Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Unschooling

I've been off at Indiana University, visiting with some professors and grad students, and they had me give a talk. I met some really cool people, amazing idiosyncratic and humble innovators. Even though I was there to talk about my research, there was a surprising amount of interest in the doings of TeachTheFacts.org, too, in private conversations. Let's just say ... there is an assumption among people at that level, highly educated researchers and scientists, that the viewpoint supported by TTF is the correct one. We may find a commenter who wants to insist that this means that the universities are filled with liberals, but of course the easier explanation is that the universities are filled with smart people.

It seems particularly significant that so many of the "culture wars" battles have taken place within the arena of education. Public education is a great service that local and state governments can provide. It used to be a cliche to say that "knowledge is power," and it used to seem rather hackneyed to talk about how important education is -- everybody knew it was important. It was like taking your vitamins or getting fresh air, something everybody knew was good for you.

Yet somehow, over recent decades, we have seen an anti-intellectual climate build up within the United States that has resulted in intentional and sometimes unintentional undermining of the institution of public education. Not only have there been crises and conflicts over the teaching of evolution and sex-education, the re-writing and re-defining of history and science and the censorship of literature, but trends such as home-schooling and the push for charter schools and vouchers have led to a weakening, at least, of the public trust in its educational system. Remember, last year the sixteen-million-member Southern Baptist Convention nearly voted to pull all of their kids out of public schools.

The New York Times had a cheerful item this weekend about a new trend in home-schooling that, I'm sure you will agree, is bound to result in a brighter, more skilled, more disciplined America in the twenty-first century.

Some people are just letting their kids run wild.
On weekdays, during what are normal school hours for most students, the Billings children do what they want. One recent afternoon, time passed loudly, and without order or lessons, in their home in a North Side neighborhood here.

Hayden Billings, 4, put a box over his head and had fun marching into things. His sister Gaby, 9, told stories about medieval warrior women, while Sydney, 6, drank hot chocolate and played with Dylan, the baby of the family.

In a traditional school setting, such free time would probably be called recess. But for Juli Walter, the children’s mother, it is “child-led learning,” something she considers the best in home schooling.

“I learned early on that when I do things I’m interested in,” Ms. Walter said, “I learn so much more.”

As the number of children who are home-schooled grows — an estimated 1.1 million nationwide — some parents like Ms. Walter are opting for what is perhaps the most extreme application of the movement’s ideas. They are “unschooling” their children, a philosophy that is broadly defined by its rejection of the basic foundations of conventional education, including not only the schoolhouse but also classes, curriculums and textbooks. Home Schoolers Content to Take Children’s Lead

Sure, it sounds like fun. But don't you wonder what they learn? What are the chances that these kids at some point are going to want to stop marching into things with boxes on their heads and learn algebra?

Last summer at a school board meeting discussing whether to include materials from "ex-gays" and other nutty groups in the public school curricula, a board member said to MCPS staff: "I'd like to see if you guys can provide the answer on what criteria is being used to accept certain fact-sheets from certain organizations and reject certain other ones. What is the criteria for that?"

And ... well, several things struck me about the question, but the most important thing is that the answer should be quite clear. The school district should support education, and it should give preference to fact-sheets from organizations that represent highly educated people. It just seemed obvious to me. Uneducated people may make up a majority of the country, but when you come to making decisions for the school district, I think they should support ... education.

Is there something wrong with that reasoning?
There is scant data on the educational results of unschooling, and little knowledge about whether the thousands of unschooled children fare better or worse than regularly schooled students. There is not even reliable data on how many people are unschooling, though many experts suggest the number is growing.

Here in Chicago, a group called the Northside Unschoolers has 100 families registered on its online list. There are similar organizations coast to coast, including the San Francisco Bay Unschooling Network, Unschoolers Unlimited in Guilford, Conn., and the Unschoolers of the Ozarks, serving Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas, although accurate figures for the number of families they serve are hard to come by. Adherents say the rigidity of school-type settings and teacher-led instruction tend to stifle children’s natural curiosity, setting them up for life without a true love of learning.

“When you think about it, the way they do things in school is mostly for crowd control,” said Karen Tucker, a mother of three boys who is an unschooler in Siloam Springs, Ark., and belongs to the Unschoolers of the Ozarks. “We don’t duplicate the methods of school because we’ve rejected school.”

OK, I can see that. American public schools have become mainly crowd control. Raising the next generation of Budweiser customers doesn't really require a lot of self-discipline and work, but you do have to keep them off the streets until they're old enough to buy the stuff.

Now, I'm wondering, as you are, what kind of people these are. I have come to associate home-schooling with strict religious beliefs, where -- for instance in the case of the Southern Baptists -- people would keep their kids out of school so they are not exposed to worldly and corrupting influences.

But these people ... it reminds me of a couple I used to know who lived in a VW Microbus and camped up and down the coasts of California, surfing and letting their kids run around naked exploring the beach. Is that what we're looking at here? Neo-hippies?

Ah, OK, The Times has a paragraph on the next page about that...
Unlike the more familiar home-schoolers of recent years, unschoolers tend not to be religiously motivated. They simply do not approve of ordinary education, and have decided to rearrange their lives around letting their children explore their worlds, unencumbered by the usual pupil-teacher relationship.

And then another thing I wondered about...
Much of the basic mathematics that Ms. Walter’s daughters have learned so far, she said, sprung from their desire to calculate how much allowance money they would have to earn to buy dolls featured in their favorite toy catalog.

Each child gets a small weekly allowance that is deposited directly into her own bank account, then the adding and multiplying begins. The lessons have inadvertently, and painlessly, extended to taxes, shipping fees and postage, which she sees as another benefit of unschooling.

“It’s more real-world stuff,” Ms. Walter said. “How many kids get out of high school and don’t know how to balance a checkbook?”

Mmm, sure, and how many unschooled kids know how to find the area of a circle? How many of our future engineers are going to have been unschooled?

(By the way, it's not often you catch the NYT making a grammatical error like this, using "sprung" instead of "sprang" as the past tense of "spring".)

Finally:
Peter Kowalke, 27, was unschooled as a child and went on to earn a degree in journalism with a concentration in math three years ago from the Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University.

“You don’t know everything, and there are definite gaps in most unschoolers’ backgrounds, but you cover most of what you need,” he said. “And if you find out that you need something that you haven’t studied, you’ll have much more drive to actually learn it.”

Let's say this is the norm. Let's say that kids who stay home and play with boxes on their heads all day do just as well in college as kids who sit quietly at their desks and take notes and fill in their agenda and go home and do homework instead of playing, year after year after year.

You could draw one of two conclusions from that, I'd think. You could conclude that education of children is a waste of time, no value added. Maybe education is just -- what'd they call it? -- crowd control, a way to get kids out of the house so mom and dad can go to work.

Or you could conclude that American education is a waste of time. You can go online and see comparisons of the education levels, the test scores and achievement rankings of students in countries all over the world. And where do you figure we rank? Well, not at the bottom, unless you're just considering the developed world. No, the US typically ranks in the middle on most topics, below most of the European and Asian countries -- the Wikipedia chapter on the US says The United States ranks 24th out of 29 surveyed countries in the reading and science literacy as well as mathematical abilities of its high school students when compared with other developed nations.

So it may be that our schools have reached a point that it's just as good to stay home and play, and get serious when it comes time to go to college.

Of course, that's assuming that the example of Peter Kowalke, unschooled math-and-journalism-major, is representative. I'm guessing it's not.

25 Comments:

Blogger andrear said...

I donot assume that most people are like the unschooled young man in the article. I am going to suggest that many unschooled kids will be ignorant, limited and self-centered(of course, our schools also produce kids like that). I suppose parents who belong to an organization for this practice actually have some idea of fostering their children's interests- outside of box wearing, drinking hot chocolate and watching Tv or playing endless video games.

November 29, 2006 2:52 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Following up from another thread -- this is from the Center for Inquiry, which had an ad on the op-ed page of today's Times.

Anon -- do you have any issues with these statements?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/unique-mission.html
The Center for Inquiry's Unique Mission

There are many institutions that engage in scientific research in specific fields of inquiry; there are fine schools, colleges, and universities that offer a large range of science programs and degrees; and there are numerous science journals and magazines. Many communities sponsor science museums and/or planetariums, for the public is often fascinated with the many exciting discoveries on the frontiers of science. But until the Center for Inquiry, there were no institutions dedicated primarily to promote and defend science, reason, and free inquiry in all aspects of human interest.
The purpose of the Center for Inquiry is to contribute to the public understanding and appreciation of science and reason, and their applications to human conduct.
Unfortunately, the general public does not fully appreciate the nature of science and its methods of inquiry, nor are many willing to explore the broader philosophical implications of scientific discoveries for society. Although there is undoubtedly widespread public support for scientific technology, and while vast investments in new products and industries have grown out of this (e.g., space technology, biogenetic engineering, medical research, and other fields on the frontiers of knowledge), polls have shown that large sectors of the public remain scientifically illiterate, even regarding the most elementary scientific facts about our universe. There is, in the public mind, a vast confusion between genuine science and fringe or pseudoscience. Moreover, there is a large reservoir of antiscientific attitudes about the dangers of scientific research, and fear that scientists who tread in unknown domains are aping the work of Frankenstein. The widespread apprehension about cloning research is reminiscent of the fear of nuclear physicists expressed only a generation ago, that in investigating elementary particles they have opened a Pandora's Box which will destroy humankind. Many even insist that there are areas of human life that scientific inquiry cannot or should not enter.
The scientific revolution, which is now four centuries old, has made great progress in expanding the frontiers of knowledge in the natural, biological, behavioral, and social sciences; and this has led to enormous contributions to human welfare. Witness, for example, the strides made in improving nutrition, health, and longevity, in enhanced travel and communication and the many goods and services available for human enjoyment and happiness. Yet along with the advancement of the agenda of scientific inquiry, there persists a culture of mysticism and faith that resists it.
What would it mean to extend the scientific spirit to our most basic and cherished convictions? It would be to embrace a thoroughly scientific outlook (an outlook referred to in the scholarly literature as scientific naturalism or philosophical naturalism). The naturalistic outlook is at once a method of inquiry, a cosmic world view, and a new form of ethical inquiry.

A Method of Inquiry
The naturalistic outlook is first and foremost a commitment to a distinctive method of inquiry. The term inquiry refers to the evaluation of belief claims, many of which are largely unexamined in contemporary society-particularly basic beliefs. Many modern thinkers have argued that we should examine our beliefs and theories carefully and assent only to those for which there are adequate grounds. Wherever possible, inquiry should provide rational guidelines for thought and conduct [1]. Skepticism is an essential aspect in this process of inquiry, and it contributed to the development of reliable knowledge. It is used effectively within the sciences. The basic premise is that we need to question our beliefs, particularly those that are central to life, to see if they are well grounded by reason and evidence. We do so in order to advance human knowledge and enhance life.
Bertrand Russell held "that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." He thought that this doctrine appears to many people to be "widely paradoxical and subversive," for if consistently applied it would overturn some of the most cherished beliefs and sacred cows of society [2].
At the very least, one might agree with Russell's recommendations:
1.we should not accept a belief as true if there is a preponderance of evidence against it, or if it is found to be rationally inconsistent with other well-founded beliefs, or both. To cling to beliefs for which there are abundant evidence and reasons to the contrary is irrational. Another application of this rule is reasonable, that is,
2.that we ought not to accept a belief as true if there is inadequate evidence and insufficient reasons to do so, and conversely,
3.we should accept a belief claim only if it is based on adequately justifying reasons and sufficient evidence. A corollary of this is that
4.where we do not have adequate grounds for believing that something is the case, then we should, wherever possible, adopt the stance of the skeptic and suspend judgment. Reason also dictates that
5. we should always leave the doors open to further inquiry; we should not censor or block the objective examination of truth claims, and any belief claim that is accepted on adequate reasons and evidence should not be insulated from further inquiry.
________________________________________
Notes:
1.The term "inquiry" was used by both Charles Peirce (1839-1914) and John Dewey (1859-1952), two leading American philosophers who maintained that it should be interpreted functionally by its relevance to the solutions of human problems. Both held that the methods of science are the most effective ways of fixing beliefs.
2.Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays. London: Allen and Unwin, 1928, p. 11. W. K. Clifford, English mathematician and philosopher, in his influential essay, "The Ethics of Belief," makes a bolder statement: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone," he said, "to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." This latter injunction of Clifford is no doubt too sweeping; for it is sometimes difficult in ordinary life, if not impossible, to examine all of our beliefs and to reject those that do not meet this rigorous criterion. W. K. Clifford, Contemporary Review, 1888. See his Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (London: Watts, 1947).

November 29, 2006 3:17 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

It seems funny, and cool, to me that Charles Peirce would be mentioned twice within a week's span here in the comments. Here, in Dana's citation, and also in my reply to Theresa on the "Thinks-Giving" thread.

John Dewey was considered the spokesman for the philosophy of Pragmatism well into the twentieth century, though his views were not entirely consistent with those of Peirce and James.

I have the feeling that people are re-discovering Peirce's writings, gradually, and realizing how important they were in shaping our new world. He was, you might say, not treated especially well in his lifetime.

JimK

November 29, 2006 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrear -
There is a whole network of parents that support home schooling, and organizations that print texts to support them.

The "unschooling" is probably a poor example.

I would be very curious how many parents choose to home school because they are uncomfortable with the garbage the school system seems determined to teach kids.

I would also be very curious if statistical studies have been done on SAT scores, for instance, on home-schooled kids versus publich school kids.

November 29, 2006 6:20 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Jim,

I had noticed the Peirce citation before I posted it. I thought you would enjoy that!

Anon, I know a few home schoolers, including my brother and his wife, and they aren't at all concerned about "garbage" learned in school, but about the more rigid structure which they believes stunts perosnal growth. No doubt that's true for some kids, and we would all benefit from a very low student-teacher ratio. Home schooling is just that taken to the extreme. Unschooling is something else again.

November 29, 2006 11:14 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

We may find a commenter who wants to insist that this means that the universities are filled with liberals, but of course the easier explanation is that the universities are filled with smart people.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that is funny...thanks for the laughs.

I am just glad my 17 year old's friend is not around to see me slapping my thigh and convulsing in laughter...though it would give her yet another opportunity to mimic me...

Yes, universities are filled with smart people. But given the choice between smart and wise, what would any of you choose? Smart is good, but in the final analysis it does not necessarily make this world a better place. Being smart does not exclude also being wise and good, but being smart is not a virtue, i.e. a good habit (neither is it a vice).

My impression is that home schoolers are about split between those that do it for religious reasons (on the right) and those that do it for secular reasons (on the left).

Still, this blog entry and the topic covered is certainly fascinating and food for thought, thanks.

November 30, 2006 5:59 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

I can't argue with you on this one. "Wise" is very important as well.

One small fact -- universities are in the business (we hope and expect) of providing a liberal arts education. I can't imagine many fundamentalists or other totalitarians feeling comfortable in that kind of environment. Small-governement conservatives? Sure, but there aren't many of them left anymore.

November 30, 2006 9:53 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin, only in your topsy turvy world could it be that being smart is not a virtue - that must be the same "logic" of yours that leads you to say laws that prevent same sex couples from marrying aren't a ban on gay marriage.

Smart and wise are strongly correlated, in fact most people would say they are synonyms - seeing as you inexplicably don't agree you might want to take it up with Roget's Thesaurus for starters.

November 30, 2006 12:47 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

I understand about homeschooling-in many places, people have to register what they are doing and there are organizations that support them. I know two families well who homeschooled (not for religious reasons) their kids until high school and those kids had more free time than other kids because they had a 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 learning experience. I know another family whose son was very gifted and this kid at high school age self-taught himself, took on-line high school classes(not from MCPS) and college level classes and then started taking college courses. I worry that unschooling may be something quite different-some belief that a child can ultimately decide what is the best thing to do(painting, looking at nature, reading, playing music-as opposed to watching TV or playing on your game console)- and that is something I think you need to teach. However, our schools also turn out uneducated kids-at least these parents are somewhat involved(they made a decision and are around(I hope) to see that the kids don't try to experiment on a sibling or start practicing vivisection on the dog)

November 30, 2006 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Doak Walker said...

I'm reluctant to distill my notion of proper education down to knowledge of algebra, geometry and the desire to be an engineer. You seem to do so reflexively.

The kids featured in that piece are, after all, 9-, 6- and 4-years-old (and a baby). Box-wearing (or "running wild") strikes me as a perfectly appropriate pastime for a toddler.

And, incidentally, the use of "sprung" as past tense wasn't some rare grammatical error -- it's simply the official Times style, which deems sprung to be acceptible as both the past tense and past participle.

November 30, 2006 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, I know a few home schoolers, including my brother and his wife, and they aren't at all concerned about "garbage" learned in school, but about the more rigid structure which they believes stunts perosnal growth."

I'm not the Anon that Dr D was responding but I'm the one the Dr seems to detest with a passion. Anyway, we homeschool two of our kids and I'd see our reasoning as closer to Dr D's sibling. Academically, most of the classes are pretty well designed even if many of the teachers lacked anything you'd call a gift. Additionally, it always seems to me that most of the public school faculty and admin are more concerned about the well-being of the system than any individual kid.

By the way, we have encountered some of these unschooling nuts. Some are even friends but they are uniformly secular. Usually types with a Grateful Dead sticker on their rear window.

November 30, 2006 3:53 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

... incidentally, the use of "sprung" as past tense wasn't some rare grammatical error -- it's simply the official Times style, which deems sprung to be acceptible as both the past tense and past participle.

I was just at Borders and looked this up in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. I was not surprised to learn that Doak here was making this up.

Watch, now he's going to tell us that "acceptible" is an acceptable alternative spelling for "acceptable."

JimK

November 30, 2006 8:40 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randy writes,

Orin, only in your topsy turvy world could it be that being smart is not a virtue - that must be the same "logic" of yours that leads you to say laws that prevent same sex couples from marrying aren't a ban on gay marriage.

What is a virtue? A virtue is a good habit. The proper and judicious application of knowledge is wisdom, a good habit. It is good to be smart...no doubt about that; however, smarts unguided by any higher principle can lead to evil just as easily as good (evil being the intentional infliction of suffering on another human being).

Smart and wise are strongly correlated, in fact most people would say they are synonyms - seeing as you inexplicably don't agree you might want to take it up with Roget's Thesaurus for starters.

To state that they are "strongly correlated" is overreaching to say the least. But don't take my word for it, check out the list of synonyms for smart, and then check out the list for wise. Hint: they are NOT the same.

Yes, the word smart appears as a synonym for wise, and wise appears as a synonym for smart. The other words associated with wise versus those associated with smart are different, and it is that difference that is important in determining which is a virtue, and which is not.

These are the synonyms for WISE:

astute, aware, calculating, careful, clever, cogitative, contemplative, crafty, cunning, discerning, discreet, educated, enlightened, erudite, experienced, foresighted, grasping, informed, insightful, intuitive, judicious, keen, knowing, knowledgeable, perceptive, perspicacious, politic, prudent, rational, reasonable, reflective, sagacious, sage, sane, sapient, scholarly, sensible, sensing, sharp, shrewd, smart, sophic, sound, tactful, taught, thoughtful, understanding, wary, well-informed, witty

And these are the synonyms for SMART:

acute, adept, agile, alert, apt, astute, bold, brain, brainy*, bright, brilliant, brisk, canny, clever, crafty, effective, egghead, fresh, genius, good, hep, impertinent, ingenious, keen, knowing, long-haired*, nervy, nimble, pert, pointed, quick, quick-witted, ready, resourceful, sassy, sharp, shrewd, skull, slick*, whiz*, wise

November 30, 2006 10:33 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes,

One small fact -- universities are in the business (we hope and expect) of providing a liberal arts education.

Some do, others don't...I am not trying to quibble here, it is not accurate to state it as a fact. And in making this exception I am not even thinking of the political orientation of any given school...either liberal or conservative.

What I am thinking about here is whether a particular institution has as its primary focus the teaching of students, or conducting research (in which case, students are more a tolerated nuissance than anything). A sib of mine went to UCSD (Univ. of CA San Diego) as an undergrad and found the experience wanting and anything but humanizing. I went to California State Univ Long Beach (the second tier higher ed system in CA) and it still leaves me with a warm feeling. My professors went out of their way to make themselves available with generous office hours where all you had to do was drop in (provided, of course, someone else had not already done so first).

All in all, I would say 65 to 70% of my professors were liberal. Of my three most favotite teachers, two of them were hard-core liberal, while the third was conservative (a Straussian, though not a Neo-Con). And the most fascinating course I ever took was Public Finance: Taxation and Budgets (taught by a liberal that was the anti-Bush, that is, he liked...no, loved taxes...one of the best classes I ever took taught by one of the finest teachers I have ever had).

I can't imagine many fundamentalists or other totalitarians feeling comfortable in that kind of environment.

Interesting that you lump two very different groups together as one...

Small-governement conservatives? Sure, but there aren't many of them left anymore.

Wow, you need to get out more...we are all over the place, but being a small govt conservative is one thing...selling it to a large enough electorate to make a difference is another matter. Govt can do wonderful things, of that there is no doubt in my mind...HOWEVER, in order to accomplish those wonderful projects they require more power be turned over to them. And govt power and freedom are like oil and water...

November 30, 2006 11:27 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Gee Orin, for someone who bitches so much about people spelling his name with a "y" I'd think you'd be more careful about mispelling my name in the same way.

You should check your dictionary before you overconfidently proclaim the meaning of words. A virtue is not a habit. Virtue means moral excellence, goodness.
To suggest being smart isn't good is rather silly. If smart wasn't strongly correlated with wise the words wouldn't be listed as synonyms for each other.

At least we agree on the meaning of evil - the intentional infliction of suffering on another human being. A fitting word for attempts like yours to prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most.

November 30, 2006 11:59 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randi rants,

Gee Orin, for someone who bitches so much about people spelling his name with a "y" I'd think you'd be more careful about mispelling my name in the same way.

Please accept my apology...Randi. Chalk it up to sub-standard typing skills (just a tad better than hunt and peck) and one of these,

http://www.odellbrewing.com/beers/90shilling.php

(which, btw, was rather yummy).

You should check your dictionary before you overconfidently proclaim the meaning of words.

LOL!!! Me? Overconfident? Let us keep in mind that it was YOU that wrote, "Smart and wise are strongly correlated". And then I opined that I thought this was "overreaching". And then I showed the synonyms for wise, as well as those for smart. And I admitted that wise is listed as a synonym for smart, and that smart is listed as a synonym for wise. And then I noted that while each is listed as a synonym for the other, the list of words listed for wise were different (and more numerous) than those listed for smart.

Now you can read and compare, or you can argue, however there is a difference between the two words and denying that only makes you appear silly.

A virtue is not a habit. Virtue means moral excellence, goodness.

Good, yes, it means that too...how is a moral excellence (or goodness) demonstrated (since it is more than an abstraction)? It is practiced, as in a HABIT.

To suggest being smart isn't good is rather silly. If smart wasn't strongly correlated with wise the words wouldn't be listed as synonyms for each other.

What part of this do you not understand,

Smart is good, but in the final analysis it does not necessarily make this world a better place. Being smart does not exclude also being wise and good, but being smart is not a virtue, i.e. a good habit (neither is it a vice).????

And as I have already shown, the company each word keeps is DIFFERENT...as different as night and day.

At least we agree on the meaning of evil - the intentional infliction of suffering on another human being. A fitting word for attempts like yours to prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most.

Which is a greater harm...further diminishment and fragmentation of a critical social building block of Society, or appeasing the rather self-centered desires of a small minority? I would say the greater harm done would be the former, just as I suspect you would say the latter. In a free and open society like ours, we are both free to contend in the marketplace of ideas for our respective positions.

December 01, 2006 5:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Expanding the right of marriage to more couples is the antithesis of diminishing of this imporant social building block. Encouraging monogamous marriage for all couples benefits society. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying unfairly marginalizes these couples and their children.

December 01, 2006 6:17 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Anonymous writes,

Expanding the right of marriage to more couples is the antithesis of diminishing of this imporant social building block.

What is marriage about? And yes, I already know the "answer"...it is about "love". Yes, but after that, what else is marriage about?

Encouraging monogamous marriage for all couples benefits society.

While this works for homosexual women (given their nature), it does not work in the case of homosexual men who continue to be sexually promiscuous, even as they affirm that they are in "committed relationships". Yes, there are exceptions to this, but they are just that...exceptions, and public policy should not be based upon exceptions.

Preventing same-sex couples from marrying unfairly marginalizes these couples and their children.

Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father, and to establish that as public policy does not serve the best interests of children (though it does cater to the pride of the adults). A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.

December 01, 2006 7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A loving and compassionate society does not kick same sex couples and their children to the curb either. Families come in all shapes and forms these days, with guardians of various gender and relations to the children. All families should be encouraged and supported by our public policies.

What data do you have that demsonstrates your claim that same sex married male couples are promiscuous after marriage? Public policy shouldn't be based on fiction.

December 01, 2006 8:49 AM  
Anonymous Tish said...

These "unschoolers" have reminded me of Summerhill, the British alternative boarding school founded by A. S. Neill. Kids at Summerhill tended to avoid classes when they first arrived and realized that no one was going to make them attend, but then then tended to identify areas of interest and set themselves to the business of learning. My own children would not thrive intellectually in an "unschool" situation, but I know of some who would.

One of the problems with schools as institutions is that in order to get the greatest amount of education into the greatest number of children during a limited time, they have to teach in a certain way and require children to learn in a certain way. This works well for most children, but not all. I think that many children identified as "LD" have no disability in their capacity to learn curriculum, but great disability in their capacity to adapt to the required learning styles of institutionalized education. Look at how many children are considered both learning disabled and intellectually gifted - most of these kids are outside-the-box learners.

On the other hand, some kids thrive in the most restrictive and conforming schools. My husband's cousin placed her youngest child in a Catholic school that she said she herself could not stand. She put him there because the rigid schedule and rules were a support to her son and he was able to pull himself together academically. He wasn't a problem kid in the sense of law-breaking, but he needed to be in a school that was all about school and nothing else. His big sister graduated from public school with honors. These two kids had the same home, same parents, but widely different academic needs.

If "unschool"ing parents are making use of opportunities, such as children's interest in bank accounts, to teach, then they aren't necessarily failing to educate their children. These questions of how we best learn are not simple, nor are the answers.

December 01, 2006 9:38 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Thank you, Tish, for such a wise contribution, and for reminding me of AS Neill. I knew it was "Summer . . ." but couldn't remember the last word or the author. This was a very popular book back in the late 60's.

December 01, 2006 11:51 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I actually went back and looked at some information about Summerhill when I was writing this blog, and decided not to use it -- I do appreciate that Tish brought it up.

JimK

December 01, 2006 12:11 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Well, I hate to disappoint you Orin, but the dictionary doesn't say anything about a virtue being a habit. I never said there is no difference in the meanings of smart and wise, just that they synonyms, strongly correlated, and obviously being smart is a virtue - you've got a tough row to hoe to convince the majority of people otherwise.

You have yet to explain exactly how allowing more couples to marry hurts the institution of marriage. Last time you were asked to put up or shut up you merely brought up the red herring of divorce. The statistics from Scandinavia show that marriage has if anything been helped by allowing same sex couples to marry.
Your intentional interference in same sex couples marriages can only be described as evil as you can't come up with any rational explanation as to how any opposite sex couple is harmed.

Same sex couples are going to have and raise children regardless of whether or not they are allowed to marry. It is despicable to deprive these children of the rights and benefits of having stable married parents. Preventing these marriages does not result in one single additional child being raised in the male/female househould you prefer. Again you raise a red herring to cloak your anti-gay animus.

Its incredibly hypocritical of you to decry gay promiscuity and then seek to punish those who make the committment to marriage and monogamy by preventing just that. We don't justify preventing all heterosexuals from marrying because some heteros are promiscuous or get into sham marriages and nor is it justified to prevent all gays from marrying for those same reasons. If you had any sincerity whatsoever you'd be heartily encouraging as many gay couples as possible to enter committed monogamous marriages. You don't have any evidence beyond your bigotry that gay men aren't committed marriage partners. The divorce rates of same sex couples are no worse than those for opposite sex couples. Every indication is that gay marriages are at least as successful as straight marriages.

If its self-centred of gays to want to marry, its just as self-centred of you to want marriage. You have a lot of nerve saying gays are self centred for wanting marriage when you think you should have the right to drastically affect other peoples lives for the trivial thrill of not having to think of gays being married. That truly is pathological self centredness.

December 01, 2006 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I very much enjoy reading the TTF blog. For the sake of maintaining a high level of quality, I would suggest ending the dumb argument crap about the dictionary thanks.

December 01, 2006 3:46 PM  
Anonymous JFink said...

While you may doubt the odds of any unschooled child picking up algebra or becoming an engineer, let me tell you the story of my husband, an engineer. He was conventionally schooled, but will freely tell you that school, as far as he was concerned, was only a social institution. In high school, he took the bare minimum math requirement: 1 semester of basic algebra (most of which he spent fighting with the teacher) and 1 semester of Shop Math. Only later in life, after a 6 yr. stint in the Marine Corps, when he decided to become an engineer, did he set about learning the higher math he would need as an engineer. Then he progressed through algebra and trig, many levels of calculus and differential equations. He learned it because he wanted to, he was ready for it, and the knowledge had value for him at that time. That, essentially, is what unschooling is: the freedom to learn what you need to know, when you need to know it. If an unschooler later in life decides he or she wants to be an engineer, I have no doubt that he or she will be able to do so.

December 05, 2006 12:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home