college courses that are crosslisted with university classes (for example in the California and Florida state college systems) and which by state law must be the same courses taught at the universities. Such courses, especially in the sciences, require secondary-school courses that those kids usually haven't taken, and (personal anecdote time) my colleagues at one of our local community colleges have seen many of these homeschooled kids flounder and flunk out of first-year college physics and calculus because they have absolutely no clue what's going on. The mission of our community colleges isn't to fill gaps in homeschooled kids' education; the colleges and the kids both lose out.

About running a chemistry lab at home -- it just isn't possible. No Bunsen burners, vacuum lines, fume hoods; very few emergency supplies and no state-mandated safety equipment such as high-volume showers and eye washes. Who would want an untrained parent fiddling with chemicals over an open flame, or mixing compounds that give off irritating or poisonous fumes? Would they even know where to start with proper waste disposal? There might not be physical harm in teaching a kid a kooky interpretation of Shakespeare -- but people can get hurt doing chemistry, which is why those safety rules exist in teaching and research labs. Of course a homeschooler probably couldn't get access to many of the substances used in a regular chemistry lab, the end result being (once again) an insufficient education.

Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 10, 2006 8:45 PM

llewelly--Astral Projection is no crackpot idea. It has been scientifically proven, that you can make your mind leave your body. Also known as Astral Travel. I actually know someone who use to have the ability to put the themselves into a self induced hypnotic trance. Unfortunately, due to smoking which caused her to develop bronchitis, heart disease and other such lung problems. She is no longer able to Astral project because she cannot control her breathing, she constantly starts coughing when she trys to lie flat on her back. Which keeps her from going into the self induced trance.

On the other hand, I can put myself into a self induced hypnotic trance. It allows my body to sleep and be fully rested. While my body is asleep my brain is awake, I can hear everything going on around me, I just can't move my body. I've not yet achieved my goal of leaving my body to walk among those who are still in their physical form.

I can achieve Lucid dreaming on my own. For those of you who do not know what lucid dreaming is, it is when your completely asleep and dreaming but you are aware that you are dreaming and you hae the power to control it, you are free to do as you please in your dreams. My conciousness can awaken in my dreams, which are being controlled by my subconcious, I can take full control of my dreams. I can also communicate with my subconcious.

I don't blame any of you if you do not beleive me. It is quite hard for your mind to comprehend it, unless you've experienced it on your own.

By the way, for those of you who have had that dream where your flying, if you ever realize that you are dreaming, and you get scared and start to fall. Try and calm yourself, and pull yourself out of the dive.

People have been known to die in their dreams, by literally scaring themselves to death and causing themselves to have a heart attack.

People can always give themselves a good scare and raise their heart rate so high that their actually shaking and you can see their skin moving. I've actually done that to myself several times and caused my nose to start bleeding, because I was so scared. Beleive me it's not very fun.

PS: The person I referred to as being a former Astral Traveler. She is my mother.