Posted by Editormum on 18 August 2009 in
News Commentary |
∞
It’s articles like this one (written in May 2004) that set my blood to boiling and bring out the debater within me. If I were better at logic, I should like to be an apologist for home education. As it is, I will content myself with refuting this inflammatory drivel point by point. Do read the article first.
” ‘homeschool’ cells …[are] almost as scary as the terrorist ones …and they definitely have some traits in common…. “
Aside from the obvious logical fallacy of comparing one thing to a completely different thing—with one of the things being a really scary one—why begin an article by comparing people to terrorists in such a blatantly inaccurate way? Last time I checked, homeschoolers weren’t blowing up airliners by crashing them into skyscrapers or strapping themselves with explosives to blow up restaurants full of innocent bystanders.
“…children who … never seemed to leave home, and mothers with glazed expressions …. The whole set-up of moms stuck with their school-age kids 24/7 gave me the willies…. “
Is there really something so wrong with kids being home with their mothers all the time? Education outside the home as a societal norm is really only about 200 years old. Prior to that, youngsters were educated at home, sometimes by tutors and sometimes by parents. Many of our nation’s founding fathers were home-educated, and they all turned out to be brilliant, forward-thinking men of prominent social and political stature. So it can’t be all bad.
What’s this about moms with “glazed expressions”? Most of the home-schooling mothers I know are bright, alert, interested people. If they occasionally have a glazed expression, it’s for the same reasons that any of the rest of us do. I’ve seen lots of public school moms with glazed expressions, but that isn’t necessarily the fault of their child’s schooling. Everyone gets a little overwhelmed or loses their train of thought on occasion, and homeschool parents are no different from anyone else in that respect.
And notice the subtle word-choice designed to give you bad feelings: mothers “stuck” with their kids. This sort of wording indicates, very subtly, that children are a burden and a nuisance to grown-ups—even if those adults happen to be their parents. Is this really the sort of rationale that we want to use to defend public schooling?
“…It’s the middle class that gets suckered into the myth that mothers and older children can survive being together all day without somebody being strangled. The true “haves” and “have-nots” know better. “
More subtle anti-kid propaganda. Homeschoolers come from all social and societal backgrounds, from many different cultures and lifestyles. It’s not just frumpy, dumpy middle-class hausfraus who homeschool. In my local homeschool organisation we have, among other demographic groups, single moms, a couple of very successful attorneys, blue-collar workers, and recent immigrants.
Furthermore, moms and older kids will probably have an easier time than moms with infants. “Older kids” are able to tell you what they need, want, and think, lessening the frustration level significantly. No one need be “strangled” by the end of the day just because a parent is home with her offspring. Most of the homeschool parents I know are delighted by their children and enjoy spending time with them.
“What’s scary is …the homeschooling faithful are as fueled by a fanatical, religion-based belief in their mission as Islamist terrorists, and seem to be just about as brainwashed. “
Again, is there really a need to compare people who are trying to do well for their children to people who go around killing those who don’t agree with them? Is there a need to insult those who believe that they were called by God to be more than just hoteliers for their children, but who, instead, choose to be intimately and deeply engaged in their children’s growth and well-being? Perhaps there are those who are “brainwashed” into believing that homeschooling is best, or those who are pushed into it against their will, but there are deeper problems at work in such situations than just the dilemma of homeschooling.
“Sometimes I even wonder if they’re a manufactured race …assembled in fundamentalist Christian churches …programmed to fulfill their husbands’ fantasies… “
Honestly, why the vilification? Most husbands, if allowed full rein of their fantasies, would prefer the public school model, which leaves their wives free during the day for lunches and even a middle-of-the-day cuddle, rather than the homeschool model, which effectively guarantees that the only time for intimate relations with the spouse is after the kids are in bed — and with homework the monster that it’s become, who knows what time the kids will actually get there?
The swipe at Christianity is both unnecessary and untenable. While the homeschool movement began with parents who were dissatisfied with the secular, anti-theistic worldview begin taught in the public schools, it has changed over the decades and now includes people of varying religious feelings, including atheists and agnostics.
“…. Some of the homeschooling moms … [are] witch-y, with the uncut hair and the long skirts because pants on females are unholy, but the description that really applies to this coven is ‘All of Them Zealots.’ “
More unwarranted vilification. And a slur on witches, too. Since when do witches run around with “uncut hair” and “long skirts”? And does wearing of skirts automatically make you some sort of religious freak? Some people prefer long hair or skirts; others prefer short hair and slacks or jeans. Personally, I prefer skirts because they are more comfortable for me. And I think skirts are prettier. But when I am out in the garden, I wear jeans. Personal appearance is not a justifiable grounds for deriding the entire homeschool movement.
“…homeschoolers also often have a broad martyr streak. …they commit “suicide book-learning,” sacrificing their own lives to teach their kids….get pregnant as an excuse to get out of homeschooling hell, but the true martyrs keep right on instructing, with the newest little pupil glued to their breast. “
What is becoming clear is the self-centered viewpoint of the author. It’s martyrdom to teach your children; it interferes with “real life.” Let’s look, for a moment, at the animal kingdom. In all of the higher animals, parents spend their time teaching their offspring those things that the kiddies need to know in order to survive. Mummy lions teach their cubs to hunt. Cows and horses teach their babies to graze as they wean them from milk. Polar bear parents teach their cubs to fish and hunt. Primates teach their kids to find food, to find shelter, to use primitive tools….in fact, there is a surprisingly large precedent in the animal kingdom for parents teaching survival skills to their own offspring.
As for the “pregnant as an excuse” problem, certainly there are women who are unable or unwilling to tell their spouses that homeschooling isn’t for them. Just as there are women who are unable or unwilling to tell abusers of other sorts that beatings, verbal attacks, and isolation are wrong and will not be tolerated. There is a more serious problem, in these situations, than the homeschooling question.
This section concludes with another slap, this time at nursing mothers.
“Beyond a certain age, children and mothers are just not meant to be isolated together. It’s unnatural. Keeping the kids at home might have worked back in the Stone Age, but cave women would’ve at least had each other for company, and I bet they made damn sure the youngsters stayed off in a group together while they grunted gossip and drank their Cro-Magnon coffee. “
Homeschoolers are not “isolated.” Most of them are very active in their communities and, yes, in their churches. They also get together frequently with other people, both homeschoolers and public-schoolers alike. Homeschoolers are often very involved in Scouting programs, community assistance programs, and the like. They go on many educational outings—our local group takes a field trip to the Space Center at Huntsville, Alabama, every year, as well as various short excursions to local factories and museums.
Again, we see selfishness manifest in this article, as the author avers that even cavewomen would have shunted their kids off to one side while the mothers enjoyed coffee and gossip. In other words, if it interferes with a mother’s leisure, it’s bad.
“Kids need their teachers to be adults, separate from their mothers. That way they can idolize or despise them …, and don’t have to depend on one person for everything they require. Did a parent of yours try to teach you to drive? …’Nuff said. “
Most of the teachers that I had were very poor role models and were more concerned with keeping the kids from killing each other or destroying school property than they were with teaching subjects. Is there really a necessity for a child to “idolize or despise” adults in their lives, regardless of their role in the child’s life? Is there something so very wrong with learning trust by depending on one’s parents to meet one’s needs for food, shelter, clothing, transport, and education? And how many public school children actually do depend on their parents to help them with their educations—explaining homework, helping with projects, etc.?
And yes, my Dad taught me to drive, and it was a perfectly fine experience. I took Drivers’ Ed in school and flunked the driving test; Dad took me out in the family car and helped me practise and work out the kinks, and I passed the test with flying colours. A good parent knows his or her abilities and will arrange for a child to have alternate instructors for those subject areas where the parent feels inadequate. That’s why we have music teachers, English and math tutors, and science labs that students can make use of to bolster their abilities in specialty areas.
“All young animals must be immersed in a mass of their peers so they can figure out what it means to function as a member of the larger group. … I just can’t see homeschooling providing adequate socialization. “
Ah, yes, the socialization argument. So let me ask you which scenario is more likely to provide a child with positive socialization:
- Going to school every day with a pack of kids his own age who act in ways that they deem correct except when required by an older, larger child or an adult to do something else. Being either a bully, a collaborator, or a victim among his peers. Being a part of a system that pits children against each other and rates their abilities, leaving the less gifted child foundering while the gifted or able child progresses and excels. Having little or no time for outside play and activities due to excessive amounts of drill and busy work designed to compensate for a classroom teacher’s lack of time and ability to give personal attention.
- Receiving an education in a supportive, personal atmosphere while taking occasional, supervised excursions into the world of other children through organized activities such as scouting, martial arts training, and church or community outings. The opportunity to “debrief” after such interactions, discussing what was good, what was bad, what worked, and what didn’t in the interactions with others. Having school work finished at the end of the “school day” and being able to pursue hobbies, outdoor activities, and other pursuits without interference from others.
Children model what they live with. I would prefer that my children model well-adjusted, successful adults, not their peers. I would prefer that my children be surrounded with intelligent conversation so that they learn to reason and evaluate what others say, as opposed to focusing on adolescent angst, potty humour, and the other undesirable conversation of the public school arena—not to mention the tendency of peer-dependent kids to swallow whatever nonsense is spouted at them by the leaders of their group. Kids at public schools don’t get together and discuss the ramifications of war or the application of Aristotelian governmental policy to American politics, as a general rule; they get together and talk about hot babes, handsome guys, and other frivolous topics that are unlikely to do more than reinforce the idea that life is, or ought to be, one long party.
“One of my neighboring HMs taught her two kids through eighth grade, then threw them to the wolves in public high school. The boy ended up dropping out and doing jail time, and the girl got pregnant. “
This anecdote implies that this sort of thing happens only to homeschooled kids. Don’t other kids drop out, land in jail, or get pregnant out of wedlock? And what’s this “threw them to the wolves”? If that’s the way that the author feels about public high school students, you’d think that she would be in favour of home education.
“Yes, I know that homeschooled kids have won high-profile academic contests, but for every homeschooler who aces a spelling bee, there’s some poor child being “instructed” by a parent who’s barely literate herself. “
And I know that public schooled kids have won high-profile contests, but for every one of them, there’s some poor child sitting in the back of a class, lost as a goose, with no recourse because the teacher is too busy with the other 29 kids—or busy giving special instruction to the star student—to pay attention to the kid who’s behind. There are bad apples and less-than-ideal situations in every scenario.
“Teachers in the public school system are required to have certification and college degrees, yet any yahoo can force their kids to stay home as long as they pass an annual test. “
It was a certified Master Teacher who tortured me into wetting myself in the classroom in the ninth grade. It was a certified teacher with a Ph.D. in math who failed to teach me algebra and told me in front of 30 of my peers I was hopelessly stupid. It was a certified, degreed art teacher who told me that my painting was bad because the sky was too light and my flowers were not detailed enough. I may not have certification, but I do have a college degree. And neither one affects my ability to teach, either positively or negatively.
“…No woman was ever meant to be trapped in a house all day with children old enough to spell ‘homicide.’ ”
Again, a slap at the mother-child relationship. There is no need to be “trapped” with the kids, whatever their ages.
The primary conclusion that I draw from this article is that the author does not like kids and would prefer that her own life be uninterrupted by the demands of even her own offspring. This is actually representative of our society as a whole—kids are a nuisance and will destroy your life. Best to pack them off and let someone else do the dirty work of educating them and rearing them so that they are fit to be associated with when they are older.
I find this a very disturbing view, as a selfish society will soon find itself sinking into non-productivity and finally into slavery. If you don’t produce, if you are so wedded to your leisure and play that you cannot bestir yourself to perpetuate and defend that which ensures that you have the freedom to enjoy leisure time, then you will eventually be overcome by a less complacent, less indolent people.
Further, the continued vilification of homeschoolers, comparing them to terrorists like the fanatic, ultra-fundamentalist Muslims who wantonly slaughter innocents to further their despotic regimes, is not mere logical fallacy, but is a dangerous comparison to let people get away with.
The fact is that there are pros and cons to both home-schooling and public-schooling (or perhaps, more accurately, “outsourced schooling”). Much depends on the child and the parents individually. But the value of the education is strictly dependent on the people involved, not on the venue or vehicle chosen to deliver that education.
Tags: Education, Philosophy
Defending Home-Schoolers
It’s articles like this one (written in May 2004) that set my blood to boiling and bring out the debater within me. If I were better at logic, I should like to be an apologist for home education. As it is, I will content myself with refuting this inflammatory drivel point by point. Do read the article first.
Aside from the obvious logical fallacy of comparing one thing to a completely different thing—with one of the things being a really scary one—why begin an article by comparing people to terrorists in such a blatantly inaccurate way? Last time I checked, homeschoolers weren’t blowing up airliners by crashing them into skyscrapers or strapping themselves with explosives to blow up restaurants full of innocent bystanders.
Is there really something so wrong with kids being home with their mothers all the time? Education outside the home as a societal norm is really only about 200 years old. Prior to that, youngsters were educated at home, sometimes by tutors and sometimes by parents. Many of our nation’s founding fathers were home-educated, and they all turned out to be brilliant, forward-thinking men of prominent social and political stature. So it can’t be all bad.
What’s this about moms with “glazed expressions”? Most of the home-schooling mothers I know are bright, alert, interested people. If they occasionally have a glazed expression, it’s for the same reasons that any of the rest of us do. I’ve seen lots of public school moms with glazed expressions, but that isn’t necessarily the fault of their child’s schooling. Everyone gets a little overwhelmed or loses their train of thought on occasion, and homeschool parents are no different from anyone else in that respect.
And notice the subtle word-choice designed to give you bad feelings: mothers “stuck” with their kids. This sort of wording indicates, very subtly, that children are a burden and a nuisance to grown-ups—even if those adults happen to be their parents. Is this really the sort of rationale that we want to use to defend public schooling?
More subtle anti-kid propaganda. Homeschoolers come from all social and societal backgrounds, from many different cultures and lifestyles. It’s not just frumpy, dumpy middle-class hausfraus who homeschool. In my local homeschool organisation we have, among other demographic groups, single moms, a couple of very successful attorneys, blue-collar workers, and recent immigrants.
Furthermore, moms and older kids will probably have an easier time than moms with infants. “Older kids” are able to tell you what they need, want, and think, lessening the frustration level significantly. No one need be “strangled” by the end of the day just because a parent is home with her offspring. Most of the homeschool parents I know are delighted by their children and enjoy spending time with them.
Again, is there really a need to compare people who are trying to do well for their children to people who go around killing those who don’t agree with them? Is there a need to insult those who believe that they were called by God to be more than just hoteliers for their children, but who, instead, choose to be intimately and deeply engaged in their children’s growth and well-being? Perhaps there are those who are “brainwashed” into believing that homeschooling is best, or those who are pushed into it against their will, but there are deeper problems at work in such situations than just the dilemma of homeschooling.
Honestly, why the vilification? Most husbands, if allowed full rein of their fantasies, would prefer the public school model, which leaves their wives free during the day for lunches and even a middle-of-the-day cuddle, rather than the homeschool model, which effectively guarantees that the only time for intimate relations with the spouse is after the kids are in bed — and with homework the monster that it’s become, who knows what time the kids will actually get there?
The swipe at Christianity is both unnecessary and untenable. While the homeschool movement began with parents who were dissatisfied with the secular, anti-theistic worldview begin taught in the public schools, it has changed over the decades and now includes people of varying religious feelings, including atheists and agnostics.
More unwarranted vilification. And a slur on witches, too. Since when do witches run around with “uncut hair” and “long skirts”? And does wearing of skirts automatically make you some sort of religious freak? Some people prefer long hair or skirts; others prefer short hair and slacks or jeans. Personally, I prefer skirts because they are more comfortable for me. And I think skirts are prettier. But when I am out in the garden, I wear jeans. Personal appearance is not a justifiable grounds for deriding the entire homeschool movement.
What is becoming clear is the self-centered viewpoint of the author. It’s martyrdom to teach your children; it interferes with “real life.” Let’s look, for a moment, at the animal kingdom. In all of the higher animals, parents spend their time teaching their offspring those things that the kiddies need to know in order to survive. Mummy lions teach their cubs to hunt. Cows and horses teach their babies to graze as they wean them from milk. Polar bear parents teach their cubs to fish and hunt. Primates teach their kids to find food, to find shelter, to use primitive tools….in fact, there is a surprisingly large precedent in the animal kingdom for parents teaching survival skills to their own offspring.
As for the “pregnant as an excuse” problem, certainly there are women who are unable or unwilling to tell their spouses that homeschooling isn’t for them. Just as there are women who are unable or unwilling to tell abusers of other sorts that beatings, verbal attacks, and isolation are wrong and will not be tolerated. There is a more serious problem, in these situations, than the homeschooling question.
This section concludes with another slap, this time at nursing mothers.
Homeschoolers are not “isolated.” Most of them are very active in their communities and, yes, in their churches. They also get together frequently with other people, both homeschoolers and public-schoolers alike. Homeschoolers are often very involved in Scouting programs, community assistance programs, and the like. They go on many educational outings—our local group takes a field trip to the Space Center at Huntsville, Alabama, every year, as well as various short excursions to local factories and museums.
Again, we see selfishness manifest in this article, as the author avers that even cavewomen would have shunted their kids off to one side while the mothers enjoyed coffee and gossip. In other words, if it interferes with a mother’s leisure, it’s bad.
Most of the teachers that I had were very poor role models and were more concerned with keeping the kids from killing each other or destroying school property than they were with teaching subjects. Is there really a necessity for a child to “idolize or despise” adults in their lives, regardless of their role in the child’s life? Is there something so very wrong with learning trust by depending on one’s parents to meet one’s needs for food, shelter, clothing, transport, and education? And how many public school children actually do depend on their parents to help them with their educations—explaining homework, helping with projects, etc.?
And yes, my Dad taught me to drive, and it was a perfectly fine experience. I took Drivers’ Ed in school and flunked the driving test; Dad took me out in the family car and helped me practise and work out the kinks, and I passed the test with flying colours. A good parent knows his or her abilities and will arrange for a child to have alternate instructors for those subject areas where the parent feels inadequate. That’s why we have music teachers, English and math tutors, and science labs that students can make use of to bolster their abilities in specialty areas.
Ah, yes, the socialization argument. So let me ask you which scenario is more likely to provide a child with positive socialization:
Children model what they live with. I would prefer that my children model well-adjusted, successful adults, not their peers. I would prefer that my children be surrounded with intelligent conversation so that they learn to reason and evaluate what others say, as opposed to focusing on adolescent angst, potty humour, and the other undesirable conversation of the public school arena—not to mention the tendency of peer-dependent kids to swallow whatever nonsense is spouted at them by the leaders of their group. Kids at public schools don’t get together and discuss the ramifications of war or the application of Aristotelian governmental policy to American politics, as a general rule; they get together and talk about hot babes, handsome guys, and other frivolous topics that are unlikely to do more than reinforce the idea that life is, or ought to be, one long party.
This anecdote implies that this sort of thing happens only to homeschooled kids. Don’t other kids drop out, land in jail, or get pregnant out of wedlock? And what’s this “threw them to the wolves”? If that’s the way that the author feels about public high school students, you’d think that she would be in favour of home education.
And I know that public schooled kids have won high-profile contests, but for every one of them, there’s some poor child sitting in the back of a class, lost as a goose, with no recourse because the teacher is too busy with the other 29 kids—or busy giving special instruction to the star student—to pay attention to the kid who’s behind. There are bad apples and less-than-ideal situations in every scenario.
It was a certified Master Teacher who tortured me into wetting myself in the classroom in the ninth grade. It was a certified teacher with a Ph.D. in math who failed to teach me algebra and told me in front of 30 of my peers I was hopelessly stupid. It was a certified, degreed art teacher who told me that my painting was bad because the sky was too light and my flowers were not detailed enough. I may not have certification, but I do have a college degree. And neither one affects my ability to teach, either positively or negatively.
Again, a slap at the mother-child relationship. There is no need to be “trapped” with the kids, whatever their ages.
The primary conclusion that I draw from this article is that the author does not like kids and would prefer that her own life be uninterrupted by the demands of even her own offspring. This is actually representative of our society as a whole—kids are a nuisance and will destroy your life. Best to pack them off and let someone else do the dirty work of educating them and rearing them so that they are fit to be associated with when they are older.
I find this a very disturbing view, as a selfish society will soon find itself sinking into non-productivity and finally into slavery. If you don’t produce, if you are so wedded to your leisure and play that you cannot bestir yourself to perpetuate and defend that which ensures that you have the freedom to enjoy leisure time, then you will eventually be overcome by a less complacent, less indolent people.
Further, the continued vilification of homeschoolers, comparing them to terrorists like the fanatic, ultra-fundamentalist Muslims who wantonly slaughter innocents to further their despotic regimes, is not mere logical fallacy, but is a dangerous comparison to let people get away with.
The fact is that there are pros and cons to both home-schooling and public-schooling (or perhaps, more accurately, “outsourced schooling”). Much depends on the child and the parents individually. But the value of the education is strictly dependent on the people involved, not on the venue or vehicle chosen to deliver that education.
Tags: Education, Philosophy