home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |
  An American Manifesto
Friday May 25, 2012 
by Christopher Chantrill Follow chrischantrill on Twitter

TOP NAV

Home

Blogs

Opeds

Articles

Bio

Contact

BOOK

Manifesto

Sample

Faith

Education

Mutual aid

Law

Books

BLOGS 12

May 2012

Apr 2012

Mar 2012

Feb 2012

Jan 2012

BLOGS 11

Dec 2011

Nov 2011

Oct 2011

Sep 2011

Aug 2011

Jul 2011

Jun 2011

May 2011

Apr 2011

Mar 2011

Feb 2011

Jan 2011

BLOGS 10

Dec 2010

Nov 2010

Oct 2010

Sep 2010

Aug 2010

Jul 2010

Jun 2010

May 2010

Apr 2010

Mar 2010

Feb 2010

Jan 2010

BLOGS 09

Dec 2009

Nov 2009

Oct 2009

Sep 2009

Aug 2009

Jul 2009

Jun 2009

May 2009

Apr 2009

Mar 2009

Feb 2009

Jan 2009

BLOGS 08

Dec 2008

Nov 2008

Oct 2008

Sep 2008

Aug 2008

Jul 2008

Jun 2008

May 2008

Apr 2008

Mar 2008

Feb 2008

Jan 2008

BLOGS 07

Dec 2007

Nov 2007

Oct 2007

Sep 2007

Aug 2007

Jul 2007

Jun 2007

May 2007

Apr 2007

Mar 2007

Feb 2007

Jan 2007

BLOGS 06

Dec 2006

Nov 2006

Oct 2006

Sep 2006

Aug 2006

Jul 2006

Jun 2006

May 2006

Apr 2006

Mar 2006

Feb 2006

Jan 2006

BLOGS 05

Dec 2005

Nov 2005

Oct 2005

Sep 2005

Aug 2005

Jul 2005

Jun 2005

May 2005

Apr 2005

Mar 2005

Feb 2005

Jan 2005

BLOGS 04

Dec 2004

To Be or to Do Are the Democrats Crazy?

print view

Another Vote for Homeschooling

by Christopher Chantrill
May 22, 2004 at 8:00 pm

|

IN FRIDAY’S Wall Street Journal, Diana West announced that she had removed her twin daughters from school and was now educating them at home: home-schooling them, as we now like to say.  It seemed to her that there was no way on “God’s green earth that [she] could possibly teach [her] girls less than they learned in that school.”  She was referring to the elementary school her children attended in Montgomery County, Maryland in fourth grade.

Of course, on top of learning nothing in school her children were also subjected to a farrago of PC-centric narrative: Columbus viewed from the bushes by a Hispaniolan girl, Thanksgiving celebrated as a diversity of cultures, and a poetry project that turned the classroom into a Greenwich village coffee-house with everyone dressed in artistical black.  As the postmodernists have taught us, all such narrative is about power, and clearly the power interest at the Montgomery County schools does not privilege the middle-class culture of rules, roles, purpose, and discipline.

But won’t these two little girls lack socialization skills if they are educated at home?  Thank you, senator; I’m glad you asked me that.

In his magisterial Blank Slate, Harvard professor Steven Pinker addresses exactly this issue.  What is it that molds children?  Is it nature or nurture?  Is it heredity or is it parental influence.  Is it schooling or is it peer pressure?  As usual, the answer is startling and, in retrospect obvious.  The most important measurable influence is the genes.  The next most important influence would be parenting, right?  Wrong.  The research shows that parenting has almost no effect. 

So what does make a difference?  You guessed it: Peer pressure.  “In almost every case, [children] model themselves after their peers, not their parents.”  When we talk about the importance of a child’s “environment,” we think about “parents.”  But in fact, the important environment is the one the child experiences in the company of other children.

British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple testified to this in a chilling piece in the Summer 2000 City Journal.  Back in the bad old days, when poor children went to school barefoot, his father was plucked from poverty and the slum by the public education system.  “Having been found intelligent by his teachers, he was taught Latin, French, German, mathematics, science, English literature, and history, as if he were fully capable of entry into the stream of higher civilization.”  In today’s progressive era, this opportunity is no longer available to the intelligent slum child.  “Today’s teachers assume that the slum child is fully equipped culturally by the environment in which he lives… There is no reason, therefore, to induct him into anything” or to bother to teach him anything.   As one 15-year-old attempted suicide told Dalrymple:  “They say I’m stupid… because I’m clever.” 

Another teenager, who developed an interest in French literature, was “mocked, teased, threatened, and humiliated… Excrement was put through her mailbox at home.”  Despite everything she went to college and then returned to the old neighborhood to teach French—until one of her students tried to rape her.

You can see where all this is leading.  If the decisive influence on a child—apart from genetic inheritance—is not parenting but socialization, at the playground, in school, and at the soccer game, then the one important thing a parent can do is to set their child down next to the right peer group, so their child will be socialized by children that are intelligent, curious, inquiring, and big hearted, rather than mean, ignorant, and wearing baggy pants down to their ankles.  The one thing for a parent to avoid would be a neighborhood where a kid could easily get mixed up with the wrong crowd.  The one objective for liberal do-gooders would be to make sure that underprivileged children that showed an inkling of intelligence would be streamed into schools that diverted them from the cycle of violence in the streets.

It’s not that hard to do.  It takes about six weeks in newly opened inner-city prep academies to turn little monsters into docile, well-behaved students, and thereby create a peer environment that values learning and the middle-class virtues of rule-following and good manners.

Diana West believes, like 49 percent of home-school parents, that her daughters can get a better education at home.  But what does such a general statement mean? 

The truth is that public education has always been trying to mess up our kids’ education.  The noble Horace Mann, founder of public education in the United States, was a cat’s-paw of Harvard Unitarians who wanted to cure Puritan children of their Calvinism, of Protestants who wanted to cure the Irish of their Catholicism, and of socialists who wanted to cure children of their individualism.

Today, it’s postmodernists that want to cure children of their Americanism.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.  His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

 

 TAGS


Faith & Purpose

“When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of ages—they seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings...”
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990


Mutual Aid

In 1911... at least nine million of the 12 million covered by national insurance were already members of voluntary sick pay schemes. A similar proportion were also eligible for medical care.
Green, Reinventing Civil Society


Education

“We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
E. G. West, Education and the State


Living Under Law

Law being too tenuous to rely upon in [Ulster and the Scottish borderlands], people developed patterns of settling differences by personal fighting and family feuds.
Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures


German Philosophy

The primary thing to keep in mind about German and Russian thought since 1800 is that it takes for granted that the Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and philosophical conception of man and nature... has been shown by indisputable evidence to be inadequate. 
F.S.C. Northrop, The Meeting of East and West


Knowledge

Inquiry does not start unless there is a problem... It is the problem and its characteristics revealed by analysis which guides one first to the relevant facts and then, once the relevant facts are known, to the relevant hypotheses.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities


Chappies

“But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.”  —Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison


Democratic Capitalism

I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all. In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism


Action

The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness... But to make a man act [he must have] the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action


Churches

[In the] higher Christian churches… they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm


Conversion

“When we received Christ,” Phil added, “all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.”
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh


Living Law

The recognition and integration of extralegal property rights [in the Homestead Act] was a key element in the United States becoming the most important market economy and producer of capital in the world.
Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital


mysql close

 

©2007 Christopher Chantrill