I have written a couple of times about home educated children in the USA who die in terrible circumstances. Often the common factors in such cases are Christianity and/or adoption. Here is the latest such case and having read this article, it might be helpful to click on the links at the bottom which cover the case in more detail.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/after_irvington_suspected_negl.html
Showing posts with label Christian homeschooling USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian homeschooling USA. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Insulting home educators
Over the last couple of days several people commenting here have told me that they have felt insulted. This was because I have in the past said unflattering things about autonomous home education and this means that as autonomous home educators themselves they have been personally maligned. I have to say that this strikes me as absolute nonsense. Three points need to be considered.
The first point is that many parents of autonomously educated children are abnormally sensitive to any criticism of their methods. They see even casual observations as savage attacks. Consider the following statement: many parents of children at secondary schools lie their heads off about their children's academic achievements and make strenuous efforts to deceive their local authority about what their children are actually capable of. I could make this comment anywhere; on a blog, in a newspaper article or speaking in the local pub and nobody would turn a hair or take any offence. The coursework swindle has become so widespread and blatant that even the government has noticed. This is why it is being replaced by controlled assessments in the classroom. I don't know a single parent who has not drawn pictures, sewn garments, composed music, written essays or carried out mathematical investigations for their children's GCSEs. In other words, they are setting out deliberately to deceive others about the true nature of their children's academic achievement. I have never heard of a parent who found it insulting when this is mentioned; parents just laugh. In fact everybody exaggerates or inflates what their children do; it is just how parents are. Everybody claims that their child is gifted/talented/ sensitive/clever/musical/advanced for her age and so on.
The funny thing is of course that while I can say anything at all about the coursework swindle without anybody getting annoyed, the suggestion that autonomously educating parents get up to the same tricks is apparently deeply insulting. This rather makes me think that it is a matter of sensitivity on the part of some parents and not a rational objection at all. If I were to say a similar thing on here or in a newspaper article about home educating parents, there would be cries of protest and general anguish. Let's try: many parents of autonomously educated children lie their heads off about their children's activities and do their best to deceive their local authority as to the true level of their children's academic achievements. Whoa, steady on there! This is deeply offensive to home educating parents. It is an insult!
The second point is that people often say horrible things about subjects which are dear to our hearts. Richard Dawkins for instance has said that a Catholic upbringing is worse than the sexual abuse of a child. As somebody who raised his daughter in the church, should I feel insulted by this? After all, he is saying that the way I raised my child is worse than sexual abuse! Of course I don't actually feel insulted at all. I disagree with his views, but he is perfectly entitled to hold them. I can hardly expect everybody in the world to tiptoe around things which I hold sacred and then accuse them of insulting me if they criticise something which is important to me. If that were the case then nobody would ever be able to say much about religion, education, politics or anything else without upsetting and insulting other people! Most of us take all this in our stride. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have these views and the best thing I can do is just not get too worked up about them. Mind you, they have both been told time and again that they are wrong and they still say gratuitously offensive things without a thought for my feelings. There must be something wrong with them!
A final point is this. If I read books by Richard Dawkins, or look at newspaper articles by him or go on his blog, then I shall encounter views about religion with which I disagree strongly. Whatever can I do? Ah, I know. If I don't want to read his opinions on religion, opinions with which I know in advance that I shall disagree, I could avoid going on his blog or reading what he says about religion in the newspapers. This is actually what I generally do. After all, there would be no point at all in my going on his blog and then fretting because he was saying horrible things about my religion. There would be still less point in claiming to be insulted and suggesting that he must be autistic because he won't listen to my views and does not mind upsetting me. Obviously, I would do better not to read what he says if it is going to wind me up. Some of the people who comment here remind me very much of the little old spinster who rang the police and complained that she was upset because she could see the neighbours getting undressed at night. When the police came round, she showed them up into her bedroom and pointed out of the window. The policeman peered out but could not see into the window of the house opposite. 'Sorry, love', he told her, 'I can't see into your neighbours' bedroom at all' She said, 'Oh you have to climb onto the dressing table and then crane your neck round to see properly...'
I am very happy for anybody to come on here and comment. That's why I don't moderate. But if what I am saying here is really offending anybody, it might be better for people not to read it. When all's said and done, this is a personal blog about my thoughts on home education. I'll be damned if I stop expressing my opinions simply because they are unpalatable to this person or that. There are blogs around which cater especially for autonomous educators, things like Dare to Know and Mairre Stafford's blog. I don't go on them much myself, because they irritate me, but I have an idea that some of the recent commentators here might find the views expressed in such places more in keeping with their own. As it is, they have apparently in the past been offended and insulted by the things which I have said on Internet lists. A year after I was chucked off those lists, they are now coming on here so that they can be insulted and offended all over again! This surely verges on the masochistic.
The first point is that many parents of autonomously educated children are abnormally sensitive to any criticism of their methods. They see even casual observations as savage attacks. Consider the following statement: many parents of children at secondary schools lie their heads off about their children's academic achievements and make strenuous efforts to deceive their local authority about what their children are actually capable of. I could make this comment anywhere; on a blog, in a newspaper article or speaking in the local pub and nobody would turn a hair or take any offence. The coursework swindle has become so widespread and blatant that even the government has noticed. This is why it is being replaced by controlled assessments in the classroom. I don't know a single parent who has not drawn pictures, sewn garments, composed music, written essays or carried out mathematical investigations for their children's GCSEs. In other words, they are setting out deliberately to deceive others about the true nature of their children's academic achievement. I have never heard of a parent who found it insulting when this is mentioned; parents just laugh. In fact everybody exaggerates or inflates what their children do; it is just how parents are. Everybody claims that their child is gifted/talented/ sensitive/clever/musical/advanced for her age and so on.
The funny thing is of course that while I can say anything at all about the coursework swindle without anybody getting annoyed, the suggestion that autonomously educating parents get up to the same tricks is apparently deeply insulting. This rather makes me think that it is a matter of sensitivity on the part of some parents and not a rational objection at all. If I were to say a similar thing on here or in a newspaper article about home educating parents, there would be cries of protest and general anguish. Let's try: many parents of autonomously educated children lie their heads off about their children's activities and do their best to deceive their local authority as to the true level of their children's academic achievements. Whoa, steady on there! This is deeply offensive to home educating parents. It is an insult!
The second point is that people often say horrible things about subjects which are dear to our hearts. Richard Dawkins for instance has said that a Catholic upbringing is worse than the sexual abuse of a child. As somebody who raised his daughter in the church, should I feel insulted by this? After all, he is saying that the way I raised my child is worse than sexual abuse! Of course I don't actually feel insulted at all. I disagree with his views, but he is perfectly entitled to hold them. I can hardly expect everybody in the world to tiptoe around things which I hold sacred and then accuse them of insulting me if they criticise something which is important to me. If that were the case then nobody would ever be able to say much about religion, education, politics or anything else without upsetting and insulting other people! Most of us take all this in our stride. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have these views and the best thing I can do is just not get too worked up about them. Mind you, they have both been told time and again that they are wrong and they still say gratuitously offensive things without a thought for my feelings. There must be something wrong with them!
A final point is this. If I read books by Richard Dawkins, or look at newspaper articles by him or go on his blog, then I shall encounter views about religion with which I disagree strongly. Whatever can I do? Ah, I know. If I don't want to read his opinions on religion, opinions with which I know in advance that I shall disagree, I could avoid going on his blog or reading what he says about religion in the newspapers. This is actually what I generally do. After all, there would be no point at all in my going on his blog and then fretting because he was saying horrible things about my religion. There would be still less point in claiming to be insulted and suggesting that he must be autistic because he won't listen to my views and does not mind upsetting me. Obviously, I would do better not to read what he says if it is going to wind me up. Some of the people who comment here remind me very much of the little old spinster who rang the police and complained that she was upset because she could see the neighbours getting undressed at night. When the police came round, she showed them up into her bedroom and pointed out of the window. The policeman peered out but could not see into the window of the house opposite. 'Sorry, love', he told her, 'I can't see into your neighbours' bedroom at all' She said, 'Oh you have to climb onto the dressing table and then crane your neck round to see properly...'
I am very happy for anybody to come on here and comment. That's why I don't moderate. But if what I am saying here is really offending anybody, it might be better for people not to read it. When all's said and done, this is a personal blog about my thoughts on home education. I'll be damned if I stop expressing my opinions simply because they are unpalatable to this person or that. There are blogs around which cater especially for autonomous educators, things like Dare to Know and Mairre Stafford's blog. I don't go on them much myself, because they irritate me, but I have an idea that some of the recent commentators here might find the views expressed in such places more in keeping with their own. As it is, they have apparently in the past been offended and insulted by the things which I have said on Internet lists. A year after I was chucked off those lists, they are now coming on here so that they can be insulted and offended all over again! This surely verges on the masochistic.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
The Johansson case - a correction
A few days ago I was wondering about the reasons for Dominic Johansson being taken into care. I picked up on this comment by somebody close to the family;
''Christer was once involved in an alternative on-line news mag that expressed politically incorrect ideas and as near as anyone can tell, this was the reason his home schooling plans were opposed.'
I speculated in a post that this on-line magazine might have had something to do with the physical punishment of children, but am now happy to make it clear that it was nothing of the sort. It is in fact called Vaken which means 'awake' or 'wake up' and I don't think one could really call it 'politically incorrect' at all. Raving mad and anti-Semitic, yes; but not politically incorrect! After all, they replace the word 'Jew' most of the time with 'Zionist', thus conforming to the most up-to-date and acceptable left wing version of anti-Semitism. It is full of the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the Jews taking over the world, the freemasons, 9/11, all the usual nonsense in fact. I am not over keen on anti-Semitism, but I really cannot see anything on this site to justify taking a man's child from him. Which still leaves the central mystery of this whole affair unchanged; why was Dominic Johansson taken by social workers?
It is intriguing to see the rather ambiguous statements by Jonas Himmelstrand, the president of the Swedish National Association for Home Education, (ROHUS). He said of this case;
'Homeschooling was not the only issue regarding taking Dominic Johansson in custody by the social services. But having read the court verdict with all the issues, there stills seems to be no reason for this severe action. The young boy has most likely been much more hurt by the custody action than the conditions in his family. One cannot avoid the thought that the prejudices and lack of knowledge about homeschooling, could have been the pivotal reason for the custody action.'
Home schooling was 'not the only issue'. We have heard that the child had some tooth decay, but this was only discovered after he had been taken into care. He had not had the usual vaccinations, but while this is a little unusual it would not be grounds for taking somebody's child. The Vaken website is barking mad, but I can't see this being a reason. Notice that Himmelstrand says, ' prejudices and lack of knowledge about homeschooling, could have been the pivotal reason'. Once again, it is hinted that the home education was not the only or even the main reason. On the Friends of Dominic Johansson site, there is this curious statement;
'By December 2009, the Johansson family had been terrorized by the Social Board of Gotland for more than sixteen months; had their home swarmed and searched by armed Swedish police'
Now why on earth did the police raid the Johanssons' home? What were they looking for? This could hardly have been in connection with home education; there must have been something else going on. There are tantalising hints about this business scattered all over the place. One thing which I have noticed is that the people who are writing about the case a long way from Sweden always seem to think that it is only about home education. Those actually in Sweden, particularly those who have dealings with the family, are saying that home education was not the only reason for the actions of the social workers. Irritatingly though, they never tell us what those other reasons were.
Incidentally, people have contacted Google in an attempt to have this blog taken down. This is not the first time that this has been done; in fact it is the fifth. The first person to try this stunt was our own Mike Fortune-Wood of Home Education UK last year. This is usually done by telling a lot of lies and accusing me of all sorts of bizarre things.. Google are used to this now and they never take any action. Judging by what has been said, I gather that the latest effort was by somebody connected with the Johansson case.
''Christer was once involved in an alternative on-line news mag that expressed politically incorrect ideas and as near as anyone can tell, this was the reason his home schooling plans were opposed.'
I speculated in a post that this on-line magazine might have had something to do with the physical punishment of children, but am now happy to make it clear that it was nothing of the sort. It is in fact called Vaken which means 'awake' or 'wake up' and I don't think one could really call it 'politically incorrect' at all. Raving mad and anti-Semitic, yes; but not politically incorrect! After all, they replace the word 'Jew' most of the time with 'Zionist', thus conforming to the most up-to-date and acceptable left wing version of anti-Semitism. It is full of the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the Jews taking over the world, the freemasons, 9/11, all the usual nonsense in fact. I am not over keen on anti-Semitism, but I really cannot see anything on this site to justify taking a man's child from him. Which still leaves the central mystery of this whole affair unchanged; why was Dominic Johansson taken by social workers?
It is intriguing to see the rather ambiguous statements by Jonas Himmelstrand, the president of the Swedish National Association for Home Education, (ROHUS). He said of this case;
'Homeschooling was not the only issue regarding taking Dominic Johansson in custody by the social services. But having read the court verdict with all the issues, there stills seems to be no reason for this severe action. The young boy has most likely been much more hurt by the custody action than the conditions in his family. One cannot avoid the thought that the prejudices and lack of knowledge about homeschooling, could have been the pivotal reason for the custody action.'
Home schooling was 'not the only issue'. We have heard that the child had some tooth decay, but this was only discovered after he had been taken into care. He had not had the usual vaccinations, but while this is a little unusual it would not be grounds for taking somebody's child. The Vaken website is barking mad, but I can't see this being a reason. Notice that Himmelstrand says, ' prejudices and lack of knowledge about homeschooling, could have been the pivotal reason'. Once again, it is hinted that the home education was not the only or even the main reason. On the Friends of Dominic Johansson site, there is this curious statement;
'By December 2009, the Johansson family had been terrorized by the Social Board of Gotland for more than sixteen months; had their home swarmed and searched by armed Swedish police'
Now why on earth did the police raid the Johanssons' home? What were they looking for? This could hardly have been in connection with home education; there must have been something else going on. There are tantalising hints about this business scattered all over the place. One thing which I have noticed is that the people who are writing about the case a long way from Sweden always seem to think that it is only about home education. Those actually in Sweden, particularly those who have dealings with the family, are saying that home education was not the only reason for the actions of the social workers. Irritatingly though, they never tell us what those other reasons were.
Incidentally, people have contacted Google in an attempt to have this blog taken down. This is not the first time that this has been done; in fact it is the fifth. The first person to try this stunt was our own Mike Fortune-Wood of Home Education UK last year. This is usually done by telling a lot of lies and accusing me of all sorts of bizarre things.. Google are used to this now and they never take any action. Judging by what has been said, I gather that the latest effort was by somebody connected with the Johansson case.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Home educating the Biblical way
Quite a few home educating parents in this country are Christians who have chosen to educate their own children for religious reasons. They are probably a minority. In the USA though, this may well be the main strand of home education. The big homeschooling groups such as the HSLDA are firmly Christian in character. Parents who home educate because they are Christians often tend to look to the Bible for advice on how they should raise their children. I have no problem at all with this; it is pretty much what I did myself. There is a bit of a difficulty though, one I touched upon when responding to a comment yesterday from a guy in the States.
To begin with, I think it fair to say that many Christian parents, particularly in the USA, believe that physical punishment of children is a good form of discipline. The Bible backs them up in this. Proverbs 13:24 tells us ' He that spareth his rod hateth his son. There are many similar passages. Christian parents are also often opposed to sex education lessons in schools which teach that homosexuality and sex before marriage are OK. Again, there are a number of places in the Bible where such practices are condemned. As it happens, I also disapprove of homosexuality and premarital sex and so I can go along with these passages of scripture quite easily. Now for the difficulty.
There are two ways of looking at the Bible. One can view it as a collection of sayings, myths, historical anecdotes and genuine prophecy which must be sifted through carefully in order to find out what the Lord was really driving at. Or one can regard it as inerrant, the inspired word of God which must be taken pretty literally. Both options are fraught with pitfalls if we are going to use the Bible as our guide for day to day life, whether about home education or anything else.
I am obliged to my daughter here for some of what follows. She is a God-fearing young woman with strong views backed by a formidable command of scripture. Let us imagine first that we believe the Bible to be a collection of writings produced by fallible men. In this case, we cannot be sure that even a requirement to love our neighbour is the authentic word of God. We could hardly use writings from the bronze Age to justify either our condemnation of homosexuality, the practice of corporal punishment or our decision to home educate. Times change and much of what is contained in the Bible must be outdated by now.
Suppose though that we assume that the Bible is actually the inerrant word of God. This is better, because if it is all true then an injunction to punish our children physically must be an instruction from the Lord. Sounds reasonable, we can spank our children because the Bible tells us so. But hang on a minute, what's this? Deuteronomy 21:18 says that, 'If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother...' It goes on to tell us that we must take the boy to the city elders and that he will then be stoned to death. I am sure that even the most dedicated Christian home educator would not want to apply the death penalty to cheeky and uncooperative kids! Yet there it is, just as clear and specific as the injunctions to take a rod to our children. We fare no better when we use the Bible as an infallible guide to sexual morality. Many Christian home educators do not want their children exposed to the notion that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. The Bible forbids the practice strongly in both old and new testaments. 'A man shall not lie with other men as though they were women, it is an abomination'. Again, this is very clear. Wait though, I have just seen Deuteronomy 22:23. 'Suppose a man is caught in a town having intercourse with a woman who is engaged to someone else. You are to take them outside the town and stone them to death. the woman is to die because she did not cry out for help, although she was in a town where she could have been heard'. This also seems quite clear. If a man rapes some guy's fiancee, then the victim is to be executed. Sounds fair enough. After all, if I can spank my kid because the Bible tells me so, then surely the rules about rape victims should also be applied?
The Bible is a vast book containing a huge amount of information and sayings which cover practically everything one can imagine. We approach it with our own prejudices and preconceptions though. If I feel a distaste for homosexuality and look in the Bible, then lo and behold I can find a verse which conforms my views. If I were the sort of man who wished to hit his kid, I can find justification for that too. My daughter has drawn my attention to the fact that the New Testament specifically endorses Kosher slaughter and instructs all Christians to follow this tradition. At a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles, including Peter and Paul, decided to tell new converts who were not Jews how they should live. Acts 15:29 says that Christians should, 'eat no blood, eat no animal which has been strangled'. How many Christians today follow this explicit commandment form the apostles? Any Christians reading this who insist on Kosher meat?
I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and written by men. We must search carefully for the true message. To use it as justification for corporal punishment and the prohibition of homosexuality, as many Christian home educators do is very dangerous indeed. It can be a wonderful guide, but not if taken literally. I am aware that most English home educators will find all this pretty irrelevant, but while we were discussing Christian home education apropos of the Johansson case, I thought it worth going over this topic a little. Normal business will be resumed tommorow.
To begin with, I think it fair to say that many Christian parents, particularly in the USA, believe that physical punishment of children is a good form of discipline. The Bible backs them up in this. Proverbs 13:24 tells us ' He that spareth his rod hateth his son. There are many similar passages. Christian parents are also often opposed to sex education lessons in schools which teach that homosexuality and sex before marriage are OK. Again, there are a number of places in the Bible where such practices are condemned. As it happens, I also disapprove of homosexuality and premarital sex and so I can go along with these passages of scripture quite easily. Now for the difficulty.
There are two ways of looking at the Bible. One can view it as a collection of sayings, myths, historical anecdotes and genuine prophecy which must be sifted through carefully in order to find out what the Lord was really driving at. Or one can regard it as inerrant, the inspired word of God which must be taken pretty literally. Both options are fraught with pitfalls if we are going to use the Bible as our guide for day to day life, whether about home education or anything else.
I am obliged to my daughter here for some of what follows. She is a God-fearing young woman with strong views backed by a formidable command of scripture. Let us imagine first that we believe the Bible to be a collection of writings produced by fallible men. In this case, we cannot be sure that even a requirement to love our neighbour is the authentic word of God. We could hardly use writings from the bronze Age to justify either our condemnation of homosexuality, the practice of corporal punishment or our decision to home educate. Times change and much of what is contained in the Bible must be outdated by now.
Suppose though that we assume that the Bible is actually the inerrant word of God. This is better, because if it is all true then an injunction to punish our children physically must be an instruction from the Lord. Sounds reasonable, we can spank our children because the Bible tells us so. But hang on a minute, what's this? Deuteronomy 21:18 says that, 'If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother...' It goes on to tell us that we must take the boy to the city elders and that he will then be stoned to death. I am sure that even the most dedicated Christian home educator would not want to apply the death penalty to cheeky and uncooperative kids! Yet there it is, just as clear and specific as the injunctions to take a rod to our children. We fare no better when we use the Bible as an infallible guide to sexual morality. Many Christian home educators do not want their children exposed to the notion that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. The Bible forbids the practice strongly in both old and new testaments. 'A man shall not lie with other men as though they were women, it is an abomination'. Again, this is very clear. Wait though, I have just seen Deuteronomy 22:23. 'Suppose a man is caught in a town having intercourse with a woman who is engaged to someone else. You are to take them outside the town and stone them to death. the woman is to die because she did not cry out for help, although she was in a town where she could have been heard'. This also seems quite clear. If a man rapes some guy's fiancee, then the victim is to be executed. Sounds fair enough. After all, if I can spank my kid because the Bible tells me so, then surely the rules about rape victims should also be applied?
The Bible is a vast book containing a huge amount of information and sayings which cover practically everything one can imagine. We approach it with our own prejudices and preconceptions though. If I feel a distaste for homosexuality and look in the Bible, then lo and behold I can find a verse which conforms my views. If I were the sort of man who wished to hit his kid, I can find justification for that too. My daughter has drawn my attention to the fact that the New Testament specifically endorses Kosher slaughter and instructs all Christians to follow this tradition. At a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles, including Peter and Paul, decided to tell new converts who were not Jews how they should live. Acts 15:29 says that Christians should, 'eat no blood, eat no animal which has been strangled'. How many Christians today follow this explicit commandment form the apostles? Any Christians reading this who insist on Kosher meat?
I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and written by men. We must search carefully for the true message. To use it as justification for corporal punishment and the prohibition of homosexuality, as many Christian home educators do is very dangerous indeed. It can be a wonderful guide, but not if taken literally. I am aware that most English home educators will find all this pretty irrelevant, but while we were discussing Christian home education apropos of the Johansson case, I thought it worth going over this topic a little. Normal business will be resumed tommorow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
