Are We Losing our Rights as Parents?

Just Say No To MOOSE

After reading Linda’s last post, I did some investigating into the UN, the NEA, and their educational concerns that she highlighted.  I’ve come to the conclusion that I must not be very bright.  I’m probably one of those people Ron Schiller was thinking of when the NPR executive commented that “liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives.”   So, I am calling on any liberal readers of this blog, or liberal friends of readers of this blog, to come to my aid and explain something to me.    I thought I was a fairly well educated person.  I thought that I knew about certain facts of life, those facts that in a kinder and gentler age were referred to as “the birds and the bees,” but are now referred to as standard MTV programming.  I know what masturbation is.  I know what an orgasm is.  I know what oral sex is.  I honestly do not know how masturbation, orgasm, and oral sex education (MOOSE) for sixth graders is going to help the United Nations achieve their Millennium Development Goals, but according to a panel at the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), teaching MOOSE to middle and high school students is “key” to solving many of the world’s ills.

The 2010 Millennium Goals are impressive.  The UN would like to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership for development.  These aren’t bad ideas.  I just don’t see the connection between teaching a sixth grader about MOOSE and achieving universal primary education.  If a teacher explains the big M to a group of children in Japan, will that help a six-year-old learn to read in Bulgaria?  If your sixth grade daughter learns about MOOSE, how will that combat the spread of malaria?  Wouldn’t DDT be more effective?  Will MOOSE develop a global partnership for development?  Only in the early fall, and only in northern North America, Europe and Asia.  Certainly not globally. 

I do know that MOOSE over-population will affect environmental sustainability, but for some reason I don’t think either the UN or Diane Schneider of the National Education Association (NEA) agree.  She spoke at the CSW about expanding sex education for middle and high school students to include comprehensive teachings about MOOSE.  She made a point of mentioning that abstinence-only education was not a good idea, and that children should not be able to opt-out of MOOSE.  It seems to me that if you want to guarantee a decrease in child mortality rates, improve maternal health, and combat HIV/AIDS, then abstinence would be a central theme in MOOSE instruction.   You don’t have to pay if you don’t play.   Unfortunately, learning about MOOSE will encourage naturally curious youth to want to try MOOSE activities, activities which do lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Those diseases will make environmental sustainability unachievable.  We need look no further than Africa to see that.

The truth behind the educational claims made by the NEA is that MOOSE has absolutely nothing to do with attaining UN Millennial Goals.  Through a simple internet search using the terms “NEA” and “homosexuality,” you will find that the NEA is a secular, pro-homosexual organization.  Choice is fine if you are choosing to end a life through abortion, but as Ms. Schneider made clear through her comments, it ends if you are a parent choosing to have your children opt-out of MOOSE studies.   I have to agree with Linda’s comments in her last post. The NEA + the UN = wolves in wolves’ clothing,  and I am not going to feed my children to the wolves. 

The S-Word Rears its Ugly Head

I'm beginning to think that it's not humanly possible for anyone who does not homeschool (particularly educators and journalists) to have a discussion (or write an article) about homeschooling without raising the issue of....yeah, you guessed it...socialization.  And frankly, as anyone who has read my blogs already knows, nothing gets me going more than the illogical conclusions often drawn when the "experts" discuss homeschooling and socialization. I've written a few posts over the years that express my views on the S-word and its place in the homeschool conversation.  (If you're bored and have nothing better to do, you can read some of my thoughts on socialization HERE, HERE and HERE.)

This morning my husband sent me a link to an article on homeschooling from Fox News. In Educating our Children: The Evolution of Homeschooling, Maggie Kerkman offers a nothing-new look at homeschooling that at once manages to be both complimentary and disparaging. Ms. Kerkman offers a few statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, as well as the opinion of assumed "expert," David Chard, Dean of the School of Education and Human Development at Southern Methodist University who had this to say:

"We've become more experimental about the way we offer education to children. Many parents are able to provide strong educational opportunity for kids."

Experimental?  Really?  Is that what you think homeschooling is for me and my children, David?  An experiment?

Is it me just being defensive, or do you read something akin to this in his statement?  

Surprisingly, many parents are able to provide their children with an education that doesn't actually do them any harm, and could actually come close to rivaling the education they would receive in a traditional (non-experimental) school setting.

David Chard doesn't have a clue. Homeschool parents are doing far more than just providing "strong educational opportunities" for kids. 

Ms. Kerkman continues by reminding us that "...it’s not all about reading, writing and arithmetic."

Silly me. I thought education WAS about reading, writing and arithmetic. But according to Chard, it's also about...yep, right again...socialization. The author writes that Chard "worries home schooled students may be lacking in less tangible subjects, things like developing social or coping skills."

(Wait....what?  Developing social and coping skills is a subject now?)

This constant harping on the imagined problem of socialization is really getting on my nerves.  Has a study ever been published which gives credence to this concern?  Has anyone ever attempted to provide evidence to support the claim that homeschooled children lack social and/or coping skills at a statistically higher rate than their publicly-schooled counterparts?  And in throwing around these concerns as if they are based in a measurable reality, did it ever occur to one of these experts to take an honest look at the social skills of the children being schooled within the system they extol?  Because if they did, they would be forced to admit that socialization is a far greater problem within the walls of public schools than it is for homeschoolers.

I am further irked by the assumption made by the author that the existence of homeschool groups and co-ops has greatly improved homeschooling by offering much needed socialization opportunities to homeschooled children. Mind you, I don't believe that co-ops and homeschool groups are a bad thing.  They aren't.  They offer lots of benefits to homeschoolers.  In fact, the opportunity to socialize with other homeschoolers is just one of the many benefits.

But Ms. Kerkman seems to believe that there's a problem that is being solved as the homeschool movement evolves to include opportunities for socialization. In response to Mr. Chard's concerns about socialization, Ms. Kerkman states "Programs have sprung up over the years to help with that."  Inherent in that statement is the assumption that "developing social and coping skills" is something that homeschoolers needed help with.  I contend that there has never been a need for help in this area.  Homeschoolers do not need co-ops and homeschool groups to provide a high quality education OR to instill strong social and coping skills into their children.  Hundreds of thousands of  children homeschooled over the last three decades (my own three adult children included) have managed to become responsible, productive, and socially successful members of society without ever having had the advantage of being involved in a homeschool group or co-op.

I wonder how long it will be before the critics finally become convinced that their questions and concerns about homeschoolers and socialization are completely without basis.  The existence of socially successful (and famous) homeschoolers like Tim Tebow, Teresa Scanlan, and even The Jonas Brothers hasn't seemed to make a difference.

Maybe when a homeschooler becomes President they'll finally get it.

Happy New Year....and a Good Read!

The holidays have preempted our regularly scheduled blogging activity here at The Homeschool Apologist, but we definitely don't want you to go away!! 

This article, Troubled Teens Born in the Classroom, crossed my Twitter feed this morning. And it's good.  Really good.  I would expound on it with a well-written, brilliant response, but:

1. We're still partying here, and I really don't have time.
2. The article says it all.

Suffice it to say that here in America, our schools are stealing our children away from us.  When the solution is as simple as not handing your child over to the system to begin with, the most surprising thing is that so many families stand for it.

I haven't read her other articles yet, but actress turned homeschool advocate Sam Sorbo, has a couple other posts here and here that look very interesting as well.  

Arby and I will return to regular blogging one of these days....hopefully when we do, you'll still be here!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Is Education Commerce?

The perennial debate in this country concerning matters constitutional is the manner in which the US Constitution should be interpreted. Some citizens hold that the Constitution should be narrowly and strictly interpreted while others use terms like “living, breathing document” to describe a Constitution that flexibly changes with the times. People who hold the latter view enjoy the power inherent in supporting laws that favor their causes, laws that might not be acceptable under a narrower, stricter interpretation of our founding fathers’ document. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution was written to regulate interstate commerce, or commerce between the states, but a broad interpretation of the word “commerce” has led to court decisions related to intrastate commerce. An even broader view has led to Commerce Clause decisions concerning issues with only a tenuous connection to commerce. It is only a matter of time before those who hold the broadest possible interpretation of “commerce” will attempt to use the Commerce Clause to control education, and possibly eliminate homeschooling.

Set aside for a moment the fact that Amendment X of the US Constitution states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Set aside for the moment the fact that the Constitution does not specifically address education in the United States of America, and that under the Tenth Amendment the power to regulate education is reserved to the states. These obvious facts have not stopped legislators from attempting to enact laws regulating education at the federal level. The Tenth Amendment has not stopped legislators from using a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause to enact laws that do not directly address interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in both directions on cases resting on the Commerce Clause, sometimes supporting broader interpretations and holding a more rigid position in others. In 1905, SCOTUS halted price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, finding that “business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services” (1). In Katzenbach v. McClung, SCOTUS ruled against a family owned business, one restaurant, writing that “although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines” (1). In Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “ruled that the occasional presence of migratory birds in these empty pits was enough of a connection to “interstate commerce” to bring the matter under federal control” (2). The Rehnquist Court restricted the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in 1995 in Lopez v. United States, when congress attempted to use the Commerce Clause to justify banning firearms in schools.

Currently, the Commerce Clause is at the center of the debate over the constitutionality of the recent health care bill signed into law. Justice Kagan punted on the question of her interpretation of the Commerce Clause while under questioning from Senator Tom Coburn during her confirmation hearings. How broadly or narrowly our country’s legislators and our highest court interpret the Commerce Clause directly affects the amount of power they have to enact legislation affecting all areas of life. How soon will a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause be used to regulate education in America? How soon will a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause be used to make homeschooling illegal?

Homeschoolers must remain vigilant, always watching, always reading about, and listening to our representatives on Capitol Hill and the decisions handed down by our Supreme Court. Our selection of representatives both locally and nationally, as well as our choice for Commander-in-Chief, has long reaching consequences that will affect our freedom to pursue homeschooling. Homeschooling must remain a viable educational choice for all Americans.





1. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

2. http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000050.asp