another case in point against homeschooling?
 

A family in my ward homeschools, and last week I heard one of the children (age 10) loudly telling another child that Native Americans really aren't native because they had to come from somewhere else first, so if they are native, then so are white people. Now I take his point that it might not be the best possible name (and indeed, I'm not even sure it's the correct name any more). But what bothered me about it was his attitude, which seemed to be very dismissive of the cultural heritage that name seeks to protect.

The 8 yo child from that family is one of my Primary students and yesterday we were talking about the Holy Land on a map, and I was saying how there are many different faiths that consider the land to be holy for different reasons. So the 8 yo homeschool student suddenly starts to loudly correct me for calling Muslims by that name. He said something like Muslims are the same as Jews, and you shouldn't call them that. I think I said something like "okay, that's not right" and changed the subject. I have no idea what he was talking about.

But I came close to talking to his mother about it last night when I ran into her. Beacuse what is going on in that "HOME SCHOOL"? I chose not to, though. I didn't think it was likely to end well.

The Seattle version of homeschooling is co-ops. This is the leftist version and no less awful.

I am partially the product of disrupted orthodoxy.

Disrupted by my primary and sunday school teachers in a university-populated ward.

Kids will puzzle over statements that contradict dogma for many years, you have no idea.

Example: I had a substitute seminary teacher who said, "How do you know that the Lord won't give the priesthood to women?"

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask. I want my children to have teachers like your substitute seminary teacher. But in order for that teacher to be effective, he needs to be a foil. So who is going to be the foil? A substitute teacher, or me? But do I want to be the foil to the orthodoxy, or do I want to be the source of the orthodoxy?

I envision being both: I'll teach the principles as I have faith in them, but act as a foil in questioning and seeking understanding.

How do you teach the gospel to your children? Primary orthodoxy? Or substitute seminary teacher?

There's a more fundamental problem. They're not the same. The statement is innacurate. Saying Muslims and Jews are the same is pernicioius newspeak, probably more precisely just ignorance. Hence your brief against home schooling.

There are many factors, but one of the largest is the personality or personage or whatever you want to call it, of the kid himself/herself.

That moment stuck with me, probably didn't stick with most of the kids.

Zulu had many of the same teachers as me, I think he was raised in a little bit more strict manner than me, and he may tend to be slightly more orthodox than me, I don't know. Lots of factors.

Insightful.

well, the statement that Jews and Muslims are the same religion is obviously fundamentally wrong. But the point you quote there referred to "Native Americans." That's the point I was saying was dismissive.

Is asking that question an unorthodox view? Maybe answering it affirmatively is, but it seems you should at least be able to ask the question. Then again, I am apparently often out in left field.

what church do you attend? Mine is the LDS church HQed in SLC.

haha. But seriously, when I think of the prietsthood, who holds it and what they do with it, I don't think of some static definition. In my mind, including OT times, God has changed the way in which priesthood powers are bestowed quite a few times, based on tribal lineage, etc. And then of course the obvious modern examples based on age and ethnicity among male members. My point ultimately is that it doesn't seem that crazy to me to ask the question "how do we know who holds the priesthood?" or more precisely "how do we know women won't?"

Would you believe there was a Women's Studies minor at BYU? It makes me lol now, even though I completed the minor. And we talked about this in a course or two along the way. At the Lord's university! The one headed up by those same old guys in SLC.

And this boy is a product of public schools.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24802

What is going on in that public school?

In contrast, consider a family I know very well that has been home schooling for quite a few years. I would love for my children to look up to this family as role models, to seek to be like them.

The oldest child is a sophomore at BYU, even though she is not yet 19 years old. She is on scholarship, is an A student, is an excellent flute player, and is active in sports. She is very friendly, interacts well with people of all ages, and shows a maturity and wisdom beyond her years.

The second is sixteen, and excels similarly in academics. She has received state-level accolades for her clarinet skills, and has participated in various sports as well. She is like her sister in her social/maturity levels.

The third, a boy, is 14, and is the best musician of them all. He is an accomplished pianist, a top-notch student, and a good basketball player. He has a bit of the moodiness often seen in teenagers at this age, but is for the most part a friendly, level-headed, and mature kid.

They also have three younger children that appear to be following in their older children's footsteps in most ways.

I know their parents focus on classical music and literature, but are not mullahs on keeping the influences of pop culture out of their home. None of these children seem very interested in pop culture, and all have a strong work ethic and good moral reasoning skills.

How did this happen, given that they are the product of a home school?

I have no beef, in theory, with home schooling, and I am aware of several people similar to those that minn_stat mentions. Having said that, I have also known home schooled kids, who seemed intelligent, who could barely read when they were 10 years old.

I think it is clear that many of us react to the motivations of LDS home school parents. Maybe I am simplifying, but in my experience, very many LDS parents who home school are not doing so to give their child a better education, but instead to give them a more moral education. They are upset that the schools are too liberal, or that the schools teach evolution, or sex ed, or that they read a book that talks about breasts, or something like that. They are much more concerned with shielding than in enriching or educating.

I actually wasn't trying to debate homeschooling and it's place in the world, which I don't have strong opinions about (so my topic was a bit misleading). I was more shocked at what those kids are being taught at home. Or confused, I guess. They are smart kids, and in this particular family they are homeschooled because after sending their oldest to kindergarten, the mother decided she could do it better.

Yes, I'm sure many people know perfectly wonderful, smart, well adjusted children who have been homeschooled.

It seems to create an atmosphere where social development is necessarily postponed and the abilities of parents to teach advanced subjects seems improbable.

But maybe if there were more homeschooling, or people at least hired tutors, we wouldn't have all this big government meddling in our lives and educating our children.

Government sponsored education preceded big government. It is a rich frontier tradition. Now do we need a Department of Education at the federal level? Probably not.

When do you consider "big government" to have started? FDR?

School is a free-for-all of ideas and values, as you are exposed to many people from different backgrounds.

This is what many homeschoolers are trying to avoid.

For example, a girl in my ward is home-schooled and done very well on her SAT.

Her father said that maybe if she ended up going to a more conservative university she wouldn't be exposed to "some lesbian school club."

Of course, it is probably true, that when you send your kid to a $50k/yr school on the east coast with three other Mormon undergrads in the entire school, none of them active, you are not setting up your child for being an active member of the church. But the parents and the child are in perfect agreement that that is the case, even if they never actually discuss it.

I imagine it was a nongranular progression but FDR truly accelerated the process of centralized government planning, abrogation of liberties, and the bureaucratization of our culture and society. It dehumanized us.

At some time children need to be exposed to adverse ideas, to see how they grapple with them. Wouldn't it be better for them to be introduced at the earliest age so that the parents could monitor progression?

Fear of ideas confuses me.

Tim Tebow was also homeschooled, but that doesn't make him representative. There is no "typical" homeschooling family. That's the whole point of the practice.

I would be more interested to hear about this family ten or twelve years down the road, when there's more evidence of what kind of decisions these kids made once they were away from the parents' sphere of influence.

I agree that for many families this is a factor. There's actually a university on the east coast specifically for homeschooled kids, so that the kids can be sheltered from the real world a few years longer.

Instead of reading that "They are smart, and socially adjusted, and athletic" had they gone to school we might be reading that "She was class president, all-district on the girls basketball team, and went to the state finals in [insert instrument] and debate. She is tremendously liked and respected and has had a lot of influence on her classmates and many friends."

Since when is being smart, athletic, and socially adjusted a great achievement of homeschooling?

Right. You give your kids both sides of the story at the same time. I think you can mess your kids up by focusing entirely on the positives of the Church as much as you can by focusing exclusively on the negatives.

If you think it's worth remaining a member of the Church, you just tell your kids what you like about the Church along with what you dislike or disagree with. As long as you don't focus exclusively on the negative or controversial aspects of the Church, your kids will actually have a stronger testimony because they have heard all the "bad stuff" about the Church from you and they will realize the bad stuff doesn't have to matter that much.

Examples (things my parents may have said)
"The historical narrative of the Book of Mormon is not supported by archeological evidence. There were no horses. Joseph Smith himself admitted there may be errors and they were his errors. So it's not all or nothing. I love King Benjamin's talk and it helps guide my actions toward my fellow man. I love Ether Chapter 12. These portions seem inspired to me and I believe they came from God. That's what I mean when I say 'The Book of Mormon is true.' "

"Yeah, it's interesting that the Church only gives the priesthood and most positions of authority to men and not to women. It's frustrating for a lot of women and doesn't seem right for women not to take more active roles in the Church. The Church is slow to change and may not change on issues like this for a long time. But Church leadership isn't all about authority. A lot of it is about un-paid, time-consuming service that takes you away from your family. So I'm grateful for the time Church leaders spend in their callings and although there are problems, most Church leaders do a great job."

I guess my main advice is: If you have decided to stay an active member, you probably have some excellent reasons and a testimony of certain aspects of the gospel that you will emphasize with your kids. As long as they hear your testimony of the gospel at the same time that they hear your doubts or concerns about the Church, your kids will be fine. In my personal opinion, they are even more likely to stay in the Church if you have inoculated them against the controversial aspects of Church doctrine and history, rather than letting them discover all the negative stuff on their own and feel like they have been told lies their whole life.

This article refutes the idea that home schooling leads to postponed social development.

http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/home.htm

One of the key quotes:
"This echoes the findings of Taylor (1987). Using one of the best validated self-concept scales available, Taylor's random sampling of home-schooled children (45,000) found that half of these children scored at or above the 91st percentile--47% higher than the average, conventionally schooled child. He concludes: "Since self concept is considered to be a basic dynamic of positive sociability, this answers the often heard skepticism suggesting that home schoolers are inferior in socialization" (Taylor, 1987)."

The reference is:
Taylor, John Wesley (1987). Self-Concept in Home Schooling Children (Doctoral Dissertation, Andrews University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2809A.

Self concept is the basic dynamic of positive sociability? What about knowing how to relate to others. That is hardly the end-all be-all. You'll have to do better than that.

What about the fact, that many, not necessarily all, are simply weird in social settings. It doesn't matter if they have a positive self image, if the stomp all over others, and act strangely if somebody says, "boobie".

The article hardly "refutes" the idea. In fact the article which just loosely summarizes two studies concludes:

Again, sociability is a pretty low standard.

Show me the studies that homeschooled kids excel as well in sports as schooled kids.

I would generally agree with this post. My wife and I were interested in the concept of homeschooling from very early in our marriage, and have looked at it quite closely. We have observed and talked to dozens of families that have homeschooled, and have discussed it with many people who are not too keen on the idea.

Our observation is that home-schooling families who are more focused on giving their child a better education generally do "better" (which we define as producing children who are well prepared to contribute to society in all ways) than those who are more focused on the moral/political/social issues. The more narrowly focused on moral/political/social issues, the less effective they tend to be.

Some of the families that do well are concerned about moral/political/social issues, but they tend to see it in a broader context (e.g., they do not like society's tendency to have children socializing other children, rather than extended families socializing children; as opposed to not liking that their kids are taught evolution).

You put it as "shielding" vs. "enriching", which I think is about as good of a one word summary as you can put on the differing attitudes, and I would agree is pretty good at differentiating between those who have success and those who don't.

link?

Oh wait, you just have anecdotal evidence.

And your article was so overwhelming. If you aren't aware of this anecdotal evidence, then why discuss it.

Address the point. How would you construct a study for social awkwardness? All I have is my experience and my experience with most homeschoolers regardless of academic abilities is that they usually are behind athletically and I found them to be more of a misfit than I, and that's saying a lot.

Address the other point, why not use your resources to supplement the education instead of supplanting it?

The sociability standard is most often brought up by those who oppose home schooling. As if that is something important to a child's development that only schools can offer.

But I see your point. How many football players has BYU lost out on because their parents kept them out of public schools, and therefore, the public school sports programs? I'll bet we could have beat Utah if we'd had them...

It's not BYU I'm worried about. It's the kids.

Kid in my ward had the potential to be a very good athlete. He's like Spiderman. But he never was given the opportunity by his parents, so he pretty much sucks at all sports. He was pissed when I told him he could have been homeschooled and still played football.

Schools offer a lot of things besides the three R's. If they didn't then home-college would be a great concept.

My point is that the article I put forth was far better than anything you offered up. At least someone who appears to be somewhat of an expert in the area put forth considerable effort, data, and analysis and came to the conclusion that at least in one key aspect of socialization, there is evidence that home schooled kids come out ahead of non-home schooled kids.

In regards to using your resources to supplement the education, two points:

One, some people do. And for those considering home schooling, they ought to consider this as an option. My wife and I have.

Two, given the time demands of school itself, homework, music lessons, extracurricular activities, and so forth, this approach may lead to a more stressful and harried lifestyle than the parents want for their children. Home schooling allows them to improve education while lessening the time demands on their children.

I agree with Mike and find the metric used to measure "sociability" to be underwhelming.

Why is homeschooling ever superior to parental supplementation?

versus the unstressful and unharried life of being in tough major in a strong university, or going to law school or medical school?

There is always time to bone up on this academic thing or that.

There is rarely going to be time to develop a jump shot and crossover dribble.

You cite one article which very loosely summarizes two studies, conducted by who knows whom with whatever agenda. Not all studies are created equal, but I took the studies at face value, and found them underwhelming.

You also failed to address until now, the supplementation issue.

I would never consider homeschooling because I believe professionals will know more about educating the mind of my children than I do, but I do know some aspects of education which I can stimulate in my children, through supplementation, including introduction to classics, sports, fitness, language, reading, but math instructors are far better at it than I.

Additionally, my children participate at their levels of abilities, be they bad or good, in sports, student government and other clubs. Yes I'm aware some homeschoolers do this, but in our ward, the only homeschoolers are those who disagree with teaching children about sex education. That appears to be their crux.

Do we wish to really teach our kids elitism through homeschooling?

Stress is part of life, and I'd prefer they'd learn sooner rather than later.

My anecdotal evidence is different than yours. The first homeschoolers I knew followed the typical stereotype quite closely - very strange and backwards family in many respects, the children were very sheltered and tightly controlled. As the kids grew up, several of them freaked out and became very rebellious and wild.

Understandably, I didn't think much of home schooling for a long time because of this first impression.

But I have changed my viewpoint quite a bit as I have observed and examined the issue over the years. I didn't just take my first impression and let it guide my opinion for the rest of my life.

I have definitely seen a mixed bag in terms of results, as mentioned before. But I have seen some families use home schooling very effectively, and some of the most impressive kids I've known are products of home schools. I think home schooling, properly done, can provide a child with a far superior education to most public schools, and they don't have to turn out weird or backwards. Unfortunately, some do, but some kids come out of public schools pretty messed up, too.