Homeschooling & Creationism v Evolution

[Jean]

The following article discuses both homeschooling and creationism v evolution relative to the science being taught. Since we have threads on both subjects, I thought would be of interest but didn't know which thread to coose. Corlyss, please move the post if you feel strongly it belongs in one rather than the other.

This issue btw is yet another reason why I am opposed to homeschooling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_home_school_evolution


Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution
By DYLAN LOVAN, Associated Press Writer Dylan Lovan, Associated Press Writer – Sat Mar 6, 6:57 pm ET
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.

Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.

"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'"

Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

Two of the best-selling biology textbooks stack the deck against evolution, said some science educators who reviewed sections of the books at the request of The Associated Press.

"I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn't attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," says the introduction to "Biology: Third Edition" from Bob Jones University Press. "This book was not written for them."

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

The size of the business of home-school texts isn't clear because the textbook industry is fragmented and privately held publishers don't give out sales numbers. Slatter said home-school material sales reach about $1 billion annually in the U.S.

Publishers are well aware of the market, said Jay Wile, a former chemistry professor in Indianapolis who helped launch the Apologia curriculum in the early 1990s.

"If I'm planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I'm going to at least find out what my demographic is," Wile said.

In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.

"We're not religious home-schoolers, and there's somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered," said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.

Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.

Wendy Womack, another Lexington home-school mother, said the only scientifically credible curriculum she's found is from the Maryland-based Calvert School, which has been selling study-at-home materials for more than 100 years.

Apologia and Bob Jones University Press say their science books sell well. Apologia's "Exploring Creation" biology textbook retails for $65, while Bob Jones' "Biology" Third Edition lists at $52.

Coyne and Virginia Tech biology professor Duncan Porter reviewed excerpts from the Apologia and Bob Jones biology textbooks, which are equivalent to ninth- and 10th-grade biology lessons. Porter said he would give the books an F.

"If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology," Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

Wile countered that Coyne "feels compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis (evolution). We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up."

Adam Brown's parents say their 16-year-old son's belief in the Bible's creation story isn't deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.

Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he'll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.

"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school," Polly Brown said. "But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education."

[jbuck919]

There are also unaccredited Bible-believing schools that teach "science" that way. There's one near here, and there was one literally across the street from the (accredited) Catholic school in Maryland where I taught. There is a self-limiting factor to all this, which is that students at such schools, as well as home-schooled students who cannot show achievement in accepted college-preparatory subjects, have great difficulty getting into selective colleges (which these days means everything except community colleges).

[slofstra]

I'm really not that interested in the article since I'm not a "Creationist" anyway but being against home schooling because some over protective parents won't teach their children "evolution" is like not going to Baskin Robbins because you don't like pistachio ice cream and they happen to sell it.
Our youngest daughter withdrew from the school system for a couple of years and took lessons on her own. Yes, some home school parents are control freaks .. we met one mother who would not let her late teen-aged daughter socialize with anyone, for example .. but there are many sound reasons why kids home school.

[Madame]

I'm really not that interested in the article since I'm not a "Creationist" anyway but being against home schooling because some over protective parents won't teach their children "evolution" is like not going to Baskin Robbins because you don't like pistachio ice cream and they happen to sell it.
Our youngest daughter withdrew from the school system for a couple of years and took lessons on her own. Yes, some home school parents are control freaks .. we met one mother who would not let her late teen-aged daughter socialize with anyone, for example .. but there are many sound reasons why kids home school.

Some parents are control freaks regardless of where their kids go to school. Lots of kids grow up questioning their parents' teachings after some point in time. They even grow up questioning what they were taught in school after a while. It comes with life. Protecting them from the over-protective is simply another form of control and another obstacle in their learning. Anyone think these kids don't figure this out along the way?

[Corlyss_D]

I promise not to beat my dead horse about how much a knowledge of evolution contributes to the subjects that people need to know to make their way in the world and earn a living. Everyone could teach creationism for all I care and it wouldn't affect readin', ritin', and cyperin'. It has about as much relationship to earning a living as the knowledge of absolute zero, or how many moons Jupiter has. It's only value as a subject is in the culture wars.

[Brendan]

I would imagine those going into medicine - the treatment of mutations of dieseases, the structure of diseases, the structure of human bioliogy and so forth - would need some basic background in biological theory (evolutuion is it, scientifically speaking).

Why would we wish to limit the number and potential of youth for careers in medicine or biologically based sciences? Saying it has no monetary value when health care and the $$$ involved is the talk of the town is quite ridiculous.

[Corlyss_D]

I would imagine those going into medicine - the treatment of mutations of dieseases, the structure of diseases, the structure of human bioliogy and so forth - would need some basic background in biological theory (evolutuion is it, scientifically speaking).

Why would we wish to limit the number and potential of youth for careers in medicine or biologically based sciences? Saying it has no monetary value when health care and the $$$ involved is the talk of the town is quite ridiculous.

What percentage of students in the gen pop go into the sciences, Brendan?

[Brendan]

A very small number - but crucial, wouldn't you think? Why limit the possibility of youth to choose medicine or biologically based sciences through deliberate ignorance?

I've never made a buck from learning Tensor calculus - but learning mathematics has helped me every day of my professional life as a programmer and IT techo.

The notion that education must only teach that which can directly earn $$$ is a stunted and discredited idea of education. Teaching people to be itelligent and educated citizens with a common knowledge base creates economically superior societies by virtue of their virtues. See The Puritan Gift by Kenneth and William Hopper.

[NancyElla]

I promise not to beat my dead horse about how much a knowledge of evolution contributes to the subjects that people need to know to make their way in the world and earn a living. Everyone could teach creationism for all I care and it wouldn't affect readin', ritin', and cyperin'. It has about as much relationship to earning a living as the knowledge of absolute zero, or how many moons Jupiter has. It's only value as a subject is in the culture wars.

My issue with the concept of teaching "creationism" as science and denying the validity of evolution as a scientific concept is that it gives equal or greater weight to articles of faith than to scientific evidence in establishing scientific truth. I think we are headed for trouble if we teach people to say "I don't care what the evidence is, it can't be true because I don't believe in it." I'd like to see the scientific method taught in science classes--how to design an experiment, how to record and analyze data, how put the results in writing. People who have been taught how scientists work are in a position to read about and evaluate the immense amount of research that has been done since Darwin's time that demonstrates that the process he called evolution works pretty much the way he said it does. People who have been taught to disregard evidence that conflicts with their faith or beliefs, whatever they may be, are not well situated to make good decisions about much of anything, IMHO.

[Corlyss_D]

People who have been taught to disregard evidence that conflicts with their faith or beliefs, whatever they may be, are not well situated to make good decisions about much of anything, IMHO.

Nancy, that practice is sooooooooooo hardwired in the human brain, teaching evolution is not going to affect it in the least. We see it in evidence constantly on this forum, including among those who believe in evolution and other forms of fact or evidence based beliefs. It's simply unrealistic to expect that teaching evolution, as opposed to creationism or anything else, is the same as teaching effective reasoning.

You must have caught that thread recently, started by Jacques, on the research demonstrating that people believe only that which is consistent with their pre-conceived notions and ignore the rest. Very few in society are in a position to confirm evolution on the basis of their own experiements, so they cannot legitimately assert, "Evolution is a fact" based on personal experience. So that leaves them with the problem of authority and whose authority are they willing to accept. Generally speaking, folks attitudes toward authority is pretty loosey-goosey, often dishearteningly situational, and frequently completely misguided.

[Corlyss_D]

The notion that education must only teach that which can directly earn $$$ is a stunted and discredited idea of education.

I'm not talking about a theory of education. I'm talking about fretting over whether creationism is taught in school systems that can't graduate a reasonably effective workforce able to write a complete sentence and do practical math who are responsible citizens knowledgeable of their own history and government is, frankly, laughably quixotic. Those who do so might as well fret about how many atheists can dance on the head of a pin.

[Brendan]

But that is in itself theorizing about education.

Might as well get it right from the basics on up. Used to very effectively, all across the Western world. Goes hand in hand, all that reading, writing, forming rational ideas, testing them, expressing them accurately if not gracefully, abstracting them into mathematical concepts to be manipulated by formal rules, making counter-intuitive observations from experimental result . . .

[slofstra]

Hmm. I did read the article and am puzzled by its premise that home schoolers cannot find a suitable textbook on evolution. Does that sound plausible to you?

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you do home school you won't likely run into this problem. One of the county school boards in Ontario, Maitland County, was tasked with setting up the entire high school curriculum on-line. So home-schoolers can pretty much follow the normal govt mandated curriculum, and this is what our daughter did for a couple of years. It's 5 or more years since our daughter participated but at the time there were about 1500 kids in the on-line school. Everyone from gifted children working at their own pace ahead of their years, to children of rock stars on tour, to children under the thumb of control freak type parents, not necessarily religious either, that I mentioned above.

[DavidRoss]

Hmm. I did read the article and am puzzled by its premise that home schoolers cannot find a suitable textbook on evolution. Does that sound plausible to you?

No. The article's slanted effort to tar all home schooling with the Christian fundamentalism brush is obvious, yet even so it states: "The size of the business of home-school texts isn't clear because the textbook industry is fragmented and privately held publishers don't give out sales numbers."

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you do home school you won't likely run into this problem. One of the county school boards in Ontario, Maitland County, was tasked with setting up the entire high school curriculum on-line. So home-schoolers can pretty much follow the normal govt mandated curriculum, and this is what our daughter did for a couple of years. It's 5 or more years since our daughter participated but at the time there were about 1500 kids in the on-line school. Everyone from gifted children working at their own pace ahead of their years, to children of rock stars on tour, to children under the thumb of control freak type parents, not necessarily religious either, that I mentioned above.

Nor, as we both suspect, is it a legitimate concern in the U.S. Surely parents have access to the same textbooks used in the public schools, as well as any and all other texts sold through Amazon or any other retailer.

Certainly there are legitimate concerns about the quality of home schooling, just as there are about public and private schooling. It might be more helpful to address the substance of such concerns rather than to slander all home schoolers with bigoted stereotypes about ignorant Bible-thumpers.

[RebLem]

Hmm. I did read the article and am puzzled by its premise that home schoolers cannot find a suitable textbook on evolution. Does that sound plausible to you?

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you do home school you won't likely run into this problem. One of the county school boards in Ontario, Maitland County, was tasked with setting up the entire high school curriculum on-line. So home-schoolers can pretty much follow the normal govt mandated curriculum, and this is what our daughter did for a couple of years. It's 5 or more years since our daughter participated but at the time there were about 1500 kids in the on-line school. Everyone from gifted children working at their own pace ahead of their years, to children of rock stars on tour, to children under the thumb of control freak type parents, not necessarily religious either, that I mentioned above.

Could you give us a link to that? There's another audience for this sort of thing that many are unaware of: parents of kids who did poorly in a particular subject in school, but now, as adults, would like to give it a second shot so they can help their kids.

[RebLem]

Hmm. I did read the article and am puzzled by its premise that home schoolers cannot find a suitable textbook on evolution. Does that sound plausible to you?

No. The article's slanted effort to tar all home schooling with the Christian fundamentalism brush is obvious, yet even so it states: "The size of the business of home-school texts isn't clear because the textbook industry is fragmented and privately held publishers don't give out sales numbers."

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you do home school you won't likely run into this problem. One of the county school boards in Ontario, Maitland County, was tasked with setting up the entire high school curriculum on-line. So home-schoolers can pretty much follow the normal govt mandated curriculum, and this is what our daughter did for a couple of years. It's 5 or more years since our daughter participated but at the time there were about 1500 kids in the on-line school. Everyone from gifted children working at their own pace ahead of their years, to children of rock stars on tour, to children under the thumb of control freak type parents, not necessarily religious either, that I mentioned above.

Nor, as we both suspect, is it a legitimate concern in the U.S. Surely parents have access to the same textbooks used in the public schools, as well as any and all other texts sold through Amazon or any other retailer.

Certainly there are legitimate concerns about the quality of home schooling, just as there are about public and private schooling. It might be more helpful to address the substance of such concerns rather than to slander all home schoolers with bigoted stereotypes about ignorant Bible-thumpers.

The article starts out with a tale by a pro-evolution home schooler who is disturbed by the lack of suitable materials. It concentrates on her plight for several paragraphs, and yet you assert that the article "seeks to tar all home schooling with the Christian fundamentalist brush." No, David, you are the one doing the tarring, and the slandering.

"Surely, home schoolers have access to these books"? Really? Elsewhere in the article, it says that publishers of texts used in public schools who have been contacted by pro-evolution home schoolers say they do not sell to home schoolers. Are you saying this is a lie? What is your evidence? Or is this just a Pure Assertion, completely divorced from any known human experience?

Have you actually seen any of these textbooks that are currently in use in public schools? I have heard that many of them, while they formally support evolution, de-emphsize it and give it a minor role, instead of making it the central, organizing principal of the biological sciences. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you have a specific recommendation for a biology textbook which you find appropriate and more than simply barely adequate, that is available for purchase by home-schoolers?

[Corlyss_D]

But that is in itself theorizing about education.

Have it your way. The quality of US K-12 education is not open to much debate any more. All this preoccupation with creationism in the face of both the fundamental problem and its implications is a perfect example of both a public and government officials incapable of reasonably and responsibly assessing the true nature of the situation.

[Cyril Ignatius]

Opposed to Homeschooling!!! Talk about secular-progressive Fundamentalism !!!

If the debate is to be had along the lines of merit - home schooling is the clear winner. They outperform their public school brethren.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose we took the position that just teach creationism is not the best way to educate a kid. Tell me then, which is more "harmful", A) getting creationism as a part of your curricula, while learning nonetheless, you read writing and arithmetic skills; or B) getting a dumbed-down curricula that keeps you intellectually infantile, all the while treating man as just another animal while ushering children quietly into a Godless void???

[Corlyss_D]

Why some countries welcome children being taught at home and others don’t
AP
UNLIKE many of the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” that have sought refuge in America, the Romeike family comes from a comfortable place: Bissingen an der Teck, a town in south-western Germany. Yet on January 26th an American immigration judge granted the Romeikes—a piano teacher, his wife and five children—political asylum, accepting their case that difficulties with home schooling their children created a reasonable fear of persecution.

Under Germany’s stringent rules, home schooling is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Before emigrating, Mr and Mrs Romeike had been fined some €12,000 ($17,000); policemen had arrived at their house and forcibly taken their children to school. The Romeikes feared that the youngsters might soon be removed by the state.

In September 2006 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Germany was within its rights to follow this approach. Schools represented society, it judged, and it was in the children’s interest to become part of that society. The parents’ right to raise their offspring did not go as far as depriving their children of the social experience of school.

Despite its illegality, home schooling in Germany is becoming more popular. Thomas Spiegler, a sociologist at Friedensau Adventist University, a Protestant theological college, reckons that 600 to 1,000 children are being taught at home. He wants Germany to rethink its approach and look at the regulated home-schooling regimes elsewhere in Europe.

In Sweden, for example, parents must apply annually for permission to teach their children at home. Two years ago the authorities revoked that permission for Lisa Angerstig, an MBA-holding mother-of-four. They have threatened her with a fine of SKr10,000 (about $1,400). Now new legislation is pending that would make home schooling even harder. Dominic Johansson, a seven-year-old, has been in state foster care since June 2009—in order to stop his parents home schooling him, campaigners say (officials cite other issues too).

In Britain home schooling has become more popular, but worries about the risk of abuse have prompted calls for mandatory inspections and tougher rules, including the right for officials to enter a home and quiz a home-schooled child in the parents’ absence.

The Romeikes’ lawyer is Mike Donnelly, director of international relations for the Home School Legal Defence Association, a group based in Virginia. He cites research showing that home-schooled children tend to excel both academically and socially in later life. But that will not convince people who believe it is the state’s duty to ensure that children mix with others, and learn what everyone else learns about thorny topics such as evolution and sex.
http://www.economist.com/world/internat ... d=15469407

I'd be interested to know how this obsession got started in Europe. Was it because of the fear of a fascist resugrence? Or perhaps because the Europeans are relentless statists? Does anyone know? Here's a link to the referenced goup's website with research papers: http://www.hslda.org/research/default.asp

[NancyElla]

Opposed to Homeschooling!!! Talk about secular-progressive Fundamentalism !!!

If the debate is to be had along the lines of merit - home schooling is the clear winner. They outperform their public school brethren.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose we took the position that just teach creationism is not the best way to educate a kid. Tell me then, which is more "harmful", A) getting creationism as a part of your curricula, while learning nonetheless, you read writing and arithmetic skills; or B) getting a dumbed-down curricula that keeps you intellectually infantile, all the while treating man as just another animal while ushering children quietly into a Godless void???

I would be interested in the research that shows that students who were home schooled outperform public school students. If the studies only include children who go on to college, they are only measuring part of the home schooling population. As an adult education teacher, I have had a number of students in my classes who were home schooled. In Maryland, students who are home schooled need to take the GED test to earn a high school diploma. Those who are not able to pass the GED test after completing their home schooling high school curriculum can take adult education classes. The home schooled students I have had in class were woefully unprepared in math. Fairly typically, they had a very weak grasp of multiplication and could not perform long division or work with fractions or percents, let alone solve any problems involving elementary geometry or algebra. They also had very little of what I call "general knowledge"--knowledge of the world outside their neighborhood or of events before their lifetimes.

I have also seen examples of homeschooling done extremely well. I think it all depends on the home and who's doing the "schooling." If the parents are highly educated and undertake the task themselves and devote time and attention to it, it can produce outstanding results. If the parents are not well qualified to teach the basic curriculum, or if they leave the child to complete a "self-study" program, it can be a disaster.

In Maryland, the local school districts are supposed to monitor the students being home schooled. It does not appear to me that they make much of an effort to make sure the children are actually learning. However, I can't say that I blame them--their main task, after all, is to try to educate the children who attend school, and I expect they are greeted with hostility by at least a sizable portion of the home schooling families.

I'm neither for or against home schooling in general. I do have opinions about particular situations, where for example the parents choose home schooling to avoid dealing with a learning or behavior problem of their child, or because they need someone at home to help grandpa. I'm not saying these abuses are common, only that they occur. And if the parents do not have the knowledge to teach the children basic math, I think the kids deserve a chance at a real education with qualified teachers.

In answer to your last question, I'd probably agree with you. I'd rather see kids learn the basics of reading, writing, math, research, using data sources, reasoning, etc., even if that came with a dose of creationism and a lack of evolutionary theory. If they learn basic academic skills, they will eventually be able to learn enough to question many things on their own. If they don't learn the basic skills, well. . . .

[Corlyss_D]

I would be interested in the research that shows that students who were home schooled outperform public school students. If the studies only include children who go on to college, they are only measuring part of the home schooling population.

Here ya go! From the link in my post supra.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp on results across the spectrum of grades

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp on the favorite focus of critics: socialization.

I would urge you to read the docs, but at the same time, the issue is almost as contentious as gun control. You can find papers on the web/books by 1) proponets and their lobbies; 2) critics and their lobbies. It's really really hard to find independent studies by truly independent research groups. Having said that, I'm not saying that either group is lying about the studies they have conducted. My default source for really really really independent research is GAO, but I came up empty on a search there. You can't even be certain that DoEd does dispassionate, agenda-less studies on the subject because the agency is the Teachers' Union Agency. The only really truly independent study of whether Head Start program has made any substantive or consistent improvement in minority children is the GAO (the only other studies available at all were done by organizations either involved in designing Head Start cirricula or organizations that lobbied for Head Start funds.) Depending on the presidential and congressional control, DoEd is either wildly opposed to homeschooling, or resentfully silent/tepid on the subject.

[NancyElla]

I would be interested in the research that shows that students who were home schooled outperform public school students. If the studies only include children who go on to college, they are only measuring part of the home schooling population.

Here ya go! From the link in my post supra.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp on results across the spectrum of grades

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp on the favorite focus of critics: socialization.

I would urge you to read the docs, but at the same time, the issue is almost as contentious as gun control. You can find papers on the web/books by 1) proponets and their lobbies; 2) critics and their lobbies. It's really really hard to find independent studies by truly independent research groups. Having said that, I'm not saying that either group is lying about the studies they have conducted. My default source for really really really independent research is GAO, but I came up empty on a search there. You can't even be certain that DoEd does dispassionate, agenda-less studies on the subject because the agency is the Teachers' Union Agency. The only really truly independent study of whether Head Start program has made any substantive or consistent improvement in minority children is the GAO (the only other studies available at all were done by organizations either involved in designing Head Start cirricula or organizations that lobbied for Head Start funds.) Depending on the presidential and congressional control, DoEd is either wildly opposed to homeschooling, or resentfully silent/tepid on the subject.

Corlyss,

I read through the info on a couple of the links. They do not provide enough information about the research to allow me to assess the validity of the results. On the second link, which is about the 2009 report entitled Home Schooling Works, there was a link at the bottom of the page that said "read the full report" or something like that. Optimistically, I clicked on it but was disappointed to find no greater detail in the report it opened up. When dealing with information the comes from a sample of a population, it is important to know how the sample was selected and the size of the sample compared to the population. All these studies tell me so far is that home schooling is very successful for some students (which I knew already).

I don't have a dog in this fight--I'm neither in favor of nor opposed to home schooling on philosophical grounds. My anecdotal evidence is that sometimes it works very well and sometimes it is a disaster. I haven't seen any examples of much of a middle ground in the results. As an educator I'm curious, but my curiosity does not rise to the level that would get me to spend the time and energy required to wrest actual research data free from the researchers (if in fact it could be done) and go through it myself.

[DavidRoss]

I've no dog in this fight, either. I note that generalizations about homeschooling quality may be as worthless as generalizations about the quality of public schooling. I note also that one significant indicator of educational "success" is active parental involvement, and that homeschooling would seem to have an innate advantage in this regard.

A quick websearch turned up a couple of items with citations that may be of interest:

From Homeschoolers' Academic Performance and Social Development:

People disagree over homeschooling's social and academic benefits. Test score data from states requiring testing or from homeschooling associations, while not totally representative, suggest that tested homeschooled children are above average (Lines 2001). According to two Time reporters (Cloud and Morse 2001), "the average SAT score for home schoolers in 2000 was 1100, compared with 1019 for the general population."

Ray's report shows that "home-schooled pupils who took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills outscored public school students by 37 percentile points" (Viadero, March 19, 1997). On the Stanford Achievement Test, the advantage was 30 percentile points. The longer kids had been educated at home, the better their test scores. Also, "students whose parents had teaching certificates scored only slightly higher than the children of nonteachers" (Viadero, March 19, 1997).

Results were similar in Lawrence Rudner's (1999) large-scale, noncontrolled study of 20,760 K-12 homeschoolers from 11,900 families who subscribe to Bob Jones University's Testing and Evaluation Service. Students' median scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills or Tests of Achievement Proficiency (TAP) fell between the 70th and 80th percentiles. While urging caution in interpreting results (especially in light of participating families' white, middle-class demographics), Rudner concludes that a homeschool setting has proved academically beneficial for these kids. This observation holds true even though "not all home schoolers take standardized tests" and not all homeschools have well-structured curricula and dedicated parents (Cloud and Morse 2001).

and Home-based education effectiveness research and some of its implications.

[NancyElla]

While urging caution in interpreting results (especially in light of participating families' white, middle-class demographics), Rudner concludes that a homeschool setting has proved academically beneficial for these kids.

That's about all you can say based on studies like this--it worked for "these kids". What you can't do is generalize about the whole population of home-schooled children.

Regarding socialization, I agree that children can be socialized in many settings. Any child who is actively involved in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, sports league, or Anthropophagist society should have ample opportunities for socialization.

[Corlyss_D]

What you can't do is generalize about the whole population of home-schooled children.

Well, you realize that in-depth analysis of the entire homeschooled population is unlikely. How many students would have to demonstrate the same kind of extraordinary results that these surveyed kids did in order to satisfy you? I mean, I know the issue is really moot, because the one thing that so many in the public schools lack is postitive and effective parental involvement such as the homeschooled get. Public schools can never compete with that.

What bothers me is critics attacked the educational standards of homeschooling, and the homeschooled blew the numbers on the tests. What was shocking was that even the educational level of the parents didn't seriously affect the educational success of their children! Then the critics attacked the socialization issue, and the homeschooled beat that rap too by creating a variety programs to augment their studies. Then the colleges and universities tried to keep them out, and the homeschooled sued for admission and did very very well at those institutions. There's a pattern here . . .

[NancyElla]

There's no magic number I'm looking for. A well designed sample survey would convince me that whatever results were obtained could legitimately be compared to the public school record (where 100% of the children are tested). Very likely no one has been able to do such a survey, so the numbers I'd like to see simply don't exist.

[Corlyss_D]

There's no magic number I'm looking for. A well designed sample survey would convince me that whatever results were obtained could legitimately be compared to the public school record (where 100% of the children are tested). Very likely no one has been able to do such a survey, so the numbers I'd like to see simply don't exist.

The problem is there are no disinterested parties willing to do such a study. They are either commissioned by or performed by critics or advocates. Outside of those two, nobody cares, really.

By 100% I assume you're referring to the SAT and the like? I doubt any public school has 100% testing, given the drop-out rate. I could be wrong. So what we would be left with is the test results from all the students that took the tests. Is that substantially different from using all the test results of the homeschooled vs. the test results of the public schooled? Isn't that what those referenced surveys are?

[DavidRoss]

ERIC abstract of Rudner, Lawrence N. "The Scholastic Achievement of Home School Students in 1998, ERIC/AE digest:

Abstract: This digest highlights some of the findings of the largest study of home schooling conducted to date (L. Rudner, 1999). For this study, 20,760 students in 11,930 families provided usable questionnaires and corresponding achievement test data. Home schooling parents had more formal education than parents in the general population, and many had been formally trained as teachers. The median income for home school families was significantly higher than that of all families with children in the United States. Almost 25% of home school students were enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools. The achievement test scores of home school students were exceptionally high, with the median scores for every subtest at every grade well above those of public and Catholic/private school students. Some limitations of the study are noted. Home school students and their families are not a cross-section of the U.S. population. The act of home schooling distinguishes this group in terms of exceptionally strong commitment to education and children. In addition, reported differences between groups do not control for background differences and cannot be attributed to the type of school a child attends. The study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools, but it does show that a large group of parents choosing to make the commitment to home schooling have been able to provide a very successful academic environment. (SLD) http://dev.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?doc ... oling.html

See the recent article by Brian Ray titled, The Harms of Homeschooling? Where Are the Premises?, here, along with copious footnotes and links to research on the issue. The introduction follows:

Data-based research has consistently revealed favorable things related to the modern homeschool movement for about 25 years. Theoretical philosophical research, on the other hand, argues conflicting things about home-educating families and students. For example, professor Robin West recently published a controversial piece entitled “The Harms of Homeschooling”[1] that will be the main subject of this article. To set the stage for this discussion, a very brief summary of research on home education is important.

Repeated studies by many researchers and data provided by United States state departments of education show that home-educated students consistently score, on average, well above the public school average on standardized academic achievement tests.[2] To date, no research has found homeschool students to be doing worse, on average, than their counterparts in state-run schools.

Multiple studies by various researchers have found the home educated to be doing well in terms of their social, emotional, and psychological development.[3] Further, the limited research on the topic to date reveals that adults who were home educated are typically doing well on all measures considered, and they appear to be happy, on average, productive, and civically engaged members of their communities. No research has controverted these two general conclusions.

Finally, regarding empirical studies, this author is not aware of any research that has involved collected data and has shown that the practice of home-based education, homeschool parents, homeschool students, or adults who were home educated are harming, on average, one another, their neighbors, their communities, or their nations.

[NancyElla]

Interesting links, David. The abstract makes appropriate statements about the limits to the applicability of the data:

Some limitations of the study are noted. Home school students and their families are not a cross-section of the U.S. population. The act of home schooling distinguishes this group in terms of exceptionally strong commitment to education and children. In addition, reported differences between groups do not control for background differences and cannot be attributed to the type of school a child attends. The study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools, but it does show that a large group of parents choosing to make the commitment to home schooling have been able to provide a very successful academic environment.

(emphasis added). That's what I was saying about the other studies--they cannot demonstrate superiority of home schooling because direct comparison (of apples to apples) isn't possible. I think Corlyss is right that no one cares enough to do the type of study that would allow direct comparison--including the home-schooling parents. My impression of them as a group has always been that they just want to be left alone, so I doubt that they'd take kindly to any requirement that they have their children participate in the same standardized tests that public school kids are required to take under "No Child Left Behind" rules. Information in your linked article seems to support that impression:

Fully 92 percent of the Kappan respondents say homeschoolers should "take all the state and national assessment tests that public school students are required to take." This attitude contrasts sharply with that of politically savvy groups of homeschooling parent-lobbyists, who have worked to exempt homeschoolers from state exams in some states (Golden 2000).

The 92% of respondents referred to are the general public, not home-schoolers. The home-school parents would fight a requirement like that tooth and nail.

So I guess I'll just have to continue to wonder why I never see any "average" students who have been home schooled--only the exceptionally skilled and the disastrously unskilled.

[Teresa B]

I will say I have only anecdotal evidence here, but the impression I seem to get of home-schooled kids in general is that they are usually above their peers in academic preparation. (However, none of the ones I know majored in biology, or even in any branch of science that I recall. I have no idea what they were taught as far as evolution--probably little or nothing, as the parents generally home school them for religious reasons.)

The kids I have known who were home schooled were all bright, college-bound, and not seeking vocational work, but professional careers (one is now a teacher in public school!). So Corlyss' sentiments about most kids not needing to know the basics of evolutionary biology may be true in general, but I submit, not for these kids who may have missed out on an important subject. Truly, kids headed for a vocation don't likely need evolutionary theory to succeed, but then, do they need creationism or ID either? In my career I have not used the calculus, but I'm still glad nobody decided to teach me instead that fairy dust causes a projectile to land in a certain place!

Teresa

[Corlyss_D]

So Corlyss' sentiments about most kids not needing to know the basics of evolutionary biology may be true in general, but I submit, not for these kids who may have missed out on an important subject.

Like I said the last time we went around about whether evolutionary biology is necessary for a competent workforce, I'm not talking about people who plan to go into the sciences. But that is such a tiny proportion of students graduated annually, we're getting all exercised about evolutionarly biology when the graduated pool is not competent in the minimum subjects necessary to succeed: they can't write effectively, speak effectivesly, do elementary math without a calculator, or think. Kids going to college today graduate from high school proficient in dumbed down cirricula subjects, incompetent in necessary subjects and can't function well at college without remedial courses teaching them things you and I learned in high school. It's sheer folly for so much attention to be paid to whether creationism or evolution is taught in school. Kids going into sciences of course need to understand the concepts, but not the gen pop.

do they need creationism or ID either?

No. I agreed with you last time, it should be kept in philosophy courses.

In my career I have not used the calculus, but I'm still glad nobody decided to teach me instead that fairy dust causes a projectile to land in a certain place!

Yeah, but you're one of the exceptions in that you did pick a career in sciences. As a verbal gen popper(!), I would have been ruined by calculus, like I almost was by physics. My problem was I didn't want to hear about the theories until I knew the history of how the ideas embodied in physics developed over the centuries! I'm thinking about trying it again now that I don't have to worry about GPAs and have learned to accept as given things I don't know the evolution of. I've never liked the awareness that the subject had me flummoxed 6 ways from Sunday.

[Agnes Selby]

I will say I have only anecdotal evidence here, but the impression I seem to get of home-schooled kids in general is that they are usually above their peers in academic preparation. (However, none of the ones I know majored in biology, or even in any branch of science that I recall. I have no idea what they were taught as far as evolution--probably little or nothing, as the parents generally home school them for religious reasons.)

The kids I have known who were home schooled were all bright, college-bound, and not seeking vocational work, but professional careers (one is now a teacher in public school!). So Corlyss' sentiments about most kids not needing to know the basics of evolutionary biology may be true in general, but I submit, not for these kids who may have missed out on an important subject. Truly, kids headed for a vocation don't likely need evolutionary theory to succeed, but then, do they need creationism or ID either? In my career I have not used the calculus, but I'm still glad nobody decided to teach me instead that fairy dust causes a projectile to land in a certain place!

Teresa

There are a couple of things I would like to add. One is that some of
these home schooled children may have contributed to the continued American
leadership in science had they been given a chance. No. 2. I wonder
how well they respond to social situations as adults, something they
would have naturally encountered in school when mixing with
children from all walks of life.

I have not read all the posts and if these points were covered
before, I apologise.
----------

[jack stowaway]

Yeah, but you're one of the exceptions in that you did pick a career in sciences. As a verbal gen popper(!), I would have been ruined by calculus, like I almost was by physics. My problem was I didn't want to hear about the theories until I knew the history of how the ideas embodied in physics developed over the centuries! I'm thinking about trying it again now that I don't have to worry about GPAs and have learned to accept as given things I don't know the evolution of. I've never liked the awareness that the subject had me flummoxed 6 ways from Sunday.

Interesting. I was much the same way at school. I had problems understanding a theory or issue unless I was familiar with it's etiology. I'm still the same way today. Always had a problem with the 'givens'.

[Teresa B]

...we're getting all exercised about evolutionarly biology when the graduated pool is not competent in the minimum subjects necessary to succeed: they can't write effectively, speak effectivesly, do elementary math without a calculator, or think. Kids going to college today graduate from high school proficient in dumbed down cirricula subjects, incompetent in necessary subjects and can't function well at college without remedial courses teaching them things you and I learned in high school.

I agree totally about the kids not getting the basic education they need, let alone evolutionary theory. (It don't hurt to TRY, though! ) Honestly, most of them will not grasp Natural Selection any more than they grasp Mendelian genetics. My concern in this post was for kids I perceived personally as very bright, but were home-schooled, and likely missed out on this important scientific knowledge. These kids all went on to college.

It's sheer folly for so much attention to be paid to whether creationism or evolution is taught in school. Kids going into sciences of course need to understand the concepts, but not the gen pop.

I agree again (!), that basic education needs to be attended to before a specific subject that involves more advanced thinking--BUT! Creationism taught in a science class is religion, not science, and that's the rub.

do they need creationism or ID either?

No. I agreed with you last time, it should be kept in philosophy courses.

Omigod, another agreement!

In my career I have not used the calculus, but I'm still glad nobody decided to teach me instead that fairy dust causes a projectile to land in a certain place!

Yeah, but you're one of the exceptions in that you did pick a career in sciences. As a verbal gen popper(!), I would have been ruined by calculus, like I almost was by physics. My problem was I didn't want to hear about the theories until I knew the history of how the ideas embodied in physics developed over the centuries! I'm thinking about trying it again now that I don't have to worry about GPAs and have learned to accept as given things I don't know the evolution of. I've never liked the awareness that the subject had me flummoxed 6 ways from Sunday.

I happened to be extremely lucky to have a phabulous physics professor for the enitre year in college physics! I think in some ways I had the opposite problem from yours--in required courses, I had tunnel vision, studied like a maniac, and got A's without too much pondering--it worked great for my GPA, but not for my general critical thinking skills. I learned those later (although some posters here might disagree with that ), lucky(again) for me! (And Corlyss, do try again--I love physics myself, as long as they don't start in with the calculus...)

Teresa

[Corlyss_D]

Yeah, but you're one of the exceptions in that you did pick a career in sciences. As a verbal gen popper(!), I would have been ruined by calculus, like I almost was by physics. My problem was I didn't want to hear about the theories until I knew the history of how the ideas embodied in physics developed over the centuries! I'm thinking about trying it again now that I don't have to worry about GPAs and have learned to accept as given things I don't know the evolution of. I've never liked the awareness that the subject had me flummoxed 6 ways from Sunday.

Interesting. I was much the same way at school. I had problems understanding a theory or issue unless I was familiar with it's etiology. I'm still the same way today. Always had a problem with the 'givens'.

The massive irony was manifest in my first year at college: the central text in my western civ class was Bronowski and Mazlich's Western Intellectual Tradition from Leonardo to Hegel. That's Jacob Bronowski, as in The Ascent of Man Bronowski. The text was heavy with the scientific discoveries that emerged in the period covered by the book, esp. as they interacted with the spirit of inquiry characteristic of the post-Gutenberg/post-Reformation eras. Side readings had us going back to De Natura by Lucretius, some of Plato's dialogues, Aristotle, etc. Most of what I wanted to know first from that physics class was satisfied by that western civ class! By then of course it was too late for me to take another run at physics.

[slofstra]

Hmm. I did read the article and am puzzled by its premise that home schoolers cannot find a suitable textbook on evolution. Does that sound plausible to you?

Here in Ontario, Canada, if you do home school you won't likely run into this problem. One of the county school boards in Ontario, Maitland County, was tasked with setting up the entire high school curriculum on-line. So home-schoolers can pretty much follow the normal govt mandated curriculum, and this is what our daughter did for a couple of years. It's 5 or more years since our daughter participated but at the time there were about 1500 kids in the on-line school. Everyone from gifted children working at their own pace ahead of their years, to children of rock stars on tour, to children under the thumb of control freak type parents, not necessarily religious either, that I mentioned above.

Could you give us a link to that? There's another audience for this sort of thing that many are unaware of: parents of kids who did poorly in a particular subject in school, but now, as adults, would like to give it a second shot so they can help their kids.

Sorry, I was so slow to respond Rob. I just now saw this.

Here is the link:

http://www.amdec.ca/

[Madame]

[jbuck919]

I realize that this is a joke, but on Pi Day I can't resist making the pedantic point that it is precisely proof that distinguishes math from science. For instance, it has been proved that it takes at most four colors to color any two-dimensional map. This does not have to be verified by producing millions more maps of all sorts to show that they do not need more than four colors (or conversely to look for a counterexample that does). On the other hand, though we know that a rock will fall if we drop it, that is still just the umpteenth instance of gravity being demonstrated. It still have not been proved in a mathematical sense.

[DavidRoss]

Strange Quark comic strip

Very nice, Madame. Very nice.

[Madame]

Strange Quark comic strip

Very nice, Madame. Very nice.

Thank you ... I knew you'd be there ...