Modern Education Failed Us

A Fundamental Misconception about Homeschooling?

2006-06-15T12:47:00.000-04:00

Last week we took a vacation to visit my family. My sister-in-law is a 4th grade teacher and does not approve of homeschooling, to put it mildly. She begrudgingly acknowledges that we have a "special situation" and that homeschooling has helped Travis tremendously but that is unusual and not something to be encouraged for "the public." Needless to say, we don't discuss the issue much in the interest of family harmony.

While on our vacation we stayed at a hotel. At the swimming pool, we struck up a conversation with another couple. She was a high school teacher from Kansas so the conversation naturally drifted to homeschooling (well, okay, my husband kinda sorta pushed the issue! LOL!) She was very polite and articulate in her discussion (for which I am very greatful) and she was not nearly as militant in her opinions as my sister-in-law tends to be, but she made a comment that made me wonder if the root problem is a misconception of what homeschooling is.

This teacher commented how she has heard of many 'homeschool co-ops' springing up where homeschool kids gather together in one place and a parent or hired teacher holds a class on a particular subject. She said triumphantly "That's school!"

I got to thinking later that I should have recognized the fundamental misconception this statement represents. It seems to me she must think that homeschoolers reject the concept of group schooling entirely. She must still think of homeschoolers as people who reject society at large and wish to isolate themselves and control every waking second of their children's lives. At some root level, she must also feel personally rejected as a member of 'society at large.' It is the curse of the stereotype of homeschoolers as religious control freak whackos. (sigh)

For the record, homeschoolers come in all shapes and sizes. There are some who do reject group schooling of any kind. Many more do not. For many, group schooling has it's place and usefulness within the context of a full and thorough education supervised closely by the parent. It is this close superversion aspect that is fundamental to every form of homeschooling. For some, this takes the form of 100% one-on-one instruction from the parent and only the parent. For some, this takes the form of the parent reviewing the curriculum and hiring somebody else to teach the curriculum the parent chooses. For some, this takes the form of personally supervising their child using state-sponsored curriculum. The bottom line is there is a full breadth of manifestations of this fundamental concept called parental involvement in the education of their children.

This parental involvement is the key - not the supposed rejection of society at large. If a parent closely monitors their teen's free time with requirements to ask permission to go somewhere, to check in at reasonable intervals, to conform to a curfew - is that parent rejecting society or are they being an involved parent? When a parent refuses to buy junk food for their kids, cooks healthy meals and avoids fast food restaurants - are they rejecting society at large or being an involved parent? Why isn't education the same?

By and large, society nods approvingly at the involved parent when it comes to feeding, disciplining, character building, activities, etc., etc. So why is the social pressure against parental involvement in education? Where is this instinctive prejudice against parents coming from? Why do people get so defensive and react like they have been personally attacked by homeschoolers? People really need to examine the roots of their opinions and ask themselves why they think certain things.

Unschooling Article

2006-03-12T17:02:00.000-05:00

For These Kids, School is Always Out
Method of home schooling allows children to learn by pursuing their interests rather than set curriculum

By Vincent J. Schodolski, Tribune national correspondent. Tribune staff reporter Mary Ann Fergus in Chicago contributed to this report
Published March 12, 2006

LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. -- Riley Brown is 12 years old and lives a life many of his peers might envy, or perhaps find incomprehensible.

On any given day Riley will probably sleep until he is ready to get out of bed and then spend his time doing whatever interests him. Maybe he'll play his guitar, or go to the park to meet with like-minded friends. Or maybe he will boot up his computer and start "playing around" with HTML codes.

His younger brother, Casey, 10, and his sister, Maggie, 5, do more or less the same thing.

And their mother, Deanne, could not be happier.

"I love unschooling," she said. "It has been the best decision I could have made for me and my family."

The Browns are part of an approach to education that is called "unschooling" and allows children to pursue what interests them, rather than trying to make them interested in things that interest others.

The concept holds that learning is best done when a child's interests are engaged, and for a family with the talents and the resources to allow this to happen, great success is possible.

"Unschooling" is a subset of home schooling, which has seen rapid growth in recent years.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, about 1.1 million children were being home-schooled in 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is up from 850,000 in 1999 and represents a 29 percent increase.

Education experts estimate that about 10 percent of the home-schooled population is "unschooled," meaning there may be as many as 110,000 young people being educated in this way.

A significant part of the growth in home schooling has been among Christian conservatives who shunned public and private schools for reasons that included curriculum, school violence and social trends. These parents often seek highly structured curricula suited to their conservative beliefs.

But those who practice unschooling tend to do so because they believe the school system, be it public or private, does not allow children to learn to their full potential.

"I think the one reason that stands out from the rest is that I felt that my kids were losing that incredible spark they had before they entered school," Deanne Brown said. "After being in school for a few years I saw their natural curiosity, imagination and love for learning being crushed by rules and conditioning. Learning became a task."

Some fear standards skipped

Not everyone is convinced that unschooling is a great idea.

"I think the downsides would be related to teachers who don't understand putting parameters around children's decision-making," said Jill Fox, an education professor at the University of Texas at Arlington.

"It's one thing to allow children to choose to study Amelia Earhart before studying Harriet Tubman, with the clear understanding that both will be studied thoroughly during the school year. It is another thing to allow children to study Muhammad Ali and completely skip over what the state standards or district curriculum require," Fox said.

"Teachers -- and parents -- have to keep in mind that children's decision-making skills are not yet fully developed. They don't quite understand cause-and-effect and often don't realize the consequences they may face as a result of their decisions."

And unschooling is not for everyone, experts say.

"It is not suited either to all kids or all parents," said Tom Hatch, a professor at Columbia University Teachers College in New York City. "It requires students with considerable curiosity and independence, who come up with and get interested in questions and can sustain some interest in them."

Several hundred families attended a two-day home-schooling conference that began Friday at an Arlington Heights, Ill., hotel. There they chose between sessions such as one that taught the principles of DNA and another called "Shakespeare Without Fear."

Winifred Haun of Oak Park, a mother of three, was among those networking and searching for new ideas at the Home Educators Conference Fund event.

Haun started Northside Unschoolers of Chicago five years ago with 15 families and now organizes events, from support groups to Spanish classes, for 100 families throughout Chicago and the suburbs.

"People are realizing that school doesn't do what it's advertised to do," said Haun, a former teacher in Chicago who said she felt like "an advanced baby-sitter" for kids who did not want to be in class.

Her experiences and further reading led her to unschooling when her oldest, 10-year-old Athena, was not yet school age.

These days, Athena is into drawing tropical birds, practicing ballet and reading Harry Potter books. Her sister Iris, 4, has taken to writing names and words she likes, such as "princess." Selene, 19 months, joins her mother and sisters for Girl Scout meetings, trips to museums and a weekly open gym session with other unschoolers.

Any family activity can turn into an educational experience. Math is incorporated into everyday life, something father Stephen Parke, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab, calls "cookie arithmetic."

The approach is not without its challenges or fears but the couple believe their decision has made their children independent thinkers.

"To me, learning to think is much more important, especially in the modern age," Parke said.

Experts say parents who choose this path for their children usually are well-educated and believe the present primary and secondary educational system is not structured for a world that prizes free thinking, curiosity, imagination and independence.

"I don't think you can apply that to all schools," Hatch said in defense of traditional schools. "It's so hard to predict what opportunities and interests students will have in 20 years, or what the job market will be like in 15 or 20 years."

Most trace the origins of unschooling to an approach devised by educator John Holt in the 1970s. He believed children could be natural learners, instead of requiring formal schooling.

"A core distinction between these two approaches, it would seem, comes down to beliefs about human nature, or at least the nature of the child and their learning," said Robert Kunzman, an assistant professor at Indiana University. "Do they learn best following their own interests, or by being carefully led upon a preordained path?"

Parents involved with unschooling argue that modern resources such as the Internet make exploration easy.

Little evidence of effect

There is little, if any, empirical evidence of how unschooled children fare in later life, but home-schooled children are being accepted by Ivy League and other prestigious universities.

Riley Brown of California is a believer.

"I like being able to have a lot of freedom, which gives me a lot of time to explore my interests," he said. "I also like not having to get up at 6:30 in the morning and being able to stay up late."

Regine Verougstraete, who moved to the United States from her native Belgium 11 years ago, elected to unschool her two sons after the older one struggled in regular classes.

"He had lost the pleasure of learning," she said of now-10-year-old Elliott.

Now he and his 7-year-old brother, Teodore, study at home with mom as the mainstay teacher in their home in South Pasadena, Calif.

Some critics of home-schooling say that it denies children interaction with others and thus blunts their social skills.

Not so, say unschooling parents. Deanne Brown points to regular weekly park meeting with other unschoolers and the fact that all three of her children are engaged in team sports.

Rules on unschooling differ among states with some requiring children to take standardized tests to measure progress, others asking only that forms be filed with the state, and some requiring nothing.

The question of measuring progress is a thorny one among parents of unschoolers. Most do not grade their children.

"We do not take tests, use a curriculum, grades or punishment and reward systems," said Deanne Brown. California does not require such measurements for home-schooled students.

"Virginia law requires that home-schoolers provide annual evidence of progress," said Shay Seaborne, who is unschooling her daughters, Caitlin, 15, and Laurel, 12.

"I meet this requirement with results from a standardized test, as that is the least intrusive means for our family," she said.

For many students the first test of their learning in a standardized way comes when they take the SAT, or ACT exams.

Ned Vare and his wife, Luz Shosie, unschooled their son, Cassidy, first in Colorado and later in Connecticut. Cassidy never attended regular schools and when he took the SAT he had a combined verbal and math score of 1390 and went on to get a GED with a nearly perfect score. He is now enrolled at Hunter College in New York.

While unschooled children may have regular social contact with peers who are involved in more traditional schooling, there appears to be a gap of understanding about their differing circumstances.

"My schooled friends' opening question is usually, `What grade are you in?'" said Riley Brown. "I tell them that I would be in the 7th grade, but it really doesn't matter. I don't usually try to explain because they wouldn't get it if I did."

----------

vschodolski@tribune.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

No Room at the Schoolhouse

2006-01-28T16:37:00.000-05:00

The Kentucky Enquirer carried an article on January 23, 2006 entitled "No Room at the Schoolhouse." It is subtitled "Crowded schools put thousands in portables, but the impact on learning is uncertain." It goes on to give many examples of local schools using portable trailers to serve as classrooms. The overall tone of the article - as implied by the subtitle - is that these portables are negatively impacting learning and that they are, in general, a bad thing. The reasons given are mostly convenience oriented. The children have to go outside to get to the main building to go to the bathroom and less space for supplies and books. They also site a sense of isolation from the rest of the school and lack of "bonding between grade levels."

The article cites "some educators" who call for studies to be done on the educational impact of the use of these portables. Apparently, these people are suspicious.

Personally, I welcome such research. You see, I read this article and thought "What a great solution!" I like the idea of a little distance between the crowd and my child. A little breathing room, so to speak. Ever heard the phrase "There is nothing like being lonely in the middle of a crowd?" This is what happens in mass education. Individuals are lost. You can't see the tree for the forest. Separating a class of 15-20 kids and their teacher and giving them a sense of autonomy during their day can create the kind of bonding and inter-relating that is crucial to learning. The teacher can focus on the child and get to know them better. The children can focus on the teacher and understand the instruction better. The children can focus on each other and build relationships. They can gain mastery of the social skills necessary to function in a larger society without being overwhelmed by that same larger society.

The current mass education system is the social equivalent of "sink or swim." At age 5 (or earlier for the many children in institutional preschool) children are thrown into a crowd without a second thought. Studies have shown that a human being is not physically capable of maintaining real relationships with more than about 40 people. Those were adults. The least we can do is spend some time thinking about how we build community and relationships by dropping kids into the middle of a crowd.

I welcome these studies. I think they will show that these portable classrooms not only increase learning but promote emotional well-being and social adjustment. I think the concept of many self-contained classrooms surrounding a central building has a lot of potential.

Standing in the Schoolhouse Door

2006-01-16T13:33:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal has a great article by John Fund today about Milwaukee's successful school choice program. It seems that some politicians are putting the demands of the teacher's union above the parent's demands for a good education for their children. The NEA is setting itself up in opposition to children. How can they possibly justify that? Let them continue on this road so more parents can see just where their true loyalties lie: It is not in the best interest of the children, but in their own back pockets. Dare I say it? For the good of our children, the union must be busted.

Bullying in Middle School...

2005-12-31T12:09:00.000-05:00

...May Lead to Increased Substance Abuse.

Over the past decade, parents, educators and policy makers have become increasingly concerned about verbal and physical harassment in schools and the subsequent effects of peer victimization on teens. A recent study by Julie C. Rusby and colleagues from the Oregon Research Institute, published in the November 2005 issue of the Journal of Early Adolescence by SAGE Publications, found significant associations between peer harassment of students in middle school and a variety of problem behaviors, such as alcohol abuse, once these students reach high school.

Read the whole article at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051230085006.htm

Federal Literacy Survey

2005-12-16T14:20:00.000-05:00

One in 20 U.S. adults lack basic English skills
Federal literacy survey reveals ‘stark snapshot'
(click title above for link to article)

After reading the above article, my friend permitted me to post her response:

Since I've just finished reading the essays of another 2500 college-bound teens, this survey does not surprise me. There are certainly 5% of them that can't fully understand the language of the prompt they are responding to; for example, they will think "practical" means "requiring practice". They say things like, "History is everything that happens, in the past, present or future. So why would you not want history? If history wasn't relevant, nothing would happen." (That was the opening of an essay rated "competent.")

I read essays by college-bound 17-year-olds who believe there are still 10 million slaves in the American south today; who argue that we should not study history because that will make us repeat it; who use two punctuation marks in a page of writing (that one was just short of "competent").

I think you just can't teach kids basic literacy in large groups on a large group schedule. They either learn to read, write and cipher on their own (regardless of the quality of their school), or they are taught in one-on-one or small groups -- like you are doing at home with your family. And when families aren't responsible for teaching their own children, the adults have less reason to progress, too.

Now, many of the 5% at the bottom in that study are recent immigrants, many of whom will develop those skills in time. But the bottom 13% includes a whole lot of people who can't read a prescription bottle or bank deposit slip now and are not making any progress toward it, despite years in American public education. Schools failed them then, they are failing them now, and they are failing their children.

So. If the education system didn't get them when it had a 12-year claim on their time, it's not going to get them now; very few of the nonliterate will become literate with passing years, as the study shows.

--on a rant after reading in a serious essay that A.G. Bell invented the first telephone using two cans and a string

Milton Friedman

2005-12-16T09:38:00.000-05:00

Milton Friedman, the Nobel Laureate and most reknowned economist of the 20th century, is also the philosophical Father of the School Choice movement. In 1955 - four decades before most Americans recognized the current crisis in education - Friedman realized that government financing of privately adminstered schools is consistent, equitable, and efficient. Friedman posited this combination would benefit students by making schools more flexible and would also benefit teachers by making teacher salaries responsive to market forces. Friedman was the first to propose the idea that tax dollars should follow the child - vouchers.

The Freidman Foundation's latest report on the status of school choice is at http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/ABC.pdf

Milton Freidman wrote an essay for the Wall Street Journal recently reflecting on the school choice movement and his role in it. Read it here.

Let a Thousand Choices Bloom

2005-12-10T23:40:00.000-05:00

Great article! It is subtitled "Debating the Future of Education Reform"

The money quotes:

Any reform that directly attaches money to the backs of children and allows them to choose any school, without regard to residential restrictions, holds promise. The actual choice mechanism—tax credit, charter school, or voucher—is less important than a child’s having substantial purchasing power and an open system that allows many different types of schools to compete for the child’s funding.

One significant barrier to more school choice is the implicit acceptance of our archaic system of residential school assignment. Changing the cultural and institutional structures that reinforce school assignment is one crucial element for expanding the number of choices available to students and their families. -- Lisa Snell

The greatest barrier to reform is that, when it comes to education, Americans have lost sight of the distinction between means and ends. Our state-run school system is no longer recognized as just one possible tool for pursuing universal education; it has come to be misperceived as an ultimate goal in and of itself. The term “public education” has come to refer to both the institution of public schooling and the ideals that the institution is meant to advance. Many Americans can no longer even imagine a world in which education is delivered other than via a government monopoly. And criticisms of state schooling are often misconstrued or misrepresented as attacks on the idea of universal access to good schools. -- Andrew Coulson

Given the tenacity and power of those who have a powerful stake in the status quo, freedom advocates cannot afford to oppose anything that meaningfully expands parental choice. Tuition and scholarship tax credits entail the least government regulation, but vouchers are more concentrated and can drive systemic public school reform. Let a thousand school choice flowers bloom, and we can see which variety works best.

Ultimately, we need to redefine “public education,” focusing less on where education takes place and more on whether it takes place. A child learning at home in front of a computer or in a religious school is advancing the true goals of public education; a child trapped in a crime-infested public school with little prospect of learning is not.

If we were starting today a system of public education from scratch, with all of the technological innovations at our disposal, would it look anything like the ossified, hidebound, bricks-and-mortar, command-and-control, homo-genous, bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient, special-interest-dominated monopoly that represents the biggest socialist system west of China and south of the U.S. Postal System? Of course not. We would create a system that is tailored to the individual needs of every child.

Government should be a funder rather than a monopoly provider of education; local school boards should be providers of educational services, not ideological politburos; and public school principals, teachers, and parents should all have greater autonomy.

The greatest institutional obstacles to systemic education reform are teachers unions, school boards and administrators, and schools of education. Good teachers have nothing to fear from competition—indeed, they obtain more power over their classrooms and sometimes even higher pay. -- Clint Bolick

The people who support the status quo are much more politically powerful at this point than people who are supporting reforms such as parental choice. It’s the teachers unions, of course, but also the administrator organizations, school board associations, and in many instances schools of education. That’s not to say no one in these sectors wants children to succeed; the vast majority probably do. The question is whether they’re willing to have structures, processes, and power arrangements that will allow that to happen. -- Howard Fuller

Anything that brings more choice to parents, especially poor parents, is likely to create a constituency for choice. Once you’ve got a constituency, you’ve got more political power and more ability to resist any kind of step backward.

Political power is the obstacle. There are reformers who are concerned about what’s best for kids, but the vested interests that arise are more concerned with protecting the status quo; that’s their livelihood. The unions in particular are extremely powerful and want to prevent any kind of threatening changes. And I don’t know that there’s an answer to that other than to amass power on the choice side. -- Terry M. Moe

Ultimately, the case against public schooling is a moral one. Under what moral authority does the state take control over the educational decisions of the family? Under what moral authority does the state take one person’s money in order to fund the educational expenses of other people’s children, either to attend public school or, with a government welfare voucher, to attend a private school?

The biggest hurdle we face in achieving full educational choice is a lack of confidence in the free market when it comes to education. -- Jacob G. Hornberger

Getting the government out of schooling may be optimal, but there is little chance of implementing that without a long intermediate stage where the government stops providing school through government-owned facilities staffed by government employees, but still subsidizes K–12 schooling through vouchers or tax credits. That subsidy-only stage—ending the present discrimination against private school users—is absolutely necessary to fully harness market forces, and it’s the most promising politically.

The largest obstacle is inertia reinforced by economic illiteracy. The differences between political and market accountability are poorly understood, and the present system’s failure to teach basic economic principles helps it survive withering criticism. -- John Merrifield

There are two major barriers. One is the swarm of adult vested interests that benefit from the current arrangements and feel threatened by any serious change. They all have lobbyists; kids and parents don’t. The other, alas, is the vast population of complacent Americans, especially middle-class suburbanites, who have already exercised school choice of one sort or another and who now believe that their own kids’ schools are doing well enough. Usually they aren’t. -- Chester E. Finn, Jr.

When it comes to education most people somehow believe that the rules should be different. We shouldn’t allow choice, they argue, because people might make bad choices. Schools don’t need competition to perform better, they argue, they just need better resources. And assessing performance to compensate educators is fraught with error, they fear. Besides, teachers don’t do it for the money; they do it because they love children.

These arguments for education being exceptional do not stand up to scrutiny. The government does not assign people to doctors, even though it is possible that people may choose poorly—and health care is an area where the cost of failure can be catastrophic. And while we understand that almost everyone who works with kids, from doctors to babysitters, loves children, we also recognize that financial rewards for excellent performance inspire better service. -- Jay P. Greene

Compulsory attendance laws absolutely have to be changed. It’s so difficult to actually educate oneself under these prison regulations. We had a time without compulsory attendance in American history, and we did quite well with a variety of schoolings. Then waves of immigration caused a revulsion effect among nativist Americans, and the idea of locking up the children of immigrants away from their parents and traditions and cultures seemed very appealing and “Americanizing.” (Of course, that’s a meaningless term. Given the meaning of this country, that would be un-Americanizing them.) -- John Taylor Gatto

Read it all at http://www.reason.com/0512/fe.ls.let.shtml

Quote of the Day

2005-12-09T11:35:00.000-05:00

"A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body."

--- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.

Coercion vs. Choice

2005-12-03T14:11:00.000-05:00

Coerced association will lead to a process by which the most vicious values of a culture assimilate all others. That must be emphasized when dealing with those who, while perhaps not opposing public education, do oppose the values that will inevitably come out on top.

A person may refuse to understand that the principle of coercion alone is a pernicious thing, but when they realize that coercion works to the exclusive end of destroying their values, they’ll become far less tolerant of it. That is what opponents of public education must emphasize.

So wrote Rudy Takala, a very perceptive, very articulate, homeschooled, 16 year old - and nationally published - commentator on politics and policy in his article A Brief Guide to Reforming Education.

I think he is on to something. Compulsory education has been the law of the land for over 100 years. It was intended to secure a universal education for all, thus assuring social justice and equality. An admirable goal, to be sure. And it has had measurable success despite the reluctance of critics to say so. I have been uncomfortable with those critics who argue that not all people have the same ability or desire to be educated and therefore imposed standards are more harmful than good. Some critics also argue that imposed schooling is contrary to true education, which they define as a critical mind and the internally motivated pursuit of knowledge. These arguments have some measure of truth in them, to be sure, but I am uncomfortable with them because if taken too far down this road of logic they have paved, it leads to social Darwinism and elitist thinking. No, I reject the idea that compulsory education is the problem. But I do accept the idea that coercive association and coercive modality is the problem. Modern education has failed us not because we require our children to be educated, but because we require them to be educated in a proscribed way with a proscribed peer group in a proscribed setting.

Plato warned that utopia, however attractive it may appear, will never work because of the degree of synthetic constraint on human nature it requires. This is where compulsory education has gone wrong. Modern education as it exists today constrains free peoples into the "approved" definition of education, complete with an "approved" method of attaining this education, an "approved" content of education, and an "approved" setting of education. This is not only contrary to the concept of freedom, but as Takala rightly points out, it is destructive of the positive value - education - it promotes.

Times have Changed

2005-12-01T08:32:00.000-05:00

In the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language, the definition for Education reads as this:

Education, n. (L. educatio) The bringing up, as of a child; instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of the youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, arts and science is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

In the 1983 edition of Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged Edition, the definition for Education reads as follows:

Education, n. (L. educatio, from educare, to educate)
1. the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind, charatcter, etc. especially by formal schooling; teaching; training
2. knowledge, ability, etc thus developed,
3. (a) formal schooling;

The word education has gone through a metamorphosis in society today. In one century, the simple definition of the word has changed immensely. American society has devalued the importance of parents' roles and capability to "educate" their children and view the current model of education as the "only way" to educate a child. However, scores of people walk away from modern education every day. Private school enrollments are increasing every year, charter schools are popping up all over the country and homeschooling is becoming more and more a viable alternative to modern education. Why are people rejecting modern education so in the last 2 decades?

The following quote has been taken from 'Anyone Can Homeschool'.

Samuel Peavey, Ed. explained the situation this way when testifying before the Iowa State Board of Education on home education:

The renaissance of family-centered schooling is the natural outcome of a number of forces converging in a fateful era. Not the least of all these forces is the well-documented fact that both the American home and the American school have reached the lowest level of mediocrity in our history. The homeschool is a pointed effort to salvage and safeguard values that once under girded schools as well as homes. Home education is a rejection of the trend toward almost total institutionalization of child rearing. It is a reaction to a decline in scholarship and character in the classroom. It is a testimony of faith in the family -- a faith that is almost lost.

As a side note to this quote, specifically referring to total institutionalizing of child rearing, my 16 year old daughter is a junior in highschool. This last year she had braces on and I needed to sign her out of school periodically to go to the orthodontist. In order for her to "not" have an unexcused absence, I needed to obtain a doctor signed note "proving" she was actually in fact at the orthodontist's office. Although obtaining a note is easy, this requirement undermines my authority to parent my child and is totally offensive. A friend of mine recently lost her mother. She took her daughter out of school to attend her grandmother's funeral. The school marked it down as an "unexcused" absence and would not allow the child to attend the school dance the following evening. Again, this practice sends a clear message that we as parents are not capable of making appropriate decisions for our children without school approval and going against their "rules" will not go unpunished whether wrong or right. My husband and I planned a vacation last year to Florida. We had planned this vacation 2 years previously and knew the children would be out of school for Spring break. Unfortunately due to snow days, the district took the spring break away. If I took my children out of school that week despite the fact there was school, they would have received 0's on all missed work and would not be allowed to make up homework assignments. They would however, be allowed to make up tests but would receive a full grade below their actual score. We were able to reschedule our trip but that is not the point. Shortly thereafter my 16 year old went on a 4 day trip to Virginia with the highschool marching band. That was excused and she was able to make up homework and tests at her convenience with full scores being applied. So because the school approved the trip, the absence was then okay.

In recent years children have endured intrusive surveys from school officials on matters that should be taught from a parent. They have systematically been forced to answer questions on home life under the guise of anonymous surveys which should never take place. Parents have stood up against the Boards of Education all over the country (quite often in my state as it is on the news quite a bit) at the fact that their 7 and 8 year old children have been asked to answer questions on whether or not they have ever drank alcohol, done drugs and other such inappropriate questions.

Who is the "school system" (modern education) to decide that we, as parents, are not allowed to take our children out of school for whatever given reason? Why is it a "professional", such as a doctor, can approve my child's need to be out of school for a few hours, and I as a "parent" cannot? How is it the school deems it acceptable appropriate to ask children, sometimes extremely young, questions of an inappropriate nature?

Modern Education in American society today has forgotten the importance of the "family" and the importance of parental influence on a child.

Learning in Freedom

2005-11-29T15:38:00.000-05:00

Take some time today and go through the Learning in Freedom website. It has 40 plus webpages on a variety of educational freedom topics. Look at the socialization webpage, the reading webpage, and the great quotations from notable persons webpage. It has a page with critiques of the school system, resource lists, links to articles, and much more.

Full-Service Education

2005-11-28T20:14:00.000-05:00

"Last year, when Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer introduced landmark legislation to provide funding for full-service community schools, he became part of a nationwide movement aimed at making children’s school days longer, more numerous, and filled with services once provided solely through other industries. In making his case, Hoyer said, “Full-service community schools are valuable resources in local communities because they provide for the seamless integration of academic, developmental, family, and health services to children and their families. These schools, in addition to strengthening local communities, ensure the best use of resources, which will result in more cost-efficient services."

Read the full article at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/2005/0801_fullservice.html
Even Harvard recognizes the need for new models in education. In this article, Geoffrey Canada, Harvard Ed.M.’75, president of the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), says "It’s time for educators to face the fact that the old model doesn’t work for everybody.When they had this old model they weren’t preparing all students for college—a very small percentage of students were being prepared for college, and everybody else was being prepared for the factories!"

This is yet another example of another model for education - this one actually run by the government. It clearly makes the case that true diversity is needed in education. None of these models should be mandatory or monopolistic, but they should be options for those who wish to choose them.

Community Based Education

2005-11-27T11:52:00.000-05:00

Today I'd like to point out "Place Value: An Educator's Guide to Good Literature on Rural Lifeways, Environments, and Purposes of Education" by Toni Haas and Paul Nachtigal. It can be found online at the ERIC clearinghouse or the Department of Education website. It was published in 1998 and sponsored by The National Library of Education within the Department of Education.

From the abstract: "This book suggests that quality of life depends on the connections that people have with one another and their surroundings, rather than on material wealth. It challenges teachers to reexamine the purposes of education and to equip students with the tools they need to make conscious choices about living well in their own communities."

A few choice quotes:

"All education is environmental education. By what is included or excluded, students are taught that they are part of or apart from the natural world."

"Awareness of local things disappears in the crush of standardized curricula, generic textbooks, and centralized test design."

"We know, at a very deep level, that 'landscape shapes mindscape.' ... Yet most of us are bone ignorant of the places we claim so proudly, and the fault lies with an education that has been systematically stripped of its content. The results are as barren as the landscapes they echo."

"When schools are disconnected from specific places and life in communities, they cease to be public institutions, serving the public good. Alternatively, by developing a healthy respect for the physical and social communities they inhabit, schools can teach children to be contributing citizens, no matter where the students end up living their lives, earning their livings, and practicing democracy." (Ed.'s Note: Makes you wonder what purpose they are serving? And if they are not teaching respect and democracy, what are they teaching?)

"...telling a community's story is key to the survival of self-government."

"The school itself can be a living laboratory of democratic principles by providing rehearsals in civic practice. Teachers should send students out to see for themselves how democracy works."

"Supporting public education has come to mean little more than paying taxes. Even education professionals confuse public support with getting larger budgets. We need public schools to be public institutions, the centers of a reinvigorated public life."

"What underlies the crisis of American education is the crisis of modern man's identity and his cosmological disconnection with the natural world."

"Skillful teachers find ways to give children reasons to communicate to real audiences."

"...principals need to open the schools psychologically as well, removing barriers and roadblocks to education. This demands changing restrictive schedules, state regulations, and traditional thinking of the faculty, staff, and community."

This book highlights several community-based school models in practice from Pennsylvania to Alabama, from California to North Dakota. It shows a legitimate alternative model to the centralized monopolistic education currently imposed on us. It's time to end the monopoly and return education to the community and the family.

Diversity in Education?

2005-11-26T09:33:00.000-05:00

The modern educational model as implemented by the public school system in America values diversity. This usually means racial and ethnic diversity, though after 9/11 they have added religious diversity to the mix of "different points of view" to be taught, with the unspoken message being "all points of view are legitimate and worthy of respect."

Except they forgot one. Modern education does not respect diversity of educational models. Homeschoolers represent an incredible spectrum of diverse educational models and ideas. Almost all of these models have legitimate research and professional support. Here are just a few:

Charlotte Mason
http://www.charlottemason.com/
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-mason.htm

Classical Education
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classed.html

Unschooling
http://www.unschooling.com/library/index.shtml
http://www.midnightbeach.com/hs/UnschoolingUndefined.html

Waldorf
http://www.waldorfanswers.org/

Montessori
http://www.montessoriconnections.com

Distance Learning
http://www.usdla.org/

Resource Centers and Cottage Schools
http://cottageschool.net/articles/
http://www.educationrevolution.org/homrescen1.html

Umbrella schools
http://www.homeschoolingteens.com/UmbrellaSchools.html
http://www.vahomeschoolers.org/Umbrella.PDF

Tutors & Mentors
http://www.creatinglearningcommunities.org

Unit Studies
http://www.homeeducator.com/HSN/success.htm

Eclectic
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/clayvessel/

Disability-specific
http://www.dyslexia-add.org/
http://www.cec.sped.org/
http://www.autismteachingtools.com/page/bbbbfg/bbbbbt

Homeschool Cooperatives
http://www.homeschoolzone.com/hsz/ransom2.htm
http://www.hcecf.net/
http://www.heritagehsc.org/

True diversity is a problem for a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy works best when it has one job, one objective, one means to achieve that goal. By its very nature, a bureaucracy cannot tolerate diversity in its ranks. Diversity of skin color and religion are wonderful goals and can easily be integrated into the bureaucracy because neither affect its fundamental functioning. But diversity of educational theory gums up the works and slows the machine. It throws the proverbial monkey wrench in the works.

True democratic diversity in education is anathema to a national management strategy of education. Which is precisely the point of those making policy. They are not democratic in their goals; diversity is decidedly not their goal. They are social engineers who use education as a vehicle.

It is time to return democractic diversity to education. It is time to end government-monopolized education and show legislative respect for the diversity that homeschooling and the various alternative school models offer.

A Hobbesian Choice?

2005-11-21T16:05:00.000-05:00

Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century English philosopher and political theorist writing about the balance between a secure civil society and democracy. He argued that the only way to have a secure civil society and avoid chaos is through universal submission to the absolute authority of a sovereign. The term 'Hobbesian Choice' is often used in modern parlance to indicate a choice between two extremes, usually equally unacceptable.

Public school vs. Homeschool. A Hobbesian Choice?

Hobbes had a very deterministic view of human nature. He felt that human beings were driven by "a restless desire of power after power." He felt that if man was not subjected to a dominant authority, the world would be in a constant state of "every man against every man." This, according to Hobbes, put every person in "continual fear and danger of violent death" and makes every person's life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The answer, according to Hobbes, was an authoritarian social contract in which the state imposed peace and order. Hobbes felt that individual obedience and surrender of rights was necessary to avoid the greater evil of a chaotic, warring society.

Public school vs. Homeschool. A Hobbesian Choice?

Hobbes felt it was the duty of the Soveriegn to educate the population to their duty. This call for education has many in the modern education community cheering Hobbes. More and more educational theorists in academia are pointing to Hobbes' writings to show the need for education in maintaining social order and political stability. Ph.D. dissertations ask for a "kinder, gentler" interpretation of Hobbes' views, pointing out that Hobbes also advocates "that a prudent sovereign will choose good counselors, rule justly, see to it that citizens are contented and materially well off, and educate them in their duties." But one Australian professor recognizes a paradox in Hobbes' views:

On obedience to the Sovereign and education Hobbes appears to generate a paradox. On the one hand he argues for absolute power, absolute obedience, censorship, and the suppression of opposed beliefs and teachers thereof, and on the other hand he states explicitly that it is the duty of the Sovereign to educate the people on political matters. Education, it might be thought, might be incompatible with absolute obedience, censorship and the suppression of opposed beliefs and persons holding or teaching such beliefs. If education could lead to such beliefs then instead of obeying the sovereign subjects might revolt. Hence education could lead to a state of war. Yet peace is the over-riding concern of Hobbes' political theory. There is something of a paradox then as what is said about the duty of the citizen, namely obligation, seems to be inconsistent with the duty of the Sovereign, namely education; if the Sovereign desires peace then one cannot educate, whereas if one desires education then one cannot ensure peace.

Public school vs. Homeschool. A Hobbesian Choice?

A paper from The University of Manchester points out that Hobbes felt that the parental right to "institute their children as they see fit" (i.e. educate) was not absolute but "in some places more, in some places less, according as they that have the sovereignty shall think most convenient." Fields v. Palmdale, a recent 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision, said "We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Public school vs. Homeschool. A Hobbesian Choice?

No. The choice to send your kids to public school or to homeschool them is not a Hobbesian Choice for you to make. The Hobbesian Choice has already been made - by the modern educational establishment. They have concluded that Hobbes was right and are consciously or subconsciously following his dictates.

No, homeschooling is not a Hobbesian Choice. But it might be a Hobson's Choice. Hobson was an innkeeper in 17th-century Cambridge, England, who gained lasting fame for requiring those who wanted to rent a horse from his stable to take whichever horse they wanted as long as it was in the stall next to the stable door. The phrase has come to mean a "choice" in name only. With public education having made the Hobbesian Choice, choosing to homeschool became a Hobson's Choice for me. I had no real alternative but to homeschool.

John Taylor Gatto

2005-11-19T19:22:00.000-05:00

John Taylor Gatto's excellent book The Underground History of American Education is now available online! Gatto was New York State's Teacher of the Year in 1991 when he wrote the following essay entitled "I Quit, I Think" for the The Wall Street Journal:

Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents. The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the theological idea that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.

That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its "scientific" presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of Biology. It’s a religious notion, School is its church. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.

Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be "re-formed." It has political allies to guard its marches, that’s why reforms come and go without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.

David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first—the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I label Rachel "learning disabled" and slow David down a bit, too. For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, "special education" fodder. She’ll be locked in her place forever.

In 30 years of teaching kids rich and poor I almost never met a learning disabled child; hardly ever met a gifted and talented one either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.

That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation. There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen—that probably guarantees it won’t.

How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don’t need a national curriculum or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn or deliberate indifference to it. I can’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall I’ll be looking for work.

Want more? Read the entire book at http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
I highly recommend this utterly fascinating work.

Welcome! Please join us...

2005-11-17T15:48:00.000-05:00

The purpose of this blog is to gather information and opinions from people who have found themselves reluctantly making the decision to homeschool because the public education system has failed them and they had nowhere else to turn.

Special Education failures.... Gifted and Talented education failures.... Cultural and Moral failures.... Socialization and Bullying failures....

A centralized, one-size-fits-all system of mass education has a lot of opportunities for failure. Add to that the inherent limitations of an entrenched, bloated bureaucracy and you have a recipe for disaster. A disaster that affects a lot of kids. That is wrong.

This blog will gather personal stories, share research, comment on news stories, and strive to promote the concept that parents know best what method of education is best for their children. It will provide evidence that the one-size-fits-all method is harmful individually and to society at large. It will advocate for more parental control and parental choice in education. It will attempt to influence the entrenched system of public education and amplify the opinion held by many that Father and Mother Know Best - not the government, not ivory-towered academicians, not so-called professionals - what is best for their children. Those institutions provide valuable support to parents and should be consulted, but they are NOT the decision-makers. The parents are.

Now what do we do about it? Share your stories... share your vision of change... share links to news stories.... give a book review.... Get Involved! Let's change something!