Author |
Topic |
Scott Somerville
Purcellville
VA
USA
|
Posted - February 03 2004 : 1:39:32 PM
|
I have been asked to attend the American Educational Research Association in April, where Brian Ray and I will be part of a panel discussion with Prof. Rob Reich and Prof. Michael Apple. Reich and Apple have both published papers that claim homeschooling is a danger to our society.
I could use all the brainpower NHEN can muster to help me prepare for this event. |
Scott W. Somerville, Esq. scott@hslda.org |
|
Scott Somerville
Purcellville
VA
USA
|
|
Scott Somerville
Purcellville
VA
USA
|
|
Kay Brooks
Nashville
TN
|
Posted - February 20 2004 : 10:15:59 AM
|
OK, let's start with the discussion description:
quote: PANEL DESCRIPTION:
It is not the well-researched areas of academic performance or social adjustment that concern many home schooling critics. Rather, it is the larger issue of citizenship, the “common good,” and public responsibility that some find troublesome and disturbing when analyzing the home schooling movement. Do home schoolers have a selfish and/or short-sighted “commitment to cocooning,” as Apple (2000) offers? Is it simply and inevitably a “loss from a civic perspective” as Reich (2002, p. 59) avers, or is it an educational alternative that produces independent, well-adjusted, and productive citizens (Knowles, 1991)? It’s a complex issue, and should provide a lively and spirited debate amongst the panel members and the audience.
This "common good" reminds me very much of what Horace Mann preached when he started pushing for public schooling. This is a socialist term, imo, and not quite what I think the founding fathers had in mind when they created this nation.
Haven't read Apple 2000....anybody? My efforts are not 'selfish' but 'selfless' in that I am giving up my self in order to secure a better education and life for my children.
What evidence will they accept that can prove that homeschooling produces independent, well adjusted and productive citizens? Part of the problem is going to be in how each side definitions of those terms alone.
I've been dunning Brian Ray since October for a copy of his newest book...Home Educated and Now Adults...but I'm told it'll be March before it's available. If there is anything of value in there...only he'll know. But it would be nice if the rest of us could provide additional or clarifying info.
I'll throw this link in as it addresses the weaknesses in a published piece by Ms. McDowell: http://tnhomeed.com/PJE_Article.html. Basically, she could have met with a more diverse homeschooling population and gotten a wider understanding of who we are but didn't. Is this a pattern with her or did she get smarter about researching?
Let's not forget that she and Brian Ray (and others) did work on the Peabody Journal of Education 'double issue' regarding homeschooling.
|
|
|
Paul Danaher
Portsmouth
VA
USA
|
Posted - February 20 2004 : 11:13:15 AM
|
I had some lengthy discussions with Rob Reich after his appearance on the old NHEN newslist, and some of his problem (I haven't read Apple yet) obviously came from unbalanced exposure to homeschoolers - like too many academics, he met them primarily through conferences involving the HSLDA's research arm.
I think it's extraordinarily unfortunate and very undesirable that HSLDA should be supplying the two HS respondents to this panel, and since these people are at least advisers to policy-makers, I think it's a very dangerous thing.
Is there any chance of getting someone from NHEN instead, or at the very least having them present on the floor (assuming there will be broader discussion at some point)? |
|
|
Paul Danaher
Portsmouth
VA
USA
|
Posted - February 20 2004 : 12:39:44 PM
|
Here's a quote from the beginning of Apple's paper - my concerns about HSLDA supplying both HS debaters are multiplied, and I think HSLDA would be very well advised to get in someone else.
quote: This said, however, it is still important to realize that while the intentions of critics such as home schoolers may be meritorious, the effects of their actions may be less so. While there are many home schoolers who have not made their decision based on religious convictions, a large proportion have (see Detwiler 1999 and Ray 1999). In this essay, I shall focus largely on this group, in part because it constitutes some of the most committed parents and in part because ideologically it raises a number of important issues. Many home schoolers are guided by what they believe are biblical understandings of the family, gender relationships, legitimate knowledge, the importance of "tradition," the role of government, and the economy (Detwiler 1999 and Kintz 1997). They constitute part of what I have called the "conservative restoration" in which a tense alliance has been built among various segments of "the public" in favor of particular policies in education and the larger social world. Let me place this in its larger context.
|
|
|
Paul Danaher
Portsmouth
VA
USA
|
Posted - February 20 2004 : 12:52:32 PM
|
Kay Brooks wrote: quote: What evidence will they accept that can prove that homeschooling produces independent, well adjusted and productive citizens? Part of the problem is going to be in how each side definitions of those terms alone.
Does anybody know of any followup research on homeschoolers at all? (Just to be safe, I'm crossposting this question to the research folder.) |
|
|
Kay Brooks
Nashville
TN
|
Posted - February 20 2004 : 2:04:46 PM
|
I am beginning to wonder if this 'debate' or panel discussion is of the same sort that pits evolutionists and creationists against one another--More of a traveling show than an exercise in listening, learning and bridge building. They preach to the choir and provide fodder for each sides' newsletters and fund raising efforts. I certainly hope such isn't the case. But, half way through Apple's "Away" I'm having a hard time believing he considered this paper to be a serious look at the subject...waaaay to many assumptions about what the world should be like and emotionally charged phrases to be an impartial look at the issue.
|
|
|
Paul Danaher
Portsmouth
VA
USA
|
Posted - February 20 2004 : 6:44:31 PM
|
FYI, here's my e-mail to Professor Apple. quote: Dear Professor Apple,
I have just read your paper. Coming from economic research, I'm familiar with the temptation to take the available sample and write on that, rather than trying to deal with the unknown universe. However, I'm getting increasingly irritated with the tendency of academics writing about homeschooling to stick to the easily-accessible but tiny proportion represented by HSLDA and its samples (I don't for a moment accept that the NHEA is an autonomous body). It also seems all too likely that this steady flow of hostile papers will poison the environment in educational policy-making.
As a nonreligious homeschooler from Europe with a strong eurosocialist background, married to a US Democrat, I strongly object to your unacceptably lax transition from admitting that you're looking at a small sample to generalising broadly. I particularly reject your claim: "this group ... constitutes some of the most committed parents and ... ideologically it raises a number of important issues": I and my acquaintance in the HSing movement are at least as committed as these people. Coming from Europe, I'm still reeling at discovering the Religious Right, but although I regard Farris and the HSLDA/Patrick Henry complex as a definite threat to my children's future, I don't accept that they are representative of homeschooling, or even of the many homeschoolers whose decision to homeschool is influenced by religious or social considerations. In future, please limit the scope of your comments on homeschooling to the people you're actually writing about, and don't casually smear the rest of us. It's only a paper to you, but it can all too easily become an intrusive regulatory straitjacket for us and - more important - our children! Sincerely, Paul Danaher
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 08:10:57 AM
|
Scott, I think I suggested it already, but the current issue of the Kappan has a package on "What's Public About Public Schools?"
As you know, Phi Delta Kappa is THE public education professional honorary. I would take this argument to their base, rather than simply defending ours.
It is timely, it is true, and ps has a weaker defense than hsing does these days, imo.
Sorry the articles are not online. See PDE for more -- we've discussed this a bit already (or email me.) I'll work on it some this weekend. JJ |
JJ Ross, Ed.D. www.CultureKitchen.com/jj_ross/blog "Ask MisEducation" at: www.ParentDirectedEducation.org
|
|
|
Valerie
Missouri
USA
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 09:00:34 AM
|
This morning's KC Star has a guest columnist from its Midwest Voices pool. Mary Endres's piece for today is:
http://tinyurl.com/yt38j TAKE BACK YOUR KIDS
quote:
Many parents have let pop culture raise their children
The wakeup call has come for parents who have allowed MTV and popular culture to damage their children's minds for all of these years. Unfortunately, it took the antics of an aging pop star in need of a career boost to slap the face of our collective conscience.
What parents don't fear the possibility of someone violating their children? What parent would willingly hand over the keys to the house to a complete stranger? Yet many parents have permitted a crude media subculture to invade the sanctity of their homes as readily as the morning paper.
Today's generation of kids accepts crudeness and vulgarity as a normal part of the culture. Many display aggressive behaviors, have little or no respect for authority, and show utter disregard for the polite practices of a decent society.
I think this shows that it isn't only homeschoolers who are worried about the effects of today's culture on children, the cocooning part of Dr. Apple's article. I said the same thing to Rob Reich on NHEN-Legislative. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NHEN-LegClearinghouse/message/11407
Even living outside the United States doesn't keep the cultural influences from seeping in.
Another message that might be helpful was from Leendert van Oostrum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NHEN-LegClearinghouse/message/16428
quote: The questions remaining: Who is the best guardian of a child's interests? Clearly, the best guardian of a child's interests will be the person/s who has the most complete information (including subjective, subconsious and internalised yet valid and important information not normally amenable to rational expression - i.e. "hunches") about the child and his or her circumstances, and who is optimally available to a) determine what the interests are in any particular situation and b) act to safeguard those interests. (The Canadian Supreme Court has expressed the opinion that the State cannot realistically perform this task for practical reasons.)
Valerie |
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 09:03:42 AM
|
From PDE this morning, haven't read it myself but it sounds promising:
Mandatory Libertarianism http://remotefarm.techcentralstation.com/072803A.html By Arnold Kling Published 07/28/2003
The point is that when people make decisions about their own children, they seem to make them with great care and a fair amount of wisdom. They certainly seem less dogmatic and hypocritical than when they make decisions about other people's children.
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 10:02:09 AM
|
It seems so obvious to me when I see the debate description written out, that it ought not be an ps offense versus hs defense debate, but rather a comparison of the public school system versus the private option to home-educate, to examine which makes a more suitable socializing agent attuned to America's present and future citizenship needs.
ADDITION to original post --
Huh. Just had a flash after writing the above. Maybe the argument is more subtle than this. What if both are inseparable, in other words if the only way that our ps system can possibly BE American is with all kinds of options built into it, including home education? What if we argued that the hs option is an essential part of our commitment to education, not some subversive alternative at all? |
|
|
Valerie
Missouri
USA
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 10:20:05 AM
|
Again re: cocooning from the book I'm still digesting, Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice.
quote: Take a look at the cartoon on page 236. [ http://tinyurl.com/38bfn ] "You can be anything you want to be -- no limits," says the myopic parent fish to its offspirng, not realizing how limited an existence the fishbowl allows. But is the parent really myopic? Living in the constrained, protective world of the fishbowl enables this young fish to experiment, to explore, to create, to write its life story without worrying about starving or being eaten. Without the fishbowl, there truly would be no limits. But the fish would have to spend all its time just struggling to stay alive. Choice within constraints, freedom within limits, is what enables the little fish to imagine a host of marvelous possibilities.
Valerie |
|
|
Paul Danaher
Portsmouth
VA
USA
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 11:32:01 AM
|
I've received a reply from Prof. Apple and responded. I've asked his permission to publish the exchange here. |
|
|
Kay Brooks
Nashville
TN
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 1:03:05 PM
|
I'm glad you wrote him, Paul. I'm looking forward to reading his response.
And, in response to the fish bowl cartoon and the cacooning characterization, when my children and I drive by that big brick box as we leave the neighborhood on our way out into the world we have a completely different take on who is being confined and who isn't. When I have to explain to legislators that hsers shouldn't be required to submit to standardized tests because we don't teach their curriculum on their schedule, I wonder who is being limited.
Finally, I'm glad JJ had her flash of revelation (?). I think we HAVE lost sight of the commitment to EDUCATION. It's now a commitment to an education SYSTEM instead.
In AMERICA (insert flag waving, anthem strains and mom) we strive to incorporate differences and public schooling seems determined to create sameness. At it's worse sameness is Gatto's vision of economic droans. At it's best we all have a common understanding of the lengths our founders went to in order to allow us our differences and are committed to safeguarding and walking out that creed. Autonomy was the reason we left England (in my family background), it's the reason we said we don't need your tea, and it's the reason we dare to take on the job of educating our children. AMERICANs are the original Do It Yourself population and why, if we can remodel our homes, restore cars and go to Mars can we not give our children a fundamental education? |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|