MMM and Home Schooling

[Mrs MM]

P.S. Check out this great discussion I had with a blog reader, related to homeschooling. I'm thinking that a homeschooling social network would be so much fun. Anyone want to help me start one? :)

https://twitter.com/mrsmoneym/status/560503423615762433

[Masha]

Yay! Always good to hear from Mrs. MM!

There are so many different approaches to homeschooling. The parents, the kid, the whole scenario varies, but really, how many people are in a better position than the MM's to homeschool?

I was homeschooled until starting college at age 16. First comment I used to get when meeting new people "I never would have guessed you were homeschooled'" and " wow. How did you get socialized....?"

I learned early on to use a fork for food and not combing my hair. My mother is very proud.

Guess what? Once I started college, grade school never mattered. No one asks, no one cares, and I have had an amazing and humbling range of academic scholarships, fellowships and a graduate degree...including time in Germany. I can't stand to be around asshats, but otherwise no unusual social problems I'm aware of.

All five siblings, also homeschooled, are intelligent, productive members of society with good lives. What more can one ask for?

This thread is hilarious. Still chuckling while I wonder what kind of dinosaur Jesus rode. Giggle giggle.

[LennStar]

The most important thing to remember when beginning a home schooling program is to teach which species of dinosaur Jesus preferred to ride.

Blasphemy! Jesus never rode on a dinosaur, he was too humble for using an animal for this. No one has ever seen him doing such a thing!

he writes for an hour uninterrupted every day, he truly enjoys it

Oh hi, nice to see you here. I think its the second post I read from you ^^
What do you mean by writing?

[UnleashHell]

For those who have read the blog from early on, MMM and I are both huge advocated of public education. We loved our son's school. We have always been excited for him to go there and for a little while he did okay.

But, when you have a child, you have to go with the flow. I was once a mom who never thought I would homeschool. I never had anything against homeschooling, but I also didn't know anything about it.

Exactly. We homeschooled our kids for a while. for us it was a case of evaluating the needs of the child against who could offer the best outcome.
for one of them - preschool and K was great - especially K - the boy was very advanced, especially in reading, and he ended up with a teacher who recognized that and deal with it by giving him extra reading work to do and encouraged him. We ended up moving and into the next school district - totally different story. the boy was taking Harry potter books into school to read while the other kids were doing "A", "B", "C"... he was allowed access to the school library. For one book a week and only those for his grade (1st). We ended up with a frustrated kid.. School wasn't meeting his needs at all. So we pulled him.
Did a bunch of research and also found some homeschooling groups nearby. joined with a bunch of them. left some as they weren't suitable but stayed with others. There was loads going on, field trips, parents doing specialist subjects, hangout at the park, hit up a museum but better still do it all at your kids pace. We did use the "what does your 2nd grader need to know" books and filled in anything we'd missed towards the end of a year.
At one point a group were trying to pass laws that would clamp down hard on home schooling. what better time than now to learn about the state law, visit those trying to pass the law, go to the state buildings, listen in on session, learn about free speech, demonstrate, petition people etc. Take anything you are doing and turn it into a learning opportunity!

Did this for a number of years but as he grew he wasn't the self motivated kid that would investigage what he needed to learn so we looked for alternatives. Found a math charter school and put him in their care!! again - great bunch of kids and teachers and he did well. He also learnt that he wasn't a genius - but he was surrounded by a lot of them!! he had to work to keep up!
Sadly we had to leave that when we moved to Florida and we found an area with a good high school that he's fitted into well. He be graduating this year.

He's been exposed to all sorts of education now - we evaluated the options each year and made our choices based on that. Its not a one and done decision. 
I think of all type of education he has been exposed to he like eclasses the best. A structure for him to follow but at your own pace and without the classroom distractions. But that's just him YMMV

Down here in Florida you now have to do an eclass to graduate.. I think it may go more that way with overcrowded schools etc.

[BeginninginWisedom]

Hi,

I wanted to address a few of the misconceptions I think I have noticed on here about home schooling for religious reasons. I home schooled our children with the sole motivation for it of raising them in the Christian Faith and teaching them the Bible as God's revealed Word. I am so grateful that I had the freedom to do this.

I know I have a bit more to share on this subject, but for now let me leave 2 things here.

This is a quote from an article in Forbes Magazine dated 5/24/2012:

“The writers of the Bible anticipated the problems we would have with money and possessions; there are more than 2,000 references,” he says. “Our whole culture now is built on the premise that we have to have more money and more stuff to feel happy and secure. Public storage is the poster child for what’s wrong with America. We have too much stuff because we’ve bought into the myth fabricated by Wall Street and Madison Avenue that more stuff equals more happiness.”  He adds, “That’s the total opposite of the truth, and the opposite of what it says in The Bible.”

These truths about money, marriage, children, God, courtesy, working hard, sacrifice for others, sacrifice to obtain something you want, were all a part of the education we gave to our children and we found them in the Bible.

Second, I'd like to address " Jesus being too humble to ride a dinosaur". Jesus did ride a donkey into Jerusalem. Jesus is
Creator and Lord of the dinosaur.

[jsloan]

Hi,

I wanted to address a few of the misconceptions I think I have noticed on here about home schooling for religious reasons. I home schooled our children with the sole motivation for it of raising them in the Christian Faith and teaching them the Bible as God's revealed Word. I am so grateful that I had the freedom to do this.

I know I have a bit more to share on this subject, but for now let me leave 2 things here.

This is a quote from an article in Forbes Magazine dated 5/24/2012:

“The writers of the Bible anticipated the problems we would have with money and possessions; there are more than 2,000 references,” he says. “Our whole culture now is built on the premise that we have to have more money and more stuff to feel happy and secure. Public storage is the poster child for what’s wrong with America. We have too much stuff because we’ve bought into the myth fabricated by Wall Street and Madison Avenue that more stuff equals more happiness.”  He adds, “That’s the total opposite of the truth, and the opposite of what it says in The Bible.”

These truths about money, marriage, children, God, courtesy, working hard, sacrifice for others, sacrifice to obtain something you want, were all a part of the education we gave to our children and we found them in the Bible.

Second, I'd like to address " Jesus being too humble to ride a dinosaur". Jesus did ride a donkey into Jerusalem. Jesus is
Creator and Lord of the dinosaur.

Do you teach your children about evolution/natural selection and other natural sciences mandated by public school?

[Sid888]

I think it may go more that way with overcrowded schools etc.

Is home schooling moving away primarily providing a religious based education and instead is now being used to avoid the problems in public education caused by a lack of funding in states and individual school districts? 

Wouldn't it be easier - and much more efficient and cost effective - to move to a different or better public school district until you FIRE instead of homeschooling or even help elect candidates that support more funding for education and education reform? 

Are there any home schoolers out there advocating for increased public education funding to remedy the litany of ills such as overcrowding, etc. that are used as secular justification to home school?

[LennStar]

he was allowed access to the school library. For one book a week and only those for his grade (1st). We ended up with a frustrated kid..

Did I parse this correctly?
A child needs to be "allowed" to use a library? For a very restricted access? And only one book per WEEK??? In a school????

If yes there is someone who needs a whole marathon of face punches every morning for the next year. Honorary first in the punch giving line would be Benjamin Franklin.


@BeginninginWisdom:
I would be the last saying there is nothing valuable to be found in the bible - every big old religion (and most young ones) has a lot of good things to say. To take the point of the too much stuff - Buddha has more and better things to say on this topic for example then Jesus ;)
But you have to put it in context and find out why something is written in the way it is. And the bible definitely is not the easiest place to start - and should never be the only one. And it also definitely is not "the truth". Even if it would have been that way 2000 years ago - now a lot would be outdated.

The rest I would want to ask here on some of what you have said would probably end in the "agressive atheism" thread, so I leave them out for now.
But you definitely have not erased any misconceptions of home schooling for religiouos reasons as you stated you wanted to do.

[BeginninginWisedom]

We did!

We went to the Denver Zoo often where they show you that your ancestors were primates. We also went quite 
often to the Museum of Nature and Science where they teach that all life begin in this, I think it was ooze, and that from that we evolved into this complex universe.

Then we studied life, the human body, the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the eye. We learned how lovingly a new human being is created and comes into this world.

Then we had to think, could all of this have just happened or did it scream of intelligent design. Our conclusion: "We are fearfully and wonderfully made". We believe we were created as we are.

Natural Selection, sure, if a population is reduced, then certain genes become dominate.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution is important! But, we are not mandated to teach it as truth.

[Tabaxus]

We did!

We went to the Denver Zoo often where they show you that your ancestors were primates. We also went quite 
often to the Museum of Nature and Science where they teach that all life begin in this, I think it was ooze, and that from that we evolved into this complex universe.

Then we studied life, the human body, the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the eye. We learned how lovingly a new human being is created and comes into this world.

Then we had to think, could all of this have just happened or did it scream of intelligent design. Our conclusion: "We are fearfully and wonderfully made". We believe we were created as we are.

Natural Selection, sure, if a population is reduced, then certain genes become dominate.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution is important! But, we are not mandated to teach it as truth.

I'm sure you were completely objective when letting your kid explore the theory of evolution (and I'm sure you were careful to explain what a "Theory" means in the scientific world compared to the normal layperson understanding of that word).  I imagine you were also careful to point out that many great religious thinkers believe in the watchmaker god, if you want to overlay religion to this scientific education.

I'm sure none of this will have any negative effect if your kid shows a talent for biology and tries to pursue that in college.

[jsloan]

We did!

We went to the Denver Zoo often where they show you that your ancestors were primates. We also went quite 
often to the Museum of Nature and Science where they teach that all life begin in this, I think it was ooze, and that from that we evolved into this complex universe.

Then we studied life, the human body, the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the eye. We learned how lovingly a new human being is created and comes into this world.

Then we had to think, could all of this have just happened or did it scream of intelligent design. Our conclusion: "We are fearfully and wonderfully made". We believe we were created as we are.

Natural Selection, sure, if a population is reduced, then certain genes become dominate.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution is important! But, we are not mandated to teach it as truth.

This surfaces a major complaint I have with homeschooling as policy.  Since enforcement of mandated standards are difficult to implement, parents are free to teach their children things like creationism, global warming denying and anti-vaccination fears as truth or as the "other side of the debate".  The whole reason public education exists is to produce a informed society that can vote intelligently on issues.  Our scientific advancement as a society depends on people at least having a basic understanding about these issues.

At the micro-level many parents can do a great job home schooling their children who grow up to be well-adjusted adults.  Its the macro-level that I have issues with.  If you have a special needs child (not special snowflake) who cannot function in a traditional classroom you should be working closely with the public schools in the same way that a social worker might with home visits for foster children.  In the USA we have a very broken public education system but we choose to fracture it further with policies that allow people to opt out completely instead of changing the system to work. 

[Sid888]

@BeginninginWisdom:
I would be the last saying there is nothing valuable to be found in the bible - every big old religion (and most young ones) has a lot of good things to say. To take the point of the too much stuff - Buddha has more and better things to say on this topic for example then Jesus ;)

The Buddha and Jesus both have great teachings on how materialism does not create happiness.  Pope Francis seems to be moving the Catholic Church back to this basic foundation.  Now we need to work on the Joel Osteens of the world...

How is Jesus' anti-materialism message in the bible taught by home schoolers or is it just experienced because they don't have as many materialistic influences in a normal school?  Can't this message also be conveyed to your kids if they attend public or private school?

Do home schoolers teach comparative religion to their kids?

[BeginninginWisedom]

We did!

We went to the Denver Zoo often where they show you that your ancestors were primates. We also went quite 
often to the Museum of Nature and Science where they teach that all life begin in this, I think it was ooze, and that from that we evolved into this complex universe.

Then we studied life, the human body, the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the eye. We learned how lovingly a new human being is created and comes into this world.

Then we had to think, could all of this have just happened or did it scream of intelligent design. Our conclusion: "We are fearfully and wonderfully made". We believe we were created as we are.

Natural Selection, sure, if a population is reduced, then certain genes become dominate.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution is important! But, we are not mandated to teach it as truth.

I'm sure you were completely objective when letting your kid explore the theory of evolution (and I'm sure you were careful to explain what a "Theory" means in the scientific world compared to the normal layperson understanding of that word).  I imagine you were also careful to point out that many great religious thinkers believe in the watchmaker god, if you want to overlay religion to this scientific education.

I'm sure none of this will have any negative effect if your kid shows a talent for biology and tries to pursue that in college.

The public schools are not neutral in their teaching of The Theory of Evolution; they teach it aggressively, so do our public museums and zoos.

The Theory of Evolution is in many ways a religion itself.

If you were to start with the first step in the scientific method which is observation, I do think you would have a hard time coming up with evolution as a viable way for man to have come into being.

Every institution for education has a worldview that it passes on to its students. The worldview that the public schools teach is based on evolution. In our home school, we had a creationist worldview. We made our students aware of other worldviews and we taught them to think.

I understand our worldviews,yours and mine, are in conflict, and therefore that creates conflict, but conflict is good when it is searching for Truth.

[projekt]

The public schools are not neutral in their teaching of The Theory of Evolution; they teach it aggressively, so do our public museums and zoos.

The Theory of Evolution is in many ways a religion itself.

Do schools teach geology too aggressively? Cursory observation would show that big rocks and mountains tend to stay big and contintents tend to stay put. Do they teach Newtonian kinetics too aggressively? Cursory observation would show that objects tend to slow down and stop.

[BeginninginWisedom]

"Do schools teach geology too aggressively? Cursory observation would show that big rocks and mountains tend to stay big and contintents tend to stay put. Do they teach Newtonian kinetics too aggressively? Cursory observation would show that objects tend to slow down and stop."

Newtons Laws of Motion are different from the Theory of Evolution. Laws and Theories are not the same.

A Law definition: Law

"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'."

Yes, aggressively teach Newtons Laws of Motion, but don't teach a Theory as if it were a Law which is what is being done in education today.

Also, did you mean to say a cursory observation? Cursory means quick or hasty. I'm not sure what you are saying there?
 

[caliq]

"Do schools teach geology too aggressively? Cursory observation would show that big rocks and mountains tend to stay big and contintents tend to stay put. Do they teach Newtonian kinetics too aggressively? Cursory observation would show that objects tend to slow down and stop."

Newtons Laws of Motion are different from the Theory of Evolution. Laws and Theories are not the same.

A Law definition: Law

"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'."

Yes, aggressively teach Newtons Laws of Motion, but don't teach a Theory as if it were a Law which is what is being done in education today.

Also, did you mean to say a cursory observation? Cursory means quick or hasty. I'm not sure what you are saying there?

Cursory observation = it's very easy to quickly see what's going on.  You can observe, very quickly, that objects tend to slow down and stop.

Care to share your definition of theory?

[Kris]

Ugh.  Yeah, I was afraid that at some point this thread would jump the shark. 

I'm out. 

[Emilyngh]

Newtons Laws of Motion are different from the Theory of Evolution. Laws and Theories are not the same.

Yes, aggressively teach Newtons Laws of Motion, but don't teach a Theory as if it were a Law which is what is being done in education today.

Does this equally apply to:
gravitational theory (ie., theory of gravity)
quantum theory
the theories of general and specific relativity
cell theory
plate tectonic theory?

Should those be "aggressively taught" seeing as they too are "just theories"?   

In science, theories are not of a lower class than laws.   Calling something a theory does not mean that there is less evidence for it than a law.   No matter how much evidence is gathered for something, a theory can never be "elevated" to a law.   Instead, the word law describes a fundamental principle, whereas theories describe more complete models.   Both are just as evidence-based.

[bacchi]

If you were to start with the first step in the scientific method which is observation, I do think you would have a hard time coming up with evolution as a viable way for man to have come into being.

"Observation" is not the first step in the scientific method. You're misunderstanding how the scientific method works.

This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[BeginninginWisedom]

If you were to start with the first step in the scientific method which is observation, I do think you would have a hard time coming up with evolution as a viable way for man to have come into being.

"Observation" is not the first step in the scientific method. You're misunderstanding how the scientific method works.

This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Observation is the first step in the scientific Method. Then we ask questions about what we observe, and then make a hypothesizes to explain it, and do experiments to prove or disprove our hypothesis. Pleaser see below "The Scientific Method".

I disagree strongly with the Theory of Evolution. I don't see the evidence anywhere to support evolution as a theory.

As I observe the world I observe how beautifully it was designed to work together. Then, I conclude there must be a Creator.

Darwin's observations pushed him in a different direction, and others have picked up on his work.[quote author=bacchi


"The scientific method
When conducting research, scientists observe the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:
Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.
Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.
Research must involve deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.
Scientific theories and laws
The scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven. A few theories do become scientific laws (such as the law of gravity) and laws are generally considered to be without exception — though in fact even some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is “just a theory” is a lay person’s term that has no relationship to science, because in science, a theory is something that is very well supported by observation and experimentation."

This came from this website: http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

[caliq]

If you were to start with the first step in the scientific method which is observation, I do think you would have a hard time coming up with evolution as a viable way for man to have come into being.

"Observation" is not the first step in the scientific method. You're misunderstanding how the scientific method works.

This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Observation is the first step in the scientific Method. Then we ask questions about what we observe, and then make a hypothesizes to explain it, and do experiments to prove or disprove our hypothesis. Pleaser see below "The Scientific Method".

I disagree strongly with the Theory of Evolution. I don't see the evidence anywhere to support evolution as a theory.

As I observe the world I observe how beautifully it was designed to work together. Then, I conclude there must be a Creator.

Darwin's observations pushed him in a different direction, and others have picked up on his work.[quote author=bacchi


"The scientific method
When conducting research, scientists observe the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:
Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.
Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.
Research must involve deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.
Scientific theories and laws
The scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven. A few theories do become scientific laws (such as the law of gravity) and laws are generally considered to be without exception — though in fact even some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is “just a theory” is a lay person’s term that has no relationship to science, because in science, a theory is something that is very well supported by observation and experimentation."

This came from this website: http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

Please refer to your own quote regarding the word theory and apply that to your feelings on evolution.

[BeginninginWisedom]

Newtons Laws of Motion are different from the Theory of Evolution. Laws and Theories are not the same.

Yes, aggressively teach Newtons Laws of Motion, but don't teach a Theory as if it were a Law which is what is being done in education today.

Does this equally apply to:
gravitational theory (ie., theory of gravity)
quantum theory
the theories of general and specific relativity
cell theory
plate tectonic theory?

Should those be "aggressively taught" seeing as they too are "just theories"?   

In science, theories are not of a lower class than laws.   Calling something a theory does not mean that there is less evidence for it than a law.   No matter how much evidence is gathered for something, a theory can never be "elevated" to a law.   Instead, the word law describes a fundamental principle, whereas theories describe more complete models.   Both are just as evidence-based.

A Theory can change and it may become a Law or it may be disproven. I have no problem with teaching any of these Theories in their proper context. But to teach Evolution as an absolute does a dishonor to science.Why not go ahead and challenge your students to help science prove Evolution, or come up with their own observations/ hypothesizes/experiments/theories.

I don't see anywhere where Evolution has been proven to be the truth on the Origins on
of Man. Why should education limit its students to this Theory? Evolution is taught as Truth in public education instead of what it truly is a theory waiting to be challenged!

[LennStar]

The public schools are not neutral in their teaching of The Theory of Evolution; they teach it aggressively, so do our public museums and zoos.

Well, it is the standard of science, so it is teached. Why that constitutes "aggressive" is a ? for me.
"At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law" = that is applicable to evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is in many ways a religion itself.

Newtons Laws of Motion are different from the Theory of Evolution. Laws and Theories are not the same.

Just naming something a law does not make it one.
The "law" of gravity does not give an explanation.

And as bacchi posted, in the scientific method the obersavtion is not the first step. You could say the formulation of a question is the first step (and in most cases the most diffucult one).
Then there are things you can see "from themselves" - a priori - and things you can only know after e.g. observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

A "byproduct" of the scientific method was the destruction of every "proof of the existence of God" anybody ever thought of. Either a God is something no human (until now) can understand - which would mean it would be without meaning (or even impolite) to believe in it - or a God does not exist. Since there is no single event that can only be explained by a God, then following Occams Razor means that God does not exists, because a God that does not influence anything, not even by existence like everything else in the universe, is also without any meaning (and quite a boring guy, if you ask me).

For intelligent design specifically all proofs just "proof" the existence of a God that influances things, but not that there is a creator, which makes the intelligent design in itself contradictory, because without creator it doesnt work if you not postulate an influencer that actively deceives - in which case the question is there why he does it, when he can just deceive (change) humans in a way were we would never question intelligent design.

And that is normally the point were "no one can understand the way of Gods" crops up ^^


edit: several posts - and some quote error :(

I disagree strongly with the Theory of Evolution. I don't see the evidence anywhere to support evolution as a theory.

Then you must be blind, because seeing the evidence was what made Darwin get the idea of evolution in the first place.

And you have a misconception here of theory: A theory does not need proof (if it would be proven, it would stop beeing a theory and start beeing knowledge), it is valid as long as you cant proof it is wrong.

As I observe the world I observe how beautifully it was designed to work together. Then, I conclude there must be a Creator.

That is a "logical" leap as big as a mountain. If the world was not "designed to work together" you would not be here to observe it. So you can never observe a world that is not "designed to work together".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[BeginninginWisedom]

A Theory can change and it may become a Law or it may be disproven. I have no problem with teaching any of these Theories in their proper context. But to teach Evolution as an absolute does a dishonor to science.Why not go ahead and challenge your students to help science prove Evolution, or come up with their own observations/ hypothesizes/experiments/theories.

I don't see anywhere where Evolution has been proven to be the truth on the Origins on
of Man. Why should education limit its students to this Theory? Evolution is taught as Truth in public education instead of what it truly is a theory waiting to be challenged!

[Annamal]

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is “just a theory” is a lay person’s term that has no relationship to science, because in science, a theory is something that is very well supported by observation and experimentation."

This is exactly true of evolution.

It is incredibly well supported (as well as being vital in our understanding of how to control diseases and pests).

Sorry for the derail but this is a scientific theory which is not even slightly in dispute.

[LennStar]

But to teach Evolution as an absolute does a dishonor to science.Why not go ahead and challenge your students to help science prove Evolution,

Prove the existence of God.

Please, do it. It would end a long philosophical hassle. You would be the person of the century.

[bacchi]

Observation is the first step in the scientific Method. Then we ask questions about what we observe, and then make a hypothesizes to explain it, and do experiments to prove or disprove our hypothesis. Pleaser see below "The Scientific Method".

There are literally thousands of images on the steps of the scientific method:

https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+method&biw=1232&bih=741&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Sn_OVNv0OsyWNozjg4AL&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

Some do have "Observation" as the first step but they don't mean it as actually seeing something in action. They mean it to notice something.

In other words, we don't have to actually see evolution happening before our eyes in order for it to be scientific. The question can be, "How did man come to be upright?" The Hypothesis could be, "Man came from primates, such as chimps and bonobos, who sometimes walk on their back legs and have opposable thumbs (and who have extremely similar DNA)." Etc.

[Annamal]

If you want a beautiful example of evolution under experimental conditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment


I maybe a little sensitive about the topic because I live in a country that is essentially one giant uncontrolled experiment in what happens when you introduce humans and their accompanying creatures into a relatively balanced environment where birds have evolved to fit into some of the ecological niches which mammals usually occupy.

[amyable]

For those who have read the blog from early on, MMM and I are both huge advocated of public education. We loved our son's school. We have always been excited for him to go there and for a little while he did okay.

I super love that you chose to homeschool without feeling the need to bash public schools.  I work in a public school as a counselor, and do tons of work managing the needs of our kiddos, but there are legitimately some children who perform better outside of the public school environment, or may just need an occasional break from public school. 

[Emilyngh]

A Theory can change and it may become a Law or it may be disproven.

Absolutely incorrect.  Again, a scientific law is not higher in some proof/evidence hierarchy than a theory.    A theory is a more complex model than a law, but both are equally "proven" and evidence-based.

[RetiredAt63]

To add a bit more to the "what is science" sub-thread.  Some areas of science are more experimental and some are more historical.  Geology has a strong historical component, since what is happening in and on the earth now is a result of historical forces. 

Evolutionary Biology is another science area that has a strong historical component.  As Stephen Jay Gould liked to point out, if all those little chordates (like Pikaia in the Burgess Shale) hadn't made it into the Cambrian, we wouldn't be here.  "We" meaning vertebrates. 

Natural Selection is happening all the time, with masses of examples - antibiotic resistance in bacteria is one of the more obvious areas. Insect resistance to insecticides is another.

And from his comment, Annamal has to be from New Zealand, where more plants have divaricate leaves than any other place on earth.  Why should plants there do this, when the ones in neighbouring Australia don't? ( And New Zealand has my sympathies re the Canada Geese.  Who thought it was a good idea to introduce them?  They are native here and can be a problem.  Of course, we have starlings . . . .)

[BeginninginWisedom]

It would take a long time to answer all of these posts individually, so I will try to answer them in this 1 post.

I love science! I think we live in an amazing world!And I love to learn more about it!

I don't agree with the Theory of Evolution. I believe God created the world and all that is in it, and I'm grateful He has revealed Himself to us in His Word, the Bible, and ultimately in His Son, Jesus Christ.

I know someone asked me to "please, prove God" to them, but I can't do that. I can show you evidence for God. I can suggest you read His Word, and encourage you to seek out wether He is who He says He is in the Bible.

I know someone else suggested the DNA of apes was similar to the DNA in humans, and I don't doubt that. In Genesis 2, in the Bible, you can read how God created man and animal out of the dust of the ground.

If anyone does want to continue an intelligent discussion regarding creation and evolution, I am happy to do so. However, I think first let's define the steps of the scientific method, and yes, I will make sure I understand the terms theory and law.

I do look forward to learning more from this website, I am new here, and I am sure we will make connections in the future here.

[Annamal]

And from his comment, Annamal has to be from New Zealand, where more plants have divaricate leaves than any other place on earth.  Why should plants there do this, when the ones in neighbouring Australia don't? ( And New Zealand has my sympathies re the Canada Geese.  Who thought it was a good idea to introduce them?  They are native here and can be a problem.  Of course, we have starlings . . . .)

Another question would be, why are there so many poisonous creatures in Australia but almost none in New Zealand (not that I am complaining mind).

To be honest my impression is that canada geese are not nearly as large a problem as predatory land mammals, because we have no native land mammals (aside from a couple of species of bat), most our wild-life has evolved to avoid being hunted from the sky and are thus almost utterly defenseless against cats,rats,possums stoats etc.

Except for kea...they have scary tool-using parrot brains and have adapted to people (mostly by destroying everything they can...and they can destroy a lot).

P.s. I'm actually not of the male persuasion =)

[space]

(Someone should change the topic before this thread falls into the abyss... But, if you think the complex systems of a human are inevitably the result of "intelligent design" - I suggest you go watch the TV series Cosmos. It's an absolutely stunning documentary, though perhaps a bit harsh on religion.)

Homeschooling is one of these things that I see the potential of, but definitely to be done with caution. With all the technology we have now, it's easier than ever to combine the positive points of formal education with the positive points of being able to stay at home and go at your own pace. But - in many ways, it's still an untamed frontier, full of traps and pitfalls. There has to be some kind of standard that should be drafted and enforced - possibly standardized tests that must be taken, graded by an independent agency, and passed in order to achieve equivalence to a particular grade in a particular subject. There shouldn't be restrictions on when they can be taken, but rather, they'd serve as a way to measure progress.

[LennStar]

(Someone should change the topic before this thread falls into the abyss... But, if you think the complex systems of a human are inevitably the result of "intelligent design" - I suggest you go watch the TV series Cosmos. It's an absolutely stunning documentary, though perhaps a bit harsh on religion.)

Homeschooling is one of these things that I see the potential of, but definitely to be done with caution. With all the technology we have now, it's easier than ever to combine the positive points of formal education with the positive points of being able to stay at home and go at your own pace. But - in many ways, it's still an untamed frontier, full of traps and pitfalls. There has to be some kind of standard that should be drafted and enforced - possibly standardized tests that must be taken, graded by an independent agency, and passed in order to achieve equivalence to a particular grade in a particular subject. There shouldn't be restrictions on when they can be taken, but rather, they'd serve as a way to measure progress.

Now we are talking good things here - meaning I think the same ;)
School should be a lot more like Khan Acadamy, but that would mean a fundamental change in the doctrine. It just switched from "teacher in frotn all the time" to "make group work", which is maybe better on average but now worse for introverts...
....... no I am not going to write 3 pages here lol. Sorry, get your own ideas.

[sarah8001]

Actually, I think BeginninginWisdoms kids probably understand evolution better than the kids in my biology class who spent the entire class throwing garbage at my head and snickering. Of course, they were athletes, so they weren't disciplined . . . I remember even the teacher would join in the snickering if they nailed me right in the back of the head . . .
I think most people don't really remember most of the facts and theories they were taught in high school or elementary school anyways. As long as you teach basic math, how to read, how to write, and how to study, you are probably giving your kids more than most public school kids graduate with. Most public schools don't instill a love of learning, or encourage curiosity, or teach teamwork or good social skills. They don't teach kids how to find answers to real world problems or how to maximize happiness and minimize stress in life. Most homeschooling parents I know work really hard to teach their kids these things.
And I agree with the poster who said they could have learned k-12 in a year. Schools move SO SLOOOOOOW. Anyone with average or above average intelligence has to be bored out of their skulls in most classes. How is that beneficial?

[Sid888]

1.  Actually, I think BeginninginWisdoms kids probably understand evolution better than the kids in my biology class who spent the entire class throwing garbage at my head and snickering. Of course, they were athletes, so they weren't disciplined . . . I remember even the teacher would join in the snickering if they nailed me right in the back of the head . . .

2. Most public schools don't instill a love of learning, or encourage curiosity, or teach teamwork or good social skills. They don't teach kids how to find answers to real world problems or how to maximize happiness and minimize stress in life. Most homeschooling parents I know work really hard to teach their kids these things.

3.  And I agree with the poster who said they could have learned k-12 in a year. Schools move SO SLOOOOOOW. Anyone with average or above average intelligence has to be bored out of their skulls in most classes. How is that beneficial?

1.  Why did you let this happen?

2.  Really, as a public school teacher, you believe this rubbish?

3.  Hogwash.  What are you doing to solve this problem?

This post seems like a complete work of fiction based on some pretty old stereotypes.  Sounds like we have a troll in our midst...

[sarah8001]

1.  Actually, I think BeginninginWisdoms kids probably understand evolution better than the kids in my biology class who spent the entire class throwing garbage at my head and snickering. Of course, they were athletes, so they weren't disciplined . . . I remember even the teacher would join in the snickering if they nailed me right in the back of the head . . .

2. Most public schools don't instill a love of learning, or encourage curiosity, or teach teamwork or good social skills. They don't teach kids how to find answers to real world problems or how to maximize happiness and minimize stress in life. Most homeschooling parents I know work really hard to teach their kids these things.

3.  And I agree with the poster who said they could have learned k-12 in a year. Schools move SO SLOOOOOOW. Anyone with average or above average intelligence has to be bored out of their skulls in most classes. How is that beneficial?

1.  Why did you let this happen?

2.  Really, as a public school teacher, you believe this rubbish?

3.  Hogwash.  What are you doing to solve this problem?

This post seems like a complete work of fiction based on some pretty old stereotypes.  Sounds like we have a troll in our midst...

Lol, not a troll.
1. There actually wasn't a lot I could do. Both the teacher and the principal explained that the "boys are just playing" and that I should "just loosen up." My parents couldn't make headway with the school's authorities either. Telling the other kids to stop encouraged them to be meaner. To a painfully shy junior high girl, there didn't really seem to be any other options to take on a half dozen older athletic boys. Suggestions?
2. Yes, I do. I went to public school for 11 years, and was homeschooled one year. In public school, they would assign chapters in a book for me to read. I'd read that, get bored, and read more. I'd ask question about the extra stuff I'd read, and the teachers would say that they didn't know the answer, or that I was bothering them, and not to read ahead. The class didn't cover that chapter, so they didn't have time to talk about it. Asking a question often recieved the answer "That's not part of the curriculum. I don't have time to go over it." I took several years of Home Ec/Independent living (required to graduate) but they never taught me how to make a budget or how to cook healthy food or how to do my taxes or even what taxes really were, even though that was supposed to be the point of those classes. Instead they showed me the outside of a condom wrapper, made me play with a fake baby and write fake resumes for fake jobs with fake qualifications. They did not grade these resumes, you got full points just for turning them in.
Nothing they taught in school prepared me for coping with the emotional and legal ramifications of my dad's violent death. I didn't learn how to respond properly to sexual harrasment in the workplace.  I haven't applied anything I learned in high school beyond basic math and reading and writing. Most of the really interesting learning happend in college and in my year of homeschool. My high school classes didn't involve group discussion, or exploring ideas beyond the questions at the end of the chapter. Read this, do this worksheet. Don't talk in class. Don't stand up for yourself. Don't disagree with the teacher. You can't go to the bathroom, I don't care how bad you need to. Don't read ahead. Don't ask so many questions. Follow the rules. That's all I remember about my public education.
3. Are you saying it's hogwash that I could have learned everything taught in k-12 in one year? Because learning and figuring things out is what I do best. I assure you, I have never been challenged in ANY class except a philosophy class. And most of my class mates were pretty bored too. Obviously, bored enough to turn to bullying. Can't tell you how many times my jaw hit the floor, wondering "OMG, he's going to explain this AGAIN??!? We went over it three time already!" What am I doing to fix this? Well, now that I'm an adult, I can learn all I want at any pace that I want :) When my unborn spawn gets old enough to go to school, I intend to give them the option of homeschool if they want to, or online school. I also intend to encourage them to read more, and explore the world as much as they like, and to teach them beyond the slow, constraining pace of public schools. As a public school teacher, what are YOU doing to solve this problem? You have more control over it than I do. Are you saying there are NO bored kids in your classes who could learn faster?
You may think that these are old stereotypes, and that my experiences are not relevant now, but many schools are still ran like this. There are REALLY crappy schools, as well as decent ones. Just look at how many people in this thread are trying to avoid one school, or get into another. Look at how many people spend more on a home for a "good school district." I understand you are presumabley proud of your profession as a public school teacher, but not every public school is a good one. People should have a right to choose another option if that works best for their child and lifestyle.

[mxt0133]

1.  Why did you let this happen?

2.  Really, as a public school teacher, you believe this rubbish?

3.  Hogwash.  What are you doing to solve this problem?

This post seems like a complete work of fiction based on some pretty old stereotypes.  Sounds like we have a troll in our midst...

Based on your comments it would seem like you were probably one of those bullies in school throwing things at students like @sarah.

Attacking people without providing any actual value to the topic is the definition of being a troll.  Which is exactly what you did with your last comment.

You must not remember your school days because I think everyone who has ever gone to public school has known someone who was bullied or been bored at one point.  If most schools were actually concerned with educating their students, then more kids will be held back if they have not learned the material.  But schools can't hold them back because there would be no space for the next batch of incoming students.  I know, I went to a inner city high school and I was so unprepared when I went to college, but my teachers just gave me a B and let me graduate anyway.

I actually have friends and family that are public school educators and most agree with the sentiment that by making kids do exercises and repetitive tasks do not foster curiosity or motivation to investigate a topic further.  Next time you see a kid that is actually interested in any topic tell them that you want a report so you can grade them and see how well they really "know" the topic.  Tell how you think that kid will fell about doing such a report.  Other than the kids that seek approval from other people or gratification from external rewards, passing judgement on things that people find intrinsically valuable is one of the best ways to stop them from doing such an activity.

 

[Lyssa]

Yes I read your post. I was pointing out that it is illegal in most of the world because that puts it into perspective. It is not a stereotype of germans of american homeschooling, it is the world's stereotype. Do you not see the problem when we have 2.5 million kids homeschooled in this country? Why is that? Why is our public school system failing?
As I said, I went to an alternative HS, so I understand these issues and why someoen might look for an alternative to traditional education. However, I still question why this is so.

My wife, who is not american, has a very poor view of homeschooling as well. It is not just a german stereotype. Fact is in most other countries if you say you were homeschooled you will get very odd looks. I am not saying that is right or wrong, it is fact.

 

I think I can help explain why. While I do not know what percentage of US homeschoolers are religious fanatics, it is a sad fact that next to 100% of homeschooling parents in Germany are those exact fanatics. The most prominent group 'Die Zwölf Stämme' (the twelve tribes) apparently has a US headquarter and currently is also prosecuted for child abuse. Those people have been supported for years by the US association for homeschooling (forgot the name... Hslda?), have even been presented as political prisoners and only after the release of videotape evidence of children being beaten with rods has said organisation published a half-assed no-pology.

From my reading of several US blogs of apostates of fundamentalist Christian sects I understand that there is a widespread abuse of the right to homeschool.

My own experience with public schools was less than perfect and included episodes of bullying. I understand the wish to protect your kid and also provide him or her with a better learning experience. If I were a secular homeschooler I would do my very best to get some effective monitoring of homeschooling in place which my kids would do well without but the lack of which leaves other kids scarred for life and uneducated. Side effect would be an improved public perception of homeschooling in the rest of the world.

[UnleashHell]

he was allowed access to the school library. For one book a week and only those for his grade (1st). We ended up with a frustrated kid..

Did I parse this correctly?
A child needs to be "allowed" to use a library? For a very restricted access? And only one book per WEEK??? In a school????

If yes there is someone who needs a whole marathon of face punches every morning for the next year. Honorary first in the punch giving line would be Benjamin Franklin.

yeah - it was great. that's why he was taking his own books to school. and that's why we moved to homeschooling. We could do more in an hour than the school could in a day. way more. without the stupid structure and rules that actually impeded learning.

we are currently considering switching the youngest child back to homeschooling. Theres a lot more available online these days as well. We'd have to restructure our working lives though to maximize her potential. Thinking it through at the moment.

[BeginninginWisedom]

(Someone should change the topic before this thread falls into the abyss... But, if you think the complex systems of a human are inevitably the result of "intelligent design" - I suggest you go watch the TV series Cosmos. It's an absolutely stunning documentary, though perhaps a bit harsh on religion.)

Homeschooling is one of these things that I see the potential of, but definitely to be done with caution. With all the technology we have now, it's easier than ever to combine the positive points of formal education with the positive points of being able to stay at home and go at your own pace. But - in many ways, it's still an untamed frontier, full of traps and pitfalls. There has to be some kind of standard that should be drafted and enforced - possibly standardized tests that must be taken, graded by an independent agency, and passed in order to achieve equivalence to a particular grade in a particular subject. There shouldn't be restrictions on when they can be taken, but rather, they'd serve as a way to measure progress.

They do make home schoolers measure progress

Our children were tested every other year in school with the Iowa Basics Test.Our children were in the 86% to 99% range every year they took the tests.
I did not administer the tests an independent moderator did.
Each state has its own guidelines for measuring progress.
One more thing, when one of our children took the college ACT test they scored a 32 composite with a 34 in science, putting them in the top 99% in the nation.We did not prep our child with any prep classes for that test. They only took the test once.
But, let me say that I think academics are important, but most important to us was who they were as people and could they think on their own.
Also, I do not have a college degree.So it wasn't me. I prayed my way through everyday.

[BeginninginWisedom]

(Someone should change the topic before this thread falls into the abyss... But, if you think the complex systems of a human are inevitably the result of "intelligent design" - I suggest you go watch the TV series Cosmos. It's an absolutely stunning documentary, though perhaps a bit harsh on religion.)

Homeschooling is one of these things that I see the potential of, but definitely to be done with caution. With all the technology we have now, it's easier than ever to combine the positive points of formal education with the positive points of being able to stay at home and go at your own pace. But - in many ways, it's still an untamed frontier, full of traps and pitfalls. There has to be some kind of standard that should be drafted and enforced - possibly standardized tests that must be taken, graded by an independent agency, and passed in order to achieve equivalence to a particular grade in a particular subject. There shouldn't be restrictions on when they can be taken, but rather, they'd serve as a way to measure progress.

They do make home schoolers measure progress

Our children were tested every other year in school with the Iowa Basics Test.Our children were in the 86% to 99% range every year they took the tests.
I did not administer the tests an independent moderator did.
Each state has its own guidelines for measuring progress.
One more thing, when one of our children took the college ACT test they scored a 32 composite with a 34 in science, putting them in the top 99% in the nation.We did not prep our child with any prep classes for that test. They only took the test once.
But, let me say that I think academics are important, but most important to us was who they were as people and could they think on their own.
Also, I do not have a college degree.So it wasn't me. I prayed my way through everyday.

[innerscorecard]

The fact that everyone is quickly and harshly condemning BeginninginWisedom is exactly why in a free society home-schooling is and should be permissible.

[RetiredAt63]

And now we veer totally OT ;-)

I am not of the male persuasion either, I suppose I used it as the generic default (which shows why English using the male as the default can be a problem).

New Zealand is such a special case biologically, because it is a special case geologically - it sits right on a fault line, has been mostly underwater at times (I think at one point it had 1/4 the land mass it does now), and is hard to get to unless you fly.  Not only are introduced mammals a problem, introduced wasps are a real competitor for birds that eat nectar.

Why does Australia have so many poisonous animals - no idea.  I'm sure some Australian biologists have thoughts on this.  But it has been isolated for a long time, so has gone its own way biologically speaking.  One thought - reptiles do better in warm climates, so there are more of them.   Here (North America) our snakes (and really everything) have been affected by glaciation, so they not only have to like our climate, they have to get here. For my "here", twelve thousand years ago there was ice a mile thick.  Not good habitat for snakes ;-)

Back on topic - bright kids have issues in school, they often look like ADD but the problem is boredom - I was lucky in that we had gifted programs in elementary school and streaming in high school.  My DD got to do a lot of extra reading in elementary, and the extra benefit of her French private HS was that not only did she become bilingual, they had streaming!  None of the available public high schools did.

And from his comment, Annamal has to be from New Zealand, where more plants have divaricate leaves than any other place on earth.  Why should plants there do this, when the ones in neighbouring Australia don't? ( And New Zealand has my sympathies re the Canada Geese.  Who thought it was a good idea to introduce them?  They are native here and can be a problem.  Of course, we have starlings . . . .)

Another question would be, why are there so many poisonous creatures in Australia but almost none in New Zealand (not that I am complaining mind).

To be honest my impression is that canada geese are not nearly as large a problem as predatory land mammals, because we have no native land mammals (aside from a couple of species of bat), most our wild-life has evolved to avoid being hunted from the sky and are thus almost utterly defenseless against cats,rats,possums stoats etc.

Except for kea...they have scary tool-using parrot brains and have adapted to people (mostly by destroying everything they can...and they can destroy a lot).

P.s. I'm actually not of the male persuasion =)

[UnleashHell]

. I prayed my way through everyday.

well that sure as shit sounds like a solid basis to educate your kids on.

[BeginninginWisedom]

OK, Unleashell, your bias is showing here big time. In light of extremely good academic results from homeschooling, you choose to curse and try to degreed me for praying.
Think, why would you do that?

. I prayed my way through everyday.

well that sure as shit sounds like a solid basis to educate your kids on.

[RetiredAt63]

One concern is that some of the farm belt states downgrade "Natural Selection" as a modern force (I mean that it is happening right now, as we type), and these are the future farmers who will be seeing some of the most obvious effects of it - diseases and insects that become resistant to controls.  Really everyone should understand it, because most people don't, and this is why we have antimicrobial soaps in homes, where they do not belong, and mis-use of antibiotics (human and farm animal), and the growing problem with "super-bugs" is the result.

One basic tenet of science (versus pseudo-science) is "Can you have a testable hypothesis?"  Religion is not testable - you cannot test for the presence/absence of God.  It is not enough to have a hypothesis, it has to be testable.  This is why biologists loved continental drift as a hypothesis, it explained a lot of paleontological data, but it didn't test out - no way to have floating continents.  Tectonic Plate theory was testable (and passed the tests), so it is a theory (high level concept) and as we derive testable hypotheses from it our understanding of the process grows. 

Oh, testable is not like a school test, it is more - if this is true, then this should happen - do the whatever, what happens, does it match the prediction?  If not, what does that tell us? Refine or redo the hypothesis, test again.  So you can test historical type sciences as well - if an area is subject to tsunamis, you should be able to find traces of previous tsunamis along rivers.  Then if people are only going on human memory (we've never had a tsunami here so we are safe) the evidence of previous ones disproves that safety hypothesis and provides a new one - a tsunami could happen here. Then you wait for the appropriate underwater earthquake to see the outcome.  Or you say - this type of geological landscape lends itself to fossil formation, you find an area where the rocks from the formation are exposed, and you go look for fossils.  If you were right, they will be there.  If you were wrong, they won't be.  That is why they are finding all those dinosaur fossils in north-west China - the geology said they should be there, and they are.

Of course, human error comes into play as well, the fossils could be there, but the rock has not weathered enough (they are 6 meters down), or you just are not good at seeing them.  Stephen Jay Gould talked about fossil hunting in Africa with one of the Leakys- everyone else was finding Homo bones, and he was finding fossil snails - because that was what he was good at finding.

Ecology is much the same - a semi-historical science that can develop testable hypotheses.  For example, observe the effects of fires in areas that control them and areas that do not, derive the hypothesis that fires are much worse when they do get going in areas that have been controlled (more fuel) and test it - they let that big Yellowstone fire burn as the first big test, and the results were really interesting - much less burned area than expected (because wind veered), new growth, increase in health in the elk herds, all sorts of things to watch develop as a result of the burn.  Good science generates new hypotheses to test as the old ones are checked out.

Takeaway message - scientists don't mind when a test of a hypothesis fails, because the failure gives information to revise the hypothesis (or abandon it, if necessary, like continental drift, and the earth-centric view of the solar system, or perfectly circular planetary orbits).  Basic science is all about how the world works, at whatever scale you are interested in. 

The fact that everyone is quickly and harshly condemning BeginninginWisedom is exactly why in a free society home-schooling is and should be permissible.

[BeginninginWisedom]

Oops! Degrade not degreed. Humbled!!!

OK, Unleashell, your bias is showing here big time. In light of extremely good academic results from homeschooling, you choose to curse and try to degreed me for praying.
Think, why would you do that?

. I prayed my way through everyday.

well that sure as shit sounds like a solid basis to educate your kids on.

[Baron235]

What I think is interesting about MMM's decision to homeschool is that I wonder if this is a result of their home life.  Its gotta be depressing as a kid to have to go to school when your parents get to stay home and do whatever they want all day.  I could see how that would breed animosity day after day.

I say this because we have a bit of this in my house.  I work from home a lot and so does my wife.  When my son leaves for school he sees me, his mom and little sister stay behind while he is the only one who needs to leave home.  We are struggling with him saying things like: "why am I the only one in house that needs to leave everyday, that's not fair"

We have no intentions of home schooling, but I could see how this could make a kid feel left out if they like being at home.

I was thinking the same thing.  Having parents like the MMs create a unique set of issues for children. First, MMM is so optimistic and positive about all that he does, it may give his son a false impression that there aren't boring things that must be done to get where you want to be.  Second, being retired when your kids are young, may create an expectation that you get to be the same, when in reality it takes many years of hard work to get to this point and that is after you put forth many long days.

Now, do not read this post as a criticism of MMM or a suggestion that this is the reason for homeschooling.  It is just an observation that when you raise your kids different because you can both stay home, you may have different concerns than you otherwise would have if you were still working.  I would prefer the concerns of MMM than the concerns of working full time parent.