Book Review: In the Basement of the Ivory Tower

This book was written by the anonymous "Professor X", an adjunct English 101 and English 102 teacher at two colleges somewhere in America. One is a private university; the other a community college. He had previously written an article for The Atlantic, out of which this book came.

Professor X believes that the idea of a university education being for everyone is a destructive myth. From his own experience, he points out that many who, often due to real or implied coercion, find themselves in a college classroom taking his courses one night per week for a semester are horribly ill-prepared for the experience. Many do not receive passing grades—sometimes half the class. Several general reasons he gives circle these themes:

• Many students should not be in a college classroom because they are not ready to do college-level work. There may be any number of reasons for this. One he cites that is often overlooked is that many of these students in his evening classes read almost no books and follow almost no news, which makes it difficult for them to write about either classic literature or current events.
• Many students who are compelled by their employers to take his class really do not need the class to perform their jobs. For example, does a police officer need to be acquainted with the literary theme of a book he will never, ever choose to read? But many employers these days, and especially in this economy, feel they are able to demand a college degree of some kind for a position that really doesn't need one.
• America has, for the most part, absorbed the point of view that everyone should have a chance at a college education. This was not always the case. [Have you ever checked out the Harvard entrance requirements from two or three centuries ago? I still wouldn't have a chance.] But many are encouraged to try, despite their obvious lack of preparation.
  

Naturally, the colleges are happy with the increased enrollment. And, hey, if the student fails, he can always pay the course tuition to take it again. Politicians, including President Obama, feel almost unanimously that increased college enrollment is good; have you ever heard any politician decry the glut of college students in the land? Many employers, recognizing that college education does have benefits both tangible and intangible, help defray their employees' college expenses.

But the simple fact remains: There are those people in America who, despite having being awarded a high school diploma or GED, are not ready for college work. Professor X makes no attempt to fix blame for this. Many of these students, most years removed from their last classroom experience, find themselves in the classrooms of the community college or university, in the evening, after a day's work. Many are trying to do so while balancing all of the other serious responsibilities of parenthood and employment. Many would struggle with the time commitment even if their academic preparation was solid.

It is, in his view, a recipe for failure.

And I can totally relate, because I, too, have taught as an adjunct in the evenings at a university in Michigan. While I have no complaint about that university and no question about its educational motives, it became apparent that nearly every class had a few participants who were not anywhere close to ready for the College Algebra or (especially) Statistics classes that I taught. Mathematics, like grammar or writing, is a skill that can fade over time when not used...especially when that time can be measured in decades.

If I had a complaint, it would not be that the students were required to take these math courses—this is, after all, college, and the courses did have relevance to the program of study—but that they were enrolled into the courses regardless of their readiness to succeed in them. Some of my students, academically speaking, had no business being there; they were woefully ignorant of mathematical concepts quite basic to the course in which they were enrolled. "Remedial work," as it is usually called, was entirely in order....but not in the picture. After all, when these students sign up for this college program, do they want to hear that they must take remedial work just to get up to speed in mathematics? And when they already are embarking on the major task of completing a college program of study?

I do some online math tutoring, and I see this problem there, too. The student can identify his or her grade level and subject (they otherwise remain anonymous to me), and I regularly tutor "College Level" students in some of the most basic concepts of Algebra (or lower), concepts which my 13½-year-old (or even my 12-year-old) finds easy.

The fact that students are found in college (or high school) classrooms for which they are not academically prepared is a sad state of affairs. People need to honestly assess what it takes to succeed and whether or not individual students are ready to do so. Colleges need to be forthcoming about what-level-class a student of English or math should take.

And like Professor X, I agree that college is not for everyone.

P.S.: Professor X's most glaring writing deficiency is his use of vulgarity. This is not a book to let your 13½-year-old read.

When Does Homeschool Start in the Morning?

One of my pet annoyances has to do with church. The church I attend now, as well as the last one I attended in MI before we moved to SC, had Sunday School hour at 10:00, followed by the Morning Worship at 11:00. My wife and children and I were (and are) generally early. Nevertheless, there would always be some who, despite being able the next day to get everyone to school/work/wherever by 8:00 a.m., could not seem to consistently arrive on time to Sunday School from week to week at 10:00.

Worse yet, some skipped Sunday School and still couldn't get to the 11:00 service on time.

I interpret this, in part, to the fact that such people do not deem Sunday School or church to be very important. We live in a culture where virtually all educated Americans understand that punctuality is a positive good. To be late habitually implies either a consistent lack of planning—an issue of concern in its own right—or a treatment of the event as not worthy of importance.

That, however, is not the focus of this post. My last post discussed the fact that "homeschooling in one's pajamas" is not a good thing. This is the sequel, with the following thesis: Homeschooling needs to follow a schedule, and it needs to start at a regular time.

When my wife and I (mostly my wife, of course) began homeschooling two of our children a few years ago, we decided that "school" would start at a regular time each morning, generally right after breakfast and the sending off of the other two children to their school. Essentially, this meant that homeschool started in the vicinity of 7:45 a.m. Because of my wife's efficiency, combined with two above-average little intellects sitting in front of her, her teaching was generally done by 11:00, and the kids had usually completed their work for the day before lunchtime. The advantages were obvious: The afternoon was free for planning, errands, and picking up the other two from their school at about 3:15.

In Year 1, this worked very well for us. In Year 2, I volunteered to assist my wife by teaching our eldest, then in seventh grade, her math and science lessons before I left for work...at 7:45 or so (I also dropped off the younger two at school on my way). This meant she and I were in our little classroom, with breakfast already eaten, by 7:00.

Such a plan certainly isn't for everyone. Nor does it need to be. But it did teach everybody another lesson: The self-discipline to get one's self out of bed, into one's clothes, and breakfasted by a given time in the morning. This is a great lesson to learn!

Furthermore, before the first day of homeschooling each year, we drew up a calendar for the school year, delineating the first and last days of the year, and generally (but not always) observing the same holidays our other kids' school had. This gave some evidence that we had school on a set number of days—even though no such requirement existed in Michigan.

Many homeschoolers, in addition to bragging that they can "homeschool in their pajamas" (see my earlier post), also brag that they get started whenever they get out of bed in the morning—which might not be until 9:30 or 10:00. Some also brag that they begin and end the school year whenever the kids are "done with their lessons," not seeming to realize that this sounds highly ambiguous (or even suspect, to the cynical) to most other people. First, let's consider some reasons to begin the homeschool day at a set time every morning:

1. It teaches self-discipline. When your child gets a job, he'll be expected to consistently show up on time—or he will be relieved of said job. Teaching the child to "get up and at 'em" when young is invaluable to their character development.

2. It sends a message: This is important! Nobody cares when you show up at Wal-Mart. But walk into a wedding 23 minutes late, and you might be ashamed as you sit on the back row. [Or in church, it's reversed: Show up 23 minutes late, and you'll be ashamed as you sit at the front!] When the parent doesn't set the example of getting started, on time, every day, he or she is essentially telling the student that the "event" of homeschooling is not that important.

3. It supports a good reputation for the homeschool community. The average hard-working, law-abiding citizen of this country looks askance at homeschoolers who get their day started whenever it gets started. They perceive such adults (and children) as having a lack of self-discipline, and certainly far less than their own family, who are all at school/work/wherever consistently by a certain time each morning. By extension, they will perceive the homeschooling of that home to be, as I said in the last post, "the shoddy work of amateurs."

The same principle extends to the school year. A lot of us do the math in our heads when we are told that "We started, oh, around September 15 and the kids all finished their lessons by the middle of April," and realize that there seems to be a lot fewer days of school than "normal kids" have. Some of us are open-minded enough to realize that, yes, perhaps an entire year's worth of education was done in that interval (though we reserve skepticism), but many are going to look at such an endeavor as inadequate, below average, or worse. Is that really what the homeschool community wants?

My advice is twofold. First, plan to begin each homeschool day at a set time. Make sure your kids are out of bed, dressed, and fed before that time. Tell your friends not to call you between that time and whatever time you anticipate finishing a normal day of schooling. Let your children know that this time is fixed, and barring an unusual circumstance, will be the starting time each day. Furthermore, I suggest a start time before 9:00 and preferably closer to 8:00, although this must be chosen in light of your family's specific needs.

Second, set the school year in advance. Some will have no choice in the matter if, for example, they have some sort of cyber-school arrangement and have to follow its schedule, or if local regulations dictate this. Have a "first day" of the year. Plan a "last day"—contingent on the children finishing their courses of study. If the children finish ahead of that date, continue to educate them! Furthermore, unless an emergency occurs, don't take "days off" from the calendar. Plan ahead so that you can have school each day it is scheduled.

Don't revel in (what appears to many) your lack of self-discipline. Impress us with your dedication and consistency.

Homeschooling in Your PJ's? A Bad Idea

One of the things many homeschoolers—parents and children alike—say that they like about homeschooling is that they never have to get dressed up: They can have school in their pajamas if they choose. While I have no objection to wearing comfortable clothing, my thesis is that wearing your pajamas (and similar clothing that most decent people wouldn't wear out in public) to teach/learn in the homeschooling environment is a bad idea. And here's why:

1. Clothes send a message. Why do we dress up for certain formal occasions? Why do we look better to go to a wedding than we typically do to go to Wal-Mart? Because dressing up sends a clear message of the importance of the event. By allowing the children to wear pajamas or other clothing normal kids couldn't wear to school sends a message that "homeschooling isn't all that terribly important." The parents are probably speaking the opposite message to their kids; why would they wish to undermine it?

2. The parents are setting an example. Mom (or Dad), if you look like you just rolled out of bed when you are teaching your children, you're communicating that same message: "Homeschooling isn't all that terribly important to me." Get dressed, look presentable, and then get to work. Look the part of a teacher.

3. It's a bad habit. You want your child to be successful and get a good job, right? One where pajamas probably aren't the daily wardrobe? Your children need to understand, both by precept and practice, that "getting dressed" and looking presentable to go out in public are positive things that they need to do. They need to be in the habit of doing this every day...even if they aren't going out in public.

4. It is bad for the reputation of the homeschool community. I think homeschooling can be great if it is done right. I certainly believe that every parent has the right to choose the best educational options for their children. I cringe when I hear people clamoring for the government to step in and "regulate" homeschooling. But as long as there are those in the public who think of homeschoolers, "They really don't do anything. They just sit around in their pajamas and do whatever they want, and claim that going to the grocery store is 'math class,' yada, yada,..." the homeschoolers of our land are going to have to be on the lookout for government intrusion.

I'm afraid that many homeschoolers don't realize that a whole lot of normal, civil, law-abiding fellowcitizens do not take them seriously as educators. And when those fellowcitizens hear, from child or parent, that "school" is done in pajamas [and, just as bad, that they don't start until 9:45 a.m. or whenever they roll out of bed], they, despite their civil demeanor, are thinking to themselves that homeschooling endeavors are nothing more than the shoddy work of amateurs. In many cases, they will paint all homeschoolers with that same brush.

I would encourage every homeschool family to have a "dress code" for both the parent and children. It doesn't have to be their "Sunday best" clothes—Mom may not feel the need to wear nylons, for example—and it should be comfortable. But not slovenly, bummy, or grungy. It needs to be nice enough, though, that it sends a message to the student (and to anyone who may stop by the house during the day) that "school time" is important and worthy of getting dressed for. It should be enforced, too.

And perhaps in my next post, I will discuss why starting the homeschooling day at 9:45 a.m. is just as bad.

Why Are You in Algebra 2?

The title is a thought I have had a number of times lately. I do some tutoring online, and the largest number of my sessions come from students who are seeking an Algebra 2 tutor. [I also tutor Algebra 1, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Statistics.] Sadly, many students' sessions begin with something like this:

Student: I need to solve this equation [student shares an equation containing a logarithm].
Me: Have you ever done an equation like this one before?
Student: No.
Me: OK...have you ever worked with logarithms before?
Student: What's a logarithm?

Although it's not the focus of my concern while I'm tutoring, there are several possible explanations for such ignorance:

• The student is goofing around, either presently, or in class earlier in the day(s).
  
• The student is taking an online course and has no teacher to whom to ask questions; consequently, the student is totally lost.
• The student has been passed from one math course to the next over time, has learned virtually nothing, and is now hopelessly puzzled.
• The student is actually at the college level and probably hasn't taken a math class in years, if not decades.

The last two options seem to be depressingly common. I am led to the following thesis:

Students should not be permitted to take Algebra 2 until they have demonstrated a firm level of competency in Algebra 1. This applies both in high school and at the college level (regardless of what these courses may be named in college).

This became a big issue in Michigan a couple years ago (see my thoughts here) when the legislature, in a perhaps-well-meaning-but-totally-void-of-reality move made Algebra 2 part of the general graduation requirements for all public school students. Among other problems, this pressures teachers in the earlier grades to pass students along so that they can "get to Algebra 2 and pass it" before completing high school. This is neither wise nor fair.

But that's not my main point here. Parents and teachers in the upper high school grades (and professors, academic advisers, and students in colleges) must recognize that if the student is not ready for Algebra 2, the student should not be taking Algebra 2. The student should instead be sent to Algebra 1 (or, if necessary, something more basic) in order to master the requisite skills needed.

Self-esteem is not an issue here, either. It is no more psychologically beneficial to struggle with, cheat through, or fail one course than it is to step back and take a remedial one that will, in the long run, help the student to succeed.

Furthermore, a competent teacher with a class full of competent Algebra 2 students will be able to make more progress than if that teacher has to try to get all the incompetent students caught up at the same time. In other words, those students who have succeeded up to this point won't be held back by all the students who (for whatever reason) have not.

Finally, let us note that the blame for this phenomenon can be shared all around. Sure, some kids are slackers and are lost in Algebra 2 for reasons of their own creation. Yes, some teachers are inept [they should be removed, but discussing teacher unions and their prerogatives is not the point of this post]. Certainly, some parents pay no attention to their children's educational progress. And, contemptibly, some school administrators don't really care.

If you are a parent of an Algebra 2 student (or one yourself, at whatever age or level), consider this: Make sure your student is ready to take that class. If not, get them ready...first.

Book Review: Head Stuffing Doesn't Work by Donovan Hadaway

My friend Donovan recently released this book on the Kindle platform. You can preview and/or purchase it at this link.

Donovan's main thought is related to the title of the book: A good education is not the result of stuffing heads with facts. For a teacher to be effective, he must learn some simple philosophical concepts of learning that are—all too obviously—at odds with today's political correctness and public education establishment mentality.

Donovan sprinkles (heavily) his text with humor, sarcasm, and wit. It is an easy read, but it is a good read—essentially, the kind of book all teachers should both want to read and find time to read.

I haven't finished mine yet, but I hope to complete it soon. I encourage you to get a copy as well.

Warnings for Homeschoolers: Arrogance

This is the fifth in a series of posts about homeschooling. If you haven't read the first four, you may want to do that first, but here are a few theses about what I'm going to write both now, and in any posts to come:

• Children must receive an education based on the Word of God.
  
• Parents must be involved in their children's education.
• I believe that if a person decides that, after wisely considering the options, praying, and researching, that they ought to homeschool their children, I am OK with that, and I wish them well. These posts are written in the spirit of graciously warning them about some perils in the path.
• The key question: What is, in the will of God, the best option for providing quality Christian education to my children?

I want to distinguish here between "wholesome pride" and arrogance, so there is no confusion about what I am describing.

"Wholesome pride" is the emotion which takes a justifiable pleasure in something done well. It is not primarily selfish, nor does it gloat. It is the emotion a parent may feel when his child wins a contest, makes a big play in a ball game, or does something kind and selfless for another person. One can have a wholesome pride in his country (and for those of us who live in America, we should), in the military, in his favorite ball team, in his alma mater, or in his own accomplishments. "Wholesome" connotes that it is not sinful.

"Arrogance," on the other hand, is primarily selfish. It comes with the attitude of "Look what I [or my child, or my husband, etc.] have done, and envy—or be humbled. I [or the other person] can do this better than you." It is quite similar to the pride spoken of in Scripture, in passages such as Proverbs 8:13, 16:18; Daniel 5:20; and Obadiah 3. "Arrogance" is always sinful.

Most homeschoolers I have met fit into one of the two categories. Those in the first category may say (or silently communicate) such thoughts as these, in a humble tone:

• I am so glad to be able to homeschool my children.
• My child is now able to ____.
• Homeschooling has allowed our family to ____.

Furthermore, as they communicate with others about homeschooling, they will exhibit gratitude for the opportunities, blessings, and results which accompany it. If Christian, they will thank God for what happens.

The other group, however, tends to exhibit their arrogance in ways that betray what they are doing. Here are a few common illustrations:

• "My child can ____." [Comment delivered in a prideful/overbearing tone] Sure, overbearing parents exist in every form of education. But when it's the teacher/parent who is prideful about what his child can do, the impression is compounded.
• "No one can teach my children better than I can." Maybe so. But there are two big assumptions underlying the statement: You know your child and his educational strengths and weaknesses better than anyone, and you have the pedagogical skill to help him learn better than any other teacher could. The first, to be honest, is likely. The second is not. And on top of it all, your pride will make you a weaker teacher. Humility tends to help us see our own weaknesses more successfully—so that we can improve them.
• "We do a better job teaching our child than ____ School would." Or, "Our child gets better achievement test scores than the kids at ____ School." Again, that may be true. If "the local public school" goes in the blank, well, you should be disappointed if you aren't. Be careful about comparing your child to the "average" student of any school, though; all schools have their higher achievers as well as their lower ones. Comparisons should be cautious at best.

Most importantly, though, arrogance has a disconcerting way of seeping down to the next generation. If your children see you being arrogant, whether about your skills as the parent/teacher or about their achievements, the seeds of pride will be sown in their own hearts. If your child grows up to be prideful, then were you really the best teacher he could have had?

Warnings for Homeschoolers: Socialization

This is the fourth in a series of posts about homeschooling. If you haven't read the first three, you may want to do that first, but here are a few theses about what I'm going to write both now, and in the posts to come:

• Children must receive an education based on the Word of God.
  
• Parents must be involved in their children's education.
• I believe that if a person decides that, after wisely considering the options, praying, and researching, that they ought to homeschool their children, I am OK with that, and I wish them well. These posts are written in the spirit of graciously warning them about some perils in the path.
• The key question: What is, in the will of God, the best option for providing quality Christian education to my children?

This is by far the most overblown warning offered by those who don't homeschool. The problem is that there are just enough examples out there to provide the anecdotal evidence some people want to see.

The simple fact is that young people in all sorts of educational settings—public, private, homeschool—range from the unnaturally shy to the abnormally gregarious. Most likely, they would demonstrate the same personalities regardless of the schools they attend.

And of course, for every example of a strange homeschool kid who doesn't know how to act around his peers, there will be another example of one who not only socializes well, but also interacts maturely with adults, with children—with people of any age.

This warning is a simple one: If you homeschool, take care to do two things.

1. Give your children opportunities to constructively interact with others their own age, as well as others both younger and older than themselves. These opportunities could come at church, in Little League, with the neighbors, or in community organizations. It is true that kids should learn how to interact with others, and it is important that they get practice doing so. A well-rounded child should be able to interact with normal people younger, older, or similar in age to himself.
2. Teach your children social interaction skills. Manners aren't dead; courtesy never goes out of style. Model proper interaction when your children are present. Critique what you view together on TV (where you will certainly see plenty of examples of how not to behave in social settings). Share suggestions at meals on proper table etiquette. Remind children that they need to consider the feelings and emotions of others.

Really, these things apply to all of us who have children, whether we homeschool or not: If we give our children these opportunities and teach them how to interact socially, they will likely do quite well.

Warnings for Homeschoolers: Curriculum

This is the third in a series of posts about homeschooling. If you haven't read the first two, you may want to do that first, but here are a few theses about what I'm going to write both now, and in the posts to come:

• Children must receive an education based on the Word of God.
  
• Parents must be involved in their children's education.
• I believe that if a person decides that, after wisely considering the options, praying, and researching, that they ought to homeschool their children, I am OK with that, and I wish them well. These posts are written in the spirit of graciously warning them about some perils in the path.
• The key question: What is, in the will of God, the best option for providing quality Christian education to my children?

Once the decision is made to homeschool, one of the biggest decisions—and one of the hardest—is deciding what curriculum materials to use. The reason it's hard is because most parents are not curriculum experts. Here are some common options (but certainly not the only ones):

• Curriculum materials from Christian publishers, such as BJU Press, A Beka, and others
• Curriculum materials from secular publishers
• Online/video courses from a variety of sources

Some parents may choose to use one publisher exclusively for all (or most) subjects; others may choose to be more eclectic. Then, of course, deciding how the curriculum is going to be unveiled to the student:

• Will the parent "teach" in a traditional sense, lesson-by-lesson?
• Will the parent supervise as the student learns, for the most part, on his own?
• Will the parent be completely hands-off and rely upon videos, online classes, etc.?

The materials used to educate your children are very important. [Disclaimer: I work for one of the largest Christian textbook publishers in the country.] Let me begin by listing some reasons parents should not use for choosing any particular curriculum over another:

• This is what my friend recommends. That's nice, but is your friend an expert on how to educate, or more to the point, how to educate your children? A surprising number of decisions seem to be made based on nothing more than an informal suggestion.
• This is what the salesperson told me would work best. Keep in mind: They are salespeople. They are compensated based on their ability to convince you of this. Again: Does the salesperson know what's best for your children?
• This curriculum is cheaper. That might be true of the milk with tomorrow's "Sell By" date, too, but that isn't necessarily a good reason to buy it. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Here are some things I think every Christian homeschooler must consider before making curriculum decisions:

1. Research extensively. What works for your best friend's kids may not work for yours...and that's OK. You need to go to trade shows, visit conferences, get on the internet, physically look at the books, and-yes-talk to the salespeople, etc., in order to get a good feel for what is out there. And the less you know about pedagogy, the more research you need to do. Ask for the opinions of those who have wisdom and knowledge in the field. If you do not know anyone like that, hunt them down. Plan to spend serious numbers of hours on this; it could be one of the biggest homeschooling mistakes you make...or one of the best decisions.
2. Use Christian materials to the greatest extent possible. There is a place within the curriculum for age-and-maturity-appropriate exposure to classical literature, current political events, and so forth. For the most part, however, quality Christian curricular materials are available for every major subject, and should form the core of your homeschooling curriculum. If you really expect to give your children a Bible-based education, you should use Bible-based materials in each subject.
3. Know your limitations as the teacher. Not a chemistry expert? Can't remember a thing about geometry? Then take this into account when choosing curriculum. There is a saying that says something like, "The parent just has to stay a chapter ahead of the child." Baloney. Then the child will remain one chapter behind you. If you cannot teach it with confidence, consider how you could get your child to learn the material more successfully.
   
4. Try to avoid "hands-off" options. This is the balance to the previous point. Some parents leave their children in a room with a screen to "watch school." This is not ideal. The parent, no matter what his or her knowledge level in a given subject, needs to stay involved and aware with each lesson, so as to best help the child when it's needed. Even if the parent isn't a chemistry expert, he or she should still be keeping abreast of the coursework the child is completing.
5. You may have to stay cognizant of state requirements, but it's often OK to think outside the box. This is particularly important if you have several children being schooled at the same time. Can two or more children be working on the same coursework? Is one able to help (note: I did not say "teach") others who are younger? Don't go overboard, though: Reading, math, science, and history—and, of course, the Bible—are all still critical elements of a proper education; don't leave them out.

Remember that the key is to help your children receive the best possible, quality Christian education that you are able to provide. It will take research, time, and effort. It won't always be fun. Choosing the best curriculum for your children will go a long way to that end.

Warnings for Homeschoolers: Making the Decision

Why homeschool? My wife and I got this question back in 2008 when we began homeschooling our two eldest children. It is not a decision one arrives at lightly.

Let me list what I believe are not key reasons to choose to homeschool. They may be "contributing factors" to such a decision, but should not be the "key reason:"

• Money: Either the cost of homeschooling materials, or the cost of alternatives, such as Christian school, is often used as a reason to homeschool or not to homeschool.
  
• Personalities: I don't like so-and-so at that school/I don't think so-and-so is that good of a teacher.
• Convenience: Homeschooling can be convenient: The schedule is flexible, you won't need a lot of gasoline, and snow days aren't really an issue.

Here is what I believe is the key question around which the decision to homeschool centers:

• What is, in the will of God, the best option for providing quality Christian education to my children?

"Quality," in line with a post I wrote several weeks ago, implies that the education is both thoroughly Christian (i.e., from a Christian, Bible-based worldview) and academically challenging.

Some people have no other quality Christian education option in their geographic area, so the decision to homeschool may not be difficult. Others will have one or more Christian schools from which to choose. This is where the "best" part comes in. It may be that a local Christian school will be able to provide a more thorough, educationally robust Christian education than the parent can. And that's OK.

Most importantly, the will of God must be discerned through prayer and counsel.

My parents provided an excellent example of this. They had Christian school options. They realized that neither of them really knew much about teaching or education (in an academic sense), so they never gave homeschooling much thought. They knew that, in the will of God, the best thing, for their three children to get a quality Christian education, was to send them to a local Christian school. They sacrificed to get the money, they didn't let personalities interfere, and convenience wasn't allowed to be an issue. For this, I and my brothers must be ever grateful.

Two years ago, when it came to our turn to make this decision, we went a different route: We concluded, in the will of God, that the best decision for our two eldest children, for them to get a quality Christian education, was to homeschool them. For our two youngest, we continued to keep them in a local Christian school, for the same reasons.

And now that we have moved to a new state, the decision has changed again: All four children are in an excellent Christian school, where they will get a quality Christian education. We believe that, in the will of God, this is the best choice.

Who knows? Maybe this will change again some day, but we will always be looking for the will of God to be done, so that our children can get the best quality Christian education we can provide.

Warnings for Homeschoolers: Introduction

I know a lot of people who homeschool; we homeschooled two of our children from 2008-10. I know that many people do a great job educating their children in this way; there are also quite a few who do not. And I also know that I am passionate about children getting the best possible education their parents can provide.

When it comes to homeschooling, there are two principles that I think are inviolable:

• Homeschooling is not for everyone. Or in other words, there are some parents who would be wise not to homeschool their children.
• Not everyone who decides to homeschool knows how to do it well.

The decision to homeschool is never one to be taken lightly. It is a decision which should be preceded by large amounts of both prayer and research. And whether parents decide to homeschool or not, they must remain involved in their children's education.

I intend to write a group of posts related to warnings for homeschoolers. They are mainly aimed at those who enter into the homeschool venture with less than a full understanding of what they are getting (or, have gotten) themselves into. I think that homeschoolers tend to make the most major mistakes in three key areas:

• Curriculum: What should be covered? What textbooks/materials will I use to teach my children...or will I use videos or online education?
• Socializing: Yes, the media has overblown this...badly. But it seems that a lot of homeschoolers err on both sides of this issue.
• Arrogance: Some homeschoolers will tell you that there is no one that can train their children better than they can...or if they don't say it (because they have some degree of tact), their attitudes give it away. Maybe they're right—but pride can be a dangerous element in the homeschool environment. Many spurn the well-intentioned and wise advice of others. This is not good.

Please be assured that if a person decides that, after wisely considering the options, praying, and researching, that they ought to homeschool their children, I am OK with that, and I wish them well. These will be written in the spirit of graciously warning them about some perils in the path.

Arizona Seeks to Reassign Heavily Accented Teachers

FOXNews.com - Arizona Seeks to Reassign Heavily Accented Teachers

I am a firm believer that if you are planning on living in our country, you need to make haste to learn our language...and you need to make sure that your children learn our language, too. [That language is English, by the way.]

Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that English teachers in our public schools are fluent in English. This makes just as much sense as having math teachers who are skilled in math, chemistry teachers who have mastered the basic principles of chemistry, etc.

Therefore, kudos to the Arizona Department of Education for taking an effort to make sure English teachers know English.

The union had no comment.

Question for further research: Why were teachers hired to teach English, if they were not fluent in English?

The Media Just Doesn't Get Homeschooling

In an AP story I found on foxnews.com, someone evidently discovered that a lot of the most popular science textbooks among homeschooling parents do not promote Darwinian evolution. Early in the article we find this:

Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

No surprise there—that's why they homeschool! The public indoctrination centers (a.k.a., public schools) promote and propagandize the theory of evolution while trying their very best to demean and squash any thought that an all-powerful and all-knowing God created everything.

The majority of the rest of the article then whines about the fact that some homeschoolers—presumably that other 17%—don't want their children taught about Creation. Why such people would choose to use Christian science materials is beyond me, unless it is because such books do such a good job of teaching science overall.

One of the two books featured in the article is the Biology (3rd ed.) text from Bob Jones University Press, my alma mater. I am somewhat familiar with the first two editions of the Biology book, and I am even now using their 3rd edition 7th grade Life Science textbook with my daughter. This is an absolutely top-notch textbook in every way. If the Biology text is even half as good as the 7th grade text—and I strongly suspect it is—it will still be one of the very best Biology textbooks around.

The "reviewers" used by the AP in this article demean these texts; one said he would give the books an F. They clearly equate "good science" with slavish devotion to evolutionary theory. This is one of the greatest errors of our age. The mass of evidence points to a Creator far more powerful than we comprehend, not to an existence that came about by some happenstance or chance.

And if parents want to teach this to their children, more power to them.

The Basics of Christian Education

True Christian Education, regardless of where it takes place, must have these two basic characteristics pervading it:

1. It must be thoroughly Christian. It must exalt all three members of the Trinity. It must follow the Word of God at all times and in all things. It must encourage and edify—and when needed, rebuke—believers to serve God with every part of their lives. It must point the non-Christians in its midst toward God as Savior and King. Rules under which it operates encourage godly, biblical living.

As a consequence, it will not be happily received by most non-Christians; many Christians will likewise chafe at times.

2. The quality of education must be excellent. The teacher must be well-prepared, diligent, and surrendered to God; the teacher must also love the students. The curricula must be chosen on the basis of both academic soundness and ability to point its users toward Truth.

These two characteristics must be found for education to be "Christian," whether that education takes place in a school building, a church, or a home.

Ideally, there will be other characteristics found in the classroom. Students need to be desirous to learn; if they are without salvation, spiritual things will not make much sense to them. Logistical matters from attendance taking to restroom usage must be efficiently planned. Technological innovations, while not always essential, should be employed in ways subservient to education goals, not as the educational goals.

Christian education suffers today because it succumbs too much to pressure to de-prioritize its two primary characteristics.

On the one hand, there are those who do not thirst for doctrinal purity or biblical standards. They would rather see an "openness" to other points of view, or more practically, would prefer to avoid the issues which cause divisiveness when those who hold the Bible as truth disagree with those who don't. "Standards" arguments are a way this often manifests itself.

On the other hand (and remembering that many people have two hands), there are those who do not feel that academic excellence is either necessary or even practical. They prefer not to "push" students to learn, fearing the "pushback" of students and parents. In K-12, they may feel content merely to outperform the public schools, while further potential for excellence is allowed to waste away.

For those of you in Christian education—at school, church, or home—remember the basics!

High School Credit...for Athletics?

This news article today got me thinking about several facets of education. The essence of the article (which, I might add, was clearly not written by a professional educator) was that in the past, Texas students could get 2 of their required 26 credits to graduate by taking an "athletics class." Now, the Texas legislature has passed a law that allows students to gain 4 of their required credits by taking "athletics classes."

"Athletics classes," if I understand the article correctly, are basically credits awarded for participation in extracurricular athletics during the school day.

One school board member expressed his opinion with this inspiring comment: "If this is what keeps kids in school, then we should support it," he said.

Sorry, dude, but that's not what we are talking about here. This is a change in the graduation requirements—ostensibly, a change in the academic courses required to gain a diploma in the state of Texas. If I were a music, foreign language, or theatre teacher, I would be pretty ticked right about now.

I have no problem with requiring "physical education" or some comparable "class" as a prerequisite to a diploma. I had to take P.E. in high school, and physical education, if well taught, can be instructive both in the short and long term.

What I object to is allowing physical education or athletics classes to supplant academic courses in the graduation requirements. In Texas, it appears that the two additional athletics courses can only take the place of other electives. This is still not a good idea. The values found in music, drama, art, foreign language, and other similar "elective" classes are important. A student playing a sport after school can still take an art class during school. A student taking an "athletics class" during school likely won't be taking art in the late afternoon—they'll be playing their sport!

As a teacher, my gut feeling is that these "athletic classes" are just allowing the coaches to get some extra time in, during the class day, to prep their athletes. This is happening at the expense of academic classes, and of education in general; consequently, the diploma just received a little bit of tarnish.

That is not a good thing.

Government Intervention Goes "Out to c!"

At least it's in the U.K., and not here. Here's the summary of the foxnews.com article:

LONDON — It's a spelling mantra that generations of schoolchildren have learned — "i before e, except after c."

But new British government guidance tells teachers not to pass on the rule to students, because there are too many exceptions.

The "Support For Spelling" document, which is being sent to thousands of primary schools, says the rule "is not worth teaching" because it doesn't account for words like 'sufficient,' 'veil' and 'their.'

Yes, the government of Britain is giving guidance on how teachers ought to teach spelling to their students. Apparently some in government view themselves as pedagogues.

As with so many other things, it is ridiculous for government to assume a primacy of wisdom when it comes to fields where some of us have trained for years: Education, medicine, scientific philosophy, finance, and more. Consider this: I have a classroom of students whom I must teach, say, geometry. Two sets of lesson plans are devised—one by me, the guy who spends the time in the classroom getting to know these students; and another by a committee in Washington D.C. Whose lesson plans are most likely to be successful with my classroom of students?

Government, in general, does a lousy job running the private sector in a fair-handed and profitable manner. Please remember this.

A Great Posting About Parents and Schools

Over at the blog Michigan Blogger I read this great post this evening about how "Parents Need To Step It Up To Help Schools." Here are a couple of its excerpts:

I encourage you to read the entire post; it's a great one!

More days and longer hours seem like a good idea but it won't help until we fix the biggest problem with the schools.

The biggest problem with schools is parents. Yes, parents. Ask any educator and he or she will tell you - for the most part - that the best students have parents interested in their childrens' education.

There are too many parents letting their kids get away with too much by not disciplining them. Why should a kid behave in school when there is not only no punishment for bad behavior but the kid gets a sense of encouragement when the parent defends the improper actions.

That's not to say there aren't other problems with the school because there are. I will get into those issues another time. For now, we need parents to get behind the teachers and put the proverbial foot in the proverbial behind of their kids to make sure they get an education.

GRPS Foolishness May Be Spreading...

Back in December the Grand Rapids Public School District (MI) announced that F's were not going to be issued on students' report cards, replaced instead by an amorphous "H" (presumably for "held," as in the grade is held pending completion of...something; or for "hope," according to a school district spokesman). This was expected to improve the dropout rate. I blogged about it at that time.

But now, according to foxnews.com, we learn that this foolishness extends from coast to coast! Linked also to this article is another which identifies six more school districts, although an unspecified number of additional districts apparently do something like this. The new code acronym is "ZAP," for "Zeroes aren't permitted."

These additional six school districts do not use the "H" grade (I hesitate to call it a grade, but that is what it is functioning as), but instead lasso the offending did-not-do-homework students into either an after-school activity (we called this "detention" in my day) to complete the assignments or some other situation which demands that the homework be completed. In general, once the students complete the assignment, even if it's late, they can generally get a grade higher than a zero on it.

If a school district wants to codify its procedures for students who don't do assignments to mandate their attendance in an after-school activity [a.k.a., punishment for not doing homework is detention], I have no problem with that. I would like to note two things, however:

• It appears that no one wants to use the word "punishment" or any synonym that contains a negative connotation. Students are helped and taught, not hurt, when they learn that failure to meet their responsibilities requires a consequence—and "punishment" is one such accurate term for it.
• There needs to be a "point of no return" beyond which, if the assignment isn't completed, a zero is the result. I can even be charitable and give a "day of grace" (or even two, for a first offense) before issuing a zero, but that window of opportunity should not stay open for long. For one thing, the logistics for the teachers are going to be a burden as it is.

And, oh, by the way, how is this working up there in Grand Rapids? From mlive.com we get some more details, but the second foxnews.com article summarizes them nicely:

"But according to figures released earlier this week, the effort may not be working. Just 16 percent of classes failed during the program's initial trimester were converted into passing grades, and in 68 percent of classes students made no attempt to reconcile the grade. Another 15 percent of the classes were failed a second time." [Emphasis mine]

The liberal softie may claim that it's worth doing it for those 16% to get a passing grade, but that's not the point—those students would be permitted to retake the class anyway, despite the "H" grade initially received! I'm happy for those 16%; I am disgusted for the 68%. Evidently for them there was not sufficient motivation to try to redeem their grade!

Let's be honest, for by so doing, the students will learn the lesson: Failure matters. If you have not put forth adequate effort and obtained minimally expected results, you will reap the consequence. It's true in the workplace and true on the field of sport; it is one of the most basic lessons every citizen of this country (and every illegal alien, for that matter) should learn.

Obama and Education: Observations

President Obama discussed the topic of education Tuesday. There are two elements of the discussion that I want to comment upon.

First, he suggested "tightening standards for teachers." I did not find any specifics about what this means.

My view: Much of the "high standards for teachers" now, and particularly since the No Child Left Behind law (grrr...) passed several years ago, amount to collecting the right educational credentials. Most of us who are deep into education recognize that there is little correlation between the true abilities of a teacher to teach, and the size of the credential pile a teacher can (or chooses to) amass. If a way to select teachers can be found that doesn't emphasize transcripts over skills, my ears are open.

Second, Obama supports merit pay for teachers, or in the euphemistic language of the hour, "innovative compensation schemes."

My view: Merit pay is a grand idea with precious little foothold in reality (much like, for example, socialism). If the teachers' unions ever let it take hold in our public schools, I predict it will become an ugly game.

• If merit pay is based on test scores, look for teachers to teach to the test or for administrators to fudge the scores to their advantage. Or just look for fraud.
• If merit pay is based on other statistics, look for the statistics to be manipulated.
  
• If merit pay is based on administrative evaluations, there will be problems both with teachers who try to illegitimately curry favor to get a good evaluation, and with administrators who wield these evaluations as a club to accomplish their own goals or to punish teachers with whom they clash.
• And, heaven forbid, if merit pay is based on what the students think of their teachers, our education system is in monstrous trouble.

If a merit pay system can be constructed that can objectively measure the ability of every kind of teacher to have and impart wisdom and knowledge, to demonstrate and teach good character, and to give their best efforts to succeed and to breed success in their students, then I am for it. I just don't think I will ever see that day on this earth.

A Terrible Idea From Grand Rapids Public Schools

Yesterday, Grand Rapids Public Schools announced that there will be no F's on report cards this trimester: If a student did not pass a class, he will be awarded an "H." It's called the "Success Only Option," and of the 20,930 classes taken by students throughout four high schools, 2,364 of them will be assigned a grade of "H" when report cards come out this week.

None of the four high schools in the district is meeting the federal standards. Lots of their students drop out (about 25%)...typically the ones who get the F's. The idea here, presumably, is that the students will realize that they still have the opportunity to take the class again, or take it online or in some other format (such as summer sessions), so that they can still have the opportunity to pass. The administrator of the district was quoted as saying something along the lines of "Failure is something that all of us experience..., but why do we want to visit that [failure] on 14-, 15-, and 16-year-old children?"

Students will have one term to retake the class, and then the grade could change to an F. An "H" was referred to as a "delayed failing grade."

Teachers, naturally, are not pleased. They realize that these same immature "14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds" also frequently fail to have the maturity to meet deadlines, deal with stress, and reach expectations. Giving them a perceived "out" will make the teacher's job even more difficult (and in a district like GRPS, it's difficult enough—and that doesn't even count their labor union issues) when one of those same immature kids tells them, "Who cares? I'm not going to fail your class! You can't fail me! So what if I have to take it again later?"

Parents should not be pleased, either. As a teacher, I firmly believe that the largest part of high school failing grades and dropouts have their roots in parents who, over time, have not put an emphasis on education and who have not taught their children by their lives, actions, and words that education and graduation are of high importance. Parents who do those things generally have kids who pass and graduate, so why should they be worried? Because their children's teachers are going to have a more difficult task dealing with the immaturity of the other students, thereby shriveling up the time they can give to teaching!

Those who have not been involved in public education (as adults, not students) often are oblivious to how much disruption the more immature students are capable of inflicting. To empower and embolden them by saying "Don't worry, you won't get an F" is going to be like waving red in front of bulls. Classroom decorum will suffer.

But most of all, this terrible idea isn't going to accomplish its goal of getting more students to graduate. To graduate, you still have to pass the required courses. An "H" isn't a passing grade; it is not adequate to get the credit. At best, it will stall the dropout from dropping out. Consider these two students:

1. Student A, after two years, has 7 credits and 3 F's.
2. Student B, after two years, has 7 credits and 3 H's.

Both are equally close to (or far away from) graduating. Both still have 3 credits to get. Both still have the same opportunities to get those 3 credits. The first student may feel despondent; the second may feel indifferent—yet neither of these is good!

The cold, hard truth is that children must recognize the consequences of life. They must learn, through lessons small or large, that failure to meet their responsibilities reaps failure in some area of life. Ideally, they will learn this before high school in things less substantial. The immature student might actually benefit from the kick-in-the-pants that an "F" brings, when he finally realizes that consequences are real, serious, and sometimes life-long. Isn't that a good thing?

More Information About Pillsbury Baptist Bible College

As mentioned two days ago, Pillsbury will be closing its doors at the end of the semester. This news story, with video, comes from a Rochester, MN, television station. It does a remarkably objective yet sympathetic job reporting this.