Reason why we'll be home schooling #427

"(Teachers) are there to make sure that the kids are being appropriate."

-Mother of a middle school student at a campus in Florida where a handful of 13- and 14-year-olds are in trouble for having sex during class. If that's what teachers are for, then what about teaching? Transferring knowledge? Who does that?

Read the full story here.

It goes without saying that sex in the classroom is way high on the list of social reasons I would never send a child to public school. But when parents start saying things like this, it points to the utter brokenness of the system. Instead of, "They need to be better instructors," we now have, "They need to be better babysitters." I know some very dedicated teachers, and I respect their heartfelt efforts, but how can anyone have faith in a system that is so far off the mark that most schools cannot even get 20 percent of their students up to grade level in English?

Folks--and I may be preaching to the choir here, but so be it--home schooling is not just about keeping children out of the world, because I'm not even completely sure that's what kids need. They certainly don't need to see their classmates going at it in the back corner. But it might not hurt for kids to see what the world is like every now and then.

Home schooling these days is about providing quality instruction, and if anybody asks, that's what I tell them. Some children don't have the privilege of parents who will teach them at home, so I hope the public school system improves for their sake. But my kids will have that privilege.

CA judge rules home schooling illegal

A 2nd District Court of Appeals judge ruled on Feb. 28 that home schooling is illegal in California if the parent-teacher does not have a teaching credential. For some reason, the decision did not come to light until today (March 6). Under the ruling, handed down by Justice H. Walter Croskey, parents who teach their kids at home without possessing teaching credentials would be subject to criminal complaints. I have not yet heard a good analysis of how this ruling may be implemented, nor how immediate of a threat it is to the dozens of home schooling families I know.

Under current laws, parents were supposed to jump through certain hoops in order to legally home school their children--such as hiring credentialed tutors or enrolling their kids in independent-study programs--but I understand those rules were rarely enforced. Whether or not this judge's ruling will be given the same treatment remains to be seen.

What also remains to be seen is whether it will actually see the light of day--in other words, several organizations that support the right of home schoolers to control their children's education are already lining up to oppose the ruling in some way. And I doubt that the state's law enforcement establishments are going to start rounding up otherwise law-abiding parents for a family decision that has otherwise been legal and does not pose a threat to anyone in society.

Nonetheless, it is obviously a disturbing and illogical blow to the ideals of family liberty.

In an Associated Press story on the matter, Justice Croskey was quoted as saying, "Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." How he arrived at that conclusion is beyond me; I was not under the impression that the parents needed to consult the Constitution for permission to educate their children, nor do I think the Founding Fathers considered the document as a set of limitations on how parents may exercise their authority within their families.

As a college-educated man who was home schooled by a credentialed mother, I am outraged at this court decision. I encourage anyone who reads this post to get involved by calling your congressmen. Another good place to start would be at the Home School Legal Defense Association's Web site.

I will update this blog with any developments I hear regarding this court ruling and its consequences.

Sweet climate change Web site

Today, as I was trolling for news on the World Wide Web, I came across a Web site addressing climate change that I immediately appreciated for its approach. It's called "Climate Debate Daily," and it pits the arguments supposedly proving a man-made warming trend against the arguments opposing that idea--side by side.

The simple fact that the arguments opposing global warming are even given a place on the page may make it feel like the site is biased, but I would argue that's just because we're all used to seeing the issue presented as if there were no serious debate over the scientific merits of global warming theory. While Al Gore is busy flying all over the planet spreading his gospel, neither he nor the reporters covering his events nor his audiences even think to mention that well-educated, intelligent people disagree with his message. So if the debate interests you even a little bit, I'd recommend checking out this site.

Gun control, part 2

Following up on my previous post--which I intended as an analysis of human nature, not gun control laws--I would like to direct your attention to an article published today about the ratio of guns per citizens in various countries around the world. Turns out the U.S. is the most heavily-armed nation, with 90 guns per 100 people, according to this article.

The numbers from other countries around the world are very interesting.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this topic, nor the numbers presented in the article. If you have any thoughts, please share them.

Denying God = death

I recently read an article on the state government's attempts to curb gun violence in the Aug. 15 edition of the L.A. Times. Here is the first paragraph:

"A proposed state bill requiring all new handguns to be stamped with microscopic identification tags could significantly decrease violence and shut down the illegal gun market if passed, proponents said in a news conference Tuesday."

Laughing yet? I was, by this point in the article. Those who refuse to acknowledge that people are basically depraved and sinful--not basically good--never give up on this idea that making guns more difficult to obtain or risky to use in crimes will not change the hearts of criminals. People will always kill other people, no matter what kind of technology tries to deter them, and whether or not guns are available to do the job.

Read the entire article here.

To me, this isn't a gun-rights issue, even though I feel passionate about the right to own and use firearms. It is, first and foremost, an issue of the gross misgivings that stem from denying that everyone is fallen and needs a Savior. That denial is dangerous--in this case, it means that a bunch of misguided politicians are trying to attack a spiritual problem with a physical solution, while folks continue to kill each other. It's a Band-Aid on a broken heart.

I am all about reducing gun violence. And war. But while the true solution escapes these decision-makers--or, more accurately, while they avoid it--people keep dying. We should be angry about the consequences of their denying God, not about guns and bullets.

Word of the day: 'Classicist'

"n. An advocate or the principles of classicism ... one who advocates the teaching of Greek and Latin in the schools."

I have a friend (you know who you are) who has recently converted to classicism, which is basically a different and more logical way to approach education than what is currently in place today. This friend sent me a link to an article written by Dorothy Sayers, whose name I recognized, but whose writing I had never read. Sayers was a contemporary of Lewis and Tolkien, and she argued--convincingly--in a 1947 essay, "The Lost Tools of Learning," that classical education should be revived, updated and implemented instead of the modern system of education. After 60 years, her words ring truer than ever. In this post, I will include a few snippets from her essay, which can be read in its entirety here.

"Have you ever, in listening to a debate among adult and presumably responsible people, been fretted by the extraordinary inability of the average debater to speak to the question, or to meet and refute the arguments of speakers on the other side? Or have you ever pondered upon the extremely high incidence of irrelevant matter which crops up at committee meetings, and upon the very great rarity of persons capable of acting as chairmen of committees? And when you think of this, and think that most of our public affairs are settled by debates and committees, have you ever felt a certain sinking of the heart?"

(This happened to me on Sunday, as I was watching part of a debate among Democratic presidential candidates on C-SPAN.)

"Do you ever find that young people, when they have left school, not only forget most of what they have learnt (that is only to be expected), but forget also, or betray that they have never really known, how to tackle a new subject for themselves? ... Do you often come across people for whom, all their lives, a 'subject' remains a 'subject,' divided by watertight bulkheads from all other 'subjects,' so that they experience very great difficulty in making an immediate mental connection between let us say, algebra and detective fiction, sewage disposal and the price of salmon--or, more generally, between such spheres of knowledge as philosophy and economics, or chemistry and art?"

Sayers' argument goes on and on, with ample evidence of the failure of modern education to do its job. She then proposes a return to classical education, under which we would teach kids the tools of learning before we start throwing information at them by the bucketful. I encourage you to read the entire essay. This last quote sums up what I have felt for a long time about public education in the U.S.

"Is not the great defect of our education today--a defect traceable through all the disquieting symptoms of trouble that I have mentioned--that although we often succeed in teaching our pupils 'subjects,' we fail lamentably on the whole in teaching them how to think: they learn everything, except the art of learning."

Please share your thoughts on this subject. I would love to explore educational philosophy in further depth, if my readers would be interested in participating.

Blogger's note: Books, and especially dictionaries, are full of good words. Feel free to leave a comment sharing one of your favorites, and keep watching for more of mine.

Flying is... fun?

Two articles I recently found illustrate what a joy modern air travel is, from packing two weeks' worth of contact solution and shampoo into three-ounce bottles to sitting on the tarmac for five hours.

The first is about the fiasco that happened the day we came back from China, forcing everyone on our flight to sit in our seats for five hours because of a faulty network card in one computer in U.S. Customs. At least, that's what this article says. The ordeal pushed our arrival back from 6 p.m. until after midnight, and caused my parents' parking bill to run up to $27. It was the single worst experience I have ever had while traveling via airplane. Good ol' government technology.

The second article made me shudder a little bit inside. A China Air flight burst into flames on a runway in Japan after landing. No one was hurt, according to the article, but it was China Air, so, yeah...

I love flying.

Wireless camping

An article posted yesterday on Yahoo! News talks about the genesis of campgrounds sporting wireless Internet connections. Having been camping just a few days ago, in a place where my cell phone display said NO NETWORK, I can testify that a Web connection would sometimes come in handy. However, it could also be a nuisance.

Does having Web access defeat the purpose of camping? Please weigh in with your thoughts and comments.

Caution: Eating your computer may cause indigestion

Dori directed my attention yesterday to an entertaining little Web site that lists some frivolous lawsuits and outrageous warning labels. A few of my favorites are "Never use hair dryer while sleeping"; "Do not drive with sun shield in place"; and "Do not allow children to play in the dishwasher." A label on a can of pepper spray reads, "May irritate eyes," and on a pack of fireplace logs: "Caution--risk of fire."

The site makes a good connection between redundant warning labels and frivolous lawsuits, and some of the most entertaining labels conjure great images of human stupidity. Like, "Do not eat toner," found on a laser printer, or, on an electric carpenter's drill, "This product not intended for use as a dental drill." Hm. I wonder what happened there.

In other news, it was reported today that the $67.8 billion fortune of a Mexican businessman has surpassed Bill Gates' $59.2 billion, and has made Carlos Slim the richest man on the planet. Or at least the dude with the most money. There are a couple of interesting points in the article, such as the fact that Slim's personal fortune equals about 8 percent of Mexico's gross domestic product.

Little white lies

I'm not sure how to frame this one, so I'll just put it out there: A new study has supposedly revealed that people begin lying at the ripe old age of 6 months. Read it for yourself here.

I personally do not have a hard time believing this. I think you mothers will also relate to what is reported in the article about fake crying, when a child feigns distress to get attention, pauses to see if their adults are listening, then continues bawling.

Boy, to think I started lying before I even started walking...

On another level, it is a sad tribute to how thoroughly the human race was tainted through one man's sin. The sinful nature does not creep up from behind us at some predetermined age; it is there all along. Learning how to use it is what takes a while, but we all eventually learn.

On this Sunday morning, I am thankful for the power of Christ--not only to save us from our sin and seal us for heaven, but also to set us free from the grip our sinful nature.

Lions and poison ivy

You've heard of the horse whisperer? The dog whisperer? Now meet the lion whisperer. That's right. He befriends young lions and they treat him as "one of their own," according to the article.

Also, from the global warming news department, poison ivy is supposedly becoming more poisonous. The article is interesting, but a little misleading. Look closely, at the beginning of the third paragraph, and you'll notice the data came from "controlled studies." But, the article suggests, since we know without a doubt that global warming is happening just like Al Gore says it is, this must be occurring in the wild, too. There you have it; watch your step.

At least someone is enjoying the new, warmer planet.

You go, Mr. Huckabee

My sister directed my attention to this YouTube clip of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee answering a question during the Republican debate. He gets a little testy with the moderators, which is always fun, but the main thing is how he articulates his position on evolution versus the biblical account of creation. Before today, I had barely heard this guy's name. Now I'm hoping he makes it to the election so I can vote for him.

As it turns out, the Home School Legal Defense Association has endorsed Huckabee for president. To find out more about him, visit his Web site.

From the explainer of gravity: No Apocalypse before 2060

A British news Web site published a story today about a collection of personal letters written by Sir Isaac Newton predicting the end of the world would come no sooner than 2060. It's an interesting read, but it has flaws that have become the standard when the media writes about faith and science. His calculation was based "on religion rather than reasoning," the story says. I love that. He used mathematical calculations drawn from timelines in the book of Daniel to estimate the soonest the end of days could arrive, and it's not reasoning. Not even from one of the greatest, most reasonable scientists ever. If he had been guessing at the Apocalypse based on the rate of global warming, divided by the number of years since the big bang, then the media would hallow his calculation as "reasoned." Draw anything from the Bible, which must be badly twisted to even begin to seem inaccurate, and it's tagged as religion and dismissed. But if it agrees with the trendiest pop-science, the newspapers will decide that it's infallible, newspapers that mostly don't know the first thing about science.

As one of my teachers used to say, I'm off my soapbox now.

I also really like what Newton said in his letter about trying to predict the exact date of the Apocalypse, exercises which he called "rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail." Sound familiar?

I recently heard Chuck Smith speak on the end times, and he said God wants us to live as if tomorrow will bring the end of the world. It's no mistake, he said, that every generation since Jesus' time thought theirs was the last. That resonated with me. If you have two minutes, check out the story. It even has images of the original pages of Newton's letter.

Quotations, v.1

I love quotes because so many great men have said so many great things. I feel that trying to figure everything out for ourselves anew is counterproductive. Better minds than ours and stronger generations have already wrestled with most of the problems we now face. Here are a few good insights from those minds and generations.

"None can love freedom heartily, but good men;
the rest love not freedom, but license."
-John Milton

"Freedom: The state or quality of being free; liberation from the the control of some other person or arbitrary power."

"License (as in, "poetic license"): A formal permission to do something; freedom to deviate from strict conduct, rule, or practice, generally permitted by common consent."

The dictionary also says that the word "license" means "excessive, undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote an editorial in The Wall Street Journal on immigration reform. In it Arnold complains that too many immigrants are sneaking into the country and becoming governors."
-Conan O'Brien

And here's a good post-Father's Day reflection from Mr. Twain:

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
-Mark Twain

Lastly, having picked up my first pistol from the store last night, I give you this one:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-Richard Henry Lee

I skimmed all these quotes from The Patriot Post. I would highly recommend visiting the Post if you appreciate good wit and a strong, historically conservative worldview.