Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of reading Homeschool: an American History by Milton Gaither. Gaither is a professor at Messiah College in Grantham, PA who has noted that “historians of education have not paid sufficient attention to forms of education outside of the public school system.” He is working to close this gap in his book and his blog, Homeschooling Research Notes.
A certain mythos seems to have developed around the whole subject of homeschooling’s early days, and it is one which is passed on through numerous handlings in magazines, blogs and on advocacy organizations’ websites. Mostly, these handlings just leave me wondering what really happened and why. Gaither attempts to answer that question, looking at the history of homeschooling since America’s colonial days to present within a broader sociological context.
If I had my scanner with me here in Kansas, I would photocopy one of the pages and let the amount of ink I have added to the book serve as a review. It is a book which begs discussion, some of which has occurred in the margins of the copy Professor Gaither sent me. I am not sure how many of my readers will run out and purchase a thirty dollar twenty three dollar and thirty eight cent book on my recommendation, especially when I qualify that recommedation by noting that while the book is well-written and well-researched, it will likely not completely affirm the views you have on the history of homeschooling. Over the course of the summer, however, I would like to explore some of the ideas in this book further, and anyone who would like to join me in that discussion is most welcome.
Perhaps most interesting to me in this book was the notion that while homeschooling has been a relative constant throughout American history, it has meant different things at different times. We frequently cite the prevalence of homeschooling in early American history to establish the legitimacy of current homeschooling in America, but then it was simply a means of educating children and preparing them for adulthood as well as a deliberate political philosophy supported and encouraged by the state.
By the latter half of the twentieth century, however, homeschooling had become a countercultural protest. Those on the left protested the institutionalization of their children. Christians protested the secularization of the education system (and in some cases the racial integration of their schools.) Given this motivation, it is interesting just how much early homeschoolers were able to set aside their differences, working together in their legislatures, speaking from the same podium at events and even recommending each other’s products in their publications. But then, there is a remarkable degree of this kind of unity in the homeschooling advocates I have spoken to in Germany, so perhaps the disintegration we see today has more to do with the lack of a threat than the schisms which have been promoted by some of today’s homeschool leaders.
And where does that leaves us today, at the start of the twenty first century? Gaither sees a return to the domestic education model of our early history, where homeschooling is one option among many for the education of children. Most interesting to me, however, was not how homeschooling has changed America, but how it has perhaps changed the conservative Protestant.
Homeschooling mothers “no longer see themselves as simply housewives or mothers.” Home becomes workplace; the mother an educational professional. Fathers are urged to become more domesticated. Boys learn to cook, clean, and take care of younger siblings. Children in general are raised with less gender specificity. p. 224
Gaither closes with a summary of views of what the movement may mean to society. Is it anti-feminst? Anti-modern? Or at the cutting edge of a sort of ultra-modernity?
At any rate, look forward to some further discussion of some of the points raised in the book. And to Professor Gaither hopefully coming on Home School Talk to discuss the book a little further. Internet book discussions seem to be rather popular among some of the homeschooling blogs I read, but I have never participated in any. Most of the books discussed just don’t capture my interest. This one, however, does. If you are interested, let me know and I will try to organize something more formal.
Welcome to Roscommon Acres, my little home in the country. I write here about life more abundantly, from the joy of a baby’s smile to the almost unbearable grief of losing a son. I am seeking beauty instead of ashes, the oil of joy instead of mourning, a garment of praise instead of the spirit of despair (Isaiah 61:3).
Just place "Tiggy" in the subject line.
“less gender specificity”
Oh great!
Gender is an interesting issue. And I think one that sometimes we get a little hung up on in our various camps. I am definitely not one for “gender fluidity” but some on the conservative side have also gone a bit far in closing off a woman from productive work. I actually dealt with some of my own feelings in this regard some time ago here: Finding Purpose.
The topic of boys being raised with more home responsibilities and inside competence also raises an interesting counter those who see homeschooling as almost inherently unfair to girls (and worthy of regulation and restriction based soley on that impression).
Sounds like an interesting book.
I’m a conservative Christian, Pentecostal even. But because my girl is the youngest of six, and my oldest is 14, you’d better believe my boys need to help out with some of the basics of housework. I am by no means sitting on my duff and letting them do all the work, but I do ask the older boys clean up after dinner and they refill the soap dispensers, make sure there is adequate toilet paper supply, and clean the toilets each week. The younger boys are expected to fold washcloths and do small errands. Of course this is not ALL the housework I have to do, but in a larger family everyone must pitch in just a little.
Mind you, I’m doing that to prepare them for their bachelorhood as well as for that time when they and their wives have 27 kids apiece and the wives can’t do all the work themselves. :]
If you read the Little House series closely, you’ll see Ma does some taking care of the stock even though it isn’t her usual job, and Pa can help out a little when Ma is sick in the home. I don’t think they were confused on their gender roles, but when you have all girls and the farming still needs to be done, the girls have to help.
I like your blog in part (there are other reasons!) because all kinds of interesting people hang out here, and they all have different viewpoints. But they’re all committed to homeschooling and education, and discussing these issues. Bless ya!
PS. Most of us don’t mean to make a political statement when we homeschool. Personally, I began when it became painfully obvious that the school was not working in my child’s best interest. Once I got STARTED, however, I realized how much “learning” my child is missing in the public school and am more committed to teaching them at home. And many of those ideas are religious. It just didn’t start out that way.
Hope that makes sense.
I am very interested indeed, Dana, and I’ll be purchasing the book within the next week or so on your recommendation.
I can’t think of anyone who I’d rather have lead a tour through this work.
I, for one father, am glad to be able to shelter my sons and daughters from others’ notions of what is “proper” for them based merely on their sex, rather than following the gifts God has given them. My son once passed up a firehouse tour to serve cookies at a family Christmas party, and I could not have been more proud. He did it out of a desire to serve and care for others; today, he is still a good servant and worker, is training to earn money babysitting, and is planning to be a professional baker–when he’s not immersed in his Legos.
One of the things that drew us to homeschooling is the integration that Dana highlights in her quote from Gaither. When your family homeschools, it means that the family members are not each isolated into their own separate sphere, but are expected to share space and the responsibility for managing it in productive ways, intellectually and otherwise. Homeschoolers may, indeed, come to the practice out of protest against this or that trend in society, but homeschooling puts us together in ways that are not just indignant, but transformingly counter-cultural.
Dana, Thanks for the book recommendation. I believe it will be in the third edition before I have time to read again. I got a chuckle out of [Home becomes workplace]… that isn’t how Beverly sees it. She told me just yesterday, “Papa travay (work), Marissa travay, Mama pa travay (no work). Apparently work requires that you leave the house.
)
It is an interesting book, and if it is any help to you, Julie, it is only 226 pages, not counting the notes at the end. I read it in a weekend in between watching my children.
Circle Reader, I look forward to reading your thoughts as well. There are a lot of thoughts in this book that could be explored much further. In fact, I am looking forward to working through at least some of the bibliography, especially about homeschooling earlier in our history. It was just interesting to look at homeschooling within a sociological context, as a movement that is on the “cutting edge of societal evolution” as Rush might say. To so many it seems a step backwards, and we talk about homeschooling in the colonial days enough and look back on older methodologies enough for it to be not a wholly baseless charge. But then other trends are noted in relationship…a whole trend toward do-it-yourself self-reliance and a sort of anti-expert mentality among many Americans.
In fact, that was one of the more intersting arguments I read explaining one of the possible explanations for the number of Americans who believe in some form of creation.
“A better explanation for the high percentage of doubters of Darwinism in America may be that this country’s citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field,” Chapman said. “In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory. Over 640 have now signed a public dissent and the number keeps growing.”
–Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute
I don’t know whether or not that is accurate, but it certainly appeals to my sensibilities.
I’d be interested in an IBD (Internet book discussion, did I just create an acronym.) When do you want to start? That is, how soon do I need to get off my lazy posterior and get the book?
I am raising my boys to be self sufficient. That means that they will be able to cook, clean and sew on a button. They are also learning basic car care. They need to be able to survive. I am also teaching my daughter these things.
I did not, however, teach my boys to use sticks as light-sabers. This skills was encrypted in their DNA. (As was my daughter’s ability to sneer at them when they come in with bloody knuckles.)
Well, since it sounds like I have two people interested in purchasing the book, I guess a date would be good. Two weeks? Three weeks? What works for you? I’m thinking it would take at least a week to get the book, even if you got off your posterior this instant. Maybe one month from today? Could be good since it looks like Mr. Gaither may be on the show at the end of the July.
I taught my children how to climb walls. It seemed like such a good idea at the time…one of those great bonding moments. I don’t think of it as bonding while while cleaning footprints off the walls, however.
Dana, I’d be interested as well. But I’m not sure I’d be able to get it done in a month. I’ve got a few projects I’m working on and I’m reading the book Gum, Geckos, and God by homeschoold dad, James Spiegel for a “blog tour” in the middle of July. So my reading time is limited. But I’m very interested in partipating and I’ll probably get the book either way.
Sounds very interesting. I, too, would be interested in discussing the book.
Being “rolled” by ideological populists however, is often another matter…
Regardless, I did find myself taking a much more “libertarian” attitude towards education after we started homeschooling. I wonder if there is any reliable data on how attitudes change as people transition into homeschooling?
Starting the book in the last week in July sounds good to me. As with Spunky, my reading time is split among several (O.K., many) projects, but this one is very high on the list, since book discussions are what drew me to the online world in the first place.
Thanks for putting this together!
I’d add “building a web page” to the excellent list of self-sufficiency skills for boys & girls from Life on the Planet. I suspect this crowd’s kids have a leg up on that kind of thing. When they’re not climbing a wall, instead.
Circle Reader – Who do you think does my blog grunt work? (The fourteen-year-old!)
Dana – Would love to read & discuss book. Maybe in about 3 months. :p I am slightly behind in everything. However, if you can get it up and running on Home School Talk, I’ll be listening.
BTW – “…you can listen to Life on the Planet talk about her cat.” (from your side bar)
Who in their right mind would want to listen to that?!?
LOTP, I don’t know. But last time I checked, (two minutes ago) it had been downloaded 108 times. Maybe I’ll have to include your cat’s yowls in every program so at least someone will tune in to listen.
Spunky, I’m good with any date. I was thinking summer because that is when I have more time to read and research, but if later works for everyone else, than that works for me. I was thinking that we could cover a chapter a week which would leave you on average with 20 to thirty pages a week of reading and we’d finish in eight weeks.
Circle Reader, I may email you later, but seeing as I’ve never done this before, are there any good formats for internet book discussions that you particularly like?
And Amazon has discounted the book. I’ll fix that in the entry, but it is a few dollars cheaper now…just enough that you need to buy something else to get the free shipping.
(Referring to the price reduction: I’d call it a marketing ploy, trying to get homeschoolers to throw on an extra book, but it isn’t like I ever need much convincing to go searching for another book!)
Mrs. C–it is interesting how gender rolls change over time, and it isn’t like the colonial woman was sitting on her duff in her suburban household writing poetry and planning her landscape. She was working every bit as hard as her husband and was a necessity to the economy of the household. Abigail Adams ran her family’s farm while John Adams was off founding the nation.
It sort of goes against the stereotype most people have about homeschoolers and how they teach their boys and girls. There is another stereotype that doesn’t seem to play out among homeschoolers that always fascinates me. We are seen as sheltering our children, and while I think that may be truer in the early years, it seems to me that the homeschoolers I know with older children allow them a great deal of liberty and do not shelter them as much as many other families I know.
A chapter a week is probably something I could manage in the summer. I’m going to a homeschool book fair this weekend, I’ll see if they have it here.
Just saw this, and I’m confused!
ANY field? So that proposed ideo-logic fails if there’s any exception — such as the high percentage of American citizens “being rolled by” ideologues in the field of religion? I heard on conservative religious radio this morning [Glenn Beck] that America has the smallest percentage of independent doubters [of deism] in the whole world — 23% I think he said.
So it’s an interesting contradiction. Despite the American brand of doubt he seems to be praising us for, he must be pretty sure that in reality there aren’t enough independent thinkers left among us to even notice.
Always looking for a good read. Thanks so much.
JJRoss, I don’t know if it is true or not, as I noted above. It is just an interesting statement. But the same is true of the opposite, if we are accepting evolution or whatever theory just because some scientist says so.
To be religious is not necessarily equivalent with bieng “rolled by an ideological elite” any more than to be non-religious is necessarily equivalent to being an “independent thinker.” It is too easy to try to cast everyone who disagrees with us into a group “duped” by some ideologue.. But I think the truth is that we tend to gravitate to those leaders with whom we agree.
The chapter-a-week plan is quite natural, but it can feel a little labored on the web, where we are used to orienting ourselves to the big picture and then clicking on what we want, rather than waiting to be presented with what comes next. It really depends on the structure of the book and the ways you & your readers will want to interact with it.
Working in the same 8 week (or so) time frame, you might do a two- or three-post overview of the whole text to get us all oriented to the picture of homeschooling that Gaither presents, followed by more in-depth discussions of specific themes or issues brought up by Gaither’s analysis. This would let you focus on the issues that interest you and your readers the most, while leaving room for people to skim or read in depth at their own pace.
Either way, chronological or overview + themes, I expect the discussion to be enlightening!
(JJ Ross – That quote from Chapman, and the reasons why it is such a good example of “appealing to our sensibilities,” is probably worth a blog post in itself…)
Hi Dana, yes, I think we’re agreeing that one can be rolled by ideological elite into AND out of religion and that when we do manage to think for ourselves and question ideologues, it can cut both ways. So it’s wrong for anyone — including Chapman — to suggest that only people who think the way we want them to, are thinking at all (which is all I wrote to suggest Chapman was doing.)
And yes, absolutely, it’s being proven by cognitive scientists that even independent, elite-doubting humans (even really smart ones such as Dana and I!) still tend to accept on the subconscious level whatever fits the stories we already have in our own heads, and then rationalize it retroactively so that it winds up feeling even to ourselves as if we’d reasoned it out first and THEN decided what was “right.”
Definitely worth more blogging!
I am now in love with this blog and am adding it to my regular list of reads. I am so impressed with the thoughtful articles, the respectful and intelligent dialogue and the obvious passion you have for homeschooling.
Thanks and keep up the great work!
Wow, PeregrinJoe. That is nice praise and I’ll try to live up to it.
Feel free to participate in any of the discussion!
JJRoss–schema theory is what makes everything work. Think how impossible it would be to do much of anything if you couldn’t work off of basic assumptions and truly approached every new thing as if it were completely new. It has been a long time, but wasn’t that what Mau Dib (sp?) from Dune tried as he approached the Freedman (sp again?)? To begin to learn something, he said, you must first unlearn everything you think you know about it.
There is truth in it, but it is also an impossible way to actually live.
Here is a quote perhaps you will find nicer. It is from Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Singapore’s Education Minister:
“We both have meritocracies,” Shanmugaratnam said. “Yours is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well — like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition. Most of all, America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. These are the areas where Singapore must learn from America.”
Originally posted on MSNBC, but no longer available. So you’ll have to trust me, I guess. But I originally posted it here, while I was still writing for Homeland Stupidity.
I’d settle just for helping people actually understand and accept the implications of what you just said!
Dana, not in the spirit of arguing but of seeking more understanding of how we all think about these things, I found this on a new blog today (we’ve been thinking and talking about religion a lot this week):
“We frequently cite the prevalence of homeschooling in early American history to establish the legitimacy of current homeschooling in America, but then it was simply a means of educating children and preparing them for adulthood as well as a deliberate political philosophy supported and encouraged by the state.”
Thank you for including this bit. The citation of “homeschooling” during America’s early history always strikes me as a losing argument to establish anything about hsing now.
Nance
Mrs. C: “It just didn’t start out that way. Hope that makes sense.”
***
It makes perfect sense to me. We started hsing with a very different mindset from what I would describe now.
Nance
“In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory. Over 640 have now signed a public dissent and the number keeps growing.”
–Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute
I don’t know whether or not that is accurate, but it certainly appeals to my sensibilities.
***
Barely accurate perhaps. But misleading.
It was misleading when they said it about global warming — http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute — and it’s misleading when they say it about evolution — http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp.
Nance
Nance is more concrete than I am.
I wasn’t even thinking about specifics or any particular issue. What intrigued me was the hidden contradiction about independent thinking and evaluating evidence in an intellectually honest way in the argument itself. There’s no legitimate logic in any ideology declaring all its believers to be right and good (and in this case thinking independently!) simply because they do believe, thus defining everyone else as bad and wrong (and not thinking independently) simply because they do not.
This same “ideo-logic” has been applied to homeschooling many times in our history — I’ve been explicitly defined out of homeschooling by it, and in or out of other categories, including the category people who can or cannot think, by ideologues setting up their own versions of this argument. It’s typically done so that when you do object, you just “prove” that they were right about you all along.
As Dana acknowledged above — thereby showing she really DOES think for herself imo! — it can be pretty seductive when it fits your views, but I would define real independent thinkers as ferreting out and balking at such sophistry even when they might otherwise agree with its aim.
And btw, I love the idea that we should talk more about what we’re reading, because I’m noticing that my own engagement in this thread is reflecting some of what I’m reading right now.
Just to be clear, this is the part of the original quote that appeals to me, whether or not it makes any sense with regards to the topic discussed in the quote:
“…this country’s citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field,”
I only point that out because when Nance edited it out, it sounds like something is appealing to my sensibilities that isn’t. The quote itself isn’t an argument for or against creation.
And it may be true for some people. I came to Christ as at 18, after being raised by a nonreligious family and attending public schools my entire life, starting with daycare. And I was a latch key kid. Every thing which is supposed to destroy the faith of good Christian kids, and yet here I am.
Thanks for calling out the duplicitous nature of Chapman’s list, Nance (#31). I’m relatively new here, and did not want to push too hard, but it took me a while to figure out how to respond without citing Project Steve. The fact that you did helps boost my courage to participate fully with a group that is obviously not given to uncritical groupthink.
The perception that “I’m independent, but you all are just sheep following the herd,” is a well-documented bias in human thinking. Many homeschoolers, almost by definition, do have a fierce independent streak (even if it is not as pervasive in practice as we like to think), and it is tempting to use an appeal to our national or “independent intellectual” pride to paradoxically support one’s favorite no-criticism-allowed position.
I like JJ Ross’ description of independent thinkers as “ferreting out and balking at such sophistry even when they might otherwise agree with its aim.” That comment, with its inherent call to ethical intellectual behavior, reminded me of the advice St. Peter gave his early Christian communities:
“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if any of you do not have them, you are nearsighted and blind, and you have forgotten that you have been cleansed from your past sins.”
–II Peter 1:5-9
Fierceness and passion in one’s convictions can be good, but they need to be tempered with other values as well, if we are to be seeking to learn together, in whatever community, in good faith.
Circle Reader, you are always welcome to jump in with anything. I really do welcome discussion which generally doesn’t happen very well when everyone agrees and when those who do not are dtiven away.
My own fault for introducing the tangent discussion…the second quote from the Education Minister from Singapore is better and reflects more what I’m trying to say. It has something to do with an “anti-expert” mentality as a broader American theme Gaither connects with homeschooling. That is what I was trying to point out. Here is what he writes in the introduction and was the background for the quote I originally selected.
Here again, the modern homeschooling movement is perhaps only the most obvious example of a larger trend. Since the late nieteenth centruy, parents have looked up to experts and their bestselling chile-care manuals (and institutions like schools) for help in raising their children. But historic defernce to expertise has eroded dramatically in recent years, and a new spirit of self-reliance can be detected in such disparate phenomena as the rapid rise of do-it-yourself home improvement stores, self-diagnosis of medical conditions through Internet-based research, the valorization of independent film and music production, self-canning checkout, online travel reservations, and so on. In a culture that mocks record company executives, second-guess doctors, distrusts professional contractors, and delights in smart shopping, it is not surprising that many parents think of themselves as the most qualified arbiters of their children’s moral and intellectual development.
If you hang out among certain segments of conservative Christians, you will inevitably run across a certain disdain for science. This isn’t Christian, per se…some great thinkers and scientists came out of the Christian tradtion. Actually, I was reading something interersting about this awhile ago I’ll try to dig up later that connected this to a reaction to the enlightenment and a sort of philosophical return to romanticism, but among the people I know that shrug their shoulders at science in general, there still exists this theme of anti-authority, or self-reliance.
Really like that passage, Circle Reader –
Partially quoting you again, Dana. Hope I do not give offense as I did not mean to give offense earlier. (And thank you CR for supplying the word “duplicitous” — exactly what I was aiming at!)
Dana, wrote in part: “This isn’t Christian, per se…some great thikers and scientists came out of the Christian tradtion.”
Me: Like the reference to “homeschooling” during America’s early history, references to scientists and thinkers coming out of the Christian tradition seem strained to me too. I have to wonder what the choices were at the time.
Both seem like current homeschoolers and/or Christians are trying to claim the revered to bolster their current standing.
And, JJ, it was a specific concrete quote from the Discovery Institute’s President being used an an example that led me where I went.
Hardly an impartial source and not a source respected for sticking with facts and logic. Surely there are better sources to use in redefining what is an otherwise respectable American(?) proclivity — independent thinking.
Unless the DI way is to be accepted as the new definition of independent thinking — thinking independent of facts and logic.
Dana, your other example of the Singapore Education Minister bemoaning a lack of respect for experts has me waiting for the other shoe to drop.
My immediate thought is: “Yes, and so what?” Many of the areas he mentions are areas we are perfectly capable of tackling now that previously required paid outside help. And?
JJ, help me remember where I just read about the about the Singapore ed expert (?) explaining how they test what we don’t and therefore develop different skills.
And I remember thinking as I read that all we have done recently is try to emulate the less creative approach this fellow from Singapore seemed to want to get away from. . .
Nance
Two Things:
a. I am really looking forward to many more discussions of this nature. I have enjoyed reading all of your comments – and not just because your sentences don’t begin with the word MOM!!!!
(As in Mom, I need, Mom, I want, Mom, He tried to flush the cat down the toilet again, etc.)
You guys are a bunch of smarties. I need to read what you think and let it roll around awhile. It increases the capacity of my neurotransmitters greatly.
b. While we’re on the subject of the cat…
Dana said, “But last time I checked, (two minutes ago) it had been downloaded 108 times.”
My faith in your collective overwhelming intelligence has just suffered a tragic blow.
108 of you actually downloaded Dana, Kim and me talking about our pets? Yikes!
Oh great, LOTP. So compared to repetitive cat-flushing, we strike you as smart conversationalists? Talk about damning with faint praise!
Nance, I think you read that quote up-thread right here, from Dana (comment #26)? That’s where I saw it.
Like the reference to “homeschooling” during America’s early history, references to scientists and thinkers coming out of the Christian tradition seem strained to me too. I have to wonder what the choices were at the time.
Perhaps, but that isn’t really the point. The point is that the church has not always had an antagonistic relationship with science. It wasn’t stated to prove or disprove anything. Just that being Christian has not always meant “the bible says it is so and that is good enough for me.” The search for truth has also stimulated inquiry that is not religious in nature. To ask “what choices were there at the time” for me sort of begs the questions “so why did anything ever change?” Maybe there just isn’t anything better for monks to do than cross breed bean plants and brew beer.
There continue to be Christians who are successful in scientific fields. That does not prove nor disprove anything. I only mention it because I believe that the antagonism that is perceived between “faith” and “science” is often a false dichotomy. That is probably an irrelevant topic for an atheist, but for some Christians it seems to be a bit of an issue recently.
As if appealing to science in itself negated faith. And as if rejecting a doctor’s opinion were a great act of faith.
it’s so nice to know the begginings of homeschooling, i might purchase the book
And so long as we are noting logical fallacies, I would tend to argue that discounting a generalized statement about American character strictly on the basis that it was made by a leader in the creationist field is itself a logical fallacy (argumentum ad hominem). That statement is supportable or not based on whether or not there is anything to it, regardless of whether or not we determine that Chapman himself is an “ideologue.”
More interesting to me, however, in a general discussion about whether or not there is something in the American character or a broader sociological trend toward self-reliance or rejection of authority is the fact that no matter where you stand on the creation/evolution debate, both sides see themselves as the one not responding to “ideologues.” The freethinkers are noted for rejecting the dogma of the church. And here we have a supposed ideologue within the church making an appeal to independent thinking.
I have taken flak from one side for teaching the theory of evolution to my children. On the other hand, my evolutionist friends get their feathers ruffled when I point out that evolution is a THEORY, not a law.
As someone who tends to see things in shades of gray, I have to agree with you. To me, dogma is dogma, regardless of which side is preaching it.
JJ – What I meant was that reading your comments is a welcome relief from listening to sounds of repetitive cat flushing! Sorry if I lead you to believe otherwise!
Gaither sees a return to the domestic education model of our early history, where homeschooling is one option among many for the education of children.
I wonder how easy and how possible it would be to return to “one option among many” for children’s education. Besides the government, there are so many developed and well funded entities in the education industry. (I’ve wondered the same about universal health care here in the US, as compared to Canada or the UK.)
I don’t think it would be a “return” to the former domestic education model, but hopefully that hard unionized armor will crack soon and it will be something good.
An IBD sounds great. Looks like an interesting book.
LOTP, Maybe you should stop flushing the cat?
And as someone who really has more questions than answers, I am generally bothered by people who have everything figured out about how the earth began 6 thousand or 6 billion years ago. Either way, it is a little before my time. I can’t remember exactly what field he studied, but the scientist who made the most sense to me was some guy talking about the difficulties of the evolutionary model in explaining how life began. He still believed it and I think was more suggesting areas for future research but in noting where the model fell short, he seemed much more like someone searching for truth than someone trying to push a single interpretation.
And an essay by a creationist which stood out to me most was one handling where the model fell short. He was an astronomer or an astrophysicist or something of that nature and was talking about the problem of light traveling such great distances in the small amount of time provided by the literal 6 day creation model. And he didn’t try to explain it…those who have always come across as creating rather strained arguments to me…but it still left me feeling more like he was truly looking for truth.
To the larger point that Dana is making and I meant to underline, about intellectual honesty and “truly looking for truth” (never mind Chapman or creationism as specifics) –
Remembering homeschool history as the subject of the post, we could exercise our independent, unbeholden thinking skills on that. What if in this book discussion, we all determined we’d treat homeschool history as an intellectually honest investigation for truth, really learning and deepening our undertanding, as opposed to just another HS echo chamber reinforcing our own satisfaction about our own choices being right, cheerleading and cherry-picking facts we then rearrange for political effect?
Now that would be “home education” worthy of the name! And if there’s an appetite for it anywhere online, it might just be right here. . .
Remembering homeschool history as the subject of the post, we could exercise our independent, unbeholden thinking skills on that. What if in this book discussion, we all determined we’d treat homeschool history as an intellectually honest investigation for truth, really learning and deepening our undertanding…
Else it really wouldn’t be worthwhile.
I don’t think this particular book lends itself well to cheerleaders of either side, but the bigger picture of homeschooling as part of larger national trends was an interesting look for me. There is not very much in the book I did not already “know” to some degree, but it is interesting to look at the same events and trends with a little less “framing” of the discussion than typically exists in the discussions I have read thus far.
I did an Internet book discussion on Gatto a couple of years. It might provide some inspiration on how not to organize your effort
http://www.odonnellweb.com/?cat=47
The theory thing does seem to really set people off.
I don’t have an interest in proving or disproving to the extremes many have.
My kids and I have some intense discussions about evolution/intelligent design. (I tend to throw in a lot of ‘I dunno..’.) We toss some more information around and piece it out a bit. It’s great fun while they’re in their teens and twenties checking things out.
I want my kids to appreciate this great earth we live on and explore it to their heart’s desire. I feel that exploration and search (along with the realization of not finding all answers) was part of the Gift we received.
“How not to organize a book discussion” by COD. I’m sure it will be the next to hit the NYT best seller list. Maybe we can have a book discussion on that.
How many of your entries began with some reference to the torture of reading? That might be tip number one for how to kill enthusiasm for a topic.
For the first 230 years of our history, parents, not government, were in charge…. Competence in reading, writing, and arithmetic was nearly universal at the time of the American Revolution.
***
That’s a quote that Gaither includes in his Introduction — http://gaither.wordpress.com/homeschool-an-american-history/
In reading the book, Dana, how much does he delve into things like this. The idea that literacy or anything was “nearly universal” is clearly wishful rewriting of history.
Does he take on this level of detail or take this as poetic license or ???
Nance
LMAO — that was it, JJ. Thinking I had read it somewhere else but there’s the story I meant, posted by Dana.
Too many blogs or too few brain cells?
Nance
Dana: And here we have a supposed ideologue within the church making an appeal to independent thinking.
***
But when Chapman does that we have to ask how he defines “independent thinking.”
There have been many times during the creationist/ID debates that words have been twisted to mean exactly what the advocate wanted.
After all, that’s why the whole thing morphed from creationism to ID, to make it more acceptable and more likely to be able to be inserted into ps science classes.
Considering the source is not the same as attacking a person with no basis.
I think it is fair to consider what Chapman’s goal would be in urging us to be independent thinkers.
Nance
JJ: What if in this book discussion, we all determined we’d treat homeschool history as an intellectually honest investigation for truth, really learning and deepening our undertanding, as opposed to just another HS echo chamber reinforcing our own satisfaction about our own choices being right, cheerleading and cherry-picking facts we then rearrange for political effect?
*******
That sounds lovely.
Nance
Nance,
Just wanted to make it clear that the quote you give in comment 53 of this thread comes not from me but from Theodore Forstmann. I’m quoting him as an example of the wrong way to do history of homeschooling, making the same point you make in fact. On the topic of colonial literacy rates, if you’re interested, the classic book on the subject is Kenneth Lockridge, LITERACY IN COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND. This work and studies by Maris Vinovskis and Gerald Moran have established as well as historians are able that there was in fact nearly universal white male literacy and very high rates of white female literacy as well in 17th century New England. The basis for this claim is the evidence of signatures on wills and deeds. The assumption historians of literacy make is that being able to sign one’s name (as opposed to making an “x” or a fingerprint) is a pretty good marker of literacy. Whether this is correct or not, it is at least unarguable that colonial New Englanders had higher rates of actual signatures than any European country at the time. Maybe that was TMI, but there you are!
Hey, imagine what a different society this would be if that were the sole standard now — as soon as a child can sign his or her name, the public’s standards are satisfied, compulsion is canceled and the child is considered a literate and intellectually independent citizen?
Or if we only cared about whether whites could sign their names. To wills and deeds. So that would be property-owning whites.
Thank goodness we’ve come so far.
Thanks for the clarification, Milton. I was hoping that was what you were getting at.
If we do the book club thing here, I’ll have to go out and get your book and read everything in context.
And this was definitely not TMI for me, btw. I think we need to understand how the writer is defining things like “literacy” as we comment.
Nance
Come on back and write for Homeland Stupidity whenever you like.
Hey! What a pleasure to have you drop by. I may have to do that at least occasionally.
This is the internet, Milton–there is never TMI. And yes, as independent learners, we need, and want, a LOT of supporting information to set things in proper context.
So, I’m about to order the book from our local indie bookstore; is there another book that might provide good context or counterpoint to yours?
I believe his is the first of its kind. It is largely an attempt to sythesize other research, so going through the bibliography would be an interesting counterpoint.
Oh, and regarding this:
This is the internet, Milton–there is never TMI.
Just look at the tangent this thread took.
There are a lot of things which sort of beg for more in depth analysis, but it is a little hard to squeeze all of homeschooling’s history into less than 300 pages. A lot more questions are raised than answers, but I generally like books like that. They make me think more, and research more.
There are no other books that do what I’m doing, though several books and articles have tried to tell the history of the homeschooling movement. Most of these are written by people who were involved in the movement and tend to reflect the political orientations of their authors. For example, Chris Klicka’s book HOME SCHOOL HEROES (available at Googlebooks) interprets homeschooling as a movement of God on behalf of the nation and tends to focus pretty exclusively on HSLDA’s role in it all. In contrast, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff’s A HOMESCHOOLER’S HISTORY, which you can find online, offers a very different perspective and reflects her disenchantment with Klicka’s world. I by no means wish to criticize these or any other accounts by insiders–they contain much useful information and compellingly articulate their authors’ convictions. My book aims as much as is possible for a dispassionate account that tries to understand homeschooling in the broader context of American history. I’m aiming for the sort of deep understanding that leaves one feeling satisfied and enlightened rather than the immediate thrill one gets from partisan polemic. But let me add that I did try to write it in an accessible way so that, though meaty, it will still taste good going down.
And I for one think you have succeeded in that goal.
It seems written from the neutral outsider’s position rather than someone who has a vested information in proving some point or other, whether it be favorable to homeschooling or not as much of the histories I have read seem to be.
Vested interest, not vested information.