Evolution's Logical Conclusion

In this month's Breakpoint Worldview Magazine, Roberto Rivera has an article entitled "Playing God." In it, he discusses the recent difficulty encountered by Dr. James Watson, the Nobel prize winning scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA. Apparently Dr. Watson has encountered significant problems lately because he has clearly articulated the only logical conclusion possible for those who believe in evolution - that there is no reason to believe individuals and races are actually equal in intelligence or in worth.

The article clarifies some of what got Watson into trouble:

The furor started with an interview Watson gave to the Sunday Times (UK). Watson told the paper that he was “inherently gloomy” about the future of Africa because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” While we want to believe in human equality, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

Similarly, in the book that he was promoting in the Sunday Times interview, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, Watson writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

You see, if you believe in evolution, there is no way to justify the belief that humans are of equal worth. If evolution is true, why shouldn't one person be smarter, or wiser, or "further evolved," than another? In fact, the inequality of people would seem to be a logical conclusion of evolution - of course some people are further evolved than others. This helps to explain why so many early evolutionists advocated eugenics ("the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable" - MSN Encarta dictionary), sterilization of those considered "unfit," and even euthanasia. Those who believe in evolution are hard pressed to explain how people are equally valuable, since the theory of evolution requires improvement over time; thus some people would naturally be of more worth than others. (Please understand: I'm not saying that all evolutionists are prejudiced; I'm saying that if they are intellectually consistent, there can be no other conclusion for them.)

If people were created by one Creator, it makes sense that we should be outraged by Dr. Watson's statements; African humans are just as human - and just as intelligent - as anyone else. But for those who believe in evolution, why shouldn't Dr. Watson be right? Why should we "anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically"? I personally find Dr. Watson's statements offensive, but I must give him credit for being intellectually consistent. He believes evolution has continually led to improvement over time; the logical conclusion that some people are better ("further evolved") than others is inescapable.

The only logical basis for concluding that all people are of equal value is the theory of special creation. If in fact, we were all created by the same Designer, and we all came from the same original human being, then we are all one kind, and we all have equal worth. Skin color, facial features, cultural preferences - all these are just superficial differences, and have nothing to do with the inherent worth created in all of us by our Creator.

How Do We Engage the World?

Because the majority of my readers are Christian homeschoolers, I want to highlight today's Breakpoint, Charles Colson's radio program. You can read the transcript of the program here.

The question he addresses in this program relates to the issue of secularism - according to the dictionary, "the belief that religion and religious bodies should have no part in political or civic affairs or in running public institutions, especially schools; the rejection of religion or its exclusion from a philosophical or moral system." Secularism is perhaps the dominant force in our culture, and many hold to it "religiously" ("relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality; scrupulously and conscientiously faithful; fervent, zealous" - Webster's).

Here's a short quote from the Breakpoint transcript:

At a recent conference on Christian worldview, a college student asked the question: “Is there a model for engaging secularism?” The panel of well-known experts was stumped, clearly unfamiliar with the fact that 200 years ago a small group of politicians, bankers, writers, and lawyers addressed and overcame the crisis of secularism and immorality in England.

He goes on to discuss the work of William Wilberforce and his friends in early-19th-century England, as analyzed in a new book, edited by Chuck Stetson, entitled Creating the Better Hour: Lessons from William Wilberforce. Colson's program discussed one of the strategies Wilberforce used in some depth (well, as much depth as possible in a 5-minute radio program!); Stetson's book includes 10 such strategies. I'm looking forward to reading it. In the meantime, check out Colson's program - even the first taste of this model will likely help you impact your world more effectively.

Another "Are the Schools Doing Their Job?" Post

Over at Notes From a Homeschooling Mom, Ahermitt posted on Saturday about an important occurrence that hasn't hit the national news, but is tremendously relevant to anyone involved with education. (Oh, yes, and be sure to check out Ahermitt's second post as well: More on Clayton County's Accreditation Loss. It's a bit slow getting started, but she has some good points especially toward the end.) The public school system in Clayton County, Georgia, is losing its accreditation. This means NONE of Clayton County's 59 schools will be accredited - a frightening thought to the 53,000 students there, especially the 15,000 or high school students, many of whom may have been counting on that accreditation to win them state scholarships and smooth their path to college.

The report from the accreditation agency says the school system is "fatally flawed" and the problems are "overwhelming and extreme." Those are some pretty serious words. The accreditation agency is claiming, among other things, that the school board misappropriated funds, altered attendance records, and was involved in other unethical conduct, including significant conflicts of interest. One member of the school board, for example, is also the executive director of the teacher's union, and according to the accrediting agency's report, "pushed the board to abandon a curriculum program two-thirds through a contract because it wasn't endorsed by the union." And this was a program that was working well, reducing the number of first-graders needing the Early Intervention Program from 50% to 12% in just two years! In addition, the Board apparently harassed administrators and other district staff, calling them names, accusing them of playing games, and generally making their lives difficult - sometimes in publicly televised reports.

As far as I can determine from reading the report, most of the problems resulting in the loss of accreditation are ethical and personal issues. There's no doubt the board of Clayton County has some incredibly serious interpersonal problems. Unfortunately for the students, the problems that are probably going to result in lack of accreditation apparently have little to do with the quality of education those kids are getting. This is not surprising, considering this is the first time in more than a decade that a school district anywhere in the country is going to lose its accreditation - it would appear a poor quality education is not a reason for loss of accreditation in America today. But these kids are going to be penalized because their district's board is fighting, and is engaging in tremendously unethical behavior, and that's too bad. They've already lost a great deal because of their board's behavior, and now they stand to lose far more.

The school district is still trying valiantly to correct the problem; unfortunately, the report makes it clear that it's unlikely they'll be able to preserve their accreditation. Beginning September 1, this entire district will be unaccredited.

So the question now becomes, what are these families going to do? Many are already leaving the district, hoping for better results in some other school district. Hopefully that will make it possible for these kids to still qualify for scholarships and get into good colleges and universities. For those whose declining property values make it impossible for them to move, though, there will be serious challenges. Here are a couple of suggestions:

1) Challenge your state government to allow you school choice. In Colorado, parents are free to choose from any school in the state that has the space. This has been tremendously beneficial and has encouraged competition between schools, improving the quality of all. With a budget of $375,000,000 (that's over $7000 per student!), Clayton County should have done better. Convince your state government to let you find a school or district that IS doing better and enroll your student there.

2) Consider carefully whether you could homeschool your children. Rather than dismiss that possibility out-of-hand, as so many do ("I could never do that"), take the time to really think about it. Contrary to popular belief, homeschoolers don't rely exclusively on our own knowledge and abilities to teach our children; instead, we use whatever resources we can find. Sometimes we find curriculum so we can learn the subject first; sometimes we rely on an online course or an outside class; sometimes we hire a tutor; sometimes we find other ways to get the need met. We also aren't always patient with our kids, and some days we don't even LIKE our kids - just like you - but we are willing to work out our personal difficulties, and we find there are many rewards in being with our kids all day, too. Do some real investigation. Read some books, check out the web, talk to people you know who are doing it. You may find your kids will end up much better prepared for college than they would in your conflict-ridden, struggling public school system.

And for those of us who do homeschool, this may be a helpful reminder that sending our kids to public school isn't necessarily going to make our lives easier. After all, we could be sending them into a situation like Clayton County's, without even realizing it.

And a Fitting Conclusion to Why Study Literature

So after all this discussion of why we ought to study literature, Dana over at Principled Discovery has this excellent post that makes my point about cultural references. (Thanks, Dana!) ;)

When you click over to it, be sure to follow the first link to the article by Katie Criss that's critical of homeschooling. (You will cringe to read it - it's full of errors - but in order to understand Dana's point, you need to see what Katie says first.) Then read Dana's post.

The better you know Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, especially the eulogy he puts in the mouth of Mark Antony, the funnier you'll find Dana's post. Here's just a taste of her parody.

Educators, parents, students, lend me your ears;
I come to bury homeschooling, not to praise it.
The evil that men do makes headlines,
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with homeschoolers.

The noble Katie Criss
hath told you homeschoolers hide abusers:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath homeschoolers answered it.
Here, under leave of Katie and the rest,
For Katie did her research;
So did they all, all well-researched people-
Come I to speak in homeschooling's funeral.

It is my lifestyle, precious and full to me:
But Katie says my reasons are unwarranted,
And Katie did her research.
It has brought many families closer together
Whose work did enrich their communities.
Did this in homeschooling seem pernicious?
When the poor hath cried, homeschoolers hath organized:
Isolation should be made of lonelier stuff.

There's more, including some of the funniest lines, over at Dana's blog. I hope you'll take the time to read the whole thing.

More on Studying Literature

After the previous post, I received an answer from the original poster, clarifying the intent of her question. She pointed out that she wasn't asking, "Why read literature?" but rather, "Why study literature?" - referring to the struggle to analyze and understand literary terms, figurative language, symbolism, and so on. She said, "My son really hates having to pick apart the book after he has read it and understood the story."

Here are some of my thoughts on the topic.

I think this is a very good question, and it's a difficult one to answer. I also sometimes struggle with whether we really need to analyze the literature in-depth. I can think of a couple of benefits:

1) Literary terms are another part of the "common frame of reference" issue. If you have a conversation with another person about a book, it is easier to talk about it if you both understand certain terms. Terms like plot, character, and theme; conflict, climax, resolution; simile, metaphor, personalization, and even anthropomorphism, can help you explain what you did or didn't like about the book, and can enable you to discuss the book much more effectively.

2) In a similar way to your son's development of interest in the topic of Mrs. Giaconda, a grasp of literary terms can generate interest in areas he may not have been interested before. It can enrich your understanding of the story of Eros and Psyche, for example, to recognize similarities in the plot between that and C.S. Lewis' book, 'Til We Have Faces. Analyzing the similarities and differences in the plot and theme of the the two stories can also help you understand Lewis' theme much more clearly. Can you manage without knowing that? Sure! But does it enrich your life, in some small degree, to understand Lewis' theme in his story? I find that it does.

The point, of course, is not the little tiny bit of additional richness we gain from any one experience with literature (like your son's experience with Mrs. Giaconda), but rather the enormous wealth we gain from the accumulation of many such experiences over time. That's also why any one piece of literature is relatively insignificant, but a wide exposure to literature over time and across cultures is important and valuable. (I think that's why you may hear people say that if you don't like, for example, The Second Mrs. Giaconda, skip it and find something else; but don't skip literature or the study of it altogether.)

That said, I want to make it clear - I don't really think worksheets are all that significant to the process. The discussion of the literature is far more important than
filling out the worksheet. If it's more comfortable for your son, make a list of significant literary terms and features (maybe with definitions), and have him choose the ones he feels are important in this particular piece, point out examples, and/or explain why and how he feels they are important. When you find he's consistently leaving out some of them, choose a piece that contains "x" term, point it out to him, and talk about it. This of course demands more of you as the teacher, but it may be more effective for him. Or, just do the worksheet questions orally. Find a way that works for you and for him to consistently discuss the literature using literary terms. When I was using discussions in teaching literature, I always found I learned far more than my students, and I got far more meaning out of what I had read than they did. The more deeply you analyze, the better you understand the literature as a whole, and the more you usually end up appreciating it in the long run.

Finding the interesting things in literature and figuring out how to communicate that to students can be one of the most challenging things about teaching literature - but in the end it can also be one of the most rewarding.

Why Study Literature?

On one of the email groups I'm a member of, we've been having a fairly long discussion about why we ought to study literature. One of the people on the list is math/science person, and so is her late-junior-high-age son. They both dislike studying literature, and so she asked us to help her think about whether and why it's important.

Well, as a literature lover and former literature teacher, I first reacted strongly. "What do you mean, why is it important to study literature?!" But I discovered that putting my thoughts and feelings into words was more difficult. So here, in somewhat random, conversational form, is what I posted to the list.

(This first is in response to the original poster's discovery that after reading The Second Mrs. Giaconda - which he hated - her son had then been very interested in an article about whether da Vinci had used Mrs. Giaconda as a model for the Mona Lisa.)

You commented that your son was interested in the article because he had just read the "boring book." But isn't that part of the point of education - to arouse kids' interest in areas they might otherwise never have thought about much? His life is richer (if only in a very small degree), and he understands more about Leonardo da Vinci, because he read that "boring book." Sure, it was hard to do - but if he has broader interests as a result, that seems like a worthwhile investment of time and energy to me.

Another reason to study literature - and one I consider critically important - is that it gives us a common frame of reference (both with members of our current culture, and more importantly with our cultural heritage). Reading Benjamin Franklin, for example, or Thomas Jefferson, or even Mark Twain, you'll find dozens - maybe hundreds - of references to literary sources, Shakespeare being one of the primary ones. Knowing the literature helps you understand what they're talking about.

I was just looking, for example, at Shadow of the Almighty, the story of the life of Jim Elliott (the martyr who gave his life to reach headhunters in Ecuador in the 1960's). His writing is scattered with literary references, and they tremendously enrich the reader's understanding of his life (and of what motivated him to give it to Christ).

Some of the most difficult literature to read (and I put Shakespeare in this category!) is some of the most quoted and has become part of our cultural heritage. How about this one: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" (from As You Like It)? I'm racking my brain for the book I remember reading a while ago with a chapter title of "Out, Out -- " because it has a cultural reference I didn't understand at the time. In fact, the reference is to Shakespeare's Macbeth, which contains this amazingly thought-provoking section:

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle,
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

This section is even more thought-provoking if you know the Macbeth story - that it is spoken by a character who is responsible for murder, and shows the despair of someone who is caught in the grip of human depravity and can see no hope for escape. And all of this significance is built into the author's use of "Out, out -- " as a title for his chapter. Without the cultural reference, you miss part of what the author was trying to say.

I'm afraid I may have obscured my point in the quotes and illustrations. What I'm trying to communicate is that literature provides a reference point for understanding both our current and our historical culture. Even scientists use these kinds of references, almost without thinking, assuming that we all are familiar with them. They are found throughout news articles, magazines, history books - especially the rich writings of our forefathers throughout the colonial period, the 1700's, the 1800's, and even the first half of the 1900's. Only in the last 60 years or so, as our society became totally invested in the space race, did we abandon much of this heritage and turn our focus almost exclusively to science and math.

That said, understanding our cultural heritage doesn't require reading every single book on any particular reading list. Some books aren't worth the effort. What's important in high school, in my opinion, is that you get a solid grasp on a significant number of the works that have been foundational in building our culture. Shakespeare would certainly be included, but so would many other authors. Some are easier to read, some are more difficult. And some are only tolerable when you read them in a setting where you can discuss them - preferably with a group of peers.

Homework Isn't Helpful

In a study which must be a shock to the education establishment but comes as no surprise to most parents, two professors in Toronto have discovered that "Homework is of little benefit to students from junior kindergarten to Grade 6 . . . (and) it is often the source of stress and burnout in children, as well the cause of conflict – even marital stress – for many families." It's the first time the Canadians have studied homework, and much to their surprise, they've found the same kind of results we have here in America. An article in Saturday's Toronto Star highlights the findings of the study.

In their study, more than 1,000 parents were surveyed and said while they like the good work habits homework promotes, as well as how it helps parents be involved in their children's academic lives, the amount students are getting is interfering with family time, play time, causing stress and even marital troubles.

I've felt for a long time that with 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, schools ought to be able to give children the basic education they need. After all, as a homeschooling parent, my children generally get the basic subjects out of the way in 2-3 hours a day. Even my 6th-grader manages to do English, math, history, and science, along with logic, Latin, and Bible, in no more than 3-4 hours 4 days a week; the remainder of her school topics are covered in outside classes and activities and include: P.E. (swim team), music (keyboard lessons), art, band, drama, and sign language.

Unfortunately, most schools spend much of their time doing a lot more than giving children a basic education. Many schools seem to think it's their job to feed our kids, keep them off drugs, motivate them to care for the environment, provide them with s-x education, prevent them from becoming prejudiced, cure them of any religious notions, and generally counteract the careful training in values their parents are giving them at home. Little wonder, then, that they can't find time to teach them such insignificant things as reading, writing, math, and a love for learning during school hours, but have to send those things home for the parents to teach.

I have a friend who told me she started homeschooling when her son was in first grade. She found she was teaching him most of his "schoolwork" as homework at night. She finally decided if she was going to have to teach him at home, she might as well do it during his best hours, rather than in the evenings when he was exhausted and wanted nothing but to eat, play, and rest.

The study also found:
- Not only does homework cut into family time, it becomes a primary source of arguments, power struggles and is disruptive to building a strong family, including putting strain on marriages. Bruni said it even negatively affects family holidays.
- A large number of children in kindergarten are assigned homework, most of it "drill and practice."
- 28 per cent of Grade 1 students and more than 50 per cent of Grade 2 students spend more than 20 minutes on homework daily.
- More than three-quarters of parents with children in Grade 4 and under help their children with homework. But, by Grade 4, only half of parents feel they are competent enough to do so.
- Parents are unsure about the benefits of homework; by Grade 5, just 20 per cent of parents feel it has a "positive effect on achievement."
- Half of children in junior kindergarten are enthusiastic about homework; by Grade 6, it drops to just 6 per cent and by Grade 12, just 4 per cent.

The elementary-school children in our neighborhood get on the bus at 7:45 am and don't get home until close to 4:30 pm. During all of that time, they are almost completely structured. "Don't talk," "Stay in line," "Wait for the rest of the class," "Sit quietly," "Listen," "Raise your hand," the list of admonitions goes on and on. By the time they get home, they are exhausted and ready to be unstructured for a few hours. But at 4:30, how many hours do they really have? By the time they do homework (even if it's only half an hour, and for many it's a lot more than that), eat dinner, and get a bath, it's almost bedtime. When are they supposed to play, spend time with their families, or just sit and think?

As homeschoolers, I feel like our kids are so incredibly blessed. They have the one thing most kids today lack - the luxury of time. No wonder so many of our society's greatest achievers were homeschooled - they are the only ones who have time to really ponder how life works. Maybe it's time for parents to rebel against the workings of the machine - to say, "No, we are not going to run our entire lives by the values of the educational establishment." There's more to life than school!

We need to give our kids back the gift of time. Homeschool is one great way to do that, but even if you can't homeschool, you can set boundaries. You can tell teachers, "This far, and no further." A single parent alone may have trouble accomplishing this, but if we band together based on the research, maybe we can make a difference.

More on Why We Need to Vote

Continuing on the basic theme of my post yesterday, there are other reasons why conservatives ought to vote even if they dislike and disagree with the eventual nominee. The big question relating to this year's election (and I think to every year's election) is this: What are the key issues facing the nation at this point in time? I think there are several, but perhaps the two most significant ones are national defense and the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

1) National defense. The number one priority of any nation's government is the protection of its people. We are at war, whether we like it or not; keeping our people safe is our government's most important responsibility. When considering whether we ought to vote or not, we must consider whether there is a significant difference in which candidate will keep our nation safe.

2) The appointment of Supreme Court justices. Undoubtedly the new president will face vacancies on the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens is almost 88 and is unlikely to stay in office for another four years; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is nearing 75. With so many Supreme Court decisions currently being 5-4, whoever becomes the new president will likely determine the direction of the Supreme Court, influencing public policy powerfully for maybe as long as 30 years. Even if a particular candidate is not ideal, we must ask ourselves whether there's a difference between the candidates in their likelihood of choosing justices who will uphold our values.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on the topic entitled, "Dobson's Choice." It's not a long article, and it makes a critically important point about why we ought not to abdicate our right to be involved in choosing the next president. Here's a quote:

Mr. McCain's harshest critics argue that his judicial picks could easily be as bad as anyone tapped by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. This is caricature, but even if it had merit, the likes of Mr. Dobson would be trading the risk that Mr. McCain picks moderates for the court for the certainty that his opponent would appoint liberals.

Especially if you are frustrated with the status quo and considering whether you even ought to vote this November, please take the time to read the article and consider carefully the core issues involved. (This article is only accessible to non-subscribers for 7 days.)

Do we dare risk the safety of our country and the makeup of the Supreme Court for the purpose of making a point?

Sitting on our Hands

Tuesday night I did something I've never done in my 40-plus years of living - I went to a caucus. I didn't even know until about two weeks ago that Colorado HAD caucuses, and I had no idea how they worked. Apparently I wasn't the only one - we had record turnout that night, and the vast majority of the people there had no idea what was going on because they'd never been to one, either.

Waiting in line to get into the caucus meeting, though, I discovered something I hadn't known before, something that really disturbed me: there were a number of people there who swore that if John McCain were the Republican candidate for president, they would simply not vote. "We have to teach the Republican establishment a lesson," seemed to be their line of reasoning. "They don't listen to our values, so they'll just have to lose." I disagreed with that reasoning, but putting into words why it was so troubling to me has turned out to be extraordinarily difficult.

So I was please to discover that Dave Burchett had an excellent blog post yesterday entitled, "Should Christians Sit This Election Out?" His answer was no, for several reasons. The whole post is well worth reading, but the best portion I think is right here:

If there are two choices I assume that one choice has to be better than the other. I will prayerfully decide which choice comes closer to my values and beliefs. And I will vote for that candidate even if he or she represents only a part of what I value. Something, in this case, is far better than nothing.

You know, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have risked death for the right to be part of helping choose their leadership, even though their leadership was certainly far from perfect. Our founding fathers also risked their lives for the privilege of voting. And our soldiers in other countries put their lives at risk every day in order to preserve our right to make these kinds of choices.

None of the candidates (in either party) has been perfect. In fact, none this year, in my opinion, has been anywhere near perfect. But as long as I have a choice, I will continue to choose the person who comes closest to my values and beliefs. The privilege of participating in electing our leaders is priceless. And if, through our own refusal to participate in the process, we end up with leadership that is dead set against what's most important to us, we have only ourselves to blame.

Are Our Kids Getting Dumber?

On the blog "ideas from free minds" today, there's an interesting post relating to modern education in America (particularly high school education). The post includes a 12-minute video clip, produced by three young men in a Florida public high school, that is well worth making time to watch. I don't agree with everything they say, but the first 8 minutes and the last minute are revealing and thought-provoking.

The blog text also contains some worthwhile information. (A word of warning, though - toward the bottom there is a picture which includes some text that some of you will consider offensive. It's still worth the read - but you might not want to share it with your kids.) The part that caught me most off guard was this paragraph:

Then consider the greater than $48,000 average cost (four years) of state college tuition and the fact that many students (I’ve seen figures as high as 78.7%) require remediation once they are there. Consider that in 2005, starting salary averages for college grads were between $29,733 and $53,279. Add to it all the idea that you need be degreed before you can answer a phone and it becomes clear that our education system has been set up to weigh students down in debt before they make a dime.

What's frightening to me about the average salary for college grads is that while engineering graduates generally make excellent starting salaries, liberal arts graduates (which in my experience constitute the majority of college grads) generally make no more than about $35,000 to start. How long will it take to pay off almost $50,000 in student loans if you're making less than $40,000 per year? And that doesn't count graduate school, which is often necessary these days in order to get a long-term career position in either the arts or the sciences. My husband and I have been looking into graduate schools lately, and it would appear the least expensive M.A. degrees available, generally from public universities, are at least $25,000. Some cost as much as another $50,000. So by the time our kids get their bachelor's degree and their master's degree, they are looking at a debt of perhaps $100,000 or more. That doesn't include room and board, which must somehow be covered while the student is going to school full-time and trying to make time to study besides.

Anyone wonder why I choose to homeschool, and why my children will be going to college early? :) So click on over, watch the video, read the blog post, and see what you think. What are the problems plaguing public education? And how might they be fixed?

Is the Future Dim for Public Schools?

An article published this morning in the Las Vegas Review Journal claims a recent survey shows that most people in Nevada would not send their children to public school if they were free to choose any available option.

The survey was conducted by the Nevada Policy Research Institute and the Foundation for Educational Choice. In the study, only 11 percent of Nevadans surveyed said they would choose public schools if they could choose between public schools, private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. Eleven percent! Of the rest, 48 percent would choose private schools, 23 percent charter schools, and 15 percent home schooling.

The article quotes Nevada Assembly Education Chairwoman Bonnie Parnell (D-Carson City) in defense of Nevada's public schools. She claims "the poll also provides some evidence that residents believe Nevada's public education system could be better funded." However, the survey showed that 61 percent of respondents believe the level of public education funding is "about right" or "too high." So in spite of the media and the government's repeated public brainwashing that education is not adequately funded, only 39 percent of respondents are willing to buy it any more. How much of our money do we have to give up before politicians figure out that the problem is not funding?

The article also quotes Keith Rheault, Nevada's superintendent of public instruction, who says "the support for voucher schools seen in the poll has not been demonstrated at legislative hearings on the issue."

Hmm - wonder if that might have something to do with the people who are invited to speak at and participate in legislative hearings? Certainly the teacher's unions and school organizations are going to do all they can to turn out as many people against vouchers as possible. Individuals who favor vouchers are much less likely to show up than members of unions; for one thing, many of them have children at home, which makes it difficult to attend long legislative hearings. Has the legislature actually surveyed people to determine how many would take advantage of vouchers? I doubt it - my guess is, they don't want to know how badly the public schools are perceived.

Mr. Rheault also claims, "the school choices listed by respondents also don't seem to reflect what is actually happening."

I wouldn't expect them to do that. The survey specifically asked people what they would do "if they had the freedom to choose any available option." While only about 1 percent of Nevadans currently homeschool, 15 percent say they would if they had the freedom to choose. Cost would certainly be a factor in this equation: Can the family afford to pay for curriculum? Can they afford for one parent to quit working in order to homeschool? Private schools, which were chosen by 48 percent (almost half), are not an option for many families, for the same reason. Charter schools may not be chosen by many of the 23 percent who'd like to choose them because they are simply not available in the area where the respondent lives.

Obviously more than 11 percent of Nevadans do in fact send their children to public schools; for most they don't feel they have another choice. It's unfortunate for residents of that state that they don't have a voucher system. However, it ought to make the public education system thankful; in the future they will be able to use this survey as evidence for why they shouldn't have vouchers. You see, they are right about one thing - if everyone were given vouchers, the public school system would collapse.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to the education establishment that instead of fighting so hard to force more kids into their failing schools, they ought to fix what's wrong with the schools. If the public schools were competitive with private schools, charter schools, and home schools, then handing out vouchers would not hurt them. Do you suppose they'll ever figure that out?

"Homeschooling" Preschool

I've talked a bit in a previous post about homeschooling during the preschool years. Yesterday's Opinion section of the Buffalo News had a wonderful editorial by Beth Kontrabecki Walters, who has decided to buck public opinion and "homeschool" her 2-year-old. What she means is exactly what mothers used to do all the time - she's staying at home with her little boy and giving him a normal life. And the way she's responding to the criticism of well-meaning busybodies is excellent.

Here's an example:

When I hear about socializing my child, I can’t get out of my head the image of my German shepherd. A dog needs socializing.

Truthfully, I’m not terribly concerned about my son harassing the mailman and neighborhood children who walk past the house.

For generations, mine included, we somehow managed to grow into perfectly happy and functional adults; no socialization with scores of other children necessary. You either had your siblings, your cousins or the kid down the street.

I'm afraid I don't quite agree that a preschooler doesn't need socialization. But what kind of socialization does a toddler learn by being removed from his home (usually against his will) and placed in a room with a bunch of other toddlers? (It can't be good!) The socialization a preschooler needs is best provided by parents, by siblings, and by occasional interactions with other kids (at the park, at church, or at a birthday party) - "Be polite," "Be kind," "Share," "Make friends," "Treat others the way you want them to treat you." Most socialization is learned by modeling. Children watch how people around them interact with others, and they imitate what they see, observing how others respond to that imitation and modifying their behavior based on that feedback. So who provides a better model, the child's parents or their peers? And who can provide more appropriate feedback to the child's sometimes-clumsy attempts to mimic the examples around them - a parent, a teacher, or another child? It seems to me the answer is obvious - the parent is both the best source of modeling for the child and the best able to provide instant, appropriate feedback when the child tries a new social behavior.

Here's another example:

Then there’s the issue of activities. Because I choose not to be a member of any "mommy" group and do not send my son to a facility, it can only be concluded that we sit in a dark, quiet house all day staring at the walls. While this may be hard to believe, one can do the exact same activities as performed in preschool, thereby still gleaning the benefits of a preschool education, in the comfort of one’s own abode.

In my opinion, this is a very wise mother. It's frustrating to realize what poor reasons are being offered for why kids "need" to go to preschool! I've already mentioned this before, so I'll try not to get into a lot of detail now. But preschools spend hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars trying to imitate experiences children can have for free at home. Almost every preschool, for example, has little model kitchens so they can pretend to cook and bake; why not just let them stay at home and help Mom cook and bake for real? Teachers spend hours pasting pictures of fruit and vegetables on a bulletin board - isn't it better to take the child to the grocery store and let them actually see, smell, and handle the real thing (and maybe even taste some if Mom buys it and takes it home)? Preschools organize formal "learning experiences" pouring water from a pitcher into a cup, instead of letting kids in on the joy of pouring their own juice into their own little cups (even if they spill a bit). Toy phones are used to teach telephone manners, rather than let the child listen in on Mom's phone conversations and maybe even try it for themselves. In so many ways, preschool experiences are cheap imitations of what the home can easily do for real. Not only that, in the home, these experiences happen much more spontaneously, usually without interrupting the consistent schedules for naps, meals, and outdoor time these little people so desperately need.

Here's this mother's conclusion:

Generations of mothers before me were the sole educators in the lives of their children, teaching them not just reading, writing and arithmetic, but also how to get along in this world. In fact, some of their nonpreschooled progeny went on to make enormous contributions to history. I doubt Thomas Edison attended pre-K.

In the not-so-distant future, I will watch my son board the bus to kindergarten, unable to shield him from dirty words and bad habits, and my home schooling days will be a faint memory. In the meantime, I’m going to enjoy these precious years to the fullest.

In fact, Thomas Edison not only didn't attend pre-K, but he got pretty much all his education through homeschooling! And so did Albert Einstein; Alexander Graham Bell; Orville and Wilbur Wright; Claude Monet; Leonardo da Vinci; ten American presidents including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt; George Washington Carver; Pierre Curie; Winston Churchill; Benjamin Franklin; Patrick Henry; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; Charles Dickens; Mark Twain; C.S. Lewis; and dozens more. None of these people attended preschool - most of them didn't attend much school at all - and look how they turned out!

So, maybe Ms. Walters will put her son on the bus, and maybe she won't. :) After all these years of bucking public opinion and "homeschooling" her preschooler, maybe she will discover that there are similar advantages to homeschooling for elementary school (and for middle school, and for high school . . . !).

Whether she homeschools long-term or not, though, it's my opinion that she'll never regret the decision to keep her son at home during his preschool years. Children are not born in packs like puppies; they generally come one or two at a time because it's best for them to have the full care and attention of their parents, at least for a few years. Preschool deprives these little guys of the loving care, the routines, and the participation in real life they so desperately need and want during these early years. Good for you, Ms. Walters, and all the other moms like you who go against prevailing opinion and give your little children what they need most - you!

Education and Ice Cream: Why Homeschooling Is Better

CrimsonWife over at Bending the Twigs has a great post, highlighted at the Carnival of Homeschooling (which incidentally is huge this week), entitled "Why Education Is Not Like Making Ice Cream." In her post, she quotes from the former CEO of an ice cream business on the topic of education, particularly in our public schools:

I have learned that a school is not a business. Schools are unable to control the quality of their raw material, they are dependent upon the vagaries of politics for a reliable revenue stream, and they are constantly mauled by a howling horde of disparate, competing customer groups that would send the best CEO screaming into the night.

She goes on to explain beautifully why homeschooling is a huge improvement over public education, addressing the majority of the issues cited in this quote. She's done a great job - be sure to click over and read the whole thing.

Homeschooling Regulation - How Far Is Too Far?

The Opinionated Homeschooler has a rather frightening post pointing out how far the anti-homeschooling crowd is willing to go in regulating homeschooling. It's an excellent post, and well worth the read. The post quotes these paragraphs from the New York Times article on the Washington D.C. murders, which I referenced earlier:

Mitchell L. Stevens, an associate professor of education and sociology at New York University, said school officials, who are required by law to report suspicion of child abuse, were society’s best watchdogs of how parents treat children.

“Home schooling removes children from a lot of that surveillance,” Mr. Stevens said, adding that the vast majority of home schooling families are “overwhelmingly trustworthy people who place a very high value on parental autonomy.” And thanks to the advocacy of the legal defense fund, he continued, “they have been largely successful since the late 1980s in getting the law to favor parental rights.”

One example of that, in 1991, disrupted an effort by the District of Columbia to regulate home schooling, with rules that included unannounced home visits and required teachers certification for parents doing the instruction. Christopher Klicka, senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, met with District officials, told them they were on shaky ground because of the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments, and the rules were rescinded.

The Opinionated Homeschooler goes on with this comment:

Unannounced home visits. From representatives of the state. With no probable
cause. For families who have done nothing illegal. On the grounds that
"surveillance" is necessary because school officials are "society's best
watchdogs."

Wow! They might as well argue for unannounced home visits by police in everyone's homes. After all, police officers, who are required to report suspicion of crimes, are "society’s best watchdogs" of criminal behavior. "The privacy of the home removes people from a lot of that surveillance." Of course, the vast majority of families are “overwhelmingly trustworthy people who place a very high value on individual autonomy.” And thanks to the advocacy of privacy advocates, “they have been largely successful in getting the law to favor privacy rights.” You get the point!

I find the idea of unannounced home visits frightening, not because I have anything to fear, but because of the implications for individual rights and privacy. How is it that my 11-year-old daughter can have an abortion because of her right to "privacy," but if I choose to homeschool her, we have no such right and could be subject to unannounced home visits?

The last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment still preserves "the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . , and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Choosing to homeschool my children does not mean giving up this fundamental right.

And as The Opinionated Homeschooler and others have pointed out, unannounced home visits would not have helped the Jacks children. These children were in school! When they dropped out, the school district did their job, attempting to contact the family and reporting
the children's absence to authorities; the social service agency did not, and because they didn't, the children died. In fact, at least six child welfare workers in D.C. are going to be fired as a result of the failure of DC's Child and Family Services Agency to intervene. If the school district had been making unannounced home visits, they would still have reported to the same agency. These children were murdered as a result of failure to enforce existing regulations, not as a result of too few regulations.

Unannounced home visits to homeschoolers will not prevent child abuse. Requiring all children to go to school will not prevent them from being abused. And quite frankly, "society's best watchdogs" are also sometimes guilty of abusing children. Only enforcement of existing law has a chance of doing that - well, that, and more importantly, the redemption and transformation of human hearts through the power of God.

Is Homeschooling Really To Blame?

On January 12, the New York Times printed an article about a mentally ill woman who was recently discovered to have murdered her four daughters. The article was titled, "Lack of Supervision Noted in Deaths of Home-Schooled," and it began with these paragraphs:

Ten states and the District of Columbia, where Banita M. Jacks was charged on Thursday with four counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her four daughters, have no regulations regarding home schooling, not even the requirement that families notify the authorities that they are educating their children at home.

The lack of supervision of the home-schooling process, some experts say, may have made it easier last year for Ms. Jacks to withdraw her children from school and the prying eyes of teachers, social workers and other professionals who otherwise might have detected signs of abuse and neglect of the girls.

When I read this, as a homeschooling mom, I was obviously disturbed. It struck me as unlikely that Ms. Jacks was really homeschooling. The further I read in the article, the more I wondered whether it was really the lack of supervision of homeschoolers that was responsible for these girls' deaths.

Apparently I'm not the only person who was concerned about this. Kate, over at "I Think, Therefore I Blog," posted this excellent response to the NYT article. She notes that in fact, five different government agencies had contact with this mother and family during the months surrounding the murders, and none of them chose to act. She also points out that, as noted in the article, Ms. Jacks was required by DC law to submit an "intent to withdraw" letter, which she never did. In fact, her children were not homeschooled - they were truant; and the social workers and police officers who were called out to investigate simply chose to use her claim to be homeschooling as an excuse to ignore her case.

Kate homeschools in Kansas, which requires almost no supervision of homeschoolers. But Ms. Jacks' failure to submit her paperwork would have been unacceptable even there, since it is required that homeschoolers notify the district that they are homeschooling.

I live in Colorado, which requires substantially more supervision. Here, not only is notice required, but our students are required to be tested in grades 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11; and I am required to keep attendance and immunization records as well as teach certain specific subjects. The increased supervision required by the state of Colorado would not have prevented Ms. Jacks from murdering her children, since they only left school in spring of 2007.

Even in the most highly regulated states, those increased regulations would not have stopped Ms. Jacks from murdering her children. No state requires that outsiders visit homeschoolers' homes to supervise on a regular basis - that is an unconstitutional violation of privacy. The most highly regulated states require parents to submit a portfolio each year of the child's work; Ms. Jacks' failure to submit the portfolio at the end of the last school year would have come too late, especially by the time it was investigated and prosecuted. Even if a state did require regular supervisory visits, it would not prevent a parent from committing murder. Ms. Jacks' behavior had already triggered multiple visits from government agencies who could have done something to prevent these deaths; another visit by another person would not have made social workers or police officers any more likely to intervene in an uncomfortable or possibly dangerous situation.

There is simply no amount of regulation that could have prevented this tragedy. Enforcement of existing laws regarding suspicions of child abuse might have proved helpful; further regulation of homeschooling could have done nothing.

Kate's final paragraphs provide an excellent summary of the truth about this case:

In this particular tragedy, the media is attempting to blame homeschooling by saying that it has an inherent “lack of supervision”. The fact is that Banita Jacks’ family had more contact with government agencies than most homeschooling families, and every single one of those agencies dropped the ball.

Homeschooling is not at fault for the deaths of these little girls. A lack of supervision is not to blame for their deaths. The freedom and ease with which families in ten states and Washington, D.C., can elect to homeschool their children are not to blame for these deaths.

Banita Jacks is to blame, as are all of the officials and agencies which did have contact with her but did nothing. They had evidence that she was mentally ill and failing to provide for her children, and they failed to follow up on that evidence.

What they have no evidence of is their claim that Banita Jacks was ever truly a homeschooling mom.

The prejudices of the New York Times and their "authorities" notwithstanding, the only way to have prevented the murders of these children was for those government agencies already in contact with the family to have made different decisions. The fact that she claimed to be homeschooling should not have prevented them from making those decisions. Those girls were public school students, all of them; when they dropped out of sight, absent a notice of intent to withdraw, the school should have pursued action.

Instead of accepting responsibility for their failure to act, authorities representing the position of public education, with the support of the New York Times, are blaming homeschooling and recommending more regulation. In truth, homeschooling families do not require more supervision; school authorities need to learn to discern between true homeschoolers and truants who claim to be homeschooling in order to avoid school involvement. Does this require some adjustment on the part of the schools? Perhaps. But given that the Supreme Court has determined that parents may determine how their children are education, it's the school's responsibility to make that adjustment.

Beginning the Homeschooling Process

I saw a blog entry today from a relatively new mom who's just beginning to think about homeschooling. Her little guy is just two, and she's already evaluating whether he needs preschool or not. She has a lot of serious questions, and I am impressed with her thoughtfulness as she begins the process.

As I wrote a comment on her blog, it occurred to me what a privilege it is to be homeschool our preschoolers. Many women are not even at home during these special years; and of those who are, many don't take seriously the process of teaching, loving, and guiding these precious little people. Here's what I wrote to her, and what I'd recommend to any mom at home with preschoolers:

I remember being in a similar situation to yours. There are so many
questions when you are beginning to think about homeschooling. Fortunately, you
don’t have to decide right away. The best place for your son right now -
regardless of what some may say about how he needs preschool - is at home with
you, as you love him, care for him, and teach him. You have several more years
before you even have to begin the formal process of education, whether you
choose homeschooling or private school or some other option.

By the time my daughter was ready to begin kindergarten (and few states
even require that), I knew I could homeschool her - I had already taught her
more than she would have learned in preschool, just by remaining involved in her
life. She learned her shapes, colors, numbers, and letters - she learned to
count and to help cook and to figure out how many would be at the table if we
had our family and two guests. She learned to take care of a baby (by watching
me, not playing with baby dolls!), to enjoy an excellent story (by cuddling on
the couch, not sitting on a story carpet), to button and zip and snap her
clothes (by doing it, not having Mom finish in a rush and then imitating it on a
doll), to choose healthy foods (by going to the grocery store, not looking at a
food pyramid), to draw a pretty picture, and so many other things that would
have had to be simulated in preschool but could be done in real life at home
with me.

At this point, rather than answer all your questions about
homeschooling (which would make for a REALLY long post!), let me encourage you -
read about it, mix with other homeschoolers, and experiment with home
preschooling for a few years. Check out some homeschooling curricula so you
begin to get a feel for what you do and don’t like. Don’t get too formal about
it - just have fun and get to know your little guy, and guide him as you would
anyway. Go to the library together - and consider checking out books on a
particular subject each time (baby animals, firemen, the circus, sharks, the
mail, poetry, etc.). Play games and do fingerplays and read stories and bake
cookies and take care of a pet and do all the other things you can think of to
keep his life (and yours!) interesting and fun. And by the time you’re ready to
decide whether to homeschool or not, you’ll be so hooked on your little fellow
(and any future siblings) that you won’t be able to imagine sending him off to
school all day!

Here’s a really excellent homeschooling curriculum I used for many
years: http://www.sonlight.com. They have just put out a new, younger
preschool curriculum that’s perfect for beginning the process - in a year or so
when your son is ready, or even now if you think it’s time.

Have fun - you have a wonderful adventure ahead of you!

I forgot to add - take them for walks, especially to parks or other wild places if you have any available. Let them try "science experiments" - my younger daughter delighted in mixing soap and water or sand and water and seeing what happened. Let them play with bubbles and see what happens. Pray with them.

In the midst of the pressures of living with preschool children, hopefully this will be an encouragement. You don't have to do it all or know it all, and you don't have to decide on a schooling option today. All you have to do is be the best mom to preschoolers you know how to be. That way, whether you homeschool your kids all the way through high school, or send them to school at some point, you've given them a solid foundation for life.

What About Free or Independent Schools?

I found another great article in the Home Educator's Family Times today. It's called, "The Difference Between Homeschool and School," and it's written by a woman who was unschooled from birth through college and is now raising her own son. It's rather deep and involves quite a bit of educational research; if you don't have time to read and think, you might prefer to skip this one.

The author considers the question of the "liberal" schools - free schools, holistic schools, Montessori or Waldorf schools. She discusses the benefits as well as the concerns of those schools. In the end, her conclusion is that while those schools are certainly much better at keeping kids motivated to learn, they suffer a couple of significant defects common to more traditional schools.

First, children in those schools still have to conform to the desires and schedules of the teacher or the other children. The need to manage a large number of kids means the students don't get the one-on-one time they would like, nor do they have the time to immerse themselves fully into the subject matter they are studying. As the author puts it,

What if a child wanted to take a nap? What if he wanted to be alone? What if he wanted to call his parents? What if he wanted his parents to hold him and read him a book? What if he wanted to feel the comfort of being at home? What if he just wanted to be left alone for a couple of hours to play a game or read some books of his choice? What if he didn’t want to be constantly watched and surveyed and monitored? Well, too bad. Sorry. In even the most holistic, free-school there is no special time or place for the individual child.

The other significant drawback to even an independent or democratic school is that the teacher does not have the deep, loving relationship with the child that a parent has. Educational research has shown that children learn best when they are deeply cared for. The author puts it this way:

I do believe that, aside from the unlimited learning possibilities, this is the very real and very important difference between the very best liberal school and home schooling: the loving, personal, and close relationships within the life learning family.

This article also brings up a really important issue in terms of socialization, and one that's not discussed much in homeschooling circles. The issue is this: how do we teach our children to live within the power structure of society? Here's how the author puts it:

In liberal circles the question of socialization is usually asked in this context: how will a child, who is not regularly in school, learn the values of the community and how will a child, who is not regularly in school, learn how to compromise and accept the status quo? This question is not so simple as to whether or not the child will learn how to talk to or relate to other people, but rather is based on the concern (or fear) that the home school child may not be willing to compromise her values when her values are counter-hegemonic. When we break down the reasons that make us feel like school might be better than home schooling, we find that the reasons for going to school are rather contradictory to a liberal and explorative education. That is, the reasons for going to school are actually the opposite of liberating. In fact, the reason for going to school is to learn to fit in and obey the very same power structure that mainstream society (and public schooling) operates under.

When we break down the ultimate purpose of schools to be the transmitters of culture, and when we explore how schools transmit this culture, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a very invisible, yet very powerful and active structure. Even the most liberal schools are perpetuating a system that takes power out of the hands of the individual and family and transfers the power into the hands of an entity - an institution - and the culture of power. By using this system as the sole means for learning and education, we are surrendering our inherent ability to be the leaders of our own learning, education, and future.

And here is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to schooling. If the "ultimate purpose of schools" is "to be the transmitters of culture," the first question that must be asked is what kind of culture we want to be transmitted to our children. If "the reason for going to school is to learn to fit into and obey" a given power structure, we must ask ourselves whether we in fact WANT our children to learn to fit into and obey the current power structure, or whether we have other goals for them. Perhaps our goal is that our children break free of the current power structure; perhaps it is that they create a new power structure; perhaps it is that they submit themselves to a different power altogether from the one our society is subject to. But if any of these is true, sending our children to any currently existing school is going to defeat our purpose. Teaching our children at home allows us to carefully build into them the culture and values we believe to be most significant.

And perhaps that's the core reason why the current system opposes homeschoolers so vehemently. Unlike even so-called "independent" schools, we homeschoolers represent a threat to the current culture and power structure. We are raising our children to be truly independent of the pervading culture, to think for themselves and to become all they can be. No wonder the system fears us!

The Difference School Makes

In the most recent edition of the Home Educator's Family Times, there's an excellent article entitled, "Leaf Jumpers." In the article, the mother describes what happened to her son, who seemed "made for school," when she actually put him in school. She tells how he went from enthusiastically playing the leaves one fall to, "I don't want to jump in the leaves," the next (at age 7). And she explains why she thinks the change took place.

Take a look:

Ben went from playing half of the day in the leaves with his sisters to playing half of an hour on a black top. He went from cuddling on the couch with his family doing math games, reading, and workbooks, to sitting in a classroom in a hard desk with thirty-one other kids, filling out worksheet after worksheet, raising his hand to talk, standing in line – a lot, and keeping his mouth shut. He went from lingering over lunch in his kitchen while talking about the latest topic of interest, to gulping down his food quickly in a loud lunchroom with concrete walls and little windows. It’s no wonder that in just a short two month period this boy no longer wanted to play in the leaves… his spirit had forgotten how. It just didn’t “fit” anymore. He went from actively experiencing God in his everyday life with his family, to mundanely learning about Him on paper…that was the difference.

If you've ever had a child child who seems "made for school," you understand her motivation in putting him there in the first place. My older daughter is like that - she loves other kids, she's a leader, she respects adults and seems to soak up knowledge like a sponge. I've seriously considered putting her in school more than once. But my fear is exactly what happened to little Ben - that she will lose her enthusiasm for life and learning when she meets with situations like those above. And she is turning out so beautifully that I'm very satisfied now keeping her at home.

Fortunately for the author of this article, she was able to pull her son out of school and he regained his joy in living. This year (age 8), he's again anxiously anticipating jumping in the leaves.

The Homework Trap

There's an interesting article on the Wall Street Journal online site. Written by Jeff Opdyke, it's called "How Homework Is Hurting Our Family," and the life it describes is a fresh reminder of why I'm homeschooling. Here's part of his description:

The result is that my son's life -- and by extension our family life -- is a constant, stress-laden stream of homework and tests and projects. It overshadows everything we do, always hanging over our head. It affects our weekends, our meals, our vacations, our work time, our playtime, our pocketbooks.

And to what end? Maybe I'm missing something, but when did schools determine that the best place for kids to learn math, science and English is at their own kitchen table?

Funny - schools aren't usually the ones proposing this option! And when homeschoolers propose it, schools are generally against it.

It turns out he's stressed out. He told Amy that he wishes he could do better. But he already wakes up on school days between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., panicked that he doesn't know the material he has already studied. He wakes up Amy to help him go over his notes one more time. He studies in the car on the way to school. Some nights he's up past 10 p.m., writing, reading or memorizing. He spends parts of many weekends reading and doing projects.

Every time I've looked at putting my daughters in school, I've been disturbed by the way the school seems to assume control of their students' whole lives. Even the parents lives are largely directed by the school. Take them here, go there, be here at such-and-such a time, pick them up within 10 minutes or pay a fine, do a project this weekend, read 20 minutes every day this week - as if they didn't already have the kids 6 hours every day, somehow they assume they have the right to dictate what kids are going to do even in their free time.

I had a homeschooling friend a few years ago who told me she started homeschooling when her son was in first grade, because, in her words, "I realized I was doing all the teaching at home anyway - I might as well homeschool him and have him at home with me rather than sending him off to school."

The more I read and hear about the amount of homework schools are giving these days, the more thankful I am that we are escaping the rat race. My kids get to do their schoolwork during their best hours, and they get to have a childhood, too. (HT: Janice Campbell)

Marriage on the Mend

On the Townhall blog yesterday, I noted a great article by Michael Medved. I haven't seen Michael on that blog before, but I've always liked what he's written, and this article was no exception. Entitled, "Marriage Gloom-and-Doomers Are 'Divorced From Reality,'" his post highlights a recent New York Times article by Professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, on the state of marriage in America. And surprisingly, that state is improving!

Here are the quotes he gives from the New York Times article:

The great myth about divorce is that marital breakup is an increasing threat to American families, with each generation finding their marriages less stable than those of their parents,” they write. “The story of ever-increasing divorce is a powerful narrative. It is also wrong. In fact, the divorce rate has been falling continuously over the past quarter-century, and is now at its lowest level since 1970. While marriage rates are also declining, those marriages that do occur are increasingly more stable. For instance, marriages that began in the 1990s were more likely to celebrate a 10th anniversary than those that started in the 1980s, which, in turn, were also more likely to last than marriages that began in the 1970s.”

Near the conclusion of their column, Stevenson and Wolfers cite specific numbers: “The narrative or rising divorce is also completely at odds with counts of divorce certificates, which show the divorce rate as having peaked at 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 and to have fallen by 2005 to 16.7…. The facts are that divorce is down, and today’s marriages are more stable than they have been in decades.”

The New York Times article also points out why the figures became so incredibly skewed that we began to believe that half of all marriages end in divorce:

The Census Bureau reported that slightly more than half of all marriages occurring between 1975 and 1979 had not made it to their 25th anniversary. This breakup rate is not only alarmingly high, but also represents a rise of about 8 percent when compared with those marriages occurring in the preceding five-year period.

But here’s the rub: The census data come from a survey conducted in mid-2004, and at that time, it had not yet been 25 years since the wedding day of around 1 in 10 of those whose marriages they surveyed. And if your wedding was in late 1979, it was simply impossible to have celebrated a 25th anniversary when asked about your marriage in mid-2004.

If the census survey had been conducted six months later, it would have found that a majority of those married in the second half of 1979 were happily moving into their 26th year of marriage. Once these marriages are added to the mix, it turns out that a majority of couples who tied the knot from 1975 to 1979 — about 53 percent — reached their silver anniversary.

In fact, Medved says, census figures show that "over 70% of first marriages manage to last until one of the partners dies." So, he asks, why do we keep hearing about how bad the situation is?

The left promotes the lie in order to indicate that timeless family institutions no longer apply in the 21st Century, and we need new, experimental, exciting and “liberating” arrangements--- like living together without commitment, or single mother households, open multiple partner relationships, or gay marriage, or whatever. The right goes along with the claims about moral collapse because the bad news conforms to the gloomy, “we’ve-lost-America” temperament of too many conservatives, as well as confirming the (often ill-informed) nostalgia for the recent past.

I'm afraid he may be right. Nevertheless, it's very encouraging to hear that the divorce rate is declining, and that Americans are staying together more and more. As one of those committed "till death do us part," it's nice to know that we aren't the only ones who have been married over 20 years! And as we consider the state of marriage in America, those of us who stand for "forever" marriages need to take heart, and not give up. A divorce rate of 16.7 per 1000 marriages means less than 2% of marriages break up every year. That's not ideal, but it's an improvement, and it speaks well for the future of marriages and families.