The Associated Press reported today in my local paper a story, entitled More surrender in SAT scandal, dealing with students cheating. This report tells of not just a couple of kids getting caught passing notes during a class examination, but of twenty (20) current or former high school students paying money to have local college students bring fake ID's to the SAT or ACT examination site, pretend to be the paying customers, and complete the test for them. These are no regular tests, but college entrance exams - and not just typical high schools, but top flight schools that already have college acceptance rates of almost 100%. What we are talking about is well-to-do, intellectual high school students with the ability to pay between $500 and $3,600 each to these college students (totals that presumably do not include the cost of production for a fake ID).
What is most disturbing about the story is the response. "Honest, hardworking students are taking a back seat to the cheaters, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said. 'This is a system begging for security enhancements." Did you catch that stated solution: security enhancements. The problem apparently is that security measures were not adequate enough to catch the cheaters until after the fact. New York agreed as they convened a special meeting and retained former FBI Director Louis Freeh to review the security measures. Mr. Freeh is a busy man today and in great demand by prestigious High Schools and Universities alike as he is currently leading the Penn State internal investigation for the Sandusky matter.
It seems so simple to just understand that human nature is that we know what is right and we don't do it. Security measures are not the problem. They may be necessary in light of the recognition of the truth of the nature of man just stated, but they are not the problem. What is probably a better question is why are the young men being brought up on charges and treated with such disdain? Aren't they being taught that human existence is purposeless, meaningless and arbitrary? Aren't they being taught that language, history, literature and any other written text is to be interpreted by the individual with complete autonomy? Aren't they being taught that morality is relative and based solely on current acceptable societal norms and concepts of benefit to the greater good and human flourishing? Why are we punishing them for living out exactly what they are being taught?
These are questions not easily addressed by the former Director of the FBI or any other DA or instructor of higher learning if they are living with the Existential, Materialistic and Naturalistic framework on which they so freeing and staunchly hold in their classes. These twenty young men could have simply interpreted the rules of the High School the way they felt worked out best for themselves, decided in their own minds that it harmed no one, felt that the risk of penalty was worth the potential benefit and altered the relative standards of morality according to their own understanding.
If we are going to stipulate that there are no absolute moral standards to which all humankind must adhere, if we refuse to acknowledge attributes of humanity that are intrinsic to all (Truth, guilt, shame, etc.), if we are going to teach relativity and deconstructionism as part of a postmodern metaphysical presupposition on which all of society is based, and if we are going to plump for an existence devoid of any ultimate purpose, meaning or value then why are we so surprised when our children grow up and decide to do whatever makes them feel good and works out for their own benefit, regardless of what rules are broken and who else is hurt in the process? These students are brilliant and foolish because they have been trained to be so.
Until we realize that we cannot posit a blank slate of morality on which everyone gets to write in their own system and correctly identify the problems in humanity as sinful instead of misguided, there will exist in this nation a continued and increasingly complicated arms race between those whose very nature is to live opposite to the purpose of their existence and those who are trying to build a better mousetrap. The United States of America is racing with abandon toward a completely secular society, laughing, cheering and celebrating all along the way. It is inevitable, however, that the closer we get to the finished line the busier Mr. Freeh will become.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thoughts on Parent Led, Home Based Discipleship
Last Thursday, Friday and Saturday my wife and I attended the 26th annual North Carolina Home Education Conference. We currently have four children, the oldest of which will be 7 this year. We have schooled him at home for the last two years and have committed to home educate all our children. The conference this year was as informative and productive as ever and we were able to pick up all our curriculum materials for the year and hear some great presentations along the way. I was able to listen to two talks given by Dr. Brian Ray, who has eight children (7 daughters and one son) and works for the National Home Education Research Institute in Salem, Oregon. His talks were great, in that they allowed me to think all over again the fundamental reasons why my wife and I decided to home educate our children and some of the philosophical issues that are at the crux of any discussion on the education of children in this country. I feel compelled to put these ideas in writing and lay out a rudamentary argument for home education, as well as present some of the challenging positions and get to the heart of the matter.
Very briefly, statistics show that on average home educated students perform above average in comparison with public school students. Research results done by Dr. Ray can be found here (Research Facts on Homeschooling) but some of the statistics that immediately impress are as follows:
The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)
Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.
Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.
(All these above italicized results copied directly from Dr. Ray's site as linked to above. Please visit the link or http://www.nheri.org/ for more content)
Beside just the statistical justification for the effectiveness of home education, there is also a fundamental philosophical thread woven throughout the issue of children's education. Throughout one of Dr. Ray's talks (entitled Academic Elite Angst Over Home Education: Attacking Homeschooling Without Basis) I was struck by the common theme in the myriad quotes that were presented in peer-reviewed papers of those in acedemia who shape education policy. That theme is authority and responsibility. In question form, it would be presented as: "Who is responsible for educating children?" Now this might seem like a simple question, but many different areas of thought are brought in. It is clear from the discussion presented here that those who strongly advocate public education feel that those who have spent their lives at University in the education field, developing curriculum and textbooks, and are directly involved in setting educational standards (or the Academic Elite as Dr. Ray described) have the responsibility to educate children by the authority vested in them by the state. This position begs the questions; Where are the parents of the children in this discussion, and Who gave the state the authority to make the Academic Elite responsible?
Removal of the parents from the decision-making process for their own children's education is a serious mistake in fundamental thinking. It is true that for decades, the feeling has been growing until now the default position by many parents is "I don't have a degree in education, so I don't know how to teach my children," or "I can teach my children how to tie their shoes, but i've got to leave the bookwork to the professionals." That attitude didn't arise overnight. It has become commonplace today, to the point that even before children are born the assumption is they will have to go to someone else for their education. Social issues behind this attitude are many, but again the main problem is that parents do not feel qualified, and attempt to either remove themselves or allow themselves to be removed from a position of responsibility and authority with regard to their children's education. Now, of course the two word question arises, "So what?"
As it turns out, the "So what" question is a critical one. Children are human beings, born to parents. What document, provision, stipulation, law, code or ruling puts the state in charge of those people? Quite simply there is none. There is no document in this country that states that municipal, state or national agencies have the authority or responibility to dictate to parents what they must do with their children (except in cases of neglect or abuse). So-called Academic Elites do not stand on a position of authority, but on one of philosophical force. The underlying position is one of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. Put another way, they feel that all ideas are equally true but that one person (or group of people) decide which idea is best and which everyone else should adopt. That position is fundamentally flawed, not only because all ideas are obviously not equally true because the law of non-contradiction holds, but also because we don't live in a nation founded on the principle of might makes right.
What the nation was founded on was a philosophy of an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people. Put another way, one idea is true (namely the Judeo-Christian or Biblical Christian position) and all people are created equal. In his Civil Authority and the Bible, Harold O.J. Brown states the following:
"When we speak of church and state, it is important to recognize that as far as institutions go, the earliest and primary human social institution, or rather social structure, is the family...Examples of simple governmental institutions do exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, but the duties of the individual toward civil government are not spelled out as they are, at least in principle, in the New Testament. Perhaps the explanation is the fact that from the age of the patriarchs to the Exile, authority remained primarily personal and familial. In the early chapters of the Bible, family, society, and congregation are interwoven. Religious leaders are civil leaders: Moses himself is the prime example. Both the family and the church antedate the state."
Not that last line carefully one more time. Both the family and the church antedate the state. The family was established by God before the state, authority for children was given by God to parents for their children, prior to the establishment of institutions. We see clearly from scripture that people and interpersonal relationships preceed institutions, governments and the like. This point is expounded further by Herbert W. Titus in his God's Revelation: Foundation for the Common Law where he states:
"Rightfully understood, Genesis 1:28 along with Genesis 1:26 is a grant of authority, not a conveyance of title...The grant of authority in Genesis 1:28 is not to humankind in general, but to humankind through the family unit...In short, God selected the family as the primary economic unit of society-not the individual, not the state, not the corporation, and not the church. The common law was designed to foster and protect the family, not only through rules protecting private-property ownership and facilitating its voluntary transfer but also through criminal sanctions prohibiting adultery, fornication, sodomy and bigamy. Since the Darwinian revolution, however, this understanding of common law has deteriorated."
The movement of which my family is a part is commonly referred to as homeschooling. Dr. Ray, however turned a phrase that I found much more apt and descriptive of the choice my wife and I have made: Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship. We base our position on our children's education on the same foundation as in all other choices in our lives, on the Word of God. God established the family as the primary human institution and we should fight to preserve the family, not promote the removal of parents from making decisions relative to their own children.
Before closing, let me be quick to say that I am not anti-education, anti-public school, or anti-academia. I'm not arguing that education is bad, or that a good parent will choose to prevent their children from receiving an education. I believe we are to love God with all our mind and that parents have to be good stewards in developing the minds of their children and help them become good thinkers. My central point is on what I believe to be the hinge on which the argument swings; namely that the authority and responsibility for children's education belongs to the parents, not to the state. Parents may choose public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, usage of any available voucher system, homeschool or other.
Sociologically, children function better with the active involvement and support of their family. Research statistics show that homeschool children, on average, perform above average in academic measures. Philosophically an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people is the only tenable and non-contradictory position. Biblically, the family is the primary human institution and Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship should always be preserved and supported as parents do their best under God to train up their children in the way they should go.
As a final aside, let me say how proud I am of the state of North Carolina for supporting home education, and the North Carolinians for Home Education organization for their encouragement, support and recognition of home educators in our state.
Very briefly, statistics show that on average home educated students perform above average in comparison with public school students. Research results done by Dr. Ray can be found here (Research Facts on Homeschooling) but some of the statistics that immediately impress are as follows:
The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)
Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.
Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.
(All these above italicized results copied directly from Dr. Ray's site as linked to above. Please visit the link or http://www.nheri.org/ for more content)
Beside just the statistical justification for the effectiveness of home education, there is also a fundamental philosophical thread woven throughout the issue of children's education. Throughout one of Dr. Ray's talks (entitled Academic Elite Angst Over Home Education: Attacking Homeschooling Without Basis) I was struck by the common theme in the myriad quotes that were presented in peer-reviewed papers of those in acedemia who shape education policy. That theme is authority and responsibility. In question form, it would be presented as: "Who is responsible for educating children?" Now this might seem like a simple question, but many different areas of thought are brought in. It is clear from the discussion presented here that those who strongly advocate public education feel that those who have spent their lives at University in the education field, developing curriculum and textbooks, and are directly involved in setting educational standards (or the Academic Elite as Dr. Ray described) have the responsibility to educate children by the authority vested in them by the state. This position begs the questions; Where are the parents of the children in this discussion, and Who gave the state the authority to make the Academic Elite responsible?
Removal of the parents from the decision-making process for their own children's education is a serious mistake in fundamental thinking. It is true that for decades, the feeling has been growing until now the default position by many parents is "I don't have a degree in education, so I don't know how to teach my children," or "I can teach my children how to tie their shoes, but i've got to leave the bookwork to the professionals." That attitude didn't arise overnight. It has become commonplace today, to the point that even before children are born the assumption is they will have to go to someone else for their education. Social issues behind this attitude are many, but again the main problem is that parents do not feel qualified, and attempt to either remove themselves or allow themselves to be removed from a position of responsibility and authority with regard to their children's education. Now, of course the two word question arises, "So what?"
As it turns out, the "So what" question is a critical one. Children are human beings, born to parents. What document, provision, stipulation, law, code or ruling puts the state in charge of those people? Quite simply there is none. There is no document in this country that states that municipal, state or national agencies have the authority or responibility to dictate to parents what they must do with their children (except in cases of neglect or abuse). So-called Academic Elites do not stand on a position of authority, but on one of philosophical force. The underlying position is one of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. Put another way, they feel that all ideas are equally true but that one person (or group of people) decide which idea is best and which everyone else should adopt. That position is fundamentally flawed, not only because all ideas are obviously not equally true because the law of non-contradiction holds, but also because we don't live in a nation founded on the principle of might makes right.
What the nation was founded on was a philosophy of an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people. Put another way, one idea is true (namely the Judeo-Christian or Biblical Christian position) and all people are created equal. In his Civil Authority and the Bible, Harold O.J. Brown states the following:
"When we speak of church and state, it is important to recognize that as far as institutions go, the earliest and primary human social institution, or rather social structure, is the family...Examples of simple governmental institutions do exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, but the duties of the individual toward civil government are not spelled out as they are, at least in principle, in the New Testament. Perhaps the explanation is the fact that from the age of the patriarchs to the Exile, authority remained primarily personal and familial. In the early chapters of the Bible, family, society, and congregation are interwoven. Religious leaders are civil leaders: Moses himself is the prime example. Both the family and the church antedate the state."
Not that last line carefully one more time. Both the family and the church antedate the state. The family was established by God before the state, authority for children was given by God to parents for their children, prior to the establishment of institutions. We see clearly from scripture that people and interpersonal relationships preceed institutions, governments and the like. This point is expounded further by Herbert W. Titus in his God's Revelation: Foundation for the Common Law where he states:
"Rightfully understood, Genesis 1:28 along with Genesis 1:26 is a grant of authority, not a conveyance of title...The grant of authority in Genesis 1:28 is not to humankind in general, but to humankind through the family unit...In short, God selected the family as the primary economic unit of society-not the individual, not the state, not the corporation, and not the church. The common law was designed to foster and protect the family, not only through rules protecting private-property ownership and facilitating its voluntary transfer but also through criminal sanctions prohibiting adultery, fornication, sodomy and bigamy. Since the Darwinian revolution, however, this understanding of common law has deteriorated."
The movement of which my family is a part is commonly referred to as homeschooling. Dr. Ray, however turned a phrase that I found much more apt and descriptive of the choice my wife and I have made: Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship. We base our position on our children's education on the same foundation as in all other choices in our lives, on the Word of God. God established the family as the primary human institution and we should fight to preserve the family, not promote the removal of parents from making decisions relative to their own children.
Before closing, let me be quick to say that I am not anti-education, anti-public school, or anti-academia. I'm not arguing that education is bad, or that a good parent will choose to prevent their children from receiving an education. I believe we are to love God with all our mind and that parents have to be good stewards in developing the minds of their children and help them become good thinkers. My central point is on what I believe to be the hinge on which the argument swings; namely that the authority and responsibility for children's education belongs to the parents, not to the state. Parents may choose public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, usage of any available voucher system, homeschool or other.
Sociologically, children function better with the active involvement and support of their family. Research statistics show that homeschool children, on average, perform above average in academic measures. Philosophically an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people is the only tenable and non-contradictory position. Biblically, the family is the primary human institution and Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship should always be preserved and supported as parents do their best under God to train up their children in the way they should go.
As a final aside, let me say how proud I am of the state of North Carolina for supporting home education, and the North Carolinians for Home Education organization for their encouragement, support and recognition of home educators in our state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)