another case in point against homeschooling?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

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

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

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.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

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?

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.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

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.

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?

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

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.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

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:

At this point, more research on home schooling is necessary--what we have is inconclusive about many of its aspects. Although more and deeper studies are certainly called for, the population to be studied is not readily accessible to researchers. And the types of research that can be done are still limited to case studies of families or to surveys of self- reports by participants.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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".

Again, sociability is a pretty low standard.

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

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Clark Addison

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 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.