Escape from Christian Fundamentalism - the Kids Who Flee Abusive, Isolated Christian Homes

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yep, it is. But Alabama's not the heartland. It's the deep south...they do things differently down there.

Not to say that the "heartland" doesn't have an "extreme fundamentalist evangelical" contingent, though. They're everywhere.

wildtimes
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Further, social development and exposure helps them in making all the ordinary social mistakes in such areas as good friends, bad friends, terrible dating decisions, trust and betrayal scenarios when they don't really count as opposed to making/experiencing those mistakes/social landmarks as an Adult when and where the consequences can be much more dire and all the more devestating.

This ^^^ bears repeating.

Just for the record...
Homeschooled kids aren't necessarily stunted, in terms of "social development."
And, the last I checked, homeschooled kids were outperforming their public-schooled counterparts academically. I haven't seen any research that suggests that homeschooled kids are socially inept than other kids. So...as far as I can tell, there's no downside to homeschooling as long as you aren't crazy. As long as you don't coddle them like they are eggs or something, they'll probably be fine.

StalkerSolent

wildtimes
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Further, social development and exposure helps them in making all the ordinary social mistakes in such areas as good friends, bad friends, terrible dating decisions, trust and betrayal scenarios when they don't really count as opposed to making/experiencing those mistakes/social landmarks as an Adult when and where the consequences can be much more dire and all the more devestating.

This ^^^ bears repeating.

Just for the record...
Homeschooled kids aren't necessarily stunted, in terms of "social development."
And, the last I checked, homeschooled kids were outperforming their public-schooled counterparts academically. I haven't seen any research that suggests that homeschooled kids are socially inept than other kids. So...as far as I can tell, there's no downside to homeschooling as long as you aren't crazy. As long as you don't coddle them like they are eggs or something, they'll probably be fine.

I'm inclined the question the continuing education of parents who homeschool their children. Teachers are required to regularly refresh and update their curriculums to ensure the inclusion of the latest knowledge and tools necessary to properly equip their pupils for the world. Long after they finish high school and college and get their degree, they still attend classes to keep pace with the ever-advancing knowledge-base of researchers all around the world.

How many parents do that?

reply to post by StalkerSolent


Parents if at all possible... should not let the state raise their children, or teach them for that matter.

In my opinion it would be in the parents best interest to either do it themselves, hire someone to do it, or place them in a better school such as a private school.

Society is a big proof of the failure of the public education system and the state's inefficiency...

Hey Wild, I'm glad you still have the stamina to post threads such as these... very rarely do I find it in myself anymore. I applaud your effort to deny ignorance.

A lot of Fundamental homeschooling is absolutely nothing short of abuse, a good majority I would say. However, the State can be equally abusive so what are we to do? The answer may exist in those reaching out, who better to step in and know what to do? If it can be done through outreach, reserving CPS as a last resort, that might be best.

The ironic thing I feel I always have to point to fundamentalists of any religion... their complete lack of faith. There's nothing else to explain this rigid fear of the outside world other than they are inwardly terrified their religion cannot stand up to scrutiny. Sadly they don't realize that their religion can stand up, maybe not all the dogmas... something is out there, most people believe that... religion is just a method of trying to connect to it.

Here's an article with photocopied, actual questions from the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum, devised in the 70s in Texas. It is widely used by homeschoolers:

33 Jaw-Droppingly Stupid Multiple-Choice Questions from the Christian Education Curriculum

Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) is a fundamentalist curriculum founded in Texas in 1970. It started as a program for private Christian day schools, but it has been hugely successful among conservative home schoolers. Today, ACE claims it is used in “6,000 schools and thousands of home educators in over 140 countries.” It’s also used in government-funded voucher programs in several US states.

The author of the article states:

I went to an ACE school for almost four years. By the time I left, I was certain that

it was against God's will for governments to provide healthcare,

evolution was a conspiracy to destroy Christianity,

parents were morally required to spank their children,

and science could prove that homosexuality was wrong.

But worst of all was the feeling uneducated; I still struggle with self-conscious fears about gaps in my learning. ACE workbooks consist of simplistic fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice questions. And these questions are often hilariously, spectacularly bad.

(emphases mine)

I can't c/p the questions, because they are not html, they are 'screenshots' (or whatever) - so, I'll type out a few samples from some of the included grades (if you go to the article you can see all of them):

4th grade (9-10 year old kids):

spout
in a sentence: Children played happily in the water spout.
Spout means:
a) a stream of water
b) two dry ducks
c) a playground

Two. Dry. Ducks.

Louis Pasteur
Mr Louis Pasteur did experiments with milk
Louis Pasteur was:
a) a glass bottle
b) an airplane
c) a scientist

7th grade (12-13 y o kids):

People suffering from an illness or injury are treated by
a) doctors
b) veterinarians
c) dentists

9th grade (14-15 yo):

The word alphabet comes from the Greek letters
a) alpha and iota
b) beta and gamma
c) alpha and bet

The author goes on with a few from 12th grade, and concludes his piece with this:

Mind you, by this point, it’s all starting to seem less funny.

Yeah. Some - I repeat: some - parents who want to home-school buy this package.

Just like the book "To Train up a Child" (referenced in sources in the OP). Frightening.

AfterInfinity

I'm inclined the question the continuing education of parents who homeschool their children. Teachers are required to regularly refresh and update their curriculums to ensure the inclusion of the latest knowledge and tools necessary to properly equip their pupils for the world. Long after they finish high school and college and get their degree, they still attend classes to keep pace with the ever-advancing knowledge-base of researchers all around the world.

How many parents do that?

1. That's really not true at the levels of lower education. Math, reading, writing, basic grammar, history, philosophy, literature, basic science and such are not really going to change significantly. (At least, not as far as I can tell. Feel free to offer me an example.) Continuing knowledge becomes important in specialized fields that are typically college subjects (engineering, specific sciences & branches of history, etc.)
2. I don't know how many parents do that. If homeschooled kids are scoring better on standardized testing, though, they must be doing a better job than regular teachers! It's worth noting, though, that some homeschooled kids do video courses (online or pre-recorded, and taught by teachers) and take college courses while in high school(!)

reply to post by wildtimes


we've had many successful homeschoolers... how does the state measures success, by how much taxes you bring them when you're of working age?

the state could care less about preparing children for the world, teachers in public schools have their own agenda and it's political, they just can't seem to keep it out of the classroom.

the state is efficient at only one thing, incarceration... and that is what the state does best.

it's not a federal problem

reply to post by StalkerSolent

That's really not true at the levels of lower education. Math, reading, writing, basic grammar, history, philosophy, literature, basic science and such are not really going to change significantly.

Yes, it is true.

In my state, for example, ALL K-12 public schools dismiss kids at noon-ish on Wednesdays, and the teachers attend in-service trainings: continuing education. Every week. All year long.

I worked in the schools for 8 years. ALL teaching staff attend those inservices.
Methods of teaching the above subjects change all the time. You don't recall when "New Math" and "Phonetics" were the method du jour some decades ago?

New methods for classroom teaching are being developed all the time, by people who study 'learning' as a human ability.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


what a load.
Please, stop. I won't respond to you further. You are trolling.

reply to post by wildtimes


trolling? hell its the truth... take a look around, we have not even 350 million people and we have more people currently in our prisons or who go thru some type of time in jail (currently) than nearly the rest of the world combined.

in China the state just snuffs you out! they execute over 5000 people every year... is this the efficiency our state governments will rise to?

as many people as we lock up proves the states failure, or even their ability to measure success.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


And you are laying all the responsibility for those statistics at the feet of our educational system?

wildtimes

Yes, it is true.

In my state, for example, ALL K-12 public schools dismiss kids at noon-ish on Wednesdays, and the teachers attend in-service trainings: continuing education. Every week. All year long.

I worked in the schools for 8 years. ALL teaching staff attend those inservices.
Methods of teaching the above subjects change all the time. You don't recall when "New Math" and "Phonetics" were the method du jour some decades ago?

New methods for classroom teaching are being developed all the time, by people who study 'learning' as a human ability.

Oh, sure. But there's a huge difference between methods and content. I think it's fairly safe to say that human learning techniques are almost as varied as humans themselves. Humans have been learning for thousands and thousands of years, and I haven't seen any signs that we're going to develop teaching in a pill form or whatnot. (Though that'd be awesome!) There's also no signs we're all going to become unable to learn if we're not taught "the one right way."

Tell me, though, since you've worked in schools: don't kids perform better the lower the teacher to student ratio is (all other things equal?)

reply to post by StalkerSolent

Tell me, though, since you've worked in schools: don't kids perform better the lower the teacher to student ratio is (all other things equal?)

Yes, in general, although some kids do better in groups than in one-on-one teacher/student settings. (see chart below)

I think it's fairly safe to say that human learning techniques are almost as varied as humans themselves.

True, also.

I went from public schools into parent education; there is, in any child, a particular 'style' of learning, which you've probably heard about...
some are visual, some need to hear it, some need to touch things, some respond better to music, or by drawing, some need to fiddle with something while they're learning, some need to have multiple 'media' input (hence so many 'lecturers' use powerpoint AND speaking; the more open they are, the more likely to allow people to doodle, play with playdough, lie down, walk around, etc. (whatever) while they are being taught.

If you intend to teach your kids at home, please just make sure that it's a good "fit"; i.e., that your style of teaching fits the child's style of learning. And that goes for their entire lives, from infancy onward.

Many people recognize that each person prefers different learning styles and techniques. Learning styles group common ways that people learn. Everyone has a mix of learning styles. Some people may find that they have a dominant style of learning, with far less use of the other styles. Others may find that they use different styles in different circumstances. There is no right mix. Nor are your styles fixed. You can develop ability in less dominant styles, as well as further develop styles that you already use well.

Using multiple learning styles and ¡multiple intelligences¡ for learning is a relatively new approach. This approach is one that educators have only recently started to recognize. Traditional schooling used (and continues to use) mainly linguistic and logical teaching methods. It also uses a limited range of learning and teaching techniques. Many schools still rely on classroom and book-based teaching, much repetition, and pressured exams for reinforcement and review. A result is that we often label those who use these learning styles and techniques as ¡bright.¡ Those who use less favored learning styles often find themselves in lower classes, with various not-so-complimentary labels and sometimes lower quality teaching. This can create positive and negative spirals that reinforce the belief that one is "smart" or "dumb".

reply to post by StalkerSolent


Also, you might look into the Montessori method; it allows kids to 'direct' the curriculum.

wiki entry for a basic starting point

I wish you all the best with raising your kids. Mine are now in their 20s. Seems like yesterday, but it was 25 years ago TODAY that my first was born.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


It is better not to discuss matter such as these with professed atheists. Their community has no grasp of the moral foundation which has established societies.

It is beyond the philosophy of the atheistic mind to comprehend such subjects as a universal truth.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Dude, your negativity and hatred are overwhelming. I want nothing to do with your hostility and pessimism.
If all you are looking for is failure, that is all you will see. You don't like this country? You are free to go. Constant attacks on the system don't help to fix it. They just make you look like a bitter "hater".

(ETA, after reading your latest off-topic lie and nonsequitor slam against atheists directed at AftIn):
Oh, and your willful ignorance, too. That is another reason I won't engage in any conversation with you.
You don't know what you're talking about, and you are a poor example of a "Christian" as well as a poorly educated American.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Are you saying I'm inferior to you?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I was saying no such thing... Only letting others know why I personally do not discuss such matters with members of the atheistic community.

It comes down to majorities for me, and the majority of followers of this belief I have come into contact with have opposite values about the well being of the many, but instead focus on only the few.

I also do not believe state curriculum is educational, the state is there to train a child.

imo there's a big difference... the problem lies on an individual level (with the teachers) it's not a governmental problem.

wildtimes
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

Also, you might look into the Montessori method; it allows kids to 'direct' the curriculum.

wiki entry for a basic starting point

I wish you all the best with raising your kids. Mine are now in their 20s. Seems like yesterday, but it was 25 years ago TODAY that my first was born.

Thanks WT! I'm actually younger than your oldest (I hope he has a happy birthday, BTW) and kids are a bit of a hypothetical at this point. Doesn't mean I'm not thinking about them, though. The Montessori method certainly looks interesting.