View Full Version : New Hampshire Court Deems Girl 'Too Christian'; Must Attend Government School
Would the court order a child into church if they were 'too' agnostic?:munchin
Court orders Christian child
into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense
of her faith condemned by judge
Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.
The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."
The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.
The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
(Story continues below)
The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.
In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.
But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."
The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."
"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.
"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."
The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.
The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.
"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.
"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."
"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.
"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.
The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.
"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108084
Further proof that no single faith* has a monopoly on stupidity.
We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.
- Mark Twain, Following the Equator
Richard's $.02 :munchin
* Includes faiths not associated with any religious belief(s).
One cannot help but wonder if a devout Muslim...or Wiccan...or Hindu would receive similar treatment by the court.
And what might be the reaction if the court told a devout member of such a faith the same thing? (Purely rhetorical question, since the answer is painfully obvious.)
There is a statement..."Pain is gain." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that pain motivates change, which can lead to gain. The fact that the courts and politicians are largely unchallenged in such areas suggests that change has not yet been motivated.
I am inclined to ask: "What would CAIR do?". Their tactics have worked. Perhaps other groups should reflect on that.
ZonieDiver
08-28-2009, 11:53
So much for the state's motto!
".......The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards......."
His lawyer??????
The story does not get into the father - mother relationship but could this all be based on money? She goes to public school and now what does the mother do? Get a job?
Could the dad's lawyer have just run a slick snow job to get him out of some monthly payments?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=659638
This link appears to have a bit more of the inner workings of this, it looks to be a "custody" fight being made public.
Kyobanim
08-28-2009, 12:41
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=659638
This link appears to have a bit more of the inner workings of this, it looks to be a "custody" fight being made public.
This article looks to be more complete. First article is very biased.
The court has no right to force her into public school unless some law is being broken. No matter what her faith or lack of hearing different options it is NOT the courts place to say. That is the parents job, not the states job. If the father wants her to hear different points of view that is HIS job, not the schools, to show them to her. If it is a matter of mom not getting a job, then address it in that manner, not like this. It opens a pandora box on taking the rights of parents to teach their kids morals instead of the state approved view.
New Hampshire state law offers guidelines for the homeschooling of children living in the state. Source is here (http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/compulsory-education/new-hampshire/).
Code Section: 193.1, et seq., 193-A, et seq.
Age at Which School Attendance is Required: Between 6 and 16
Exceptions to Attendance Requirements: If in the best welfare of the child; approved private school; physical/mental condition prevents or makes attendance undesirable; receiving home education
Home School Provisions: Planned and supervised instructional and related educational activities including curriculum and instruction in science, math, language, government, history, health, reading, writing and spelling, history of U.S. and New Hampshire constitution and exposure to and appreciation of art and music; notification and evaluation required; home schooled children shall have access to curricular courses and programs offered by school district where child resides
Penalties on Parents for Noncompliance: Misdemeanor and compel child to attend school
Utah Bob
08-28-2009, 16:44
This article looks to be more complete. First article is very biased.
Not surprising given the source. Their articles usually need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Not surprising given the source. Their articles usually need to be taken with a grain of salt.
:eek: You mean the non-MSM is as flawed as the MSM? :confused: I'm shocked! :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Utah Bob
08-28-2009, 17:25
:eek: You mean the non-MSM is as flawed as the MSM? I'm shocked! :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
It's a level playing field.:D
FWIW, the court ruling is here (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KurowskiOrder.pdf).
Plutarch
08-29-2009, 03:31
As often happens in a divorce, this is a case of one parent using their child as a weapon against the other parent. What a dirtbag.
As often happens in a divorce, this is a case of one parent using their child as a weapon against the other parent. What a dirtbag.
Why is he a dirtbag for having a strong opinion of how he wants his kid raised?
As often happens in a divorce, this is a case of one parent using their child as a weapon against the other parent. What a dirtbag.
And how do you figure he using his daughter as a weapon against his wife. She agreed to the same rules set forth in their parenting plan. That they come to agreements about how their daughter is raised, jointly.
After reading the all the links provided I have to say that I agree with the judgment made by the courts.
Plutarch
08-29-2009, 16:55
With the exception of a few classes in the government schools, this girl has been home schooled her whole life.
She has also had a Christian upbringing her whole life.
If her father had a problem with either of those two things, why wait until now to pursue it? By all accounts, she is well adapted and excelling in her studies.
It just seemed to me that the father is doing this now, simply to spite his ex-wife, regardless of the negative outcome it may have on his daughter.
Hence, I declare him a dirtbag.
Peregrino
08-29-2009, 19:34
Insufficient data to draw a rational conclusion. Maybe we ought to let this play out without leaping to judgement. Maybe the father had good and sufficient reason for the divorce in the first place (the guys aren't always the "bad person") and the mother's Obsessive Compulsive (religious) Disorder had a lot to do with it. Maybe this is his first opportunity to rescue his daughter from a nutcase. Seen it before. Not all christians are benevolent, especially when young minds are hostage. Food for thought. :munchin
cback0220
08-30-2009, 11:47
The father might have also waited till now due to monetary reasons. Lawyers are not cheap. Sometimes you have to wait and pick your battles
Utah Bob
08-30-2009, 12:15
Insufficient data to draw a rational conclusion. Maybe we ought to let this play out without leaping to judgement. :munchin
But that's the only exercise some of us get!:D
A more fair and balanced account. :)
Group Asks Court to Reconsider Removing Girl from Home School
Tuesday , September 01, 2009
By Joshua Rhett Miller
A New Hampshire court's decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl to attend public school is coming under attack from some social conservatives and religious freedom advocates.
The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based organization that seeks to preserve religious liberty and the sanctity of marriage, has asked a family court judge to reconsider her July 14 decision to send the girl, identified in court documents as "Amanda," to a public school in Meredith, N.H.
"Parents have the fundamental rights to raise their children to the dictates of their conscience," the organization's attorney John Anthony Simmons told FOXNews.com.
Simmons noted that the girl was described in court documents as "academically promising" and interactive with her peers. "The court, in its own order, recognized this girl is performing well academically. So why are we changing her school environment?" he asked.
The girl's parents, Brenda Voydatch and Martin Kurowski, divorced shortly after her birth in 1999. According to court documents, Kurowski wants his daughter to attend public schools because he believes home-schooling deprives her of socialization skills. A guardian ad litem, essentially a fact finder for the court, agreed, and that recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda Sadler.
"[E]ducation is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things," the court order read. "[A] child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life."
But Simmons says the court has effectively taken away Voydatch's right, as the girl's primary-custody parent, to make decisions regarding her future, despite the fact that she enrolled the girl in three public school courses to assuage concerns of her former husband.
"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that [the girl] be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine [the girl's] faith, schooling, social development, etc.," Simmons wrote in court documents.
He says the court erred by agreeing with the guardian ad litem's assessment that the girl was found to "lack some youthful characteristics," in part because she "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on question of faith," according to court documents.
"The line that the court crossed here is saying that you're too sincere in your religious beliefs," Simmons said. "That's the concern here."
But Kurowski's attorney, Elizabeth Donovan, said the ruling was based on the girl's isolated learning environment, and not on her mother's religion. She said the girl's home-schooling consists of "sitting in the corner of her mother's bedroom," where she receives her lessons on a computer screen.
"My client is concerned because of the isolation that is borne of that and the lack of exposure to the broader culture at large," Donovan said. "People of different heritage, people of different culture, tolerance, group problem-solving, making friends, losing friends — all of the things that come with a public school education."
Donovan said Kurkowski has previously taken the girl to church and has no objections to her exposure to religion.
"When two parents with joint decision-making responsibility disagree and they cannot come to any common ground, we submit it to the court," she said. "The court takes all the testimony and the court renders a decision. Mrs. Voydatch didn't like the decision."
Simmons said he is prepared to appeal the case in state Supreme Court if the judge does not reconsider her ruling.
"This is a situation where home schooling is doing just fine," Simmons said. "We're asking for the court to reconsider."
Rob Reich, a political science and ethics professor at Stanford University who has written several papers on home-schooling, said Kurkowski's wishes for his daughter's education should be considered.
"His preference, as a general matter, ought to count for something," Reich told FOXNews.com. "It would be peculiar not to attribute any standings to the preferences of the father. It just so happens in this case you can't split the difference down the middle."
But Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based conservative think tank, said the New Hampshire court has "overstepped itself" in the case.
"I don't see why her faith should have any bearing at all on the decision made by the court," London told FOXNews.com. "The fact that she is a devoted Christian should not in any way influence the court's decision."
The ruling reflects a "radical secularism" of sorts, where any public display of religion is considered to be "wrongheaded," London said. "With sufficient pressure, [the court] will have to reconsider. It's really inappropriate for it to be making decisions of this kind."
Mike Donnelly, a staff attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said he's hopeful the "inappropriate and unreasonable" ruling will be reconsidered.
"The court has taken a step too far," Donnelly said, adding that the ruling appears to be "hostility against home schooling or religion — or both."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545340,00.html
...primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine [the girl's] faith...
Pretty weak faith on the mother's part IMO. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
"[E]ducation is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things," the court order read. "[A] child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life."
So none but the most externally focused home schooling programs that incorporate substantial social interaction succeed to develop children into intelligent, productive adults?
So none but the most externally focused home schooling programs that incorporate substantial social interaction succeed to develop children into intelligent, productive adults?
Interestingly enough, I found a couple journal articles that strongly support home schooling. They're easy reads, and include plenty of supporting references.
Briefly, home schooled students seem well prepared for college and are well adjusted in terms of human relationships, according to the articles.
...the girl's home-schooling consists of "sitting in the corner of her mother's bedroom," where she receives her lessons on a computer screen.
Just a guess here, but this sure seems to be an important bit of information which weighed heavily upon the court's decision in this particular matter and - if true - is exactly the opposite of the typical homeschool programs I've encountered over the last decade.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
... is exactly the opposite of the typical homeschool programs I've encountered over the last decade.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
It also means that there is an issue of interaction - there's good support for the statement that online education provides as much student learning as traditional forms. And there appears to be some support for the statement that home schooling as usually practiced is as good as traditional forms.
But is online home schooling as good? I'd bet there isn't a lot of research on that one.
The Fox News article presents an incomplete view of the court's decision that neglects to point out the court's frame of mind. Take for example the quote below.
"[E]ducation is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things," the court order read. "[A] child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life."
For what ever reason, the first part of the paragraph is omitted. (It doesn't help that who ever scanned the court document did not enable OCR text recognition.)
The Court is extremely reluctant to impose on parents a decision about a child's education, which commonly emerges after sincere and thorough discussion between parents who are both committed to the child's growth and development. In the absence of effective communication between the parents whose case reflects a history of opposing opinions on a variety of issues, the Court is guided by the premise that education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things, and by the premise that a child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life.
IMO, the ruling does not say that there is a single best way to educate a child. The court's interest seems to center around a question that at least one of the parents seems to have forgotten. Namely, does this specific home schooling plan help this specific child develop skills that enable her to make her own decisions and to establish her own sense of self efficacy?
In a short while young Amanda may end up at a certain prep school down the road that has a strong department of religion <<LINK (http://www.exeter.edu/academics/84_806.aspx)>>. Faculty members of that department are not reluctant to look a student in the eye and ask "Have you ever considered a career in the divinity?" Or so I've heard.
GratefulCitizen
09-02-2009, 15:29
Perhaps the parent is specifically trying to avoid certain types of conditioning which often occur in government-run schools.
-Students, necessarily, are herded en masse from one activity/topic to another.
-The realities of student/teacher ratios limit one-on-one instruction.
-As is necessary to maintain discipline, conformity is encouraged and/or enforced.
-Wait until you receive instructions before acting.
-This is important. That is not.
-End results aren't that important. Just show up and do your "daily work".
-No, you can't test out of this. Grind through it just like everyone else.
Sounds like a recipe to produce a good little worker who makes her 40 widgets, takes her lunch break with the rest of the herd, and goes home to watch tv.
It's a wonder that any small businesses ever get started.
Sounds like a recipe to produce a good little worker who makes her 40 widgets, takes her lunch break with the rest of the herd, and goes home to watch tv.
It's a wonder that any small businesses ever get started.
Hardly surprising, considering our educational system was based on the Prussian system.
Pretty weak faith on the mother's part IMO. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I suppose the mother intends to make sure her daughter has no interactions, whatsoever, throughout her entire life, with anyone that holds a different belief system than she does.
How does she expect her daughter to cope in the "outside" world once she is on her own?
Our job as parents is to instill an inherent sense of what is right and what is wrong, in our children. If we do so in such a manner, that child will be able to pull upon their faith when tough issues are brought up, and will be able to act in a moral way, then we have done our jobs. Our job, IMHO, is not to shield our children from all that is bad in the world. If we do so, then we have done our children a grave disservice, in that they will not have the necessary coping mechanisms to get by in life.
If they are never challenged on their faith, they will not develop the necessary skills to insightfully discuss their religion. If they are told that there is only one way and one way only to believe, aren't we turning them into the Christian version of the Islamists we are routinely calling to task for doing the same thing?
I don't know about you all, but when my daughter was 10 years old, religion was not the focus of her discussions with anyone. She has been raised Catholic all her life, and attended Catholic school for over half of it. At that tender age, her worries were "do unto others as you would have done unto you." meaning she wasn't mean to anyone because she didn't like it when people were mean to her. Had someone told me she was trying to convert kids on the playground, I would probably have some issues with that.
Would this coversation have the same tenor if the child in question was Muslim, and the father wanted her to have outside influences on her thought process, other than just an Islamic slant to everything she it taught, and deals with on a day to day basis?
Haven't we discussed many times how one of the many problems with Islam, is that children are only taught the interpretation of the Koran as deemed fit by the mullahs of the mosque they attend? That they are not given another view, and how that magnifies into everyone who disagrees with the teaching of the Koran, as they were taught, are evil doers and must be dealt with as such.
Why would our views change because the child in question is Christian?
GratefulCitizen
09-02-2009, 16:24
Hardly surprising, considering our educational system was based on the Prussian system.
An article:
http://nj.npri.org/nj98/05/prussian.htm
clip:
Mandatory kindergarten was necessary because it served to break the influence of the mother over the child thus making the child more responsive to government influence.
...
Up until the late 1800’s a good education in the United States could be obtained without government interference or oversight.
...
All this education took place at home or in one room school houses, or "Dame Schools," primarily taught by women. The children who came out of these schools grew up to be self reliant and individualistic, in marked contrast to the Prussian system which produced an obedient, collectivist trained populace.
...
Implementation of the Prussian system was to become the goal of Edward Everett, America’s first Ph.D. As Governor of Massachusetts, Everett had to deal with the problem of the influx of poor Irish Catholics into his state. In 1852, with the support of Horace Mann, another strong advocate of the Prussian model, Everett made the decision to adopt the Prussian system of education in Massachusetts. Unfortunately for the children and poor Irish Catholics of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the system produced a willing, cheap labor force with minimal reading and numbers skills. The Everetts of the world understood that people who could read and understand are dangerous because they are intellectually equipped to find out things for themselves, thus becoming a threat to already established power elites.
...
Hmmm...
Socialized medicine is getting some pushback from the people.
The gov't responds by addressing school children.
:munchin
This is exactly why child custody issues before the court should be private.
We have no right what so ever telling that father what is best for his child, as he has no right to tell us what is best for our children.
Perhaps the parent is ....
All I have to go on for historical perspective is what my parents have told me.
Children tend to learn things from their parents.
Maybe the court is addressing another type of conditioning.
What I remember most about the products of New Hampshire public schools was that the girls often had handy cups to spit tobacco juice into:confused:, the racial slurs a few would shout as they raced along in speeding vehicles:mad:, the fierce determination they brought to the Harkness tables to prove that they belonged as much as anyone:cool:, their unflinching loyalty to their friends, their make out sessions in library study carrells, and their snarky (but playful) whispering on the basketball court ("Go ahead, take the shot...be a hero!").
Then there was Nicole B. Her olive skin, flashing eyes, and winsome smile all made it obvious why her dad, a retired Marine, kept his sword over the mantle piece.:eek:
How does she expect her daughter to cope in the "outside" world once she is on her own?
Exactly. This is the heart of the argument. No one, on either side of this, wants to see this child ill-prepared for the real world.
As a home-school mom, I'm suspicious of the way this girl is being educated. I also cringe, because stories like this give home-schooling a bad reputation among people who vaguely know what home-schooling is. This woman is also making it harder for the rest of us to educate our children without government oversight or interference.
There are a variety of reasons to home-school. This mother's reason happens to be religious, which muddies the waters still further. But bottom line, if that child is not being educated by her mother, she should be educated by a teacher.
-Susan
This thread has sort of morphed from the court ruling to debate on home schooling.
When I was younger and dumber, I thought I knew everything. I felt that there was no way a home-schooled child could receive a proper education or the social skills necessary to be a productive member of society. Now, the closer I get to having school age children, the more that option appeals to me. I don't really have the money to put two kids in private school. Charter and magnet schools seem like a good option but those slots are always limited. What else is there? Public or home schooling. I constantly hear alarmist news reports about the school system here in SC on the radio - SAT average scores just dropped again.
I know there are plenty of great teachers, but from the outside point of view it looks like the deck is stacked against the teachers being able to do a good, caring job. What's a dad to do? Additionally, SC now has online "public" schools. I am a little more moderate than the lady in the original post though, I want my kids to learn to evaluate multiple points of view.
I feel like I could do a pretty good job of teaching my spawn about english 'n stuff.
I am a little more moderate than the lady in the original post though, I want my kids to learn to evaluate multiple points of view.
However...evaluation of multiple points of view may be facilitated by the use of computer mediated communication (CMC).
Let us suppose we want a truly inclusive group discussion. Some students may not be particularly articulate in English. In CMC, they have the time to frame their viewpoint, whereas in a traditional classroom their lack of fluency may cause them to avoid engagement with the group. In addition, CMC can contribute to deeper discussions than might be the case with verbal communication.
Here are a couple quotes:
The findings imply that writing for a group in the asynchronous environment facilitated reflection, metacognitive processes, and articulation of students' own learning. When responses to questions were made, students sought alternative responses that may have facilitated in-depth inquiry to the topic as well as enforced reflection and metacognition. Students recognized the importance of writing skills to understand, interpret, and implement the content knowledge. In assessment, "a focus on self-knowledge implies that students should have the opportunity to assess their own strengths and weaknesses" (Pintrich' 2002, p. 221). This type of student engagement enables learners to informally and actively assess their own learning.
Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.
Sproull and Kiesler (1986) indicate that computer-mediated communication (CMC) lacks the social context cues exchanged in face-to-face communication. These social context cues are transmitted through the physical environment, nonverbal behaviors, and each participant's social status. The absence of social cues tends to promote egalitarian and ninhibited behaviors in CMC. Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire (1984) found that group members using computers participated more equally than they did when they talked face-to-face. According to Van Gelder (1990), since some barriers common to face-to-face communication, such as race, physical appearance, and language accent are non-existent in computer-mediated interactions, a more egalitarian situation is created. Therefore, CMC users tend to be more uninhibited than they are in face-to-face situations.
Kelm (1992) indicates that using computer-assisted classrooms for teaching foreign languages creates a leveling effect in which the instructor merely becomes another participant in the discussion. Traditional turn-taking procedures are totally absent and participants say as much as they want and are never interrupted. During computer-assisted classroom discussion
sessions, students can read comments at their own pace, type their responses at their own leisure, and wait to send messages when they are completely satisfied with what they have written. In other words, a deficiency in individual fluency does not slow the general pace of the discussion. Participants of the discussion are never interrupted and sessions are designed
to encourage increased participation, therefore, the topics are always open-ended.
Yildiz, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2003). Exploring electronic forum participation and interaction by EFL speakers in two web-based graduate-level courses. Distance Education, 24(2), 175-193.
However...evaluation of multiple points of view may be facilitated by the use of computer mediated communication (CMC).
Let us suppose we want a truly inclusive group discussion. Some students may not be particularly articulate in English. In CMC, they have the time to frame their viewpoint, whereas in a traditional classroom their lack of fluency may cause them to avoid engagement with the group. In addition, CMC can contribute to deeper discussions than might be the case with verbal communication.
nmap--
As ever, you provide food for thought.
I do have two questions.
Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?
Do communication skills developed via CMC transfer laterally from cyberspace to everyday life?
I am, right now, enrolled in an online school in order to finish my BS because the DoD doesn't value experience as much as a degree [end rant]
Every class I take has a required number of discussion board posts. In theory, it is a great tool for online discussion and collaboration. What it actually turns out to be is an butt-kissing waste of time. Each student posts their first response to the professor's subject and those posts are generally worthwhile. Where it turns south is the required responses. Nobody ever wants to actually debate or discuss anything at all. All the responses are two sentences, and are summarized as: "That was a great post. I learned a lot from you." Some are as bad as "You did a great job with your citations."
I do have two questions.
1. Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?
2. Do communication skills developed via CMC transfer laterally from cyberspace to everyday life?
1. I feel that the purpose is to prepare students for the real world. I just don't feel the execution follows through.
2. Absolutely not. Exhibited most recently here by the new pink sarcasm font. :D
{NPRI article} Hmmm...Socialized medicine is getting some pushback from the people. The gov't responds by addressing school children.
As a West Euro FAO, History major, and second-career educator, everything I studied says the first kindergarten was actually founded by Friedrich Froebel around the early decades of the mid-19th Century - a time when Germany was not a wholly Prussian-oriented society as NPRI’s marketing manager Diane Alden would like readers to believe in her opinion piece - and was actually based on his ideas that children need to have play time in order to learn - that kindergarten should be a place for children to grow and learn from their social interaction with other children. Ms. Alden's ideas that kindergarten was developed as some form of nationalistic weaning of children from their mothers for a future of unquestioning servitude to the Prussian state [ala Nazism] is so far from the truth that it should be laughable - except for the dangers it presents in its misleading of those ignorant of History's lessons.
FWIW - the first kindergartens were actually established rather altruistically to help impoverished children and those who had special needs - not to defeat some future Napoleon - but to support those who did not fit the mold of established society - and actually paralled the many nurseries of the time which were run by philanthropically minded women to serve the families of the poor as Europe moved from a cottage industry society towards the first industrial revolution. Froebel's non-Prussian basic philosophic principles of free self activity, creativity, social participation, and motor expression are valuable components which exist functionally, with some modifications, in most of today's early childhood education programs. Froebel's philosophy basically supports the idea that - through systematic play - children are able to learn to discriminate, analyze, share and solve problems - not learn to goose-step or develop a zu befehl mentality.
And the idea that because "socialized medicine is getting some pushback from the people" it is somehow related to "the gov't responds by addressing school children" {about the importance of school in their achieving their goals} is - :eek: :confused: - which really causes me to have a bit of angst about the effectiveness of our educational systems (remember - it is a decentralized series of systems) and the dangers of the WWW's potential to misinform and mislead.
And so it goes...:(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
nmap--
As ever, you provide food for thought.
I do have two questions.
Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?
Do communication skills developed via CMC transfer laterally from cyberspace to everyday life?
Those are good questions...and the best questions can be the hardest to answer. ;)
First, what is the purpose of education? Frankly, I get the impression that the primary goal is to facilitate getting a job. In essence, this means that education should prepare young people for the workplace.
And what do I see, both in the workplace and elsewhere? Lots of communication through electronic devices - and relatively little face-to-face communication. The workplace, especially, seems to place a strong emphasis on communicating electronically. Due to costs, the trend seems to be toward more CMC and away from FTF.
Even when I go out to eat, I observe people talking on cell phones while ignoring the other people at their table. Or, they'll busy themselves with texting while avoiding any risk of real conversations.
So on question 1, I'm not sure. At one time, I would have said "real world, not cyberspace". However, when I consider how people seem to spend their time, I'm tempted by the opposite answer.
Now, on your second question...I don't know of any specific research on the subject, so this is a case of MOO, YMMV. I would suspect there is not a perfect transfer, since non-text elements of communication are an important element of FTF exchanges. A smile, a nod - even how far apart people stand - all matter in real life. On the other hand, the verbal skills developed in written communication can transfer from CMC to FTF. I guess my answer to this one is that there is some transfer, but not a perfect transfer.
Those aren't very good answers, are they? But at least they're sincere.
Is the purpose of an education today to prepare young people to interact (and to compete) in cyberspace or in the real world?
FWIW - I support Howard Gardner’s description of intelligence [learning] as posited in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind, which states:
“The ability to solve problems and create products which are of value in one’s own culture.”
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Where it turns south is the required responses. Nobody ever wants to actually debate or discuss anything at all. All the responses are two sentences, and are summarized as: "That was a great post. I learned a lot from you." Some are as bad as "You did a great job with your citations."
I took an online course, and the outcome was much the same. I think students tend to do whatever produces the grade they want, and not much more.
To contrast, let's look at the present discussion. People from all over the country, with a wide array of backgrounds and interests, have come together to discuss a topic that's both interesting and important to the overall society. The present discussion, IMO, represents the potential such exchanges have. Getting it to happen within a course remains a problem.
Of course, I'm not at all biased in favor of online education. :D
GratefulCitizen
09-02-2009, 22:24
Maybe the court is addressing another type of conditioning.
Exactly.
It's about who gets the primary influence during the early years.
My children ages 7,9, and 17 all excelled at reading despite dyslexic tendencies.
This had nothing to do with schooling.
My wife sat down with them and read books with them daily from when they could first sit up.
The 3 year old is starting to read.
The 19 month old is already fascinated with books.
FWIW, I am not against my kids experiencing the world, making mistakes, and learning from them.
I believe it is entirely necessary.
Starting at age 11, the oldest one was gradually given more room to make decisions and learn from his mistakes.
Upon turning 13, the deal was simple: I would not intervene unless he appeared to be in danger of being maimed or killed.
I would maintain control of my own property and if he wished to use it, it would be used in a manner consistent with my wishes.
Once he stepped off the curb, he would make his own decisions, and deal with the consequences.
He made many mistakes.
He dealt with the consequences.
He learned.
At the age of 17 years and 3 months, he was moved out and on his own.
He now demonstrates maturity beyond his years and is leading a content, fulfilling life.
The deal will be basically the same for the rest, allowing for some differences which occur from kid to kid.
BUT, until they reach that critical point somewhere between 11 and 13, everyone else will have the degree of influence which my wife and I deem appropriate.
Not all of us wingnuts can be pidgeon-holed.
It's about who gets the primary influence during the early years.
My children ages 7,9, and 17 all excelled at reading despite dyslexic tendencies.
My wife sat down with them and read books with them daily from when they could first sit up. . . .
Starting at age 11, the oldest one was gradually given more room to make decisions and learn from his mistakes.
Upon turning 13, the deal was simple: I would not intervene unless he appeared to be in danger of being maimed or killed.
I would maintain control of my own property and if he wished to use it, it would be used in a manner consistent with my wishes. . . .At the age of 17 years and 3 months, he was moved out and on his own.
He now demonstrates maturity beyond his years and is leading a content, fulfilling life.
The deal will be basically the same for the rest, allowing for some differences which occur from kid to kid.
[BUT], until they reach that critical point somewhere between 11 and 13, everyone else will have the degree of influence which my wife and I deem appropriate.
Thank you for these revealing details about your family history, your approach to parenting, and your view of power.
This had nothing to do with schooling.
Agreed.
GratefulCitizen
09-03-2009, 21:49
Thank you for these revealing details about your family history, your approach to parenting, and your view of power.
Your condescension is noted.
It sure is a good thing us dumb ol' truck drivers have access to such sage council.
It would be much simpler to say: now run along and let your betters discuss this important stuff.
Just say what you mean. I have thick skin.
Yesterday I was giving my 17 year old a ride and mentioned to him how satisfying it was too see him managing his life so well.
He responded with sincerity: "It's satisfying to do. Thank you for making it possible." (direct quote)
I'm sure this truck driver would have done better for his son if he listened to the latest psycho-babble from the public school.
After all, the public system has been producing a marvelous stream of self-reliant individuals lately.
Your condescension is noted.
You are in error if you think my previous comment reflects condescension on my part. I urge you to take responsibility for your own affective state.
Just say what you mean.Your comments speak for themselves.I have thick skin.
I disagree.
I'm sure this truck driver would have done better for his son if he listened to the latest psycho-babble from the public school.
Perhaps...but we can never know now.
After all, the public system has been producing a marvelous stream of self-reliant individuals lately.
I'm a product of public and state university schooling, as is my wife and our siblings, and all of our children. We have and - I can only assume - will continue to lead productive lives as hard working, self reliant, individualistic thinking, civic minded citizens of a great, albeit flawed, society.
Of my three sons, one is an environmental chemical engineer, one is a long-haul truck driver, and one is now doing his student teaching and preparing his senior art show in preparation to graduate from college in December with a BS (major is biology, minor is fine arts with teaching credential - and he wants to go to med school and become a medical illustrator. He also has illustrated three novels - one published and two currently in production).
As for their education, our guidelines were that they would finish high school and then should seek further schooling - but that would be their choice. And as far a career choice, the only parameters we put on them was that it should be something they enjoyed and had an aptitude for doing, something from which they could earn a living, and something that was legal - beyond that, it was their choice, not ours.
Public schools - as with charter schools, private schools, parochial schools, e-schools, and home schools - run the gamut in the quality of the education (or indoctrination, as your postings infer) they offer - and all are responsible for producing some of the most productive and least productive of our nation's citizens. Based on their documented histories, I can only assume that they will continue to do so in the future.
Richard's public school educated $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
09-05-2009, 12:56
You are in error if you think my previous comment reflects condescension on my part.
I urge you to take responsibility for your own affective state.
Your comments speak for themselves.
I disagree.
Urge away.
Let me be plain, Sigaba.
Richard will receive from me a degree of deference and recognition.
This is his house.
I am not his peer.
He has well-established credentials and expertise.
His rebukes will be accepted as authoritative and carry weight as I continually form thoughts and opinions on the matter.
Who are you?
Some stranger on the internet who presumes to scold me through innuendo on my parenting.
Concerning my own children, you are some distant person in possession of an opinion.
I am living through it and possess the facts.
Your innuendo-laced posts are quite ironic considering the topic of this thread.
I am more than happy to carry on a banter.
However, if you wish to receive some sort of deference or recognition then demonstrate that you have comensurate achievements which apply.
Racking up 1000+ long-winded posts in under 13 months is not enough to receive deference or recognition from me.
You speak towards me with an air of great authority.
Back it up. What are your quals?
My position has changed.
I have thick skin.
I strongly disagree.
What are your quals?Would you be asking this question if you perceived that I agreed with your views of power, public education, or parenting?
What qualifies me for your "deference or recognition" is you. If you really did not care what I think--and a surprising number of people don't--you'd not persist in soliciting my thoughts. Nor would you then spend time trying to disqualify the legitimacy of (your perception of) those thoughts. However, my view remains unchanged: your posts speak for themselves.
Please do me the courtesy of not making additional allegations of innuendo or condescension.
1000+ long-winded posts
Ouch! Well, back to the drawing board.
Ouch! Well, back to the drawing board.
See? Short-winded posts would elevate the post count more quickly. :D
Once upon a time, I heard about the MPU - minimum publishable unit. Slice and dice one good paper into three little papers, so you build your list of publications more quickly. Now those were words of wisdom!
See? Short-winded posts would elevate the post count more quickly. :D
Once upon a time, I heard about the MPU - minimum publishable unit. Slice and dice one good paper into three little papers, so you build your list of publications more quickly. Now those were words of wisdom!
Saturday Night Live had a contest back in the 1970s. The prize was getting to host the show for a week. Contestants were instructed to send a statement saying, in three words or less, why they wanted to host the show.
After two days of effort, I gave up trying to surpass Chevy Chase's example "Me wanna host."
The Reaper
09-05-2009, 16:28
Quiet.
Professional.
These should not be just for SF personnel. Your are all guests in our house.
Drop the personal attacks and innuendo. Now.
TR
GratefulCitizen
09-05-2009, 22:50
I'm a product of public and state university schooling, as is my wife and our siblings, and all of our children. We have and - I can only assume - will continue to lead productive lives as hard working, self reliant, individualistic thinking, civic minded citizens of a great, albeit flawed, society.
Of my three sons, one is an environmental chemical engineer, one is a long-haul truck driver, and one is now doing his student teaching and preparing his senior art show in preparation to graduate from college in December with a BS (major is biology, minor is fine arts with teaching credential - and he wants to go to med school and become a medical illustrator. He also has illustrated three novels - one published and two currently in production).
As for their education, our guidelines were that they would finish high school and then should seek further schooling - but that would be their choice. And as far a career choice, the only parameters we put on them was that it should be something they enjoyed and had an aptitude for doing, something from which they could earn a living, and something that was legal - beyond that, it was their choice, not ours.
Public schools - as with charter schools, private schools, parochial schools, e-schools, and home schools - run the gamut in the quality of the education (or indoctrination, as your postings infer) they offer - and all are responsible for producing some of the most productive and least productive of our nation's citizens. Based on their documented histories, I can only assume that they will continue to do so in the future.
Richard's public school educated $.02 :munchin
Well put, sir.
First, let me apologize for stacking kindling.
My hyperbole and rhetoric have been too loose.
This has not served to promote effective discussion.
I should have been following your example from the beginning.
In the interest of avoiding thread-hopping, comments regarding related issues will be condensed here.
My rantings against the public education system are rooted partially in frustrations with an ever-growing government.
As you have stated, public education is well decentralized.
My fear is for the direction of the trend.
IMO, further decentralization would be better.
My parents were both career school teachers, mainly in the public sector.
I believe it is a noble profession and applaud those who answer the calling.
This is the greatest country on Earth and the education system does work.
However, I believe it works because of a sufficient supply motivated, exceptional teachers and not because of the general system design.
Another of my fears is that the system design will tend to drive away those who perform the miracle of making the system work.
Many who answer the call will not be driven away, but will a critical mass remain?
Despite my libertarian leanings, and the fact that my children are in private school, I am not for the voucher system.
While I believe liberals are trying to undermine the system from within, conservatives would inadvertantly destroy it from without.
Better the devil you do know than the devil you don't.
I stand by the description of "diluted priorities" which was mentioned in the other thread.
That was my parents assessment, I have no reason to doubt them.
YMMV.
The changes I would like to see:
-No compulsory attendance, but students should have to pass tests with clear standards in order to promote.
Results should count, not jumping through hoops.
-All administrators should teach at least half time.
Everyone in the system should teach and have a vested interest.
Top-heavy bureaucracies tend to grow and become self-perpetuating.
-Federal funding should decrease. No long-term good can come of this.
Concerning the specific issue of this thread:
I don't know the totality of the circumstance in N.H.
It is parent vs. parent. Only they know.
In the case of parent vs. the state, I believe that our country should err on the side of the parent because they have more intimate knowledge of what exactly their child requires.
While this path may sometimes lead to tragic consequences in some cases, I believe erring on the side of the state will inevitably lead to much more dire consequences for all.
Concerning children:
The younger children will remain in private school until the 6th grade.
After that, it will probably vary from child to child.
Each of them are different.
My oldest was told he would make his decisions, and deal with the consequences.
We also told him we would generally support whatever path he chose, provided it was not immoral, illegal, or unreasonably dangerous.
It is his life.
He took his GED at 16 and was done.
His test scores significantly exceeded those of most high-school graduates.
He is my step-son and the circumstances with his upbringing had many challenges.
Thank you, Richard, for your insight and tolerance.
One final note.
About 16 months ago, things were not looking good for my oldest.
I was having a few beers with a QP from this board, and he spoke of how he dealt with his sons.
It granted a critical bit of insight which helped turn the corner in bringing up my own son.
I never did formally thank him.
Time to get to the PMs.
ZonieDiver
09-06-2009, 14:22
Grateful Citizen makes some good points. I especially like this one, which I have advocated for a long time:
-All administrators should teach at least half time.
Everyone in the system should teach and have a vested interest.
Top-heavy bureaucracies tend to grow and become self-perpetuating.
My suggestion has gone beyond "administrators" to all "certified" personnel - specifically counselors and "curriculum specialists." (Our curriculum specialist constantly refers to her lonnnnng ago HS science classes as an example. A colleague who had a room next to hers at that time doesn't have quite the same memories of her classroom expertise.
Couldn't hurt!
Some valid observations - just a couple of points for consideration:
-No compulsory attendance, but students should have to pass tests with clear standards in order to promote.
Forebrain developmental issues (maturity + temptation + boredom + < supervision = :eek:) and neighborhood crime stats argue against the idea - as well-intentioned as it may be or as reasonable asit may seem.
All administrators should teach at least half time.
Although it sounds like a reasonable notion, consideration has to be made for the fact that not all teachers make (made) good administrators and not all administrators make (made) good teachers - and competency or excellence in one area does not necessarily equate to such in the other.
A similar example can be made for commanders and staff officers/NCOs in the military.
I'm more for a better selection process, mandated on-going authentic performance reviews combined with task-oriented professional education, and a system that more readily allows for 'relief for cause' for sub-par performance at all levels.
Federal funding should decrease. No long-term good can come of this.
Concur. Funding has always been an issue - always will be - and one of the reaons I remain a strong proponent for non-profit schools which accept no government grant monies and - therefore - all the unnecessary 'strings' which are attached to them. Many schools/school systems now have full-time grant writers whose mission is to seek and procure such $$. :mad:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Although it sounds like a reasonable notion, consideration has to be made for the fact that not all teachers make (made) good administrators and not all administrators make (made) good teachers - and competency or excellence in one area does not necessarily equate to such in the other.
A similar example can be made for commanders and staff officers/NCOs in the military.
Very true, Richard. I would also mention that some teachers don't make good teachers, either. A principal may not have the skill and experience of his/her 'NCO' teachers, but like a good commander, he/she should at least understand the basic skill set involved, be able to perform them to a rudimentary level in order to know 'what right looks like', and most importantly have the authority and will to relieve a poorly performing teacher for cause, as you aptly stated.
Many of the problems I see in the private school my oldest attends can be directly connected to a complete lack of leadership (and ownership) by the principal.
At the risk of tossing gasoline on burning embers...
First, a small disclosure - with the exception of my undergrad degree, I've always been in the public schools. The undergrad degree was at a private university, and represents a period still filled with pleasant memories.
Second disclosure - I understand that Wikipedia is not exactly a high-quality reference. Still worse, the one I'm about to use has some notes on it.
That said, the material seems to suggest the outcome of our existing educational system is not everything we might prefer. Here's a quote:
The National Center for Education Statistics provides more detail. Literacy is broken down into three parameters: prose, document, and quantitative literacy. Each parameter has four levels: below basic, basic, intermediate, and proficient. For prose literacy, for example, a below basic level of literacy means that a person can look at a short piece of text to get a small piece of uncomplicated information; while a person who is below basic in quantitative literacy would be able to do simple addition. In the US, 14% of the adult population is at the "below basic" level for prose literacy; 12% are at the "below basic" level for document literacy; and 22% are at that level for quantitative literacy. Only 13% of the population is proficient in these three areas—able to compare viewpoints in two editorials; interpret a table about blood pressure, age, and physical activity; or compute and compare the cost per ounce of food items.
LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy)
By the way - I've known a distressingly large number of college students who could not grasp what was meant by a requirement for a 500 word essay. They were surprised when they got a 60 base grade for a 300 word essay. :rolleyes:
So - if this is true, and if parents discern it to be true, then it is difficult to blame them for seeking an alternative. On the other hand, if its false, thus creating concern where none should exist, then it seems a communication problem exists. It is my inclination to believe the report, but that may just be my gloomy outlook.
Thoughts?
The NCES info is all to be found here:
http://nces.ed.gov/
As far as the stats mentioned by nmap:
National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69
Adults age 16 or older were assessed in three types of literacy (prose, document, and quantitative) in 1992 and 2003. Literacy is defined as "using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential." The average prose and document literacy scores of U.S. adults were not measurably different in 2003 from 1992, but the average quantitative literacy score increased 8 points between these years.
One measure of literacy is the percentage of adults who perform at four achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient. In each type of literacy, 13 percent of adults were at or above Proficient (indicating they possess the skills necessary to perform complex and challenging literacy activities) in 2003. Twenty-two percent of adults were Below Basic (indicating they possess no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills) in quantitative literacy, compared with 14 percent in prose literacy and 12 percent in document literacy.
Using those stats, 65% of Americans fall within the Basic to Intermediate levels of literacy - not an entirely unexpected norm.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Using those stats, 65% of Americans fall within the Basic to Intermediate levels of literacy - not an entirely unexpected norm.
As you say, an entirely reasonable norm.
Thank you for finding that - I've used the NCES site a little, but I missed the report you located.
I'd like to weigh in on the initial subject matter of this thread - court ordering the girl to go to public school, in addition to arguments for or against the merits of home schooling. I'm about to give a lot of background on myself - it's not for self promotion, but to give you an idea what a home school background has enabled me to do.
This case hits close to home, as I was home schooled from the age of 3 until I graduated high school at 17. Along the way, my parents split and a custody struggle ensued. All of us children were required to undergo an evaluation by a shrink. I was deemed to be lacking in some childhood characteristics, and my mother was put under a court order not to discuss court proceedings our rulings with me. I was 16 at the time, and those proceedings were public record (heh.. never tell a debater he isn't allowed knowing a court ruling).
The counselor's reasoning? I expressed concern over the safety of my younger siblings because of violent outbursts from my father, which was said to demonstrate an elevated sense of responsibility not typical of children my age. I was also prevented from testifying, even though I had received threats and had witnessed attempts to manipulate the kids (myself included).
Leaving out the messy details, my mother was able to prove that I had been sufficiently educated (demonstrated by test scores, extra-curricular achievements, three service academy nominations, and an ROTC scholarship). If I had been 10, the fruits of her efforts wouldn't have been evident yet. Odds are I would have been moved to a public school - which would have prevented me from achieving many of the accomplishments I have up to this point.
As far as the accusation that the daughters education consists of starting at a computer screen in the corner of the bedroom, I'm shocked nobody else pointed out the concession that she took several classes at a local school. That is outside of the bedroom, is it not? The bedroom accusation appears to be false. Additionally, unlike students in a traditional environment, home educated students are able to work at their own pace. I usually did my work closed in my bedroom. I would usually finish my work for the day in a matter of 3 or 4 hours (sometimes longer, sometimes less). "Attendance" was self-enforced. Mom always said if I wanted to play hookie she knew I could get away with it - I could be doing anything under the sun in my room and she wouldn't be any the wiser until it came time for tests. Even then, she knew I could cheat if I wanted to. But I never did, because I knew that the test score would be an evaluation of whether I knew the material - not a benchmark required to stay with my friends. For me cheating would have defeated the purpose of studying! If I wanted to learn, it was up to me. I had to take initiative and have the self control to do my work.
Here's what I see when I read the articles posted above: An angry father, an intelligent daughter, a dedicated mother, a court system that disapproves of home schooling. It wouldn't be the first time the courts were abhorred by an intelligent child that showed maturity beyond her years. Didn't we used to encourage diligence to studies?
As far as exposure to outside opinions, just because she studies at home doesn't mean she is isolated from opinions - and who is the court to say what or when conflicting opinions should be presented to a child?
I was raised with the beliefs of my mother (to some extent my father as well). When I was around 12, I began researching other opinions - this included everything from reading liberal news sources (which I had been exposed to from a young age, but not in excess) to the Qur'an to Jewish apologetic books. Although I believe in a literal 6-day creation, I have studied the evolutionary theory (mostly through secular sources - enough to know I don't put any stock in it). I am fully capable of looking at two sides of any argument, and determining which side I agree with. I am also capable of comprehending, analyzing, and presenting the opposing viewpoint and defending it, in most arguments. I grew up learning to learn, not learning to copy.
I got to my state university, I lived with guys I whole-heartedly disagreed with. We got along. When arguments arose, I addressed them civilly, and walked away from that first semester more sure of my beliefs than when I got there. GPA was 3.3 - not amazing, not terrible. btw that included a category IV and a category III language. Then I went and lived in a rough, anti-western neighborhood in a city in the Middle East while I studied Islam, Politics, and Arabic at a government university in an Islamic State, and came out with a pretty good GPA (3.0) and pretty much functional in the local dialect (which I learned on my own, not part of the university program). Most American students there were liberals either working on their masters or in their senior year of undergrad. I disagreed with most of them on most issues. But we could discuss them, I would tone down my side (and leave out the whole military affiliation part;-)) and it would all be good.
Here's the point. I am the product of a very "traditional" home school education. I'm not suffering from it. I don't have to go to counseling because I found out not everybody agrees with me. My faith is my own, which I have willingly expressed in front of atheists, Buddhists, moderate and radical Muslims, Jews, and a whole host of other religions. It is not something I simply inherited. And by the way when I was 10 I was known for engaging conversations with well educated adults on matters ranging from electronic theory to theology to politics - easily branded as not enough of a child. I for one hope that this girl gets the same opportunities I did and doesn't turn out a cookie cutter product of the NJ school system.
"That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!"
- out
GratefulCitizen
09-07-2009, 17:13
An article on the issue:
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/09/05/controlling_childrens_minds
No spin in that article at all, is there? No agenda either.
Maybe the Mom was following the Basic Life Principles home-schooling regimen developed by Bill Gothard. :confused: :eek:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Nightmare of Christianity
Max Blumenthal, Nation, 9 Sep 2009
The following is an excerpt from Max Blumenthal's new book Republican Gommorah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party.
A few miles down the road from Colorado Springs [a home to James Dobson's Focus on the Family], in the quiet bedroom community of Eldredge, a deeply disturbed young man named Matthew Murray followed the unfolding debacle at New Life Church [once under the stewardship of Pastor Ted Haggard] with an interest that bordered on obsession. Murray, a sallow-faced, bespectacled 24-year-old, had been indelibly scarred by a lifetime of psychological abuse at the hands of his charismatic Pentecostal parents. Murray's mind became crowded with thoughts of death, destruction, and the killings he would soon carry out in the name of avenging what he called his "nightmare of Christianity."
On an online chat room for former Pentecostals, Murray heaped contempt on his mother, Loretta, a physical therapist who homeschooled him to ensure that his contact with the outside world was severely limited. "My 'mother,'" Murray wrote, "is just a brainswashed [sic] church agent cun,t [sic]. The only reason she had me was because she wanted a body/soul she could train into being the next Billy Graham..."
He went on:
...my mother was into all the charismatic "fanatical evangelical" insanity. Her and her church believed that Satan and demons were everywhere in everything. The rules were VERY strict all the time. We couldn't have ANY christian or non-christian music at all except for a few charismatic worship CDs. There was physical abuse in my home. My mother although used psychotropic drugs because she somehow thought it would make it easier to control me (I've never been diagnosed with any mental illness either). Pastors would always come and interrogate me over video games or TV watching or other things. There were NO FRIENDS outside the church and family and even then only family members who were in the church. You could not trust anyone at all because anyone might be a spy.
An authoritarian Christian-right self-help guru named Bill Gothard created the home-schooling regimen implemented by Murray's parents. Like his ally James Dobson, Gothard first grew popular during the 1960s by marketing his program to worried evangelical parents as anti-hippie insurance for adolescent children. Based on the theocratic teachings of R. J. Rushdoony, who devised Christian schools and home-schooling as the foundation of his Dominionist empire, Gothard's Basic Life Principles outlined an all-consuming environment that followers could embrace for the whole of their lives. According to Ron Henzel, a one-time Gothard follower who co-authored a devastating exposé about his former guru called A Matter of Basic Principles, under the rules, "large homeschooling families abstain from television, midwives are more important than doctors, traditional dating is forbidden, unmarried adults are 'under the authority of their parents' and live with them, divorced people can't remarry under any circumstance, and music has hardly changed at all since the late nineteenth century."
At the Charter School for Excellence, a school in South Florida inspired by Gothard's draconian principles that receives $800,000 in state funds each year, children are indoctrinated into a culture of absolute submission to authority almost as soon as they learn to speak. A song that the school's first-graders are required to recite goes as follows:
Obedience is listening attentively,
Obedience will take instructions joyfully,
Obedience heeds wishes of authorities,
Obedience will follow orders instantly.
For when I am busy at my work or play,
And someone calls my name, I'll answer right away!
I'll be ready with a smile to go the extra mile
As soon as I can say "Yes, sir!" "Yes ma am!"
Hup, two, three!
Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is among the 2.5 million Americans who have attended Gothard's Basic Seminar. According to Huckabee, who once earmarked state funds to distribute Gothard's literature in Arkansas prisons, Gothard was responsible for "some of the best programs for instilling character into people." But to the deeply alienated Murray, Gothard was the original source of his pathology. "I believe that the truth needs to be exposed," Murray wrote in a September 2006 discussion forum of recovering Gothard followers. "People need to see through errornious [sic] and destructive doctrines and teachings including Bill Gothard's."
After graduating from Gothard's home-schooling seminars, which constituted the bulk of his education (Colorado has no educational records for Murray after third grade), he was presented by his parents with two options for higher education. The first choice was Haggard's alma mater, Oral Roberts University. ORU at the time was beginning to unravel under the weight of scandalous revelations that its new president, Richard Roberts--the scion of its beloved founder--had allegedly looted university coffers to pay for his daughter's junkets to the Bahamas and bankroll his wife's shopping sprees. (Oral Roberts's other son, Ronnie, was a cocaine-addicted closet homosexual who committed suicide in 1982). Murray's second option was the "Discipleship Training School" of Youth with a Mission (YWAM), a Christian Reconstructionist-inspired missionary group that trained bright-eyed youngsters to spread the gospel of Colorado Springs to under-evangelized Third World nations. Desperate to escape his parents' rigid order, Murray joined YWAM.
But as soon as Murray enrolled at YWAM's training center in nearby Arvada in 2002, he found himself trapped in an authoritarian culture even more restrictive than home. He realized that, as another student of YWAM bluntly put it, the school's training methods resembled "cult mind-controlling techniques." Murray became paranoid, speaking aloud to voices only he could hear, according to a former roommate. He complained that six of his male peers had made a gay sex video and that others routinely abused drugs. Hypocrisy seemed to be all around him, or at least dark mirages of it. A week before Murray was scheduled to embark on his first mission, YWAM dismissed him from the program for unspecified "health reasons." "They admitted that I hadn't done anything wrong, just that they had prayed and felt I wasn't popular/'connected' and talkative enough," he recalled.
(cont'd) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/blumenthal
No spin in that article at all, is there? No agenda either.
What is the spin? Agenda? :munchin