Awesome Article on 9 Reasons to Homeschool

Thanks to Mimi Rothchild's blog for providing a link to an excellent article in the Archdiocese of Boston's paper, The Boston Pilot, by Professor Michael Pakaluk of Clark University on the 9 reasons he homeschools his daughter. They are:

1. Time efficiency
2. A fraction of the cost of private schools
3. Promotes good reading habits
4. Strengthens family bonds and reduces the risk of developing a "peer orientation"
5. Promotes getting the father involved in the child's education
6. Allows religion to play central role in the child's education
7. Promotes patriotism
8. Allows children to remain innocent longer
9. More positive socialization

I would personally add to this list the following additional benefits of homeschooling:

• Allows the student to work at the optimal challenge level for him/her. No more boredom waiting for the rest of the class to catch up or frustration that the class has moved on before he/she is ready. Homeschooling is particularly beneficial for the student with uneven abilities, such as one who is advanced in reading but struggles with writing. The typical "honors" English class likely requires too much in the way of writing but the regular English class is probably not challenging enough in terms of reading. Homeschooling gives the flexibility to work at the appropriate level in each area.
• Provides the opportunity to really engage the student by tailoring the curriculum to his/her own unique interests and preferred learning style.
• In many states, homeschooling frees the student from having to waste significant time taking standardized tests. I seriously thought it was a typo the first time I saw the calendar for my local public school where it said "STAR testing April 23rd-May 21st". That's correct- almost one full month out of nine is devoted to standardized testing!

So Much for Schools Claiming to Want Parental Involvement

The Washington Post has a couple of eye-opening stories today about parents being stonewalled by their children's schools after trying to learn the truth about teachers allegedly physically abusing students.

School officials claim that they are "required to hold back information because of privacy laws, union contracts and potential lawsuits." However, critics charge that "school boards often use inaccurate interpretations of privacy laws and confidentiality agreements to conduct important school business out of the public eye."

"As parents of children enrolled in the public school system, it seems that we're informed about issues that affect our children in one of three ways: too late, too little or not at all...It's as if there is an unspoken, unwritten code of silence keeping us at arm's length from being true participants in our children's education."

This type of "code of silence" allows bad apple teachers to get away with unprofessional behavior the same way that cops protecting their own allows corruption to exist within the police force. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and administrators should not cover up misdeeds by their underlings.

If students have been victims of physical abuse by their teachers, the parents absolutely have a right to know! Simply telling the parents that "the teacher no longer is employed at the school" is not sufficient. Sounds to me like the administrators are more concerned with covering their own fannies than with the well-being of the children :-(

Rocket in Pinstripes? Say it Ain't So!

Yesterday's announcement that Roger Clemens will pitch for the Yankees marks the second time now that current Sox management has dropped the ball on re-signing a marquee player. First we had to stomach a clean-cut Johnny Damon in pinstripes and now Rocket. Given that he'll be 45 in August and this could very well be his last season in MLB, it looks like there's a huge chance he'll be wearing that dreaded Yankees uniform forever in Cooperstown :-(

Oh, and Curt Schilling needs to just shut up about the Sox not needing Clemens. You can never have too much depth in your pitching. Remember last year when the Sox decided to trade away Bronson Arroyo and it came back to bite them in the you-know-where? Schilling, Wakefield, and Timlin are all on the wrong side of 40, Dice-K has had a couple of wild starts, Lester's health is still in question, Papelbon's shoulder is iffy, and so on. Beckett's been pitching great but what if his control issues from last season crop up again?

I grew up during the Clemens era at Fenway and it would be so great to see him pitching once more for the Sox. Maybe his pitching is not objectively worth $28 million for a partial season (that remains to be seen) but what's the worth in PR for Clemens to go to the Hall of Fame wearing a Sox uniform?

Study Finds Kids with Religious Parents Have Better Social Skills

A new study by Mississippi State University sociologist John Bartkowski published in Social Science Research of 16,000 first-graders found that children with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other kids. The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.

Dr. Bartkowski attributes the positive impact of religion on children's social skills to the social support provided by worship communities, the positive values and social norms promoted by religion, and the fact that religion "imbues parenting with sacred meaning and significance."

This research comes as no big shock to those of us who spend a lot of time around different children. I belong to both a Catholic homeschooling support group and a secular one, and the kids in the former generally have much better manners. Lest I be seen as biased towards those families who share my religion, I also have to state that this politeness is shared by the Mormon children I know and also many devout Protestants, Jews, and those of other faiths.

No shock also that this study was ignored by the mainstream media with the exception of Fox News. The msm is filled with secularists who take a very hostile view of religion. Christianity in particular is under attack in this country; since the overwhelming majority of Americans who regularly attend worship services are Christians, any validation of religion's benefits for children is going to be seen as a threat to those who are anti-Christian.

The University of California vs. Academic & Religious Freedom

The Association of Christian Schools International, a group representing private Christian schools serving over 1 million students, has filed a lawsuit against of the University of California charging religious discrimination. In California, students wishing to apply for admission to the UC system must complete UC-approved courses in history and social science; English; mathematics; lab science; foreign language; visual & performing arts; and electives such as psychology, economics, journalism, computer science, speech & debate, etc.

First of all- doesn't the University of California have more important things to worry about than micromanaging the curriculum of California's high schools????? Such as oh, I don't know, providing a quality education to the 209,000 students currently enrolled?

In filing its lawsuit, the ACSI stated: "defendants routinely approve courses which add viewpoints such as non-Christian religion, feminism, an ethnic preference, a political viewpoint, or multiculturalism, or that focus on religions such as Buddhism or Judaism, (and plaintiffs believe they should evenhandedly approve such courses), but disapprove courses which add viewpoints based on conservative Christianity."

For example, while UC has approved courses in the history of India, Mexican history, Irish history, Jewish history, "Feminist Issues Throughout U.S. History"and even "The Environmental History of Europe", it rejected "Christianity's Influence on American History" as "too narrow/too specialized". “Christianity and Morality in American Literature” was rejected but "Gender Roles in Literature," "Feminine Perspectives in Literature," "Literature from the 60's Movement" and "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature", and even "Industrial Poetry" all were approved.

A physics textbook published by Bob Jones University was rejected not because UC found its scientific content problematic but simply due to its Christian viewpoint. UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved."

According to Burt Carney of the ACSI, "It's egregious how they are treating Christian schools in California. They are basically saying that any textbooks that include overt Christian content or themes, they're going to reject it automatically."

This is clearly religious discrimination, and I hope that ACSI is successful in its legal challenge to the UC system. I may not agree with the views promoted in these textbooks and courses, but I absolutely support the right of a private school to decide what will be taught there. If I disagree with what the school teaches, I simply won't enroll my child!

As ACSI has stated, the lawsuit is about "defending the right of Christian schools to have the religious and academic freedom to choose their courses, curriculum, and teaching methods and to allow equal opportunity for graduates of these schools to gain admission to the college or university of their choice."

Regardless of whether one agrees with the religious beliefs taught in ACSI schools, it's an infringement upon the First Amendment for UC to disapprove their courses simply because of those beliefs.

Rough Night for Dice-K

Every pitcher is going to have his off nights and most aren't going to have the help of Manny Ramirez to bail them out. Fortunately for Dice-K, the Sox have the now 27th all-time HR hitter to save him from the dreaded "L". Giving up 5 runs in just the first inning, yikes!

All of Red Sox Nation hopes that he'll work out his control issues prior to his next start!

The Flawed Logic Behind Lowering the Compulsory School Age

Bay Area Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-San Mateo) has introduced a bill, AB 1236, that would lower the compulsory schooling age in California from 6 to 5.

First of all, lowering the compulsory age is unnecessary because every 5 year old in California is already eligible to enroll in a public school kindergarten program should their parents so desire! Currently, 94% of 5 year olds are enrolled in either public or private school. The remainder are either being given a year to mature before enrolling in a traditional school (most of these are boys) or are being homeschooled.

The president of the California Teachers' Association, Barbara Kerr, testified before the Education Committee that "all children should be required to attend school so that they will be ready for the demands of their elementary education....[The bill] will provide all California children with an equal opportunity to succeed."

While there certainly *is* a problem in California with major disparities among the children entering public schools, simply mandating kindergarten at age 5 won't solve it.

In the official legislative analysis of AB 1236, the County Superintendents Educational Services Association states: "If children are not required to attend kindergarten, they miss the fundamentals. Without compulsory attendance at age five, children will be that much farther behind when they are required to attend 1st grade at age six years old."

Given that the overwhelming majority of California 5 year olds already attend kindergarten, there simply is NOT a significant problem with children entering school for the first time in 1st grade "behind" their peers. Where is the data to back up the CSESA's astonishing claim?

There is NO VALID EVIDENCE proving that mandating attendance at age 5 rather than 6 is better for the long-term educational development of the child. To the contrary, there is much research indicating that early childhood education does NOT improve the child's potential for being a better student in future years!

According to Dr. David Elkind, professor of Child Development at Tufts University, "When we instruct children in academic subjects... at too early an age, we miseducate them; we put them at risk for short-term stress and long-term personality damage.... There is no evidence that such early instruction has lasting benefits, and considerable evidence that it can do lasting harm.”

Interestingly, most of the countries that outscore the U.S. in international assessments such as the TIMSS and the PIRLS have compulsory schooling ages of 6+: Singapore, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Belgium, Estonia (age 7), Hungary, Malaysia, Latvia (age 7), Russia (age 7), Slovakia, Australia, Sweden (age 7), Bulgaria (age 7), Canada (6-7 depending on the province), Lithuania, Germany, Czech Republic, and Italy.

Similarly, of the top 15 U.S. states on the NAEP, 12 have compulsory schooling ages of 6+: NH, MA, VT, MN (age 7), NJ, NC (age 7), WY (age 7), KS (age 7), ME (age 7), IA, ND (age 7), and OH. Compare these with some of the states that have a compulsory schooling age of 5: NM (50th), OK (41st), AR (40th), SC (33rd), and MD (31st). Clearly, mandating kindergarten is no panacea for higher test scores!

Why mandate kindergarten when almost all 5 year olds in California already attend and there is no credible evidence to support the proponents' assertion that it will improve educational outcomes?

Then-Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a similar bill back in 2002, saying that "I am concerned that this bill would unduly restrict a parent's or guardian's education choices for their children. I believe parents should retain the right to choose an education program for their 5-year old children."

Parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. AB 1236 would be yet another encroachment of the "nanny state" upon that right. It would take the decision out of parents' hands as to whether or not to enroll their children in kindergarten at age 5 rather than allowing them to make the choice based on their own individual development and readiness for formal schooling. It is not in the best interest of our children to force every parent to enroll their children in a formal educational program at 5 years of age!

Please contact your state legislators and urge them to vote "NO" on AB 1236!