Smrt Lernins

What do the Rosetta Stone language curricula have to do with creationist pseudo-science?

Yeah, my first answer would have been “nothing,” too, but now, if you “like” Rosetta Stone Homeschool on Facebook, The Old Schoolhouse magazine will be happy to send you free creationist e-books to befuddle, mislead, and indoctrinate your children into the glorious world of creation non-science. All you have to do is email gena@tosmag.com and you’ll be sent a list of The Curiosity Files e-books from which to choose*.

Personally, I’m having a hard time choosing. Which burning scientific inquiry do I most need answered?

Does the dung beetle really “bring glory to God?”
What does the Bible tell us about MRSA?
Were blue diamonds sent as a special gift to us?
Is the blue-footed booby an “evolution stumper” that “defies the theory of natural selection?”
Can these handy curricula can help hammer home the important fundamentalist idea that “male and female roles [are] very different?”

So hard to choose! *sigh*

Seriously, folks. Pseudo-science like this is insidious. It’s dressed up in fun little packages, but the stuff inside is designed to lead children away from real, evidence-based science. I genuinely pity children who are taught to blindly accept creationism, rather than developing a truly scientific mind and learning to discern fact from fancy, evidence from belief, and science from religion. Let faith be faith and science be science.

*A friend told me about this giveaway, with no info as to the name of the curricula that would be given away, just that it was science. Yes, I suspected that any science e-books given away by TOS would be creationist. However, I was under the impression that Rosetta Stone was a secular curricula, so I’m curious why the “reward” for liking their company’s homeschool curricula branch is a decidedly religious curricula.

[Today's Secular Thursday post was guest-written by The Mama of Concordia Classical Academy. I really appreciate her insight into the Christian perspective(s) on the Harry Potter series and I think it provides a nice point of discussion for Secular Thursday. You can also read The Mama's previous guest post on a religious homeschooler's perspective of secular homeschoolers.]

Why I let my kids read Harry Potter

I suppose it’s inaccurate to say I let my kids read Harry Potter–only one is currently reading. I have let the preschooler watch it with her big sister, though.

The debate around Harry Potter isn’t new. The books have been out for quite a while and there is a ton of information available about the content and appropriateness. I’ve recently seen it crop back up and had to make the choice myself on whether or not to allow it for my kids. These are my thoughts and why I didn’t feel that Harry Potter was an issue to avoid despite our conservative Christian faith.

There are a LOT of people who really adamantly feel that reading Harry Potter’s adventures will damage the faith of their children. That it’s entertaining evil, or just that it’s a waste of time that could be spent reading something that will increase faith.

The main arguments against Harry Potter seem to be:
a) it’s magic and magic is of the Devil.
b) bad things happen in the books and it’s too dark for kids.
c) the magic is worse then magic in other books because it’s the protagonists using it.
d) the writing isn’t great.

I’ll address these as I thought through them and discussed them with my husband.

a) Yes, magic is present in all of the books. It’s even a central idea–Harry is different because of magic, he goes to a magical school, and he lost his parents because of a dark magician. The magic portrayed in the books isn’t really anything different then any fairy tale or fantasy; it has little to no relation to reality. I don’t know anyone who can transform objects with a wand and a short incantation. Nor would I ban all books with any magic–there goes the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, Disney movies, Star Wars, and a myriad of other books, movies, and tales. It’d be a pretty narrow world if you took out all of the material with magic! I mean, it would never occur to me to worry about my kids watching Dora because they would start trying to converse with monkeys and foxes, even though Dora can. It’s make believe and I actually think it’s healthy to encourage pretend and fantasy in kids–as long as they know what is real.

b) Bad things do happen in the books. People died. They are betrayed by people they trust. The kids lie to adults and sneak around. Bad things happen in real life, too. That doesn’t mean you need to dwell on it, but it does mean that exposing kids to it through literature can actually be a good, healthy way to discuss these themes. Part of the appeal of Harry’s world is how realistic it is in the way life goes for the characters. They experience loss and disappointment. They get injured. I have found that it’s actually helped my daughter to read about someone having a problem similar to one she’s had, having, or will have, as long as we talk about it. Kids shouldn’t be set loose in a void to puzzle morality through on their own. These books provide great leaping-off points for discussion. The books also have huge examples of love, self-sacrificing devotion, loyalty, friendship, and courage. About accepting people who are different. About standing up for the little guy–and about coping with being the little guy. It shows how to stick with your convictions and how to treat people how you want to be treated. It’s not all bad by far, folks.

c) This argument seems to play in the same sandbox as the one that the Chronicles on Narnia and the Lord of the Rings were intended as Christian allegory, so it’s OK. I’ll reiterate first that I don’t think most kids read these books and expect to learn to fly or transform things as a result. Even so, is it confusing to see the good guys doing something that could be seen as bad? I suppose for some children it might be, but isn’t this a reason to sit and discuss, rather then avoid something? If faith is so uncertain and tenuous that reading a book where the good guy has unusual powers causes a significant shake up, perhaps there are other issues to address. Just because someone is a hero, doesn’t mean all aspects of him/her are good. Most heroes have flaws that are visible and a big part of them; think of Odysseus. Think of sports stars. Politicians. Isn’t childhood the proper place and time to talk about taking the good and sifting the bad (if fantasy magic is bad)? I’ll take all the chances I can get to help my kids learn discernment with me there to assist.

d) I heartily disagree. I like Harry Potter! I think it’s some sort of snobbishness that I’m in no hurry to leap into to call Harry Potter poorly written or immature. To be sure it’s not an old classic, but it’s incredibly widely read and loved. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it bad. It’s not inferior just because it’s not a century old. It’s appealing, has a cohesive and coherent storyline, and has inspired lots of people who aren’t readers to READ. Isn’t that a mark of great literature?

I can’t tell you to let your kids read Harry Potter. I can’t tell you that they will be deprived without it. The world is full of books. I can tell you that they aren’t some super stealth faith destroying series, though. It’s no different then allowing any fantasy into a child’s life.

To me, Harry Potter is somewhat akin to a sugary donut. It’s not all I want my kids to eat, but it sure is fun.

Normally, I would just link you to important blog posts, but this is SO important that I thought it needed to be reposted right here.

Voting is tomorrow and Patchfire (and I) believes you should vote your conscience. Patchfire was shocked to discover that Veritas Press thinks they know your conscious.

Voting Is Tomorrow in the USA – Go Vote!

Some things go together – peanut butter & jelly; ice cream & chocolate syrup; apples & caramel. Some things, though, do not. I would argue that politics and curriculum do not and should not go together.

Of course, I’m aware that my political views are a minority within the homeschooling community. It would be hard to miss that fact! However, when I make a decision to purchase books from a curriculum provider, I expect my personal information (e.g., my email) to be used to communicate with me about the products of the company.

It’s no surprise to me that Veritas Press and I have little in common politically. We have little in common religiously, either, as they are Calvinist and conservative, and the Christian parts of my beliefs are Arminian and liberal. In fact, I have paused before purchasing from them, but the books that have purchased have been hardly available from other outlets, and seem either non-religious or at least not specifically Calvinist.

Monthly, Veritas Press sends out an “epistula” to those who are lucky enough to be on their list. Usually it’s about teaching Latin or history or perhaps it delves into a religious subject, which I promptly ignore. I just couldn’t ignore the title this time, though: “Calling for the Vote.”

Voting is, to me, at once a privilege, a civic duty, and a profound responsibility of all citizens. I may joke about voting “early and often,” or suggest that perhaps only those who agree with me should vote on a given day, but they are, at heart, jokes only. We must vote, and when citizens fail to vote, we all lose, in some way.

Naturally, then, I wanted to read an article entitled “Calling for the Vote.” Instead I found myself in the midst of a poorly-written propaganda piece that was carefully cloaked so that they could not be seen to be endorsing a particular candidate or party.

“We are smack-dab in the middle of a disaster.”

“There is much talk about the Republicans taking back the House and maybe even the Senate. That would certainly counterbalance some unfortunate policies of the current administration.”

“Over the years I’ve heard talk of a flat tax replacing the graduated income tax…. This also seems too little.”

(I cannot argue with the last third of the article, which suggested two actions: taking the time to vote on Tuesday, and praying.)

As I mentioned on Facebook, I would have had equal problem with an email sent from a curriculum company sending an email in 2002 or 2006, damning the administration then in power, and remarking about a hot-button political topic in such cavalier terms as to deem it “too little.” It’s not the particulars of the message than bother me (though I admit I disagree!), but rather the assumptions and the crossing of lines. It isn’t a church’s business to tell anyone how to vote. It isn’t a curriculum provider’s business to tell anyone how to vote. When you vote tomorrow, Americans, your choices are between you, your conscience, and your Higher Power, should you believe in one. No one else.

Agreed completely, my darling Patchfire. We disconnected our home phone in a large part to end the constant tirade of political phone calls. I throw political flyers straight into the trash. I don’t purchase from businesses who assume they know my mind, my politics, or my conscience. I’m an educated voter who doesn’t want, or need, my choices dictated to me or decisions made for me.

If you see fit to comment here, I hope you’ll go and comment on the original post as well. If you’re a frequent buyer from Veritas Press, I hope you will contact them and ask them to please stick to the business of producing homeschooling materials and out of the business of telling their customers how to vote.

Of all aspects of learning/education, the one I value most, without question, is reading.

Reading is the skill I most want my children to learn and to learn to love. I want them to start reading early, read often, and continue reading throughout their lives. I model reading, we read aloud, we buy books often (they’re one of my few shameless impulse buys), we pack their rooms with books. Captain Science could read at 2, could read well independently by 4, and continues to read well above his suggested age level. Tank really wants to read, but isn’t there yet. He has word recognition for a short list of words, but I can see him being ready to actually read by age 5. I’m doing as much as I can to encourage this, because I see so much value in reading at a young age.

I’ve seen a lot of arguments against early reading. I’ve read claims that children aren’t really ready for reading until 8 or later, or that boys usually don’t (or can’t) learn to read until age 7, or that reading before then is actually bad for children. I’ve heard parents talk about gently (or sometimes less-than-gently) steering their children away from reading because they (the parent) didn’t feel the children were ready. The Waldorf method of education actively discourages reading until at least 2nd grade (of course, they also don’t let kids use black crayons, so perhaps let’s not use that as the rudder to guide our discussion). I’ve heard the inevitable, “Well, whether they learn to read early or late, it all evens out by [whatever date they happen to choose from whatever study that confirms their biases].”

Academically speaking, that might be true. Perhaps a student’s reading ability at third, fifth, seventh, or whatever grade is roughly the same whether s/he learned to read at 4 or at 8…on a purely quantifiable level that measures only the reading ability and nothing else. Standardize testing is excellent at quantifiably measuring a single skill out of context. On the level of the heart, the soul, and the creativity, however, I will not accept that early reading doesn’t offer a great and irreplaceable benefit.

A child who learns to read well by 5 has three more years to devour books than the child who learns to read at 8. that’s three more years of beautiful fictions enriching the mind and sparking creativity and curiosity, three more years of absorbing knowledge and storing it away, three extra years of being able to choose a book over a more passive form of entertainment. That’s not nothing. In fact, that’s a pretty damn huge something that early reading offers over late reading.

Now, I love reading to my children. I think it’s a wonderful, educational thing. Read-alouds and audiobooks won’t cut it as an alternative to those additional years of active reading, however. Listening, while more actively imaginative than watching TV and beneficial in its own right, is still much more passive than actually reading. No need to imagine tone or voice. No need to puzzle out unfamiliar words. It’s much less of an exercise for your mind and your imagination. Losing yourself in a book is an experience that has no substitutes. Why on earth would I intentionally keep that from my children?

I think this is an area where Christian homeschoolers seem to, in general, have the right of it much more so than many subsets of secular homeschoolers. Between the unschoolers (“Oh, it’s ok that my 12 year old struggles with reading! She’ll catch up when it’s important to her!”) and the Waldorf-method homeschoolers, we’ve got a nice little chunk of our smallish population that doesn’t place that much emphasis on reading. I don’t know if it’s because the ability to read the Bible is, you know, kind of important to Christianity or because they are more likely to adhere to a more classical form of education, but Christian homeschoolers seems to be much more encouraging of this early reading. Not all of them, of course, but just in a general observation.

I’ll continue to work with my children to help them unlock their reading skills as early as they are able. I’ll encourage them to read often and read well (both in ability and in literature choices). I can no more imagine discouraging reading until age 8 than I could imagine discouraging mobility in a baby, simply because someone else has decided that 5 months is too early to crawl or 9 months is too early to walk. If the seeds of ability are there, don’t smother them. Water them. Will it make a difference in long-term ability? Maybe. Maybe not. Will it make a difference in the richness of their childhoods? Absolutely.

This question wasn’t so much submitted as brought up in general education-related conversation. A single dad friend of mine found himself in the precarious situation of having his living situation shaken up rather suddenly on Friday and having no idea in what school district his child would need to be on a Monday. He dropped me a quick message asking a) how hard it would be to get them registered as homeschoolers, at least for the short term and b) if he was crazy for taking on homeschooling as a work-from-home single dad.

The answer to the second question is that being crazy is one of the most important prerequisites for homeschooling. The answer to the first question was “not that hard, but…” and I offered him a third option, using the free Georgia K12 Cyber Academy (virtual public school, done at home). He looked through the info, we talked about different ways he could go about it, how he could integrate other homeschooling stuff as needed, that there are many resources for homeschoolers locally and online (including resources for his 2e son) and he asked a semi-joking, semi-serious question, which becomes our “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” question of the day, “If it’s this easy to homeschool in Georgia, why doesn’t everybody do it?”

So, why don’t all parents choose to homeschool?

“I don’t want to.” I guess the most obvious answer would be that not everybody wants to. Some people have no desire at all to homeschool their children. They’re perfectly content with the education their children are receiving elsewhere, with knowing their children are in a safe and controlled environment for 8 or so hours a day (handy if both parents work outside the home), and with the current education status quo. They figure if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and if they’re happy, their kids are happy, and the education their children are receiving meet everybody’s basic needs, more power to them. I wouldn’t try to talk happy away-schoolers into homeschooling.

“I work full time.” Parents who work outside the home would definitely have additional difficulties attempting to homeschool. The child care issue is just one part of it. Finding affordable child care for the 8+ hours both parents are working puts homeschooling outside the realm of possibility for many families. Some still find a way to make it work, though. Some parents find ways to move their shifts around, so one parent or the other is home with the children for most of the day. Some manage to telecommute some or all of the time or find work-at-home jobs that allow them to be present in the home during the day. Some parents, the ones who do have someone to watch the kids during the day, homeschool in the hours after work. It’s not impossible, but it’s definitely not easy.

“I wouldn’t do a good job.” Some parents fall into the trap that I was once caught in, of believing that they wouldn’t be capable of homeschooling or couldn’t do it “right.” The idea of homeschooling being like the Highlander (there can be only ONE way to homeschool!) is a little comical now, but was certainly a fear at the beginning. As a prospective homeschooling parent, you worry about a lot of things. Will I cover the right material? Will I cover enough material? Will I be able to teach my child (more on this in a minute)? Will my child be unsocialized (also more on this)? What on earth am I supposed to be doing every day? Luckily, if this is the major stumbling block between you and homeschooling, it’s amazingly easy to overcome it. Start by reading The Well-Trained Mind, because it gives you a handy-dandy outline for what your child should be covering at roughly every grade level. You can tweak the suggestions up or down based on your child(ren)’s abilities. You can talk to other parents about which curricula they use. You can get a homeschool mentor to walk you through her daily, weekly, and yearly schedules. The panic-inducing question of what you’re supposed to cover and when can go piffle out the window with a little research and friendly assistance — so if you’re considering homeschooling, don’t let that fear stop you!

“My child and I wouldn’t be get along.” I also believed, before I became a homeschooler, that there was no way I could handle being with my child all day long, let alone actually manage get along with him well enough to hep him learn anything. We fought so badly about homework every night, how could we possibly do school work all day long together? What I discovered, however, is that this wasn’t at all the case — it’s a much different beast to homeschool than to do homework every night. While we do occasionally butt heads over an assignment, it’s nothing like the constant bickering and nagging and whining that used to be involved with homework. As for being able to stand having my kids home all day, now I couldn’t imagine wanting to send them away five days a week! Homeschooling vastly improved the qualify of my relationship with my older son, but I never would have thought that could be true before I was a homeschooler.

“My child wouldn’t be socialized.” Other parents may have concerns about socialization. They worry that keeping their kids home could hinder them socially, emotionally, or developmentally. There’s a common belief that homeschoolers are unsocialized, simply because they don’t spend all day, every day with children their own age. I’ve found the opposite to be true for many homeschoolers, though. True, it’s not a constant mingling with same-age children, but there’s a lot more interaction with a wide array of ages, people, and situations throughout the day. It also means that the child’s peer group can be much more interest and ability based than age based, so the connection with peers (at co-ops, clubs, or other activities) can run a lot deeper. Homeschoolers may be differently socialized, but different doesn’t mean un. If this is what’s keeping you from homeschooling, put that fear aside.

“I’m not a teacher!” (also known as “I’m not qualified!”) Another concern parents have is that they aren’t qualified to teach their children, because they don’t have teaching degrees or subject-area expertise. Folks, you’ve been teaching your child since s/he was born! You know how your children learn; don’t buy into the propaganda that you suddenly lose that knowledge when math or language arts is involved. You don’t have to have a teaching license to know that your child learns best through reading, that she does really well if she can use manipulatives for math, that he responds great to timed tests. The key is finding curricula that match up with those learning styles (another place where a mentor is helpful) and either finding additional resources (co-ops, tutors, etc.) for the subject areas where you have less knowledge, finding curricula that explains the materials in such a way that you don’t have to have the knowledge yourself, or (and here’s my favorite) learn the subject along with your child! Life of Fred has really helped refresh some of my math skills and our Michael Clay Thompson language arts has brushed up my grammar. No one is more qualified than an involved, dedicated parent.

“I’m not religious/evangelical/a creationist.” I think the idea of homeschooling as being a strictly fundamentalist Christian pursuit is on the way out, but some people still have concerns that there’s no room in homeschooling for secular, evolutionist, etc. families. It’s true that the bulk of homeschooling materials do have a decidedly Christian flavor, but even this is starting to change. Secular or inclusive homeschool groups are cropping up in many parts of the country and many curriculum options are available for nonreligious families. Homeschooling isn’t just for people who don’t want to see evolution or sex ed taught in school. Many people homeschool to give their children better and more expansive education in those areas! Christians and non-Christians alike have found a home in homeschooling, so don’t let your own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) be the reason you don’t homeschool.

Those are some reasons the [Smrt] Homeschoolers can think of that might keep parents from choosing to homeschool. Some are very reasonable and some are based in misconceptions, understandable though they might be. Whether you choose to homeschool exclusively or to send your children to a public, private, or parochial school, however, don’t make that decision based on unfounded concerns, but on the educational choices that are best for your children.

Perhaps it’s proof that God loves the secular homeschoolers, too–or at the very least, humors us–that a friend of mine should pass this link along to me just in time for a Secular Thursday. Pharyngula, a blogger at ScienceBlogs write about his dismay over the way a “science” textbook published by Bob Jones University presents the topic of electricity. I am equally dismayed.

You can view the scanned page here or at ScienceBlogs, but here’s the text:

Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and feel and hear only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists say that the sun may be the source of most electricity. Other think that the movement of the Earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many ways to bring it forth.

How would you have to change the way you get ready for school if you did not use electricity?

“The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.” Psalm 77:18

Ok, what in the happy crap is that? I’ll tell you what it’s not: Science.

Did the person who wrote that book ever read an actual science text? Do they actually know anything about electricity? Have they ever even bothered to look up electricity on Wikipedia? We do, in fact, know what electricity is and where it comes from. It’s generated by a myriad sources. It isn’t, as Pharyngula points out, “something like oil, a substance lying in large deposits that must be harvested and poured into your hairdryer to make it work,” as the BJU text’s author seems to think.

Obviously, BJU’s presentation of things like the origin of life and changes in species is going to be significantly different from that of secular science. While I think their presentation is based on an entirely non-scientific premise, I acknowledge that said premise is going to lead to a certain way of presenting certain topics. Fine. I won’t teach that to my kids, but if you think people lived with dinosaurs and the earth is only 6000 years old, you feel free to teach that to your kids.

There is NO excuse, however, for completely misrepresenting topics like electricity. Really, how is explaining about particles and currents not compatible with creationism? Can someone explain that to me? Does electricity have to be dumbed down and falsified and just…just…stupid-ized purely for the sake of making it different from secular science? What is the purpose here?

I’m absolutely baffled, is what I am. Can’t you teach your children a creationist viewpoint without screwing up the rest of science? DO you have to distill it down to something, as Pharyngula points out, worthy of the Insane Clown Posse [if you aren't familiar with ICP, please be warned, anything related to this band contains EXPLICIT LANGUAGE]?

I just find it hard to believe that Christian homeschoolers really want their children to be dumber than a Juggalo. Why would they tolerate this insulting level of pseudoscience?

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

* * *

Who am I?

Who am I, to tell you what you can and can’t teach your child?

Who am I, to tell you that you must teach things that I believe in or be forbidden to teach?

Who am I, to tell you that because I am a secular homeschooler, that you must educate your children secularly or be forbidden to teach?

Who am I, to tell you that because I am a classical homeschooler, that you must educate your children classically or be forbidden to teach?

Who am I, to tell you not to impart your religious, moral, ethical, ideological, etc. beliefs to your child?

Who am I, to tell you to lie to your child and tell them that what you believe to be true isn’t true (whether or not I think it’s true)?

Who am I, to tell you that you must teach all values and all beliefs to be equal, whether you believe them to be or not?

Who am I, to tell you that what you teach must be regulated carefully, because you might teach the “wrong” thing?

Who am I, to tell you that what you teach must be regulated carefully, because someone else might teach the “wrong” thing?

Who am I, to legislate for everyone what is the “wrong” and what is the “right” thing?

Who am I, to legislate morality?

Who am I, to legislate belief?

Who am I?

Here’s a hint, I’m not Jean Valjean.

PhD in Parenting has been writing about homeschooling lately. She currently lives in Germany, where homeschooling is illegal and children are under legal compulsion to attend public school. Today, she wrote a post about different schooling methods and how she views them through the lens of the “right and duty to learn.”

On the whole, I found her opinions on homeschooling to be quite positive, but I take issue with some of the concerns she mentions in her post:

At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:

• I worry that parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be shielding their children from the realities of the world (other belief systems, other cultures) and their selves (sexuality, gender issues, personal expression), which I believe is dangerous for the individual and for society.
• I worry that a small minority of parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be doing so specifically to pass on discriminatory and hateful viewpoints to their children.
• I worry that parents who take their children out of school out of frustration with the school system (generally or for their specific child) may feel forced into home educating their children when really the school system should be changing and adapting to address those concerns.
• I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the workforce and may be at a disadvantage (although to be fair, a lot of today’s schooled youth aren’t dealing with them themselves anyway – they are getting mommy and daddy to do it for them).

You all know how I feel about the “school as a place to learn to toughen up for the ‘real world’” stance, so I’ll just link to my comment I left on the PhD in Parenting blog and leave it at that.

What about her other concerns, like the idea that parents who homeschool may be doing so to instill hateful or dangerous ideologies in their children? How harmful is “immersing [our] children in [our] beliefs and shielding them from others?” Are parents really more or less likely to attempt to instill their ideologies in their children based on where their child schools? Are homeschooled children more likely to be racist, bigoted, etc. than their institutionally-schooled counterparts? To what extent should the State or the collective get to choose the ideologies to which your child should be exposed?

And what about her assertion that “in most cases [parents choose to homeschool because] there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs)?” Was this a motivating factor for you? For the homeschoolers you know? To what extent? Was it because the curricula covered topics you felt were inaccurate or inappropriate? Was it because the curricula were too religious or not religious enough?

And finally, what about her statement that she “believe[s] more strongly in the child’s right to an education than [she] do[es] in the parent’s right to raise their children any way they want?”  Is a child’s right to a specific set of academic knowledge greater than your rights as a parent to pass on your morality, ethics, culture, or ideology? If you’re an unschooler or (I am warming to this term) “life learner,” do you think the child’s right to an education is more or less important than his freedom to make his own decisions, even if those choices are towards the less academic?

I know my answers to these questions. I’ve read some of the exceptionally thoughtful comments to her blog (like Kelly and Kim @ Beautiful Wreck’s). Now, I’d like to hear yours.

Teaching Tolerance, the educational publication from my beloved Souther Poverty Law Center, has published many excellent sets of lesson plans on educating students on religious differences and espousing religious tolerance. I’m very pleased to see that they have now published a great lesson plan on respecting non-religious people–atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, deists, and free thinkers–as well!. The three sets of lesson plans cover grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12, and while it is geared towards the public school classroom, many of the lessons could easily be applied to homeschoolers.

Teaching Tolerance explains the need for such a curriculum:

Students often learn the importance of respecting people of different religions, and of respecting religious beliefs that are different from their own. But what about people who do not hold religious beliefs at all? Too often the right not to believe is excluded from lessons about tolerance.

Yet atheists and others who do not believe in God experience discrimination because of their nonbelief. In this lesson, students learn about episodes of anti-atheist discrimination; and they develop ways to educate others about respecting nonreligious, as well as religious, diversity.

I couldn’t agree more! I’ve seen a fairly high level of expectation of tolerance of their religious views from Christian homeschoolers, but don’t often see the same level of tolerance extended by them towards the beliefs non-religious homeschoolers among us. I think of that absurd “don’t call it ‘Christian mythology’” nonsense from a while back, as one example. The non-religious are expected to treat religious text as sacred and factual, out of “respect” for the Christian homeschoolers…who don’t seem to realize that they’re treating the non-religious homeschoolers with the same level of disrespect they believe they’re being shown.

An interesting read and could be helpful for understanding how to respectfully discourse w/ the homeschooling nonbeliever.

[Note from Smrt Mama: My dear friend The Mama from Concordia Classical Academy is doing me a very special Secular Thursday favor by guest blogging this wonderful post about how religious homeschoolers view secular homeschooling. I hope you'll appreciate her unique insight into the differences between our worlds as much as I do.]

Most of you regular Smrt Mama readers don’t know me, so let me first introduce myself. I’m the Mama, mother of three children: Sweet Pea, 6, Little Bird, almost 3, and Moose, 7 weeks. My elder two are girls and the baby is our first boy.

I live in the northern part of Minnesota in a little town that isn’t near very much. Except woods. Remember reading Little House in the Big Woods where Laura Ingalls Wilder talks about woods that go for days without end? It’s like that, only not in Wisconsin. Anyway, besides the children which quasi-qualify me to blather on about homeschooling, I am part of a family that fits neatly into the religious category: I’m married to a conservative pastor, we lead a pretty traditional family life, we dress modestly, and we teach religion as part of our day. I’m probably the stereotype that you now can picture in your mind! Smrt Mama told me that it’d be interesting to see how religious homeschoolers view the others–the seculars. I decided to take it upon myself to speak for a diverse, divergent community, so here it goes!*

Social graces

Since the most common question homeschoolers seem to get pounded with by others is about the s-word (socialization, or the lack thereof) I thought I’d start with how we religious folk view this. You may have noticed the plethora of religious homeschooling groups and co-ops, many of which require a member to sign a belief statement to get into the club. Why? Why keep out people who don’t agree? There’s some differing viewpoints here, and I’ll try to hit on those that come to mind:

Book Learning

When it comes to science, there are three main groups: Those who believe the world was created in about a week, roughly 6,000 years ago, those who believe evolution and creation co-exist in intelligent design, and those who believed this all evolved over a massive amount of time. There’s even debate, from all sides, if all of these views are science, so it’s no surprise that this is an area that there’s some big disagreements. Most religious homeschoolers kind of shake their heads at secular science and how prevalent it is. Some even have apologetics–defense of the faith–as a part of science class or its own subject.

Relaxation and rigor: it’s probably untrue, but there’s a big feeling that some seculars are way too loosey goosey with academics. And that eventually this’ll negatively impact homeschooling for everybody.

The Future

Goods news, though: despite the worries about your kids cohabiting and living free and easy, I do think most religious homeschoolers think secularly homeschooled kids will shake out better then their publically schooled peers.

I will say that most of my current homeschool chattering is with secular folks who’ve chosen a similar academic path for their schooling. By circumstance, most of my friends are of a reiligious bent similar to my own. I think both groups could have a lot to share…if we could all just play nice in the sand box. And, you know, do things my way.

*I know there are religious homeschoolers who share none of my viewpoints or are deeply offended by my sentiments here. To you: I am deeply, sincerely sorry!