Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Is there much of a movement among American members of Islam to pull out of conventional schools and do home schooling? Should we worry that the same kind of fundamentalism we see in Islamic schools in Pakistan is being taught?

By Nathan (Homeschool) on Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 02:59 pm: Edit

I do not know whether there is an Islamic homeschool movement or not. I am however, rather concerned at your question on fundamentalist homeschooling. I have heard many concerned people ask about fundamentalist Christians homeschooling their children. They are apparently worried that these parents will teach their sons that women are to be subservient to their husbands, teach their daughters that they should not work outside the home, and so on. My question to them is, “Why are you concerned what someone else teaches to their children in their own home?”

I think there is a parallel here. Why should we be concerned about what is taught inside an Islamic “home school”? For fear of extremists like Mohammad Atta? If we are to be wary of such Muslim fundamentalists, we should disallow Christian fundamentalists to homeschool as well for fear that we will create men like Clayton Lee Wagner.

The fact remains that the right to home school is recognized in all fifty states, plus the District of Columbia. Who are we to say that someone should or should not be allowed to homeschool their children based solely on their religious preference? To me, that spells un-American.

By Sam on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Well, a big part of Pakistan's problems seem to be due to a large number of Islamic schools that have almost no academic instruction but lots of indoctrination in anti-westernism. It's not the religion that is a problem, but rather the totally useless "curriculum".

I have no problem with Christian fundamentalists homeschooling unless they teach incorrect science "facts", e.g., the earth was created 4,000 years ago, etc.

By George Meany on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Sam, since you have a problem with private religious teachings in the home, such as creationism, how would you propose that this problem be overcome?

By Sam on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 10:41 pm: Edit

If homeschooled students can pass the same achievement tests in math, science, english, etc. that their public school counterparts have to, I don't see a problem.

I do worry about wacko beliefs of all varieties, but there's not too much we can do about that except hope that the kids develop critical thinking skills along the way. Clearly, a lot of the suicidal Islamists who expect to be transported to a world of dozens of waiting virgins after they blow up innocent civilians haven't quite got the critical thinking part down pat...

By Nathan (Homeschool) on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 03:39 pm: Edit

What is so wrong about teaching Creationism? Creationism is just as valid a theory as Evolution is. Homeschoolers generally do better on the standardized tests than do their public school counter-parts.

The fact remains that the state cannot require that Evolution be taught in the home school. What you would like is most likely unenforceable, and in my opinion, unnecessary.

By Sam on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 04:00 pm: Edit

>>Creationism is just as valid a theory as Evolution is<<

Other than the fact that it is unsupported by scientific evidence... I suppose a few hundred million years of fossils were created to give the appearance of age, rather like the phony cobwebs in a Disney attraction? ;) I would guess that evolution might not be part of a mandated curriculum. Depends on whether geology, biology, etc. are covered by state mandates... some states, I'm sure, look mainly at the three Rs.

This really brings up the concern of my original point - when religious (or other belief system) concerns start to outweigh open inquiry and critical thinking, we start to lose something. This isn't just home schooling - it can occur in religious schools, or even public school systems. An example of the latter might be fictional black history that is designed to promote self esteem rather than communicate well-founded knowledge.

By California Mom (Calmom) on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 05:29 pm: Edit

What about the fictional, whitewashed version of American history that is taught in most schools?

In my son's AP US History class he was required to read Howard Zinn as well as the more traditional history text. It isn't that Zinn's version is accurate either - it's just that it provides a different perspective.

By Nathan (Homeschool) on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 05:49 pm: Edit

I really don’t care to get into a scientific and theological debate over the whole Evolution vs. Creationism argument. I will say, however, that I believe Creationism is more fully supported with scientific evidence than Evolution is. I’ve taken four years of high school science courses, including two years of biology, and from my background, it takes a lot of critical thinking and open-mindedness to reject the Evolution Theory and take up Creationism. I do agree that we lose something when open inquiry is thrown out the window. For most public schools to teach only the theory of Evolution is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, and because we are far from certain about either theory’s validity, both should be presented in the classroom as theories.

In regards to your “fictional black history” comment, I see no reason that such a course would impede critical thinking so long as it doesn’t come at the detriment of main stream history lessons.

By George Meany on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 06:02 pm: Edit

To paraphrase Edward Albee: Great archery, Calmom. You hit the nail on the head! If parents would take the time to investigate the editorial "slant" (I use that word charitably) of some of the texts our high school kids use in their classes, they might find a few unpleasant surprises on both ends of the idealogical spectrum.

And while I'm at it here, I'll pose a congenially spirited question for Sam regarding the theory of evolution. Sam, this has always puzzled me about evolution: If, indeed, we did emerge from the primordial slime and managed to work our way up through the vertebrate chain to eventually evolve from apes, how come man hasn't yet given the slightest indication of tending toward his next evolutionary, morphological plateau?

By Sam on Tuesday, December 11, 2001 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Nathan - I think the problem with fictional black history is that it is presented as real history that meets the same standards as history that has been well-documented by contemporary sources and is well-supported by surviving artifacts, as well as by extensive scholarly research. School age kids often don't have the breadth of knowledge or the confidence to ask a teacher what proof exists that Egyptians were black, or how we know they possessed flying machines.

Calmom is right, of course - even our public school textbooks end up being political footballs. We went from overly rosy portrayals of our history that barely mentioned slavery, for example, to paragons of political correctness that resurrect unknown historic bit-players who happen to be female, Native American, black, etc. to show what an important role everyone played in our history. Who knows what the next ones will look like? It seems that every year someone publishes a list of howlers found in our public school textbooks. At least, though, we know what public schools are teaching, and if they get too far off base public outcry will bring them back eventually.

George: human evolution was proceeding nicely until the invention of television. Too soon to tell, but it could be a major setback.

By Nathan (Homeschool) on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 10:42 am: Edit

Oh, that kind of "fictional" black history. I've often heard that same term used in reference to actual black/African history events in an effort to marginalize their significance in the history of the world. I of course agree with the premise that fictional black history probably shouldn't be taught, but the question always arises as to who am I to try to regulate what is taught within the home. I don't think you would like it if the government tried to regulate what your children could or could not watch on television, or dictated which religion you were to practice. To tell a homeschool parent that they cannot teach a certain subject is a subversion of parental rights.

By Sam on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 08:50 am: Edit

I would not suggest the government tell parents NOT to teach something (other than subversion and terrorism, I suppose), but I think the government should be proactive and assess the learning of ALL students - in public and private schools, as well as home school environments - to insure that the students are learning at some minimum level.

Our nation suffers when compared to others in math and science achievement, particularly at the high school level. I'm glad to see the Bush administration seems to be getting serious about setting national standards. Many home schoolers start because the public school options are terrible. National standards and rigorous testing are one tool to draw attention to underperforming districts.

By Rhonda on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 09:12 am: Edit

Rigorous testing is not a panacea, and can create more problems than it solves. A Rand Institute study essentially discredited the claims made by Texas about the beneficial effects of its statewide testing program. In addition, many teachers in TX and other states have complained that they are forbidden from teaching anything not on the test (e.g., focusing on multiple choice questions and limiting amount of essay writing, since MC is a bigger part of the stdized tests).

By George Meany on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 09:31 am: Edit

Why are teachers, and especially the NEA, so opposed to teacher-competency testing? Educating the youth of America is a crucial job. Why shouldn't there be measured accountability for those directly responsible?

High school kids are measured by the SATs, ACT, AP exams and other standardized barometers. Their performance on those tests in many cases has a direct bearing on their college--and by extension--career futures. I'm sure our precious ETS psychometricians can come up with something very special for our teachers (if, indeed, they already haven't).

By Sam on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 09:55 am: Edit

George said: Why are teachers, and especially the NEA, so opposed to teacher-competency testing?

Duhhhh! Maybe because they know a sigificant portion of their members wouldn't pass? In Massachusetts, when they implemented testing of brand new teaching grads, 60% failed the test! How do you think our current population of union-protected burnouts would perform? The NEA is into job preservation and wage maximization, pure and simple. Despite all their pious rhetoric about doing what is best for the children, they are no different than the Steelworkers or Teamsters.

By George Meany on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 10:15 am: Edit

Sam, I hope you realize that my "Duhhhh!" question was deliberately provocative. I know a guy who used to do test prep and one year a recent state university elementary-ed grad came to him to prep for the NTE national teachers exam so that she could become qualified to teach our young kids.

He told me that she couldn't do basic arithmetic operations such as calculating percentages and dealing with fractions and her geography knowledge had Japan located in South America. I think some of these candidates have managed to slip through into the classroom, however.

Here's another deliberately provocative question: Why are the majority of my school-teacher acquaintances liberal Democrats? (Another "Duhhh!") Obviously, they are clinging to the Democratic platform for protection, but the unions in America are in trouble. Why cling to a sinking ship? Wouldn't it be easier to prove your worth rather than constantly sandbag your position?

By Sam on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 08:07 pm: Edit

George said: Wouldn't it be easier to prove your worth rather than constantly sandbag your position?

Apparently not, since the sandbag strategy has worked for decades and has shown very few signs of leakage. Most parents would like to see a meritocracy, in which good teachers get raises and bad teachers get dumped. Unions abhor meritocracies, however, and prefer to reward seniority. If you reward seniority for long enough, you can be sure of having a cadre of strong union supporters.

I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than rewarding people for the time they have spent in more or less the same job. That would seem to be more a measure of the lack of other career options (though I've seen any number of young, LOW seniority teachers bail out for better-paying positions). Career counselors tell us that we should all be prepared to have five or more careers during our working lives - guess the unions haven't bought into this, since they are definitely structured for "lifers".

We can't give the unions the boot, but we can demand their members meet reasonable standards. If they won't accept testing, let 'em strike. If they strike, bring in subs and encourage members to come back to work. I think if the NEA stranglehold could be broken, we'd see bad teachers cleared out far more quickly. (This is kind of a digression, isn't it? )

By Sam on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 10:12 am: Edit

Hey, the New York Times sees a Taliban parallel to overly protective parents, too! Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/18/college/coll18BALL.html for an article on parents trying to ban books that disagree with their religious preferences.

By Nathan (Homeschool) on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 10:22 am: Edit

LOL! Sam, better check that link. The link you inserted goes to an article on ED applicants.

By Sam on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 10:55 am: Edit

Wow, that's weird, Nathan... I was reading both articles... I can't find the other link now, which was an editorial by Mark Mathabane (author of Kaffir Boy) which compared the thought control aspects of some parents to the Taliban. It would be nice to think that home schoolers are there because their parents wanted to expose them to a wider range of thinking than they'd see at school, but my guess is that many are there because their parents' efforts to keep "corrupting influences" (Like Harry Potter or Catcher in the Rye) out of public schools were unsuccessful. Here's a link to another editorial by the same author; if I track down the "missing link" I'll post it. http://www.mathabane.com/book%20banning.htm

By Nathan (Homeschool) on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 11:30 am: Edit

I read your Washington Post article. Mathabane makes one good point here; just because one person, or a small group of people, decide that a book is inappropriate doesn’t mean it should be banned from others reading it. However, there is a flip side to this- a school district should not force a book onto the small minority of students who object to it. Therefore, the question as to how to implement such a reading into the classroom and satisfy both at the same time is important. This is nearly impossible to do in a school due to lack of funds and ability to teach to two different books.

I don’t think I understand your problem with those homeschooling parents who remove their children from schools because they don’t like what is being taught there. Sure, you sacrifice “diversity” and “open-mindedness”, but I really don’t see what is so wrong with that. I applaud open-mindedness, and try to achieve some of that myself. However, I did not like being forced to read revisionist history accounts and be inundated with essays on life in South Africa when I attended public school. I think parents should be able to take their children out of such situations and teach them the values and lessons that they would like to instill in their children.

By Sam on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 12:15 pm: Edit

In the missing article, Mathabane actually suggested that the appropriate and acceptable action for a reading to which the parents objected was to request an alternate reading. He didn't seem to have a problem with that, but objected to the attempts of some parents to foist their beliefs on everyone else.

Nathan: you sacrifice “diversity” and “open-mindedness”, but I really don’t see what is so wrong with that. Hmmm, in that case, I don't think that part of the discussion is worth pursuing. I agree that many public schools don't do a great job of selecting great literature and history texts, but part of education should be reading diverse opinions, including those that differ substantially from one's upbringing and preconceived notions. It gets back to the whole critical thinking idea - those ideas that withstand the test of intellectual challenge will survive, and those that don't were probably wrong. Many parents seem to fear that their kids won't buy whatever beliefs they are attempting to install if the kids are exposed to thinking that challenges these beliefs. In fact, they are setting the kid up for greater disappointment later, since the ideas that don't hold up will be blown away in college or after sufficient life experience.

By duh on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Sam, give me an example of, as you say, "those ideas that [haven't withstood] the test of intellectual challenge ... [and, therefore] ... were probably wrong."

IMO, there has to be a "correct" idea that's been trashed by the intellectual community out there.

By Sam on Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Flat earth? Earth-centric universe? Existence of invisible "ether"? Astrology? Psychic Surgery?