Smrt Lernins

Because sometimes the best way to tell a story is through humorous bastardization of the Bayeux Tapestry*.

*And here’s your history geek moment of the day: The Bayeux tapestry is not actually a tapestry (which is woven), but an embroidery on cloth.
**I think this still counts for my NaBloPoMo, because I had to do a lot of screen printing and photoshopping, as the image gallery seems to no longer be supported.

Last weekend, my parents attended the Rally to Restore Sanity. Because they’re super awesome, they flew up in the morning, rallied, and flew home in the evening. On one of the flights, my mother found this tucked into the Sky Mall magazine:

She almost stuck it back in the magazine, but then decided she needed to bring it home to show it to me.

The site advertised on this card is…well, it’s sort of everything that freaks me out about Christianity (and I honestly have no idea what flavor of Christianity this site is promoting, just that’s it’s tongue-speaking, “Whore”-fixated whackadoodle). Of course, I wouldn’t be able to look up the website while on the airplane, because come on. Have you seen how much the airlines cost to use their special Internet connection? *pshaw* So you can feel free to visit the site and marvel and/or gawk, but we’re going to focus solely on this card, since we’re on a hypothetical airplane right now.

So. Yeah. This card.

Now, I appreciate the need some folks have to spread God’s love and advertise for Jesus and all that, but I’m questioning:

A) The effectiveness of Sky Mall magazine proselytizing.
B) Whether a quote about God (who, presumably, is in Heaven, right?) calling us to Himself is the right choice for an airplane, considering how many people have a fear of flying and/or crashing. I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking, “God is great, but I don’t want be “going to Jesus” (dot com or otherwise) right at this very moment. I’d really prefer to land at my immediate destination.”

I have some alternate suggestions for the GoingtoJesus.com people that they might consider putting on their cards instead:

“God’s love helps you fly the friendly skies without turbulence.”
“God is calling you to Himself…eventually. For now, have a nice, safe flight!”
“Going to Jesus, but changing planes in Chicago en route.”
“God always fits in the overhead compartment.”
“God accepts your extra baggage — no charge.”
“No snakes on this plane. Just Jesus.”

Oh, business card proselytes! A little word of advice from a secular homeschooler: I appreciate the sentiment of wanting people to feel close to Jesus, but try not to freak people out on airplanes, ok?

Cassie writes, “What do you think of curriculums like Calvert or Oak Meadows? I know you kind of have a hodge podge of stuff, but I’m wondering if a one-stop shop would be easier.”

The short answer is that boxed curricula are definitely not for us, because my children’s needs don’t fix all that neatly into a box.

The long answer begins with what boxed curricula can offer:

• A complete curricula in a box can make lesson planning much easier, as the scope, sequence, and individual lesson plans are already there for your use. You don’t have to choose texts and then develop lesson plans for them.
• Packaged curricula typically includes assessments, which can be especially valuable if you’re uncertain about how well your child is processing and retaining information or if you live in an area that requires more meticulous record-keeping.
• Literature, history, and geography are all nicely synced up for content.
• It can lower costs, since putting together your own curriculum for a subject can sometimes get pretty expensive, especially when you start buying multiple supplemental books.
• Some boxed curricula do place a greater emphasis on the important role of technology (Calvert’s 5th grade package includes a technology overview, typing skills, a primer in how to use the Internet for research, and even an introduction to using HTML), which is too-often (in my opinion) underplayed in classical education.
• You can expect a reasonable degree of consistency in format, methodology, and philosophy across a company’s prepackaged curricula line, so if you find something that works well for your child(ren) and your personal beliefs, you won’t have to expect sudden changes at the next level.

Here are some areas where a prepackaged curricula doesn’t meet our needs:

• Lack of flexibility of scheduling. When everything is so carefully synced to a pre-established timeline, your entire schedule can be thrown out of whack if your child needs additional time with a certain material. One of the reasons we chose to homeschool was to have more flexibility with our schedule, not less. I like to be able to tailor our day to meet our needs and tailor the workload to fit our day.
• Difficult to integrate off-grade-level work. Boxed curricula works on the assumption that a child is working at the same “grade level” in each subject. However, if your child is working at different levels in different subjects, the boxed-grade approach is likely going to present a problem. Though Captain Science is technically in “fifth grade,” he’s working quire far ahead of what both Calvert and Oak Meadow offer in grammar/language arts and mathematics. We’d have to do some serious restructuring in order to make any boxed curricula work for us and at that point, we’d have lost the benefits of prepackaging.
• Not progressive/Has obvious historical bias. For example, Oak Meadow’s 5th grade curriculum seems very Columbus-centric. Overall, the history programs in these two boxed curricula appear very Euro-centric and in line with a more traditional, less progressive, understanding of history. We’re trying to teach history more objectively and without presenting Europe/US as the center of the world. This is why we spent additional time on ancient history, to allow adequate focus on Eastern and New World history.
• Under-emphasizing and under-teaching science. Boxed curricula don’t meet my standards for adequately teaching science. The teaching of science tends to be basic and shallow, as though science were either not incredibly important or too touchy a subject to delve into in depth. It’s much better to get a science curriculum from a publisher that specializes in science, IMO.
• That’s not where we’re at in history. Pretty simple explanation right there. We aren’t doing US history in 5th grade. We finished ancient history and are now working on the middle ages. We’d have to jump into history at a completely different point.
• Condescending language and low expectations. I expect a lot more from my fifth grader than putting his vocabulary words in alphabetical order. One reason we’ve enjoyed Michael Clay Thompson’s language arts curriculum is that he doesn’t speak down to the student, but rather, models the kind of writing excellence I expect from my child.

That’s what the [Smrt] Homeschooler prefers to mix and match curricula, rather than rely on a prepackaged set. In homeschooling, as in life, your mileage may very. Obviously, many families feel their children receive a rigorous and thorough education from these boxed curricula. Others don’t find it difficult or bothersome to tweak the curricula to meet their needs. For us, however, the the benefits of prepackaged curricula are outweighed by the things it doesn’t offer us.

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com

I obviously have my beef with religion. My experiences with organized religions haven’t been positive. I’m not talking about my experience with faith or belief, but with the structures that surround them, the hard and fast rules these structures try to impose upon that belief and upon people…not just the people who wish to belong to those structured religions, but to all people. I resent having someone else’s interpretation of faith pressed upon me and my children.

That’s awfully common in homeschooling circles. I know you know it. Statements of faith for co-ops. Unreasonable expectations of behavior at activities. Scathing looks when you drive up in you minivan covered in liberal bumper stickers. You know, hypothetically speaking. It’s hard, as a secular homeschooler and a non-religious, particularly non-Christian, person, to not develop an overwhelmingly negative view of Christianity, Christians, and religion in general.

Sometimes, though, they get it right. Lately, I’ve been seeing many examples of that. When we went to Pride, I saw easily a dozen congregations marching in the parade, but only one small group protesting. The other day, someone linked me to a beautiful article in Esquire, written last year by Christian minister Shane Clairborne. Though this article was addressed to non-believers, but his letter was as much to Christians who think they are better than those non-believers. I was moved — this, this surely must be what draws people to Christianity. The God I believe in is love. Not a God who expressed love selectively. Not a God who can love. But capital-L LOVE itself. I couldn’t believe in any other sort of God– not a vindictive God, or a God who makes mistakes and punishes you for them, not a God who wants certain people elevated above others, not a meddling God playing with us like chess players– but one that is, purely, Love. Minister Clairborne seems to get that.

And then I saw this: Pastor Jim Swilley talking openly to his congregation about being gay, honestly addressing concerns, and dispelling myths. He doesn’t have to break from his faith to do it. He doesn’t have to turn his back on a Christian interpretation of God. That gives me a lot of hope for Christianity. Yes, on the fringes, people are moving more and more to the extreme, but I think a compassionate, intelligent middle must be growing. I have to hope so.

On this Secular Thursday, I’m sending out my thanks and my potential-heathen-but-hey-deal-with-it blessings to Pastor Swilley, Minister Clairborne, and all the congregations I saw in the Atlanta Pride parade. You make the world a lot easier for the rest of us to live in.

When Captain Science was little, maybe around four, he once declared, “I have a robot body and a Triforce soul.”

Science, it seems, is on the way to making that a possibility.

Because I am what I am, which is to say, I’m not the most normal rutabaga in the carrot patch, I have not been able to stop obsessing over this video, with its tiny rat cyborg, which still believes it’s a real real rat, even though it’s just a jarred rat brain in a little rat robot. It creeps me out. It beyond creeps me out; it terrifies me!

Officer Daddyman, also being what he is, which is to say, he likes to say weird things to creep me out, has been on a little kick lately of saying that by the time we’re old, they’ll be able to transplant our brains into new bodies (robot or flesh copies) and so I should anticipate both of us living a very long time. He says that the video above proves him right, and that he can have a nice new cyborg body before he dies of old age. I told him I only agree to “’til death do us part,” and that I’m not contractually obligated to remain in a marriage to a cyborg once Officer Daddyman’s actual body has died.

This raised some Very Important Theological Questions, of course, such as:

How will the various church(es)/religious organizations weigh in on the cyborg issue as a whole?

Does the soul transfer along with the brain, does it go Onward when the body dies, and where does either option leave the cyborg in the eyes of the church(es)?

If the particular organization doesn’t allow divorce, will they require adherents to their religion remain married to their cyborg partners? Would they grant a divorce on the grounds of en-cyborgation, would it be an annulment, or would the non-cyborg living spouse of the newly en-cyborged be considered a widow(er) in the eyes of the church(es)?

If the legal status of cyborgs remained consistent with that of regular living human being of the non-cyborg persuasion (thus meaning the living non-cyborg spouse was NOT a widow[er]), would the church(es) grant divorces/annulments under those circumstances, or would the widow(er) still be a widow(er) in the eyes of the church(es), but forced to remain legally entangled w/ their cyborg spouse?

If the legal status of cyborgs is different from that of the living human, in that the living human is first declared dead before their brain is put into the cyborg, who then gains its own “life” and own legal status, how would that affect divorce/annulment/widow(er)hood? Would the living spouse be widow(er)ed from the physically deceased when his/her body died and would have to remarry the cyborg if s/he wished to continue the marriage?

I’ve already made it clear to Officer Daddyman that I’m not staying married to him if he’s a cyborg, because it’s just too creepy, but I do wonder at the wider-reaching legal and theological (not to mention moral/ethical) issues of a human cyborg. The mind reels, I tell you.

The Internet is Wrong:
I Am Right
First Annual Smrt Lernins Conference on Me-o-centrism

Topics covered will include:

• Me-o-centrism: They Know It’s All About Me, But They’re Denying It
• Introduction to the Mechanics of Me-o-centrism
• Scientific Experiments Showing Homeschooling Parents Are Motionless at Their Laptops
• Scientific Evidence: I Am the Center of the Universe
• Answering Common Objections to it Being All About Me
• Homeschooling: You’re Doing It Wrong/Parenting: You’re Doing It Wrong (a course in two parts)
• Being Wrong on the Internet: You Can Do It, Too!
• Why Can’t You Just Shut Up and Accept My Word As Good Enough Proof!
• Validation for Homeschoolers (limited seating available)
• Evidence For a  Literal Interpretation of My Blog: What Does the Script Say?

The Internet is Wrong: I Am Right is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Me-o-centrism, the academic belief that I am the center of the universe, and that it does, in fact, revolve around me. Garnering scientific evidence from the Well Trained Mind forums, Facebook, YouTube, and the people who read my blog, The Internet is Wrong shows that the debate between me and the rest of the Internet is much more than a difference of opinion. It’s also that they’re all wrong. So very, very wrong.

Placing myself at the center of the universe is not only scientifically awesome, but is a very stable model that works out pretty darn well for me (and we all know, it is all about me). Me-o-centrism is supported by the vast web pages that show that everything I know is right, that everything you know is wrong, and that if you don’t agree with me, you’re just closed-minded.

The best part about The Internet is Wrong: I Am Right is that I don’t even have to leave my house for this conference. It all comes right to me! Embrace the science of me-o-centrism, and the world will come right to you, too.

The Institute for Democratic Education in America (IDEA) posted a great article today, “The Teacher as Soldier,” addressing statements by public figures about recruiting an “army of teachers” and questioning what war, exactly, these teachers are fighting. The author presents the troubling paradigm of, “Generals and leaders – Administration and the government; Privates/Soldiers – teachers; Civilians/those to be “aided” – students ([...]the group that needs to be fought for – to have things done for them because we don’t see them fit to achieve for themselves) [...] = The War for Education.”

Teachers as low ranked soldiers in a battle (against whom?) to educate passive, helpless student learners; administrators and politicians as detached leaders of a battle in which they aren’t even getting their hands dirty. Not a pretty picture. Not a picture the author enjoys. Is it really that far from the truth, though?

I think public education has become a combat scenario, to some extent, but it’s not a war for education. I’m not sure it’s a war for anything. It’s a skirmish between players with little vested interest, like politicians with children in private school. It’s a battle between Republican tax cuts and the systems that are now so underfunded that they can’t let staff into the building until the day school starts, leaving schedules unfinished, classrooms not set up, curriculum not set in stone. It’s a conflict between the few teachers who are genuinely invested in the success of their students and the administrative status quo that is focused solely on test scores. In this scenario, students are not the citizens being helped, but the friendly fire casualties of a large system floundering and firing randomly, hoping to hit a target they can’t even agree upon.

This is a pretty bleak picture of public education. It’s not an accurate portrayal of every teacher, school, administration, or system. There’s no denying that there’s a strong element of this in public education as a whole, however. Our own experiences in public education certainly point to that. No one was fighting on Captain Science’s behalf but us, and it was a fight we were well aware we shouldn’t have to fight: a fight for him to not be bullied by a teacher who felt threatened by gifted students, a fight for him to spend his days doing something other than worksheets, a fight to have any expression of creativity not squashed out of hand.

Parents have to fight with teachers and administrators to have their children’s most basic educational needs met, and while we’re doing that fighting, more and more funds are diverted away from the children who need them most. It’s obvious who the administration values — not the gifted students and not the special needs students. For the parents of those children, public education can be a constant battle.

The author of the IDEA piece writes, “Learning is not a war, it is an adventure. While it can be used as a tool to equip oneself with the awareness necessary to achieve justice, learning overall is discovery and an intriguing challenge.”

She’s right. Learning is not a war. Education, however, is most certainly a battlefield.

I received a pingback on the Secular Thursday page this morning from the blogger of Quarks and Quirks. After reading through the article that linked back to the secthurs page, I am strongly recommending it to all of you. Take some time to read through “Why We’re Not Secular Homeschoolers” and give it careful thought. It presents a differing set of opinions and attitudes to those that have lead many of us to write our Secular Thursday posts.

I think she misses the mark on a few points (for instance, I don’t believe it’s anger, but a search for “tribal” camaraderie in an overall non-Secular homeschool world, that drives most of us to participate in Secular Thursday), but she took the time to address this issue with great care and has invited polite discussion on it. I do think she hit the nail rather squarely on the head by pointing out that “secular” seems to translate too often to “atheist” or “anti-religious,” rather than “not overtly or specifically religious” (the definition she uses in her post and the one that I follow), leaving those of us that believe in something, but who don’t make that something the focus of our academic exploration, out in the cold.

I hope you’ll take her up on her invitation to participate in a conversation on secular homeschooling. Share why you’re a secular homeschooler (or why you aren’t), why you participate in Secular Thursday (or why you don’t), how you address issues of religion, secularity, etc. (or how you don’t).

ETA: I really wanted this to be the dialogue she requested, but apparently she’s only interested in a conversation with those whose opinions match her own, sadly. I see several great comments from you guys, but no responses.

My friend Heather’s oldest daughter is about to do something absolutely ridiculous: start first grade. I’m pretty sure she’s not allowed to be old enough to do that. In the spirit of preparing for this next stage in academic development, she IM’d me with this cute little message:

So, things homeschoolers never worry about:
1) Will the new teacher like my child?
2) Will my daughter make friends?
3) What if she doesn’t have any of her friends from last year in her new class?
4) Why am I sharpening so many damned pencils?

Oh, sweetie! Have I lead you to believe that the life of a homeschooler is a really so carefree? What a travesty! True, I don’t have to worry about teachers liking my child, but other than that? I have worries! I’m not worry free!

I worry about, on any given day:

1. Will my child be able to maintain his friendships with his public school friends?
2. Will my child have ample opportunities to socialize w/ homeschooling friends?
3. Will we cover all the subjects we need to cover?
4. Will getting in to college be too hard?
5. Does he hate homeschooling?
6. Does he hate me?
7. Would we all be happier if he were still enrolled in public school?
8. How on earth will I cover everything we need to cover?
9. Am I a failure for not having started Latin yet?
10. How about a modern foreign language?
11. Do my kids dress funny?
12. Are my kids well-adjusted?
13. Will my kids manage to actually pass those standardized tests?
14. If they don’t, what does that say about them?
15. If they don’t, what does that say about me?
16. Will I ever get a chance to sleep in again?
17. Do people think I’m doing this because I’m obsessed with Jesus?
18. What would Jesus think about this whole homeshooling business?
19. Am I way more boring than I used to be?
20. Why am I sharpening so many damn pencils?

See, Heather? We worry, too. We probably worry more, because the buck stops here. If our kids are all screwed up, we have no one else to blame but ourselves…and everyone KNOWS it!

Enjoy your babygirl’s first grade year and don’t feel too envious of us homeschoolers. We have it pretty good, but we don’t have it worry-free.

This has been a great week for working on projects and getting things done.

Our Life of Fred: Beginning Algebra and Home Companion books finally arrived. Captain Science completed lessons 1-3 in Home Companion. He also had his first Math Olympiad team meeting last night. I’m not exactly sure what he worked on or how well he did, but he enjoyed it, and enjoying math is a goal that all parents should want their parents to achieve! We’ll go weekly on Thursday, 6:30-7:30, which makes Thursdays a busy day for us!

Captain Science is still working on his Pantheon Project, writing the blurbs for the cards. We’re waiting on our next MCT curriculum to get here, so this is a good opportunity for him to focus on a little writing. He’s completed the work on the Greek pantheon cards and will go ahead and do the Roman pantheon next. Speaking of Rome, he also finished all the flash cards for Cesar’s English I, which we should have been doing this whole time, I realize now. It really cements the words in his memory. We’ll continue with the flash cards for the remainder of the book and with Cesar’s English II.

Computer programming began this week, too. It was mainly vocabulary and history of computers, but a nice foundation on which to build. We’ll be setting aside a two hour block every Thursday for Captain S to work on it. The final project of this semester is to program a game of Pong!

We’re finished the first unit in our PLATO Earth Science course. Captain Science passed the skill mastery test with 96%. He started the second unit today. We’re working on science four days a week, M/T/W/F.

Captain Science has almost finished reading The Secret Garden. It’s a nice change of pace from Where the Red Fern Grows, what with no dogs dying. He was excited to recognize one of the sentences from the first chapter, which has been used in Cesar’s English I as an example sentence! So far, not a peep of argument about the assigned reading, though. I think we’ll start The Black Stallion next week.

Tank got two new giant workbooks from Nana, who picked them up at Costco. He happily worked on them Monday through Wednesday, then declared yesterday that he was too tired to work on anything but drawing (which he did, quietly, in his room) and flat out refused to do anything but watch Go, Diego, Go with our brand new DOG!!!!! this morning. Last week, Tank and I discussed that if he were going to school at his old preschool, he’d only be going four days a week anyway, so anything he does on Fridays schoolwork-wise is lagniappe, anyway. On Monday, I think we’re going to do some more time-telling work, since he’s enjoying that and has grasped the concept of the small hand telling the hour.