Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[Beth]

Would there be any studies that compare the scores of students with the benefit of equal parental involvment in their education outside of normal school hours for both homeschooled and non-homeschooled students? Or maybe we could tackle the question from the other side and consider "drop-outs" as homeschooled and see how the numbers add up?

I'm not aware of any studies like you're asking about. I'm also not claiming that homeshooling is the sole factor that produces those results. I'm only saying that I don't think there is any reason to assume that allowing parents to choose their childs curriculum - even if they choose to exclude evolution - will lead to uneducated adults who are a drag on society rather than a contributing member. The only evidence available - homeschoolers - indicates that that is not the case.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But clearly if they choose to exclude subjects that are on the standardized tests, then their children will not do as well against school-educated children. I suspect that most homeschoolers follow a curriculum that is, to some degree, tuned for the tests, just as teachers do. We'll see if the test designers have the guts to add evolution.

~~ Paul

 

[DavidJames]

However, I see it as no more or less a violation of your rights than requiring the teaching of evolution to students whose parents object is a violation of their rights. That's why I think the best solution is to tailor education to the individual student.

Who pays for all this personalized education and how do you evaluate the results and who pays for the additional evaluations?

 

[Beth]

What portion of homeschoolers are fundamentalists? I hope it's not as high as you say, because that would make me wonder about the agendas of homeschoolers even more than I already do.

I don't know. Around here, a good portion of them are, but fundamentalists are thick in this part of the country, so that's to be expected.

I don't see how you're going to have customized a curriculum for every child and still maintain a public school system. Or, for that matter, a private school system.

~~ Paul

Colleges essentially customize the curriculum for each student, but still manage to make education feasible, maintain standards for graduation, and, in some cases, are profitable to boot. However, I agree that our current public school system could not handle such a massive change in the fundamental nature of the system. Still, it's a dream.

 

[Beth]

But clearly if they choose to exclude subjects that are on the standardized tests, then their children will not do as well against school-educated children. I suspect that most homeschoolers follow a curriculum that is, to some degree, tuned for the tests, just as teachers do. We'll see if the test designers have the guts to add evolution.

~~ Paul

I think it already is being tested for as it is part of the curriculum guidelines. My understanding is that it is a small part of the test, only a few questions. However, I've not looked into it in detail. Homeschoolers do not, generally speaking, teach to the test. They rarely have the same access to testing prep. materials that teachers do. However, that may explain some of their success. I've heard that teaching to the test is a strategy that doesn't do as well as simply teaching for understanding.

 

[drkitten]

Colleges essentially customize the curriculum for each student, but still manage to make education feasible, maintain standards for graduation, and, in some cases, are profitable to boot. However, I agree that our current public school system could not handle such a massive change in the fundamental nature of the system. Still, it's a dream.

You didn't have electives at your high school?

The problem is with degree of customization. It is not, for example, possible at any reputable university to get a degree in a foreign language without basic proficiency in that language. It is not possible to get a degree in physics without calculus, to get a degree in computer science without the abliity to program, or to get a degree in biology (or in many cases, in any science) without knowledge of evolution.

The only way to customize high school education to the extent where evolution is not mandatory for graduation is to make science in general optional. The only way to customize it to the extent where ID is acceptable as a course of study is to make learning, knowledge, thought, and reasoning optional, since ID as a philosophical mode of thinking is incompatible with evidence- and reason-based scholarship in general.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Colleges also manage to charge tens of thousands of dollars for tuition, or are state institutions that require big taxes.

Also, it's the student who chooses his customized education in college. I don't trust his parents to do it for him when he's younger.

~~ Paul

 

[Beth]

You didn't have electives at your high school?

The problem is with degree of customization. It is not, for example, possible at any reputable university to get a degree in a foreign language without basic proficiency in that language. It is not possible to get a degree in physics without calculus, to get a degree in computer science without the abliity to program, or to get a degree in biology (or in many cases, in any science) without knowledge of evolution.

The only way to customize high school education to the extent where evolution is not mandatory for graduation is to make science in general optional.

We agree to this point.

 

[Beth]

Colleges also manage to charge tens of thousands of dollars for tuition, or are state institutions that require big taxes.

Also, it's the student who chooses his customized education in college. I don't trust his parents to do it for him when he's younger.

~~ Paul

Yes, well, who better than the parents? We'll have to disagree on that point.

 

[drkitten]

We agree to this point.

Well, given that I know no reputable college that doesn't recommend at least two years of science
for all incoming students, making science optional for high school graduation is equivalent to making the option of attending college post-high school optional.

Case in point : the University of Colorado "Minimum Academic Preparatory Standards": All colleges, even Music, require at least three years of "natural science" for admission. The University of Vermont requires two years of science, including a laboratory science. Even the University of Idaho requires three years of science.

Do you really want to encourage students (and their parents) to pursue a course of education that will prevent them from getting a college degree?

 

[tsg]

Well, whether or not evolution attempts to explain how life began is debatable. I've certainly heard some evolutionists opine about it.

Whether evolutionists also have an opinion on the origins of life is immaterial. Evolutionary theory makes no such claims.

As for my use of the word 'theory', it was in contrast to your claim that ID proponents wish to have ID taught as fact. That is not true.

ID proponents want ID given the same weight and substance as evolution, gravity, electricity and a myriad other facts. I completely fail to see how it is not true.

IMO, unless the facts in dispute are vital to survival as an adult, it is sufficient reason not to teach their children those facts in opposition to their wishes.

Then let them teach them at home, or send them to private school where they can learn all the religion they want. But they are not allowed to teach religion in public school, nor should they be.

I agree that it would be a violation of your rights. However, I see it as no more or less a violation of your rights than requiring the teaching of evolution to students whose parents object is a violation of their rights.

It is not a violation of their rights. That they percieve it as one doesn't make it one. Evolution is not a religion. It is well supported scientific fact.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, well, who better than the parents? We'll have to disagree on that point.

An organization, where all the whacky agendas cancel out to some degree. By no means am I suggesting that parents are generally incompetent to steer their kids' education. But left to themselves, some parents will steer their kids right over the cliff.

~~ Paul

 

[Euromutt]

My own personal opinion is that we should not require any child to learn things their parents find objectionable.

IMO, unless the facts in dispute are vital to survival as an adult, it is sufficient reason not to teach their children those facts in opposition to their wishes.

I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, and I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in this matter, the purpose of education is to help the child become an individual, capable of thinking for himself, as opposed to a carbon copy of his parents. And yes, this does (or, at least, is likely to) involve exposing the child to foreign ideas and viewpoints which the parents may find objectionable. And, indeed, alerting the kid of the existence of facts which the kid's parents may find objectionable. It's not just ID; I can imagine, for example, a committed pacifist objecting to material in the history curriculum from which one might draw the conclusion that the only way to stop Nazism in the 1940s was by massive application of armed force, or George Orwell's argument in 1942 that "pacifism [was] objectively pro-fascist" at that time.

When I watch the Penn & Teller: B******t! episode on Creationism and see Russell Brock (a Cobb County parent who advocates teaching Creationism ID) saying how (and I'm paraphrasing) "wouldn't it be great for the parents and the children to sit down together, weigh the opposing opinions and decide which they'll go with," I am under no illusion whatsoever that what he actually means in his household is that he expects his kids to believe what he does, and that any input on their part will consist solely of acquiescence.

Personally, I'm inclined to say that if you're so certain of the correctness of your beliefs, even in the face of prevailing objective evidence, then it shouldn't be too much effort to sit down with your kid and discuss your beliefs and why you hold them, and let the kid decide, for himself, what he accepts. If your stuff is truly that compelling, what are you afraid of? Personally, I'm inclined to think that the parents in Kansas who fear that their kids' faith will be undermined, and that that will potentially result "a rift in family relationships that may last for decades or even lifetimes" are tacitly admitting the bankruptcy of their faith and their parenting skills. I mean, what else can you call it when someone evidently feels he needs to brainwash his kids to prevent them from hating him?

 

[Z]

The fact is that homeschoolers essentially routinely tailor education to the needs of the particular child, follow no set curriculum or standards and the kids educated in that manner consistently outperform their more traditionally schooled peers in all areas - including science!

As a home-schooler myself, I know there's a HELL of a lot you're leaving out of this discussion: like the fact that most home-schoolers who 'outperform' their peers ARE taking a State-mandatory curriculum; and the majority of home-schoolers who are consistantly scoring HIGHER are not being force-fed religious education that is CONTRARY to state standards. Nor, for that matter, does your statement take into account the fact that many states are considering eliminating many home-school approaches that do NOT meet state-established requirements - which is why the K12 program is having a tremendous success. Which, by the way, mentions religion in the contest of myth and legend - the proper way to do so.

So... tell me more about home-schooled kids?

 

[rwguinn]

As a home-schooler myself, I know there's a HELL of a lot you're leaving out of this discussion: like the fact that most home-schoolers who 'outperform' their peers ARE taking a State-mandatory curriculum; and the majority of home-schoolers who are consistantly scoring HIGHER are not being force-fed religious education that is CONTRARY to state standards. Nor, for that matter, does your statement take into account the fact that many states are considering eliminating many home-school approaches that do NOT meet state-established requirements - which is why the K12 program is having a tremendous success. Which, by the way, mentions religion in the contest of myth and legend - the proper way to do so.

So... tell me more about home-schooled kids?

what you say is true for some cases. I also know of home-schooled kids who were failing 7th graders, and 4 years of "Home School" later, were "honors" High school graduates, with a kid and on Welfare.
A person I know home schooled her kids through the 8th grade to keep them away from the "bad influences", put them into public schools at grade 9, and one of them went on the be a National Merit Scholar (missed a perfect SAT by 40 points), very analytical mind, brilliant in all the physical sciences except biology, excellent in math up to calculus, and went into business school. Investment banker. A brilliant mind, wasted (IMO)

 

[Ceinwyn]

I'm not aware of any studies like you're asking about. I'm also not claiming that homeshooling is the sole factor that produces those results. I'm only saying that I don't think there is any reason to assume that allowing parents to choose their childs curriculum - even if they choose to exclude evolution - will lead to uneducated adults who are a drag on society rather than a contributing member. The only evidence available - homeschoolers - indicates that that is not the case.

Beth:

I've read this thread fully and I find your comments to be very astute and interesting. You are obviously an intelligent person.

However, what you posted is totally wrong.

Evolution, as it is today, is the result of the best research and evidence that is known to this point. It says "this is what we have found to be the truth so far, if you don't believe us, look for yourself". It benefits the rest of the world, religious or not, to let that truth be known far and wide, and to let others see it for themselves.

Religion doesn't do that. It is a dogma. It says "what we say is the truth, it will never change, don't ask questions. Just believe."
I think that is dangerous, and I think it's detrimental to home-schooling. There is no peer-reviewing, no checks and balances. Just "this is it. You're done."

Earlier, you talked about how evolution would lead to "Such a loss of faith can lead to a rift in family relationships that may last for decades or even lifetimes. It is not something to be taken lightly. "

Well, that's bullcrap. World Wars, epidemics and other disasters have not lessened family relationships one bit. I fail to see how evolution could even make a dent.

 

[Beth]

You don't have to wonder about homeschooling agendas. You KNOW the agenda.

Eos,

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that all homeschoolers are like this. It's an incredibly diverse group. People homeschool for all sorts of reasons.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that for people who don't want their children to learn about evolution because it might lead to a lapse in faith, their choices are very limited and homeschooling is certainly a popular option. While you might disagree with decision regarding teaching their children about evolution, they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone but their own families.

 

[Beth]

Well, given that I know no reputable college that doesn't recommend at least two years of science
for all incoming students, making science optional for high school graduation is equivalent to making the option of attending college post-high school optional.

Umm, perhaps you weren't aware, but attending college post-high school already is optional. College isn't appropriate for everyone and there's nothing wrong with choosing a profession that doesn't require it.

Do you really want to encourage students (and their parents) to pursue a course of education that will prevent them from getting a college degree?

No, but I prefer it to the alternative of having the government require children to study subjects that are in conflict with their parents religious beliefs. It's not mentioned often, but it's hard on children to have two sets of authority figures in conflict. I'd rather see evolution made optional for those children.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I agree that it would be a violation of your rights. However, I see it as no more or less a violation of your rights than requiring the teaching of evolution to students whose parents object is a violation of their rights.

Well actually the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but says nothing about laws respecting an establishment of science, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If someone decides that for religious reasons they're going to believe that pi = 3, that doesn't turn teaching real geometry to their children into religious indoctrination.

 

[Mojo]

No, but I prefer it to the alternative of having the government require children to study subjects that are in conflict with their parents religious beliefs. It's not mentioned often, but it's hard on children to have two sets of authority figures in conflict. I'd rather see evolution made optional for those children.

Why single out evolution? If you want to avoid teaching subjects which produce results that conflict with what, for example, YECs believe, you're going to have to cut out an awful lot more than just evolution.