200 members, and a philosophical question
[email protected]
We have 200 members as of this moment. It might be 198 by afternoon, but
with all the comings and goings, we've come to 200.
For being a contributor, I get a first-class copy of Home Education Magazine.
The big topic is the definition and purity of homeschooling, or
homeschooling as discreet from school-sponsored programs.
Maybe this isn't a philosophical question. Maybe it's a political one, which
is why I'm confused.
Clearly different homeschoolers have different motives and boundaries. Some
seem to want to disprove and undo the compulsory attendance laws. Some want
freedom from government control (good luck with that one, longterm...). Some
want some degree of isolation for social, religious, dietary or safety
reasons.
One argument that has been presented to me, personally, over the years is
that we (homeschoolers) need to be a unified group, that we're all in this
together, that we have to support the rights of all homeschoolers. That
sounds good in a pep-rally way, but it has always seemed to me that
conservative school-at-home homeschooling is 180 degrees from what I want and
do and believe, with school halfway between us. They leave because school is
too permissive, teaches too broad a set of information. I'm out because
school is so restrictive, and teaches so narrow a set of information. So
I've never seen myself the same as, or in the same category as, those who use
ABeka or Sonlight or anything super-structured and punish children for
"homeschooling" infractions and "laziness" and "low grades."
Soem of the objections (not just in this issue of HEM, but in online
discussions from time to time) seem to have to do with whether someone else
is telling the family what and how to teach. Some seem to deal more with the
family's freedom of schedule and movement.
What I don't understand is why subscribing to a "homeschool" that involves
parents teaching per directions and sending the tests and assignments back to
the company for grading or comment or whatever is considered homeschooling
(whether it's A Beka or Clonlara), while unschooling while signed up with an
alternative school program is not.
Why jump on an unschooler who has accepted state funding, but NOT jump on
someone who paid $800 or $1000 for someone else to tell them exactly what to
do?
I care more about how people learn than about what they're taking from teh
government or not. If I believed school methods worked, I'd probably send my
kids to school. I think school methods can be harmful to children and their
families, and those children's future children. So why (if it is, as it
seems to me) are families who school MORE like school than school does
supposed to be my partners and cohorts, while those who don't school
school-style are bad guys for signing up with a charter school or umbrella or
special program?
I've complained about the Family School here in Albuquerque, but again it's
because of methods. I hate for them to call it "half-time homeschooling"
when that half time is prescribed assignments and homework which the parents
have to chart and document. And if kids miss school or parents miss the
required weekly meetings, the child is dumped in favor of someone else on the
mailing list. If Albuquerque Public Schools had an unschoolers' help center
with people advising families and teaching them to unschool, I wouldn't care
if they got full state, federal and add-on-special-ed funding for every one
of them, as long as they let them learn however they wanted to.
Maybe this is just a perspective problem, like looking at a ribbon. You can
look at it edge on, you can look at the width of it, you can look at it as
something with two opposing sides, or you can see it as something the cat can
twirl and tangle into a big mess.
What am I missing in the current debate?
Sandra
with all the comings and goings, we've come to 200.
For being a contributor, I get a first-class copy of Home Education Magazine.
The big topic is the definition and purity of homeschooling, or
homeschooling as discreet from school-sponsored programs.
Maybe this isn't a philosophical question. Maybe it's a political one, which
is why I'm confused.
Clearly different homeschoolers have different motives and boundaries. Some
seem to want to disprove and undo the compulsory attendance laws. Some want
freedom from government control (good luck with that one, longterm...). Some
want some degree of isolation for social, religious, dietary or safety
reasons.
One argument that has been presented to me, personally, over the years is
that we (homeschoolers) need to be a unified group, that we're all in this
together, that we have to support the rights of all homeschoolers. That
sounds good in a pep-rally way, but it has always seemed to me that
conservative school-at-home homeschooling is 180 degrees from what I want and
do and believe, with school halfway between us. They leave because school is
too permissive, teaches too broad a set of information. I'm out because
school is so restrictive, and teaches so narrow a set of information. So
I've never seen myself the same as, or in the same category as, those who use
ABeka or Sonlight or anything super-structured and punish children for
"homeschooling" infractions and "laziness" and "low grades."
Soem of the objections (not just in this issue of HEM, but in online
discussions from time to time) seem to have to do with whether someone else
is telling the family what and how to teach. Some seem to deal more with the
family's freedom of schedule and movement.
What I don't understand is why subscribing to a "homeschool" that involves
parents teaching per directions and sending the tests and assignments back to
the company for grading or comment or whatever is considered homeschooling
(whether it's A Beka or Clonlara), while unschooling while signed up with an
alternative school program is not.
Why jump on an unschooler who has accepted state funding, but NOT jump on
someone who paid $800 or $1000 for someone else to tell them exactly what to
do?
I care more about how people learn than about what they're taking from teh
government or not. If I believed school methods worked, I'd probably send my
kids to school. I think school methods can be harmful to children and their
families, and those children's future children. So why (if it is, as it
seems to me) are families who school MORE like school than school does
supposed to be my partners and cohorts, while those who don't school
school-style are bad guys for signing up with a charter school or umbrella or
special program?
I've complained about the Family School here in Albuquerque, but again it's
because of methods. I hate for them to call it "half-time homeschooling"
when that half time is prescribed assignments and homework which the parents
have to chart and document. And if kids miss school or parents miss the
required weekly meetings, the child is dumped in favor of someone else on the
mailing list. If Albuquerque Public Schools had an unschoolers' help center
with people advising families and teaching them to unschool, I wouldn't care
if they got full state, federal and add-on-special-ed funding for every one
of them, as long as they let them learn however they wanted to.
Maybe this is just a perspective problem, like looking at a ribbon. You can
look at it edge on, you can look at the width of it, you can look at it as
something with two opposing sides, or you can see it as something the cat can
twirl and tangle into a big mess.
What am I missing in the current debate?
Sandra
homeschoolmd
--- In AlwaysLearning@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
<snip>
> The big topic is the definition and purity of homeschooling, or
> homeschooling as discreet from school-sponsored programs.
>
> Maybe this isn't a philosophical question. Maybe it's a political
one, which
> is why I'm confused.
<big snip>
> What am I missing in the current debate?
>
> Sandra
Could an understooding of the origin of the grassroots homeschool
movement give us any help in understanding this debate?
Are there any other grassroots movements that we can trace the
history of to help explain the reason for this debate?
I don't have any answers. I'm just glad to have the right to
homeschool. If debates of this nature aide in the preservation of my
rights, then I'm glad someone is having them.
Pat
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 8:10:02 AM, SandraDodd@... writes:
<< What am I missing in the current debate? >>
Part of it may be the piece that says if the government is giving you money,
they will want something - accountability probably - back.
Can you imagine a gov. sponsored unschooling program that was totally
hands-off? I can't.
<<while unschooling while signed up with an
alternative school program is not.>>
I don't know why anyone would want to say that is not really homeschooling
though.
I would advocate for the rights of all homeschoolers as a group, because if
you start to separate us out according to method, you leave us open to
regulation. That is a political question.
The importance of why people homeschool is a philosophical question.
Does that get to what you were asking?
Paula
<< What am I missing in the current debate? >>
Part of it may be the piece that says if the government is giving you money,
they will want something - accountability probably - back.
Can you imagine a gov. sponsored unschooling program that was totally
hands-off? I can't.
<<while unschooling while signed up with an
alternative school program is not.>>
I don't know why anyone would want to say that is not really homeschooling
though.
I would advocate for the rights of all homeschoolers as a group, because if
you start to separate us out according to method, you leave us open to
regulation. That is a political question.
The importance of why people homeschool is a philosophical question.
Does that get to what you were asking?
Paula
homeschoolmd
--- In AlwaysLearning@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
comment on the emotions you are feeling regarding this accomplishment?
Pat
> We have 200 members as of this moment. It might be 198 byafternoon, but
> with all the comings and goings, we've come to 200.Congratulations on reaching this milestone! Would you care to
>
comment on the emotions you are feeling regarding this accomplishment?
Pat
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 7:55:02 AM, sjogy@... writes:
<< Part of it may be the piece that says if the government is giving you
money,
they will want something - accountability probably - back.
(at least if you've paid for teachers to help, they tell you what to do), and
HSLDA wants accountability. And many homeschoolers who totally follow state
laws are providing accountability (in some states, not all).
So I don't think it's a dividing line between accountability and total wild
freedom.
<<<while unschooling while signed up with an
alternative school program is not.>>
<<I don't know why anyone would want to say that is not really homeschooling
though. >>
They say it loud and long.
Sandra
<< Part of it may be the piece that says if the government is giving you
money,
they will want something - accountability probably - back.
>>But it seems to me that most of the sellers of curriculum want accountability
(at least if you've paid for teachers to help, they tell you what to do), and
HSLDA wants accountability. And many homeschoolers who totally follow state
laws are providing accountability (in some states, not all).
So I don't think it's a dividing line between accountability and total wild
freedom.
<<<while unschooling while signed up with an
alternative school program is not.>>
<<I don't know why anyone would want to say that is not really homeschooling
though. >>
They say it loud and long.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 8:00:21 AM, homeschoolmd@... writes:
<< Would you care to
comment on the emotions you are feeling regarding this accomplishment? >>
I figure it's just another thing in my life which burgeons, blossoms and will
eventually die.
I'd be more excited if I were younger. <g>
The swirl of ideas is wonderful. I like sparking, whirling word-winds.
And for anyone who's come to this group directly from yahoogroups or search
or friend's recommendation, I want to remind you to check out
www.unschooling.com which is a great place for families new to unschooling,
or those frustrated who want reassurances.
Sandra
<< Would you care to
comment on the emotions you are feeling regarding this accomplishment? >>
I figure it's just another thing in my life which burgeons, blossoms and will
eventually die.
I'd be more excited if I were younger. <g>
The swirl of ideas is wonderful. I like sparking, whirling word-winds.
And for anyone who's come to this group directly from yahoogroups or search
or friend's recommendation, I want to remind you to check out
www.unschooling.com which is a great place for families new to unschooling,
or those frustrated who want reassurances.
Sandra
homeschoolmd
> I'd be more excited if I were younger. <g>How would things be different if you were younger? Or do you mean
you don't get as excited about things as you did when you were
younger because you are a different person?
Pat
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 9:10:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
reasons people criticize these things are vastly different. Personally, I'm
supportive of homeschoolers whether they accept state funding or not. I've
known families for whom that was the best way. But, as Joyce pointed out,
the criticism for that comes from the very real threat that once you accept
monies from the government, the government expects to have a hand in telling
you how to use that money and then we start slipping down that slope of overt
governmental control of homeschooling. The criticism of paying some school
to send you materials and strictly oversee one's teaching and so forth is
stemming from a, yes, philosophical difference in one's definition of
"education" and what is valuable in education.
Apples and oranges, I think. One is political difference the other is
philosophical difference.
~Ginny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Why jump on an unschooler who has accepted state funding, but NOT jump onWell, I think you might be comparing apples and oranges. At least the
> someone who paid $800 or $1000 for someone else to tell them exactly what
> to
> do?
>
reasons people criticize these things are vastly different. Personally, I'm
supportive of homeschoolers whether they accept state funding or not. I've
known families for whom that was the best way. But, as Joyce pointed out,
the criticism for that comes from the very real threat that once you accept
monies from the government, the government expects to have a hand in telling
you how to use that money and then we start slipping down that slope of overt
governmental control of homeschooling. The criticism of paying some school
to send you materials and strictly oversee one's teaching and so forth is
stemming from a, yes, philosophical difference in one's definition of
"education" and what is valuable in education.
Apples and oranges, I think. One is political difference the other is
philosophical difference.
~Ginny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 10:23:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
just don't think they can. Once they open that door and allow the government
in, they're --we're -- sunk. There's a big deal in that community about
being accountable to authority, so it's not a surprise they are supportive of
a measure of homeschooler accountability to govt.
~Ginny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> But it seems to me that most of the sellers of curriculum wantYou're right, but *they* want to be able to define that accountability and I
> accountability
> (at least if you've paid for teachers to help, they tell you what to do),
> and
> HSLDA wants accountability. And many homeschoolers who totally follow
> state
> laws are providing accountability (in some states, not all).
>
> So I don't think it's a dividing line between accountability and total wild
>
> freedom.
>
just don't think they can. Once they open that door and allow the government
in, they're --we're -- sunk. There's a big deal in that community about
being accountable to authority, so it's not a surprise they are supportive of
a measure of homeschooler accountability to govt.
~Ginny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sharon Rudd
Some civilized nations subsidize all mothers with a
livable wage allow them to care for their own
children. That would solve the problem. But, I
understand, that wasn't started until there was a
negative birth rate.
Sharon of the Swamp
--- Wings2Fly@... wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
livable wage allow them to care for their own
children. That would solve the problem. But, I
understand, that wasn't started until there was a
negative birth rate.
Sharon of the Swamp
--- Wings2Fly@... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/24/02 9:10:06 AM Eastern__________________________________________________
> Standard Time,
> SandraDodd@... writes:
>
>
> > Why jump on an unschooler who has accepted state
> funding, but NOT jump on
> > someone who paid $800 or $1000 for someone else to
> tell them exactly what
> > to
> > do?
> >
>
> Well, I think you might be comparing apples and
> oranges. At least the
> reasons people criticize these things are vastly
> different. Personally, I'm
> supportive of homeschoolers whether they accept
> state funding or not. I've
> known families for whom that was the best way. But,
> as Joyce pointed out,
> the criticism for that comes from the very real
> threat that once you accept
> monies from the government, the government expects
> to have a hand in telling
> you how to use that money and then we start slipping
> down that slope of overt
> governmental control of homeschooling. The
> criticism of paying some school
> to send you materials and strictly oversee one's
> teaching and so forth is
> stemming from a, yes, philosophical difference in
> one's definition of
> "education" and what is valuable in education.
>
> Apples and oranges, I think. One is political
> difference the other is
> philosophical difference.
>
> ~Ginny
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
Dan Vilter
on 2/24/02 6:09 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:
this list Sandra. Thanks to the rest of you for joining it.
this to be a philosophical question. I think it's a political one.
herding cats. If the only thing that unites a group is not subscribing to
something as large and dominant and far reaching into every corner of our
society like public-school, there will be as many reasons for being part of
the group as there are corners in our society. Politics always creates
strange bedfellows. This is just another example.
The only reason we have such free access to home schooling here in
California is because all the private schools have paved the way ahead of
us. The freedom to be out from under a government run schools is about the
*only* issue I feel united with private schools. It's a political union.
to debate. You don't seem to have much in common with school at homers,
the concept of paying someone to tell you what to do, and teaching a narrow
set of information. The only connection seems to me is that homeschooling
label. A political label. Remove it and doesn't the debate vanish?
-Dan Vilter
Sent using the Entourage X Test Drive.
> We have 200 members as of this moment. It might be 198 by afternoon, butMuch deserved congratulations seemed to be in order. Thanks for sponsoring
> with all the comings and goings, we've come to 200.
this list Sandra. Thanks to the rest of you for joining it.
> For being a contributor, I get a first-class copy of Home Education Magazine.With such a broad subject as home education, it would be very difficult for
> The big topic is the definition and purity of homeschooling, or
> homeschooling as discreet from school-sponsored programs.
>
> Maybe this isn't a philosophical question. Maybe it's a political one, which
> is why I'm confused.
this to be a philosophical question. I think it's a political one.
>. . .Whenever I hear this argument all I can think of is that phrase about
> One argument that has been presented to me, personally, over the years is
> that we (homeschoolers) need to be a unified group, that we're all in this
> together, that we have to support the rights of all homeschoolers.
herding cats. If the only thing that unites a group is not subscribing to
something as large and dominant and far reaching into every corner of our
society like public-school, there will be as many reasons for being part of
the group as there are corners in our society. Politics always creates
strange bedfellows. This is just another example.
The only reason we have such free access to home schooling here in
California is because all the private schools have paved the way ahead of
us. The freedom to be out from under a government run schools is about the
*only* issue I feel united with private schools. It's a political union.
>...Take the label homeschooling out of this discussion and you have very little
>
> Maybe this is just a perspective problem, like looking at a ribbon. You can
> look at it edge on, you can look at the width of it, you can look at it as
> something with two opposing sides, or you can see it as something the cat can
> twirl and tangle into a big mess.
>
> What am I missing in the current debate?
>
> Sandra
to debate. You don't seem to have much in common with school at homers,
the concept of paying someone to tell you what to do, and teaching a narrow
set of information. The only connection seems to me is that homeschooling
label. A political label. Remove it and doesn't the debate vanish?
-Dan Vilter
Sent using the Entourage X Test Drive.
Cindy
SandraDodd@... wrote:
find this very interesting and after I eat breakfast, I will post more.
I use a charter school homeschooling program where, I'd estimate,
75 - 80% of the families are unschoolers of varying degree.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
>They are saying it loud, long and ugly on HEM-networking right now. I
> <<<while unschooling while signed up with an
> alternative school program is not.>>
> <<I don't know why anyone would want to say that is not really homeschooling
> though. >>
>
> They say it loud and long.
>
find this very interesting and after I eat breakfast, I will post more.
I use a charter school homeschooling program where, I'd estimate,
75 - 80% of the families are unschoolers of varying degree.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
Cindy
Wings2Fly@... wrote:
have been subjected to more restrictions but the other homeschooling options
have been left alone. Historically (over the past 10 years) this argument
just doesn't been proven true. I know of no other state in which this
has happened either - this is the bogeyman every opponent uses to tell
those of us who do use the government programs why we are such evil
homeschoolers. (And yes we have been called evil, fraudulent and a lot
of other names.)
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
>What has happened here in CA is that the government homeschoolers programs
> You're right, but *they* want to be able to define that accountability and I
> just don't think they can. Once they open that door and allow the government
> in, they're --we're -- sunk. There's a big deal in that community about
> being accountable to authority, so it's not a surprise they are supportive of
> a measure of homeschooler accountability to govt.
>
have been subjected to more restrictions but the other homeschooling options
have been left alone. Historically (over the past 10 years) this argument
just doesn't been proven true. I know of no other state in which this
has happened either - this is the bogeyman every opponent uses to tell
those of us who do use the government programs why we are such evil
homeschoolers. (And yes we have been called evil, fraudulent and a lot
of other names.)
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 12:13:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
crma@... writes:
Here in VA, we have a state homeschooling org whose volunteers work
diligently to keep governmental paws off homeschooling, so I can see how this
would work if such an organization *were* diligent. It seems every session
I'm having to write a note to my representative to head off one governmental
intrusion or another in homeschooling.
I don't have a problem with state funded/state regulated options for
homeschooling, nor do I have a problem with anyone who chooses to make use of
them. I just think the other options must remain free of unwanted
government intrusion also. That's a balance that has, so far, been
maintained. But I don't think it's an unwarranted fear that keeps many of us
vigilant against insidious government intrusion into the non-state-funded
options. I see the attempts made regularly.
~Ginny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
crma@... writes:
> What has happened here in CA is that the government homeschoolers programsThe namecalling is unnecessary, for sure.
> have been subjected to more restrictions but the other homeschooling
> options
> have been left alone. Historically (over the past 10 years) this argument
> just doesn't been proven true. I know of no other state in which this
> has happened either - this is the bogeyman every opponent uses to tell
> those of us who do use the government programs why we are such evil
> homeschoolers. (And yes we have been called evil, fraudulent and a lot
> of other names.)
>
Here in VA, we have a state homeschooling org whose volunteers work
diligently to keep governmental paws off homeschooling, so I can see how this
would work if such an organization *were* diligent. It seems every session
I'm having to write a note to my representative to head off one governmental
intrusion or another in homeschooling.
I don't have a problem with state funded/state regulated options for
homeschooling, nor do I have a problem with anyone who chooses to make use of
them. I just think the other options must remain free of unwanted
government intrusion also. That's a balance that has, so far, been
maintained. But I don't think it's an unwarranted fear that keeps many of us
vigilant against insidious government intrusion into the non-state-funded
options. I see the attempts made regularly.
~Ginny
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>I wonder if that's the one I was on last year or so. I remember it getting
>They are saying it loud, long and ugly on HEM-networking right now. I
>find this very interesting and after I eat breakfast, I will post more.
>I use a charter school homeschooling program where, I'd estimate,
>75 - 80% of the families are unschoolers of varying degree.
loud and ugly then on the same subject. There was someone from the "other
list" making the most noise about it.
It's a perennial issue, and I'm not sure whether I want to keep arguing
with any of them about it. The ironic thing is that there are at least a
few states and provinces where the legal homeschoolers have to do *more* in
the way of accountability than I have to do on the program we're with in
this province. We're supposed to send in a report 3 times a year with info
on what our kids are learning within the BC curriculum. We don't have to
*follow* the BC curriculum. We just have to find at least some things in
it that our kids have learned in the last few months. Easy. I'm glad BC
still has the other option of no reporting at all, but for a computer,
internet access, and some extra dollars to spend on great electronic
"toys", I don't mind at all.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Tia Leschke
>I think you'd find that there are two distinct grassroots groups involved
>Could an understooding of the origin of the grassroots homeschool
>movement give us any help in understanding this debate?
in the homeschooling movement, the people who homeschool for religious
reasons or because the schools are too liberal, and the group that John
Holt started helping to homeschool when he got fed up with trying to change
the schools.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 10:23:50 AM, Wings2Fly@... writes:
<< I don't have a problem with state funded/state regulated options for
homeschooling, nor do I have a problem with anyone who chooses to make use of
them. I just think the other options must remain free of unwanted
government intrusion also. >>
The cartoon id of me is pointing at the fundamentalist homeschoolers and
yelling "Make them teach real science and history and critical thinking," and
they're poingint and yelling at me (on websites, not in their imaginations)
"Make them teach phonics and Bible and the True Christian Heritage of
America."
Maybe more than a some want government intrusion on the neglectful "other"
homeschoolers, and so that keeps the pot simmering too.
Sandra
----------------------------------
<< I don't have a problem with state funded/state regulated options for
homeschooling, nor do I have a problem with anyone who chooses to make use of
them. I just think the other options must remain free of unwanted
government intrusion also. >>
The cartoon id of me is pointing at the fundamentalist homeschoolers and
yelling "Make them teach real science and history and critical thinking," and
they're poingint and yelling at me (on websites, not in their imaginations)
"Make them teach phonics and Bible and the True Christian Heritage of
America."
Maybe more than a some want government intrusion on the neglectful "other"
homeschoolers, and so that keeps the pot simmering too.
Sandra
----------------------------------
Tia Leschke
>This is the argument I keep hearing. Yet in BC we've had these programs
>Well, I think you might be comparing apples and oranges. At least the
>reasons people criticize these things are vastly different. Personally, I'm
>supportive of homeschoolers whether they accept state funding or not. I've
>known families for whom that was the best way. But, as Joyce pointed out,
>the criticism for that comes from the very real threat that once you accept
>monies from the government, the government expects to have a hand in telling
>you how to use that money and then we start slipping down that slope of overt
>governmental control of homeschooling.
for over 7 years now, and there's been no change to the homeschooling
law. What I tell people who are worried is to keep vigilant about the
homeschooling laws. Fight any changes toward more control, even if you use
the programs and thus aren't officially homeschooling in the eyes of the
State. Seems to me that would work a lot better than trying to make people
feel like traitors for using the programs. Get those people on board with
the state or provincial homeschooling groups so the government knows that
they have the numbers to fight any changes to the homeschool law. That
said, I'd better go renew my membership in our provincial org. <g>
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Cindy
SandraDodd@... wrote:
opponents to government programs here in CA, I've read some very strongly
fear based articles. Cathy something-or-other (I'm spacing her last
name, she used to be CHN's webmaster) wrote an article about
how the government preys on homeschoolers just like the predators
in Africa prey on the wildlife there. Maybe she was just trying
to scare her readers into joining in her crusade; maybe she actually
believes it.
I also think that (again amongst the ones here in CA) in their worldview
the ultimate evil is government control. I've met Chris Cardiff and
his family IRL. Chris is strongly opposed to government control in
education. Yet his daughters are not unschooled. For you, me and
probably the other members of this list, control as administered in
any school setting is the ultimate evil.
This has been my experience. I bought into their thinking too, until
I moved here in November, 2000. I spent a lot of time agonizing over
my decision to join the local charter program. I kept thinking "how
could I sell out homeschooling?" But when I looked at the program
and the alternatives and I realized that I'd be "selling out" my children
by not joining this program. It is a great community resource. We
joined about 1 year ago. I do have more paperwork to do than if we'd
remained independent. It's been great and we've met a lot of really
neat unschooling families in this program.
IMO it's the fear, anger, and the personal attacks that is more of a
problem than the purity of homeschooling.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
>(lots of interesting wrting snipped)
> For being a contributor, I get a first-class copy of Home Education Magazine.
> The big topic is the definition and purity of homeschooling, or
> homeschooling as discreet from school-sponsored programs.
>
> Maybe this isn't a philosophical question. Maybe it's a political one, which
> is why I'm confused.
>
>I think you might be missing fear. From some of the more outspoken
> Maybe this is just a perspective problem, like looking at a ribbon. You can
> look at it edge on, you can look at the width of it, you can look at it as
> something with two opposing sides, or you can see it as something the cat can
> twirl and tangle into a big mess.
>
> What am I missing in the current debate?
>
opponents to government programs here in CA, I've read some very strongly
fear based articles. Cathy something-or-other (I'm spacing her last
name, she used to be CHN's webmaster) wrote an article about
how the government preys on homeschoolers just like the predators
in Africa prey on the wildlife there. Maybe she was just trying
to scare her readers into joining in her crusade; maybe she actually
believes it.
I also think that (again amongst the ones here in CA) in their worldview
the ultimate evil is government control. I've met Chris Cardiff and
his family IRL. Chris is strongly opposed to government control in
education. Yet his daughters are not unschooled. For you, me and
probably the other members of this list, control as administered in
any school setting is the ultimate evil.
This has been my experience. I bought into their thinking too, until
I moved here in November, 2000. I spent a lot of time agonizing over
my decision to join the local charter program. I kept thinking "how
could I sell out homeschooling?" But when I looked at the program
and the alternatives and I realized that I'd be "selling out" my children
by not joining this program. It is a great community resource. We
joined about 1 year ago. I do have more paperwork to do than if we'd
remained independent. It's been great and we've met a lot of really
neat unschooling families in this program.
IMO it's the fear, anger, and the personal attacks that is more of a
problem than the purity of homeschooling.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
[email protected]
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:09:16 EST SandraDodd@... writes:
explaining why I do feel that it's important to distinguish between
unschoolers and school-at-homers. I don't think making that distinction
is divisive, I think the divide is already there. It'd be like trying to
lump everyone who doesn't attend church together, and ignoring the fact
that you're group is made of up atheists, agnostics, Moslems, Buddhists,
Hindus, Pagans, Jews, non-church-attending Christians, and zillions
more..
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> it has always seemed to me thatAha! That makes a whole lot of sense to me. I've struggled with
> conservative school-at-home homeschooling is 180 degrees from what I
> want and do and believe, with school halfway between us.
explaining why I do feel that it's important to distinguish between
unschoolers and school-at-homers. I don't think making that distinction
is divisive, I think the divide is already there. It'd be like trying to
lump everyone who doesn't attend church together, and ignoring the fact
that you're group is made of up atheists, agnostics, Moslems, Buddhists,
Hindus, Pagans, Jews, non-church-attending Christians, and zillions
more..
Dar
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 1:30:12 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< It'd be like trying to
lump everyone who doesn't attend church together, and ignoring the fact
that you're group is made of up atheists, agnostics, Moslems, Buddhists,
Hindus, Pagans, Jews, non-church-attending Christians, and zillions
more.. >>
Interesting, wryly ironic example you made.
When I was growing up Baptist, they did, exactly, lump everyone who didn't
attend church together (more specifically, those who were not saved and were
going to hell) and it included all you listed above plus any Catholics who
hadn't somehow had a personal relationship with Jesus (which was suspect,
since they hadn't quit worshipping idols and using memorized prayers yet).
Sandra
<< It'd be like trying to
lump everyone who doesn't attend church together, and ignoring the fact
that you're group is made of up atheists, agnostics, Moslems, Buddhists,
Hindus, Pagans, Jews, non-church-attending Christians, and zillions
more.. >>
Interesting, wryly ironic example you made.
When I was growing up Baptist, they did, exactly, lump everyone who didn't
attend church together (more specifically, those who were not saved and were
going to hell) and it included all you listed above plus any Catholics who
hadn't somehow had a personal relationship with Jesus (which was suspect,
since they hadn't quit worshipping idols and using memorized prayers yet).
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/24/02 2:00:23 PM, leschke@... writes:
<< Fight any changes toward more control, even if you use
the programs and thus aren't officially homeschooling in the eyes of the
State. >>
Maybe that's one reason that in some states people don't want homeschoolers
registered. Because they would rather have them counted as homeschoolers.
Some states, though, like Texas, aren't counting at all. And New Mexico's
counting, but like Hansel we hold out a little bone instead of a real finger.
It's estimated that as many as 2/3 of homeschoolers here don't register.
That was the estimate a few years back. I'm guessing that since the law was
relaxed, it's over 3/4 unregistered.
I would just as soon have the schools get funding just as if my kids were
there. It's a shame that our kids being gone doesn't improve the per-student
funding, or decrease the student/teacher ratio. I wish it would.
Sandra
<< Fight any changes toward more control, even if you use
the programs and thus aren't officially homeschooling in the eyes of the
State. >>
Maybe that's one reason that in some states people don't want homeschoolers
registered. Because they would rather have them counted as homeschoolers.
Some states, though, like Texas, aren't counting at all. And New Mexico's
counting, but like Hansel we hold out a little bone instead of a real finger.
It's estimated that as many as 2/3 of homeschoolers here don't register.
That was the estimate a few years back. I'm guessing that since the law was
relaxed, it's over 3/4 unregistered.
I would just as soon have the schools get funding just as if my kids were
there. It's a shame that our kids being gone doesn't improve the per-student
funding, or decrease the student/teacher ratio. I wish it would.
Sandra
[email protected]
**Maybe that's one reason that in some states people don't want homeschoolers
registered. Because they would rather have them counted as homeschoolers.**
??? What this statement means is escaping me, but then lots of things baffle
me these days. :)
In any case - here in IL homeschoolers are unregistered and unregulated, and
most of us fight to keep it that way. Any advantages gained by knowing how
many of us there really are are far outweighed by the potential for harm. The
problem with giving educrats a bit is they always want more. Start keeping
lists of homeschoolers and it won't be very long at all before legislators
and educrats believe they ought to be doing something with those lists.
For me though it's mostly a privacy and freedom issue. It's not the state's
business.
Deborah
registered. Because they would rather have them counted as homeschoolers.**
??? What this statement means is escaping me, but then lots of things baffle
me these days. :)
In any case - here in IL homeschoolers are unregistered and unregulated, and
most of us fight to keep it that way. Any advantages gained by knowing how
many of us there really are are far outweighed by the potential for harm. The
problem with giving educrats a bit is they always want more. Start keeping
lists of homeschoolers and it won't be very long at all before legislators
and educrats believe they ought to be doing something with those lists.
For me though it's mostly a privacy and freedom issue. It's not the state's
business.
Deborah
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/25/02 12:59:57 PM, dacunefare@... writes:
<< **Maybe that's one reason that in some states people don't want
homeschoolers
registered. Because they would rather have them counted as homeschoolers.**
homeschoolers, and statistically/legally there are fewer homeschoolers.
I just left words out, that's all! Bad mindreading on your part! <g>
<< Any advantages gained by knowing how
many of us there really are are far outweighed by the potential for harm>>
I agree.
Some people just LOVE to be part of a big group, though. I know in the SCA
people are THRILLED when their shire gets big, and when their barony is HUGE.
And in no time they're saying "this group is so large I don't know
everybody, and we can't afford to rent a feasthall big enough." Yeah. DUH.
Humans seem to have a "bigger is better" mentality.
Holly asked me just last night why millionaires get such huge houses instead
of just a small house and spend their money on cool stuff and trips. Good
question! I said some need to host parties for business reasons. Beyond
that, though, I didn't have a good answer.
Sandra
<< **Maybe that's one reason that in some states people don't want
homeschoolers
registered. Because they would rather have them counted as homeschoolers.**
>>Registered with public schools. Because then they are not registered as
homeschoolers, and statistically/legally there are fewer homeschoolers.
I just left words out, that's all! Bad mindreading on your part! <g>
<< Any advantages gained by knowing how
many of us there really are are far outweighed by the potential for harm>>
I agree.
Some people just LOVE to be part of a big group, though. I know in the SCA
people are THRILLED when their shire gets big, and when their barony is HUGE.
And in no time they're saying "this group is so large I don't know
everybody, and we can't afford to rent a feasthall big enough." Yeah. DUH.
Humans seem to have a "bigger is better" mentality.
Holly asked me just last night why millionaires get such huge houses instead
of just a small house and spend their money on cool stuff and trips. Good
question! I said some need to host parties for business reasons. Beyond
that, though, I didn't have a good answer.
Sandra
carolyn
A long time ago I met a man who happened to be a big deal on the local
wrestling circuit. I went to his house and as he gave me a tour he told
me how much he paid for everything. He didn't really have much wealth
yet but he told me his dream was to own a house on top of a hill where
the Greyhound bus would go by everyday and everyone on the bus would
look up and admire his home. He spent more time talking about the
people on the Greyhound than the house but I'm sure it would have been a
mansion.
I don't know if he ever made it big (probably not) and I don't even
remember his name. But I do remember his dream and how much he paid for
his bowling ball and the fact that he didn't bowl.
.
Carolyn
SandraDodd@... wrote:
Holly asked me just last night why millionaires get such huge houses
instead
wrestling circuit. I went to his house and as he gave me a tour he told
me how much he paid for everything. He didn't really have much wealth
yet but he told me his dream was to own a house on top of a hill where
the Greyhound bus would go by everyday and everyone on the bus would
look up and admire his home. He spent more time talking about the
people on the Greyhound than the house but I'm sure it would have been a
mansion.
I don't know if he ever made it big (probably not) and I don't even
remember his name. But I do remember his dream and how much he paid for
his bowling ball and the fact that he didn't bowl.
.
Carolyn
SandraDodd@... wrote:
Holly asked me just last night why millionaires get such huge houses
instead
> of just a small house and spend their money on cool stuff and trips.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Good
> question! I said some need to host parties for business reasons.
> Beyond
> that, though, I didn't have a good answer.
>
> Sandra
Sharon Rudd
> Holly asked me just last night why millionaires getThe Hearsts have cool "stuffitis" (I read). I
> such huge houses instead
> of just a small house and spend their money on cool
> stuff and trips. Good
> question! I said some need to host parties for
> business reasons. Beyond
> that, though, I didn't have a good answer.
understand that they have warehouses just to store the
extra cool stuff. Not to use or anything, just have.
Like a compulsion. String or tin-foil. Only big.
The collecting is the only fun part.
Sharon of the Swamp I would like a bigger house,
but not HUGE. I NEED to be able to hear if a baby
cries, even if there are no babies.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
Cindy
SandraDodd@... wrote:
who are millionaires. Also what do you mean by millionaire - in Silicon
Valley anyone who bought a house in certain areas is a millionaire since
their home (and thus net worth) is valued at more than a million dollars!
And these are nice houses in a nice area on a typically sized surburban
lot, not a custom house in an exclusive area with some acreage.
I think a lot of it has to do with competition. When the person in the
office or cubicle next to you gets a fancy new car or a fancy new house,
a lot of people want one too. It certainly fueled the boom in the Silicon
Valley real estate market! Stock prices go up, house prices go up. If
you drive around Silicon Valley, you can tell which companies are doing
great by looking at all the fancy cars and SUVs in the parking lot. In
the dot-com boom, there was a 9 month long waiting list for the Mercedes
SUV! I also know millionaires who live in nice sized houses, drive nice
cars and do go on trips and spend their money in less ostentatious ways.
The nouveau riche of every era has been a bit over the top. And if you
mean the mega-millionaires like Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, then
I'd say they were all a bit over the top.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
>I live in an area with a lot of millionaires. I know a number of people
> Holly asked me just last night why millionaires get such huge houses instead
> of just a small house and spend their money on cool stuff and trips. Good
> question! I said some need to host parties for business reasons. Beyond
> that, though, I didn't have a good answer.
>
who are millionaires. Also what do you mean by millionaire - in Silicon
Valley anyone who bought a house in certain areas is a millionaire since
their home (and thus net worth) is valued at more than a million dollars!
And these are nice houses in a nice area on a typically sized surburban
lot, not a custom house in an exclusive area with some acreage.
I think a lot of it has to do with competition. When the person in the
office or cubicle next to you gets a fancy new car or a fancy new house,
a lot of people want one too. It certainly fueled the boom in the Silicon
Valley real estate market! Stock prices go up, house prices go up. If
you drive around Silicon Valley, you can tell which companies are doing
great by looking at all the fancy cars and SUVs in the parking lot. In
the dot-com boom, there was a 9 month long waiting list for the Mercedes
SUV! I also know millionaires who live in nice sized houses, drive nice
cars and do go on trips and spend their money in less ostentatious ways.
The nouveau riche of every era has been a bit over the top. And if you
mean the mega-millionaires like Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, then
I'd say they were all a bit over the top.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
Cindy
SandraDodd@... wrote:
who are millionaires. Also what do you mean by millionaire - in Silicon
Valley anyone who bought a house in certain areas is a millionaire since
their home (and thus net worth) is valued at more than a million dollars!
And these are nice houses in a nice area on a typically sized surburban
lot, not a custom house in an exclusive area with some acreage.
I think a lot of it has to do with competition. When the person in the
office or cubicle next to you gets a fancy new car or a fancy new house,
a lot of people want one too. It certainly fueled the boom in the Silicon
Valley real estate market! Stock prices go up, house prices go up. If
you drive around Silicon Valley, you can tell which companies are doing
great by looking at all the fancy cars and SUVs in the parking lot. In
the dot-com boom, there was a 9 month long waiting list for the Mercedes
SUV! I also know millionaires who live in nice sized houses, drive nice
cars and do go on trips and spend their money in less ostentatious ways.
The nouveau riche of every era has been a bit over the top. And if you
mean the mega-millionaires like Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, then
I'd say they were all a bit over the top.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
>I live in an area with a lot of millionaires. I know a number of people
> Holly asked me just last night why millionaires get such huge houses instead
> of just a small house and spend their money on cool stuff and trips. Good
> question! I said some need to host parties for business reasons. Beyond
> that, though, I didn't have a good answer.
>
who are millionaires. Also what do you mean by millionaire - in Silicon
Valley anyone who bought a house in certain areas is a millionaire since
their home (and thus net worth) is valued at more than a million dollars!
And these are nice houses in a nice area on a typically sized surburban
lot, not a custom house in an exclusive area with some acreage.
I think a lot of it has to do with competition. When the person in the
office or cubicle next to you gets a fancy new car or a fancy new house,
a lot of people want one too. It certainly fueled the boom in the Silicon
Valley real estate market! Stock prices go up, house prices go up. If
you drive around Silicon Valley, you can tell which companies are doing
great by looking at all the fancy cars and SUVs in the parking lot. In
the dot-com boom, there was a 9 month long waiting list for the Mercedes
SUV! I also know millionaires who live in nice sized houses, drive nice
cars and do go on trips and spend their money in less ostentatious ways.
The nouveau riche of every era has been a bit over the top. And if you
mean the mega-millionaires like Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, then
I'd say they were all a bit over the top.
--
Cindy Ferguson
crma@...
Karin
>Holly asked me just last night why millionaires get such huge houses insteadI'll try and answer this. My sister married a millionaire (no kidding), the kind with a trust fund and stocks in the company, and he's set for life and he doesn't work at all. They had a huge house (about 4,000 sq. ft) but they just built their dream house. It's over 12,000 sq. ft, up on the side of a mountain with a view, a negative edge pool, 2 jacuzzis, an elaborate home theater room, and even an elevator (why? for the heck of it!), and they aren't planning on ever having kids. All this is just for the 2 of them. They NEVER host business parties and my BIL is actually quite a recluse and very private. Why did they build this house? Well, it is customed designed just for them and it has all the things they ever wanted in it. They have the money and they use it to please themselves with the certain things they buy and have. They don't travel. I should mention, though, that for all this money, my BIL is going blind and no amount of money will buy his eyesight back. It's very sad. He's only in his early 40's. I always think that it's so ironic this way that LIFE has a way of balancing everybody out naturally, whether you are rich or poor. And just because you are a millionaire doesn't mean you are rich. I'm sure he would trade all of his money to get his eyesight back right now.
>of just a small house and spend their money on cool stuff and trips. Good
>question! I said some need to host parties for business reasons. Beyond
>that, though, I didn't have a good answer.
>Sandra
This probably isn't typcial of all millionaires, I'm sure. Most probably buy big houses to show off to other people. But I'd bet that MOST millionaires are just NOT typical people to begin with. There is a story behind each and every one. :-)
Karin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Karin
>there was a 9 month long waiting list for the Mercedes SUV!My sister drives one of these. They got it when they were first coming out, as a gift from her husband's father.
We recently took a road trip with it and imo it is a piece of crap! We were trying to drive up a mountain and the thing wouldn't go! A beat-up old truck pulling a trailer passed us.
Karin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]