…and this is a 
Practicing information hygiene
Category: Godlessness • Religion
Posted on: July 3, 2007 8:41 PM, by PZ Myers
A high school student loans a friend, another high school student, his copy of The God Delusion. Two things happen: the friend's father loses his cool and complains to their school, and a school administrator suggests that this was an establishment clause violation. And this was at a school that allowed the Gideons to distribute bibles in the parking lot!
At least the lunatic father finally returned the book.
It's ironic. I get accused of being some kind of deranged militant atheist, yet when my kids got handed tracts and evangelical comic books and were asked to attend church and sunday school with their friends (and all of those were reasonably common events), I just gave 'em the thumbs up, read the comics myself (they were uniformly terrible), and shooed 'em out the door on Sunday morning. Yet scrubbing the information their kids are allowed to see is common practice among the religious — it's the primary reason for Christian home schooling, for instance.
I've always figured I was just boosting their intellectual immune system.
(via the Friendly Atheist)
Comments
Careful with the broad brush there, PZ. Most home schoolers, superstitious or not, resort to home schooling because of the dismal performance of the government schools. Many of them aren't even safe. I've met kids who are home-schooled because they're atheists who were sick of the christian students beating on them, and kids who left school because they're gay and also feared for their safety.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 3, 2007 8:51 PM
#1, that's why he typed Christian home schooling
Posted by: terry | July 3, 2007 8:54 PM
I'm curious - do you have any reason to believe this is the PRIMARY reason for Christian Home Schooling, or is this just conjecture on your part?
I am an agnostic, homeschooled by christian parents for the simple reason that the public school system is an inadequate (and in my opinion fatally flawed and failed) system for achieving a decent education. I have known and talked to many people who either were homeschooled or homeschool their children. The primary reason has always been the poor education provided by public schools. Nor have I seen any statistics that would indicate otherwise - in fact, the academic superiority of homeschooling has become accepted by virtually every major educational institution.
So again I ask - do you have any reason to believe that the primary reason of christians homeschooling their children is to scrub the information their kids are allowed to see? If this is anything more than personal bias on your part, it's news to me! (And no, I'm not speaking of the bias of atheist vs. christian, but the common one of educator vs. homeschooler)
I am curious to see your response to this. Thank you - I have enjoyed reading your blog for many months now, though I rarely have anything to contribute to the subject, as I am a musician with an amateur curiosity and fascination with the sciences.
Posted by: Jess Mills | July 3, 2007 8:56 PM
Public schooling is one of the most effective means to influence the socialization of children. PZ's naturally suspicious of anyone who doesn't want their kids exposed to the public school environment.
It's not that he thinks that it's good and useful, but that the idea of it is good and useful.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 3, 2007 9:05 PM
Parents are rarely qualified to teach all the subjects mandated by state education systems, so I have my doubts that homeschooling, except in cases of exceptionally well educated parents with large amounts of free time, is even going to be remotely comparable to what public schools offer. Rather than pulling kids out of the public schools, I wish those parents who are genuinely concerned about the quality of the education would hammer on the schools and demand better instruction there -- it would benefit all students rather than a few.
And yes, I know several parents who homeschooled because of their disappointment with the quality of the schools. That's why I qualified the comment with "Christian". My experience with Christian homeschoolers is that they do it so their kids won't get exposed to scary ideas like evolution and sex.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 3, 2007 9:08 PM
You know this by ESP I suppose?
Posted by: afterthought | July 3, 2007 9:11 PM
I'm not too familiar of the views by American educators towards homeschooled students. Mr. Mills, could you provide us with some links that support your assertion that major education institutions consider homeschooling to be academically superior (compared to public/private schools, I'm assuming)? It just seems a bit counterintuitive to me.
Posted by: raiko | July 3, 2007 9:12 PM
I went to one of hose British Public (read private boarding) schools. My grandmother, a wonderful but crazy old lady and who loved books of all types, sent me Micheners "tales of the south pacific" paperback version with a lurid-looking scantily-dressed south-sea-sland woman on the cover. My housemaster immediately confiscated the book and demanded to know who had sent it to me. I told him my grandmother, at which he told me there are born liars and blatent liars and I was of the latter category. I did see the book back at the end of term, but only by getting my parents to intervene.
Posted by: Sailor | July 3, 2007 9:12 PM
Given the international standing of US public schools, I don't think there are many informed and intelligent people who are happy with the current state of affairs.
Presuming that PZ is neither ignorant nor stupid, there are only so many plausible reasons he could be in favor of the system.
I would wonder, though, exactly what he thinks makes a person qualified to teach a subject.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 3, 2007 9:35 PM
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about a third of home schooling parents list "concern about the environment of other schools" as their primary reason for doing so, and another third list "to provide religious or moral instruction." But that survey covers all parents, not just Christian ones.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 3, 2007 9:41 PM
No offense, Mr. Myers, but from what I've seen, most teachers in the public schools are no more qualified to teach their subjects than parents are. And this is not an entirely outside point of view - I was a public school teacher after I graduated from college. It was my discovery that the system was far worse than I'd even thought possible.
As for the attitudes of major educators... I do not have any studies on hand, though I should be able to come up with some when I have a few more moments (I'm due back onstage in a few minutes). I know that I read that the number of scholarships offered by colleges and universities specifically for homeschooled students has risen dramatically in the last ten years, and that Harvard and Stanford have both begun programs to recruit homeschooled students (as they tend to have much higher GPAs at the collegiate level).
Here are some easily available studies showing some results of homeschooled students vs. public schooled.
When I have time tomorrow I'll see if I can track down some more of those articles I read.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
http://www.chec.org/Legislative/News/HomeschoolingStatistics/Index.html
http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/comp2001/default.asp
Posted by: Jess Mills | July 3, 2007 9:43 PM
Way to go kid! Keep fighting the good fight. It may seem you're fighting like 'The Thin Red Line", but we're with you.
Second, this is religious batshittery at its' finest!
Posted by: Firemancarl | July 3, 2007 10:38 PM
I cannot assume that Caledonian is neither ignorant nor stupid, so there are only so many plausible bases upon which he could have any standing to pontificate/troll on this subject whatsoever.
How many students have you taught, Caledonian? How many children have you raised and educated at home? What form of educational process or its lack yielde Caledonian, so that I may avoid inflicting similar damage to my children and students, so that you may serve, at least, as a cautionary tale?
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 3, 2007 10:47 PM
I have thoughts on education. Right now, teachers have to get licensed and certified. Even though some are bad teachers, that is at least one layer of competence that you have to go through. Of course I am suspicious of home schooling as many people don't know as much about science and math as they should, and even though homeschoolers socialize, I think it would be better to have a more random sample of the population to interact with.
Posted by: shannon | July 3, 2007 10:58 PM
Home-"schooling". Hey, the kids win spelling bees!
Kudoes to Messr Braden. I hope he graduates and moves somewhere better. He obviously has a good head on his shoulders.
Posted by: notthedroids | July 3, 2007 11:03 PM
As for colleges accepting more homeschooled kids, there is a relatively new development in this area. I happen to live near a major American public University, and the starting quarterback on our (I pay taxes, dammit) team was homeschooled. Now the interesting thing is that, although his parents are devout Christians, the homeschooling appears to have been coorsinated so the young man could take massive amounts of time every day for private instruction in football, which due to school board rules would be impossible for a schooled child, as there are rules governing the amount of time allowed for kids to practice and such.
These kids, and it appears to have recently become more common, are certainly going to be offered scholarships, but not academic ones.
This is not to disparage the man's education, as my University has a proud history of holding atheletes to much higher standards than is required by the NCAA.
And we still won the championship last year.
nyah-nyah
Posted by: autumn | July 3, 2007 11:39 PM
I remember one day when we picked up my brother at school and all the fifth graders had their red Gideon New Testaments. I had recently seen a documentary on Mao and thought that Mao had visited the school.
Posted by: Bacopa | July 3, 2007 11:43 PM
You don't like the christian comics, PZ? Man, you have no appreciation for fine art. How could you NOT like the one where the guy says "damn" to his mom once and then spirals out of control into a life of drugs and crime because of it? That's pure narrative GOLD!
Posted by: Timothy | July 3, 2007 11:44 PM
I think it interesting that the home-schooled and the home-schoolers seem to uniformly think they have had the better education. Measured by what? Performance on standard tests? My experience seems unlike that of others here who seem willing to bash our unique public school system (largely it seems) on the basis of rumor and apocryphal stories, and seemingly also without direct experience. I have been delighted with my son's experience in a large, urban high school. The teachers were extremely well-trained, and incredibly committed and enthusiastic about their subjects (with few exceptions, and in direct contrast to the private school that he attended as a scholarship student for the first few elementary grades). While in his high school, he traveled with class groups to Asia, Mexico and Europe, and had tremendous opportunities offered that could never have been offered at home (e.g., the opportunity to play Jazz with Wynton Marsalis at Lincoln Center, and a tour of Rome with a classically trained, truely knowledgeable instructor). There are six languages offered at the school, all taught by native speakers, and the theatre department is exceptional, and produces professional level performances in a state of the art performance theatre. My son also took advantage of public scool programs in the summer to attend biology and ecology classes at the nearby University, and several courses during the school year at the community college (e.g. English 101), all of which transferred as credits to the University that he attended. Frankly, I think the public schools offer a trememdous opportunity for ALL students- which is something that definitely sets our schools apart from those in other countries in which I have visited or lived, both in Europe and in Asia. So, do some students fail to take advantage of those opportunities? Are some poorly prepared, poorly fed, poorly housed? Have some recently immigrated with their families from Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Ecaudor...? Yes, in fact at least 25 languages are native to different students at our public high school. And yes, some students are trying to learn English while trying to master their subjects (while many their parents eke out a living working two or three jobs). So, yes, there are a sizable proportion of students who don't perform well on the mandatory tests. And perhaps removing the students that are not handicapped allows their education in standard subjects, at least those that their parents have the time and expertise to adequately present, to proceed apace, and ultimately allows those students to outperform on exams of the standard material. But who is to say that the students who had so much attention paid by their parents to their educational progress at home would not have made the same, or better, progress in a public school given the same amount of parental committment to their education? And perhaps they then, with their superior training, intelligence, luck, or what have you, could have contributed a little bit more to the life of the public educational community, rather than sit well-educated and self-satisfied, alone in their room.
Posted by: Mike Kinsella | July 3, 2007 11:44 PM
pz, the word "irony" is defined as:
i fail to see an instance of fundamentalist christians acting like atheism is its own religion, and then trying to protect their children from it is in any way different from the expected. maybe that's just me, though.
Posted by: arachnophilia | July 3, 2007 11:51 PM
No doubt we could start a completely new thread on the social ramifications of home-schooling. However, I interpreted PZ's comments as referring to the factual knowledge of the parents. I am a certified English teacher and am confident that I could home-school the hell out of my kid in that subject but my knowledge of the sciences is that of the interested layman. These are not subject matters with which I should be teaching. I am not qualified. Unfortunately, too many parents already think they can do a better job then the people that at least have some qualifications. Say what you will about the schools or the teachers, at least they have some qualifications. Damn few parents or politicians have the right to say that.
Posted by: Chaoswes | July 3, 2007 11:54 PM
From the first link provided in #11 in support of the assertion that home schooled students are better that public schooled peers:
No problems with that procedure, then?
Posted by: Brachychiton | July 4, 2007 12:07 AM
I won't defend the use of homeschooling for the advancement of religion, but I'd like to raise a related point.
Parents that use homeschooling are trying to take a deeper responsibility in the cohesiveness of their families. Even if they thought the public education system would give their children the best education, they think that they would be removing themselves from a huge part of their childrens lives by sending them of to be educated for 12 years.
The parents are trying to propagate their cultural beliefs no differently than their own DNA. They want their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be as close to them, culturally, as possible.
Once the parents go down the path of homeschooling, in accepting that great responsibility, they are in control - completely - of their childrens upbringing. For good or bad they can push their religious beliefs into the family very deeply.
Posted by: exad | July 4, 2007 12:12 AM
I would have thought that the primary concern over home-schooling is not how it affects students' scores on standardized tests, but rather how it affects the degree and range of interaction that students have with people from diverse walks of life -- which, it seems likely, not only has implications for a student's individual socialization, but also for his or her enculturation as a citizen in a democratic society.
Posted by: Alex | July 4, 2007 12:16 AM
It's clear that this is all your and Dawkins' fault, PZ. After all, atheists have an image problem because of you, so I've been told.
Posted by: Skemono | July 4, 2007 12:19 AM
not only has implications for a student's individual socialization, but also for his or her enculturation as a citizen in a democratic society.
True. Most homeschoolers have more contact daily with different ages and types of people, as they interact with the normal range of people they meet when doing normal and pertinent outside activities and also meeting with other families, than do public schoolers, who are restricted to contact with people their own age and a few adult caretakers in an artificial, sterile environment where their social activities are restricted and they are expected to sit at desks and follow bells for the entire day.
But your point was?
Posted by: speedwell | July 4, 2007 12:24 AM
In regards to the insularity enforced by fundamentalist Christian education, those of you who have never been fundamentalists should know that this "separation from the world" is taken to, I think, a ridiculous level. I speak from experience. To introduce alternative ways and thoughts was to invite Satan to gain a foothold or stronghold in your life.
The other side of this phenomenon is that, sometimes, a tiny ray of the lights of reason and science may be all that's really needed to deconvert a Christian.
If you want to deconvert your Christian acquaintances, show them that you have a loving, positive life outside of Christ. Be there for them when they do deconvert (they will need friends to comfort them when their Christian friends disavow them). They need to know that you will not abandon them once they turn away from God. Be patient. Sometimes alternative views take a while to sink in. Finally, be informative. It helps to know the Creation myth, as well as modern biology and cosmology, especially about ascertaining the age of the Universe, Earth, etc. If you can show, definitively, how the dates taken from the literal interpretation of Genesis cannot possibly be correct, you will probably bring them around on the rest of their religious system as well. The whole system rests on the Creation account.
Posted by: Anthony Jeffries | July 4, 2007 12:27 AM
Mike Kinsella, I congratulate you on your fabulous parody of over-enthusiastic boosters of America's public schools.
Posted by: llewelly | July 4, 2007 1:17 AM
I Googled "Reasons for Christian Homeschooling" and checked out the first ten results. Every single one of them had some statement similar to this (from result #1):
The standards of English composition seem generally rather poor to me on those sites. (Note, for example, the redundant "however" in the above quote.)
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 4, 2007 1:23 AM
I could sit here and write a rebuttal for every point offered against home-schooling or for public schooling. And some of you could write rebuttals to my rebuttals. We could go 'round and 'round offering great rhetoric. But this isn't really the right space for it. Besides, the last thing I feel like is trolling on Mr. Myers' blog. Though I don't always agree with him, he is an excellent advocate for biological science.
Instead, I make a challenge for both sides of this issue; study it! Analyze it, research it. Throw away anecdotal evidence; we've all known somebody who ________. Find studies, talk to people on both sides of the issue. The conclusions I came to may not be the ones you do, and vice versa.
One more thought - try to throw away preconceptions. We assume certain things are natural or necessary, just because we were raised that way. I assume if you're reading this, you believe in the great advances that science has brought humanity. Many (if not most) of these were not because of what we assumed to be natural, but in direct contradiction to our instincts. When talking about any issue like this, the toughest step to get past is the assumption that something is right or wrong, just because that's the it's been done for ___________.
Posted by: Jess Mills | July 4, 2007 1:31 AM
llewelly, though it may seem, or be, parody, I attended public school in the educational backwater that is Florida, and I had an eviable experience. Granted, my school district happened to be a rather well-off one (funny how the income of the district seems to corrolate to both the amount of taxes collected which are marked for education, and the quality of education provided, as determined by standardized test scores), but the underpaid instructors that graced the halls of my schools happened to impart enough education that my high-school was much better at turning out National Merit Scholars than all of the private high schools in the district combined.
The real question is "has our school system sold itself out to the ad agencies clamoring for the best and brightest, thereby screwing the average student out of a quality education.
Posted by: autumn | July 4, 2007 1:34 AM
Oh, and one more thought - in PZ's original post, by Christian Home Schooling I assumed he meant christians who homeschool their children. I believe he meant the subset of those who homeschool for the sole purpose of indocrinating their children in christian values.
If he does mean the latter, then he is correct, but it seems pretty obvious; indoctrination in any ideology requires first the control of information. This is as true for raising Democrats or Republicans as it is for Christians and Muslims. For that matter, any Patriotism depends upon it every bit as much as Religion... Any subject not based upon undeniable empirical evidence requires it - and you'll find those subjects to be few and far between.
Posted by: Jess Mills | July 4, 2007 1:40 AM
It's hypocritical on the information scrubbers' part, too, and it reflects their deep insecurity. If they'd truly brought their children up in the genuine Christian faith (regardless of denomination), they would not have to worry about heathens like Dawkins 'corrupting' them.
These people make the world a scary place for their kids. If they were serious about their faith, they would consider themselves (and their children) filled with the Holy Spirit and nothing in Hell could touch them. It all goes to show what it's really about - Power. Not God.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | July 4, 2007 2:00 AM
From post #11
...but from what I've seen, most teachers in the public schools are no more qualified to teach their subjects than parents are...
This is disheartening. Although I already possess two B.S degrees in science, and have worked over 20 career years in in applied science and technology, with a bit pure research thrown in, plus teaching at the college level -- I believed my teaching credential advisor when he told me I still need another 20 units of science classes (in addition to my teaching theory classes and student teaching) to be certified to teach science in a California school. I should have told him "But I'm a parent! I am already more qualified than most teachers!" Gee, the time and money I could have saved.
Posted by: Tully Bascomb | July 4, 2007 2:07 AM
One thing is certain.
If it had been a boook written by a non-militant atheist, it would have had the blessing of the school.
Posted by: Steven Carr | July 4, 2007 2:19 AM
@speedwell:
Thanks for providing a demonstration of the phenomenon of framing that comes up now and again on this blog. By carefully choosing terms with positive and negative connotations, you've shown how one can make a claim seem substantive, without actually providing any reason to believe it. Of course, the problem with framing is that it works both ways: one might very well reframe the issue here by describing the environment of homeschoolers as 'artificial' and 'sterile'. Looking past the connotations of these terms, it's obvious that they merely serve a rhetorical function.
Whether or not most homeschoolers interact with people from a wider range of social and economic backgrounds than do most publicly schooled students is an empirical question that can't be settled by rhetoric. Prima facie, it seems highly implausible to me that a child who is taught at home would, on average, interact with a wider variety of people than a child who is taught at a public school, given that public schools typically have several hundred students from a wide range of backgrounds, and homes don't. Of course, I don't know this for sure and if there's any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Posted by: Alex | July 4, 2007 2:22 AM
uh, PZ, we're missing a few giant squid here in Seattle.
Can we have them back?
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | July 4, 2007 2:35 AM
"...but from what I've seen, most teachers in the public schools are no more qualified to teach their subjects than parents are..."
Teacher content knowledge aside (and forgetting about skills per se), you may well be overgeneralizing from your peer group (after all, you're commenting, fairly literately, on a science & atheism blog). IIRC, it's been claimed that the average American adult reads on a middle-school level. I'm sure we're all familiar with stats on U.S. science literacy (although I'm still hoping that the big chunk of folks who answered that the sun goes round the earth just got confused . . . .). It's not unusual to see people who struggle with basic math - making change and suchlike, while I'm frankly too scared to look up studies on general history/geography knowledge.
Posted by: Dan S. | July 4, 2007 2:37 AM
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" from BT's quote.
So these xians must also believe this from Revelations 2:
18"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. 20Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
21I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
24Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): 25Only hold on to what you have until I come. 26To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations--
27'He will rule them with an iron scepter;
he will dash them to pieces like pottery'[b]-- just as I have received authority from my Father. 28I will also give him the morning star. 29He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
So the prince of peace thinks that striking children dead is how to win hearts and minds. The "dashing to pieces" is a reference to psalms. "dashing", including particularly children, is a favorite theme of the bible. But remember, it is "inspiration of God".
Posted by: bernarda | July 4, 2007 3:10 AM
Oops! You had to go and mention homeschooling. Now the rabble are choosing their sides and picking up rocks. Which tribe will utterly vanquish the other? Well, neither, this is the internet. But good sport to all of you. Now then, entertain me with blathering!
Posted by: Pete | July 4, 2007 3:15 AM
llewelly.
Sorry, no parody intended. Also sorry not to support your world-view, or perhaps, your experience with your own public schools. You suggest that I am merely an overenthusiastic booster of public schools. I assure you I meant every word, and it was from direct personal experience. Although there may be a lot to boost relative to the virtues of public schools, clearly your experience is different. Do you have a personal experience you would care to relate, rather than some sterile and lame dogma about what's wrong with the public schools? My points were: 1) the environment in at least the one school with which I had personal experience was tremendous, and unlikely to be replicated in a small group; 2) Our public schools are asked, in addition to education, to provide multiple social support roles to a vast variety of students, some of whom, through poverty or lack of opportunity or lack of motivation, do not or cannot take advantage of that education. 3) I implied that such a broad range of students lead to, ON AVERAGE, underperformance on tests, relative to educational environments that can select their students, and do not have a broader social role to play. 4) And finally, I implied that the highest indicator of potential for exceptional scholastic achievement is parental involvement, and suggested that such a role, if carried out within the public schools, would tend to provide a wider benefit to the society. I also suggest that, no disrespect intended, if your local public school is lacking, that you get off your ass and make it better- I spent many hours focused on the academic environment at my local school, and I was one of many, many involved parents. I think it's the most important public institution that we have. Although they are a long way from perfect, I also think that bailing, either for home-schooling or private schools should be a last resort, and a choice that supports elitism and xenophobia. But, like I said, my experience is limited to one high school, but it's a hell of a lot better than the public high schools I attended 40 years ago.
Posted by: Mike Kinsella | July 4, 2007 3:28 AM
My kids are planning to homeschool their kids--my grandchildren--so I've been doing a little reading about it. The largest group of home schoolers are the "christians" and the next largest group are secular counter-culturalists. Yessir, that's my kids!
Based on what I've seen of public school elementary education, I'm all for it.
Posted by: natasha | July 4, 2007 3:29 AM
It's always interesting how these discussions invariably focus on an implicit dichotomy between conventional campus-attendance public (or private) schools and parents-as-teachers setups.
Unfortunately, I can't write much more on this topic; I have to go inform my college that my diploma is worthless, as the provider of the correspondance coursework I completed and the charter school I graduated from don't exist. ;(
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 4, 2007 3:38 AM
My thoughts on this: the issue is quite clear, and what PZ isn't getting is that the separation of church and state applies loosely for church in the traditional sense, and strictly for church in the satanic sense. I.e., the following is a list of things that are ok to do:
Things that are not ok to do:
I hope this is now clear, I don't see what the big misunderstanding is.
Posted by: Patrick | July 4, 2007 3:45 AM
Someone should share this story with Richard Dawkins. Surely he'd get a kick out of it (in a manner of speaking).
Posted by: Brian | July 4, 2007 5:13 AM
You are so right. My parents sent me and my siblings along to all of the sunday school/christian scout/whatever activities that our friends at school were inviting us to even though I always knew they were atheists. Hell, they event sent us to private catholic school for three years. For the longest time I couldn't understand it and I really hated going to those things sometimes. Now I see that it was a very well-calculated move.
Posted by: Daniel | July 4, 2007 5:41 AM
Knowledge is dangerous to the religious. Without ignorance and indoctrination of children, they wither and die.
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | July 4, 2007 5:52 AM
I would offer that US public schooling is not so much bad as uneven. Its quality seems to correlate with the income level of the neighbourhood serviced. I am a Canadian who worked for four years in the Washington DC area along with some Brits, Aussies and Kiwis who were doing the same. We all lived in the Falls Church area of Arlington VA and were keen to have our kids attend the excellent local schools there, but we would have not allowed them to attend schools in many other lower income or inner city areas. In fact, school quality is the principle factor in housing choice for the Commonwealth families moving to these posts. Our concensus was that our home nation school systems were more (but not completely) level in good quality and that the US schools ranged from much better to much worse. The only real complaint was that the US schools focused too much on US history at the expense of a wider world view. The US schools are especially recommended for their sports and other non-academic programs.
Ironically, a US coworker, who was not receiving our lucrative foreign allowances, lived in a poorer sector of Maryland and was compelled to homeschool his kids because of the poor quality of his local schools. Since he is a fundie, he was well served by his local homeschool support group, which was fundie-based. Personally, I was dismayed by how ideologically compromised the educational material is. Of course, he had other choices, but it did not seem to be as readily available.
Posted by: Ex-drone | July 4, 2007 6:59 AM
I live in a very conservative Christian county in Ohio. I've been trying to get Dawkins' book at the library for a while and it is always checked out. And our public schools pass out invitations to Christian events.
I am an atheist who "homeschools". I do believe that my daughters will receive a better education from me than by our public schools. I think it depends on the parents and their committment to their children's education. Some kids will obviously fair better attending public schools. Some kids do not have a love of learning, or a natural curiousity about their world, or it is not nurtured and therefore lost. As a parent, I try to do what I think is best for my children. My oldest child was utterly bored in school. Her teacher told me she was two to three years ahead of her classmates, even though she was a year younger than them. We chose homeschooling as an alternative to private school. We were not able to afford the tuition of the local Montesorri school, and so we homeschool. We are a dedicated family, and for us it works.
Posted by: Sarah | July 4, 2007 7:38 AM
This is a reply to a letter that I sent recently to my local newspaper,it comes from a "home schooled"young
Xtian boy.
Published Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Creation vs. Evolution
On June 26, Jonathan P. Smith wrote that divine creation is incorrect, and that the only "true" science supports evolution ["Biblical Creation Museum," letter]. Well, this is untrue.
I am a 16-year-old, home-schooled student, and I have been blessed to have been put in a godly family that has taught me the truth about creation and evolution. This along with common sense and personal research have led me to the conclusion that the world was created in six 24-hour days by the Lord God Almighty and not by evolution as many "scientists" believe.
Mr. Smith said the theory of theistic evolution is a false hypothesis. He is completely right - this was invented by conformist, spineless "Christians" who wanted to say they were "Christians" while still conforming to the secular scientists.
Mr. Smith says that evolution, or as he calls it, science, has never required any religious or ideological system for its advancement. He is wrong. Evolution is a religion itself because it requires blind faith. It is the God of those who want no God to be held accountable to, who wish to act as they please and have no reason to be held accountable. Mr. Smith also says that religion has over the years conceded to "science." However, the science that they have conceded to is merely propaganda and falsehoods.
Mr. Smith asks us to reply to his letter with "empirical" evidence of creation. Well, Mr. Smith, the only being that would be able to provide empirical evidence (able to be seen, heard, felt, experienced) of the beginning of the world would have to be an eternal being, which the godless "scientists" supporting evolution claim doesn't exist.
Therefore, no one can provide empirical evidence for either side. What can be provided is this: For something to exist, it has to be created. Even if the false religion of evolution is true, where did the first cell or atom, or chemical, that everything evolved from come from? The only way to explain this is a divine, eternal, supernatural being.
His parents have done a great job don't you think?
Posted by: JONATHAN SMITH | July 4, 2007 8:07 AM
I'm afraid speedwell has us there. I well remember that my public high school experience went like this:
*bell rings*
Start of the day, I wake up.
*bell rings*
Now I have to go brush my teeth. After five minutes...
*bell rings*
Now I sit down to breakfast.
*bell rings*
Now I rush off to school, where I have no interaction with anyone save my adult minders. During the lunch break, we take our lunches in regimented lines in the cafeteria, not allowed to look left, right, or up from our food nor talk to anyone. Not to mention, there's no hope of any conversations in the context of a class. That would just be too inconceivable!
*bell rings*
Now I'm off school. I go home, neither looking left nor right nor talking to anyone, as ever. In order to better commit ourselves to the regimentation of students' daily lives, and foster a complete lack of interaction, there are no afterschool programs of any sort. My experience an offensive linesman on the school football team, in a drama club as well as drama class where we worked afterschool to put on our plays, etc. are completely the invention of my overactive imagination.
*bell rings*
Now I start working on homework
*bell rings*
Dinner time
*bell rings*
Now I have my free time, as long as I'm not conversing with anyone, even my parents. In fact, television is not really allowed either, since by the drama we might get even a faint glimpse of how people interact with one another. Instead, I read. But I can't read anything too realistic either, so sharply observed psychodramas like James' The Golden Bowl are out of the question. Instead, I mainly just read Chick tracts and the telephone book.
*bell rings*
Brush teeth again.
*bell rings*
Sleep.
Of course on the weekends I had no choice but to hibernate.
And thank you for bringing up such a painful subject. Ah, the bells! the bells!
Posted by: Nullifidian | July 4, 2007 8:11 AM
This is a serious question...
Are there any movers and shakers, Nobel prize winners, people renowned in their field, etc. in the last 50 years who were home schooled for the bulk of their education prior to entering university/college?
The discussion about home schooling is interesting to me, and I read the reports that someone posted early on that suggest that home-schooled children have better performance. However, my own (limited) experience at university would indicate that not very many of these high-performing home-schooled youths go to university... that is to say, I've never met one. In my professional career, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met one either, although to be fair I have to admit it's not a huge topic of conversation.
So what becomes of these home-schooled geniuses? Do they just give up after their GED, or is there a cabal of home-schooled folks leading the world?
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 4, 2007 9:13 AM
The Hartman-McKean-Skitt Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation states that any article or statement about correct grammar, punctuation, or spelling is bound to contain at least one eror.
To wit: Kudos is singular, not plural, so it doesn't follow the stupid English spelling rule that most words that end in -o have a pointless -e- inserted between that and the plural ending -s. Conversely, Messieurs is the plural of Monsieur, not a singular.
Are you afraid of "the public school environment"?
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 4, 2007 9:16 AM
It can't be the world, because homeschooling is simply illegal in AFAIK most of it, even though private schools (religious and otherwise) do exist in many countries.
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 4, 2007 9:21 AM
Certainly some people have had excellent experiences with US public schools.
Some people also have relatives that smoked three packs a day, drank like a fish, and lived to be 106.
Anecdotes are not data. The data shows that quite a few Second- and Third-World countries' schools do better than we do on science and math. Quite frankly, I don't think that the people who enthusiastic about 'fixing' the US system have any idea about how to actually bring it about, or it probably would have been done by now.
Americans, as a society, simply don't care about education. We don't value it, we don't give it the resources it needs, we don't want to take the time and thought required to see that our children do well.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 4, 2007 9:42 AM
And the debate rages on.
Oh? According to whom?
Read this.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 4, 2007 9:45 AM
Slightly OT but so is homeschooling. This is something I've noticed about fundie cultists. They claim the bible is infallible and then quote mine and misrepresent it so it is actually twisted 180 degrees. The above from revelations is an example.
Rev. (who is claiming to channel Jesus) addresses himself to a church in Thyatria (a city somewhere I guess) about a prophetess called Jezebel. He isn't happy and is going to kill her and her followers.
Meanings pretty plain isn't it. If you lived ca. 2,000 years ago and were a Jezebelian, some guy claiming to channel Jesus just threatened to kill you and your kids. Seems like ancient history now. If you aren't living 2 millenia ago in Thyatira and a Jezebelian, why should you care?
It also appears to have been wrong. The good guys from Thyatira will "I will give authority over the nations-...rule them with an iron scepter;...he will dash them to pieces like pottery'... give him the morning star..." Supposedly the good guys will rule the earth and destroy all the nation states and venus got thrown in as a lagniappe. Well OK, I'm not aware that the good Thyatirians ended up ruling the earth, destroying all the nation states, and owning Venus. Really, Thyatira, seems to have sunk into obscurity millenia ago.
Sounds like idle threats and empty promises from a kook. My mainstream protestant church always ignored revelations. Probably because no one could make any sense out of it.
I suppose one could take it as metaphor, symbolism, or allegory but then it isn't literal, is it?
Posted by: raven | July 4, 2007 9:45 AM
Nevertheless, people do it in the "advanced" western world, and if, as the studies above show, it produces a better educated child, then surely over the last half-century, some of these advantaged children must have gone on to great things? Even if they didn't go to university, did they advance any fields? We're talking, literally, about thousands, or millions of children who have been home-schooled over the period of time.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that if home-schooling is so much better than the public system, it should be able to show its accomplishments. However, a superficial glance seems to indicate that it does not show that the products of that kind of schooling are advantaged in any obvious way over children who go through more formal schooling.
Maybe home-schooled kids do better on the standardized tests, but is that because they know the material better, or because they've been educated directly to prepare for such a test? You can train a person to pass an exam for an amateur radio licence, for example, and when they're done they'll have the licence and still not know anything about electronics (the primary subject of the exam).
I went to a small university. In that time, about 500 students attended during the 4 years I was there. To the best of my knowledge, none of them were home schooled. It would seem to me that if, as the studies suggest, home-schooled children are academically advantaged, they should make up a significant part of post-secondary enrollment.
So what I am trying to get at is: Where are they? What becomes of these home-schooled children? If they're advantaged, where is their mark on the world? If they're disadvantaged, why is it tolerated by society (apparently it isn't in many places) since society as a whole ends up paying when uneducated bumpkins are produced?
It seems to me that it should be a simple matter for proponents of home-schooling to stand up and point to their numerous accomplishments.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 4, 2007 10:01 AM
Home schooled kids do seem to have an advantage in student teacher ratio.
I can imagine that that would be significant in the early grades.
Once the material exceeds the capability of the parents, I'd expect the advantage to diminish.
Posted by: Duane Tiemann | July 4, 2007 10:04 AM
This homeschooling controversy is a little silly.
If it is done right by motivated parents who actually teach the required subjects, the result is at least equivalent to the schools.
If it is done as part of a brainwashing op by ignorant parents, the result is what you would expect.
I've only known a few and they were new age counter culture types. The kids were reasonably educated and went to college eventually but socially awkward, probably because they didn't interact with the masses of kids in high school.
Posted by: raven | July 4, 2007 10:04 AM
I have no idea why people who know nothing about homeschooling seem to think that we do it all from our memories. Afterall, parents aren't qualified, blah, blah, blah. Guess what? We actual use these things called textbooks. They're AMAZING! Printed words that contain things like math and history and science experiments. Must be the same people who think homeschooled kids are chained to the pipes in the crawlspace instead of being, "socialized."
Look, I took a vow when I moved down here and attended my first Florida high school, NO kid of mine will go to a Florida public school. They are years behind and simply not good enough. I'm sure they're just peachy for anyone who never wants to leave the state, but I'd rather my boy have options.
Posted by: k | July 4, 2007 10:16 AM
"...Some kids will obviously fair better attending public schools...."
Fare better.
Posted by: craig | July 4, 2007 10:21 AM
Maybe you will have a post on July 4th, but here is my precocious contribution. Thomas Jefferson on the 50ieth 4th.
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
Another quote from my link below.
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasoning in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."
http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner07042003.html
Jefferson seemed to rather like the Frenchies.
Posted by: bernarda | July 4, 2007 10:22 AM
Why do so many home-school advocates use sweeping generalizations in that home-schooled kids are always better off than the uniformly horrible public schools? We have two kids going to public schools and they are advancing quite nicely. I don't see any reason why I should attempt to home school them.
Posted by: daenku32 | July 4, 2007 10:22 AM
Well said Cal...
I completely agree with your statement. In some ways this country reveres much more celebrity and athleticism over knowledge and intelligence. It's pathetic and absurd.
We sure do have lots of nice air craft carriers and submarines though.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 4, 2007 10:24 AM
Caledonian:
I can't support my opinion with much more than my own observations, but generally speaking, I agree. The degree of committment varies from location to location, however. The residents of my home town regularly voted for budget overrides to fund the public schools - in other words, the taxpayers put their money where their mouths were. I recognize that my experience is probably in the minority.
The mediocre state of public education is caused, in part, by the failure of The Market to accurately determine its value, and a not completely unrelated failure of the citizenry to comprehend its importance. That's my opinion, FWLIW.