“What About Socialization?”

Posted on by

“What About Socialization?”

Posted in Tough Questions

Without a doubt this is the one question, reservation and objection that is raised most often. It is usually the one raised first. It is often the one most hotly debated. And common experience among homeschoolers is that socialisation, rather than academic achievement, is the issue over which friends, relatives and educational authorities show the most concern.

Popular opinion assumes that children need long periods of interaction with a large group of age-segregated peers to acquire social skills. Now assuming that most of the time spent in the classroom is not spent in interacting but in paying attention to the teacher and doing the assigned work, where does most of the interaction take place? During lunch and break times, and before and after school. And who is supervising this interaction on the playground, on the school bus and on the streets to ensure that the right kind of socialisation is taking place? It is not the teachers but the children themselves. In the typical public school setting, children are being left to socialise themselves as best they can.

This fits in with today’s prevailing philosophy which holds that children are inherently good or perhaps neutral, like blank cassette tapes, and that left to themselves, they will inevitably develop and adapt toward the highest good attainable by the group as a whole. (Although it is unpopular to say so, when this is translated into practical reality it means conformity to the lowest common denominator.) This inevitable “upward” development and adaptation is an idea developed from the theories of evolution.

Unfortunately it was developed in the absense of a) other tenets of evolutionary thought, b) common experience and c) traditional Christian/Western wisdom, all of which contradict this foundationaI premise upon which our modern ideas of child socialisation are based.

Let us examine these three contradictions to the prevailing thoughts on socialisation:

a) Another tenet of evolution is the survival of the fittest. This is the law of the jungle, eat or be eaten, brute force prevails, might makes right. This is the tendency of children’s behaviour on the playground unless there are sufficient adults present to prevent it.

Even though children are infinitely varied, the socialisation at school causes them to conform to the codes dictated by their particular class or group. We have all witnessed the same phenomenon: There are the few at the top who are setting the pace and the codes, there are the vast numbers in the middle who quietly conform and try to keep out of harm’s way, and there are those at the bottom of the pecking order who are ostracised, victimised, bullied, teased, etc., because they do not conform in their dress, their size, their looks, their speech, their behaviour or whatever.

b) Common experience tells us this profound truth: Monkey see, monkey do. Children emulate the  behaviour of those around them. If they spend most time around their friends, they copy them. If it is with the Ninja Turtles on TV, they will copy them. If they spend most time around their parents, they will emulate them.

Most parents know only too well the immediate results of this “copy cat” form of socialisation. After lengthy play with their friends, children can be “hyper” and disrespectful and try out the unacceptable speech or actions they have just picked up from their peers. How true is the ancient proverb which says, “He who walks with wise men becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm. ” 1

c) Christian wisdom says that children are not basically good or neutral but are fallen, that is, they possess an inherent tendency toward foolishness which manifests itself in temper tantrums, disobedience, disrespect, dishonesty, destructiveness, etc. Proverbs 22: 15 says, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him.” In other words, children do not need other children to teach them how to be children. Instead they need loving, responsive adults committed to teaching them, training them, giving them the discipline and setting them the right example in the social graces.

Children do not of themselves learn the social arts of respect, honesty, patience, gentleness, kindness, faithfullness, manners, or self control; they must have conscientious adults to model, discipline, teach and train them to internalise these behaviour traits as habits.

Critics of homeschooling claim that such children will not be the same as their conventionally schooled friends and will not fit into the peer group. The origins of this concern are somewhat sinister.

First there was Horace Mann, an early leader in the public school movement. He favoured the Prussian patterns of state education because, as he put it, it was devised “more for the purpose of modifying the sentiments and opinions of the rising generation according to a certain government standard than as a mere means of diffusing elementary knowledge. “

Then there was John Dewey, the father of progressive education. He saw truth not in absolutes, but in terms of universal ideas developed and agreed to by a group. A “thesis” or proposed truism would emerge from the group. It would at some stage meet with an opposing idea, an “antithesis.” Debate and conflict would ensue until a compromise or “synthesis” was reached. This synthesis then became the thesis and the whole process would be repeated. For those who don’t recognize it, this is classic Marxist dogma.

Truth to Dewey was derived by a distillation process within the group. To educators like him, the interaction of children with others in order to help distill these universal ideas of truth is education.

Both Horace Mann and John Dewey believed that this type of education needed to be led by an elite, those educators who had been instrumental in the formation of public education policy, who could gently lead others through this “distillation” process. To have children who did not or would not fit in with the group would be to hamper the distillation of truth, as directed by this elite.

We find, then, that this concern over homeschooled children not being socialised is actually a political concern that they will not be as easily manipulated by the elite as those who do fit into this all-important group.2 

The following comments are by Dr. James C. Dobson who is Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Southern California School of Medicine; President of Focus on the Family Magazine and Focus on the Family radio programmes which are heard daily on 1400 radio facilities around the world; and author of best-seller, Dare to Discipline.

I have been increasingly concerned during the past 10 years about the damage done to our children by one another. The epidemic of inferiority and inadequacy seen during the teen years is rooted in the ridicule, rejection, and social competition experienced by vulnerable young children. They are simply not ready to handle the threats to the self-concept that are common in any elementary school setting.

I have seen kids dismantle one another, while parents and teachers passively stood by and observed the “socialisation” process. I’ve then watched the recipients of this pressure begin to develop defense mechanisms and coping strategies that should never be necessary in a young child.

Dozens of investigations have demonstrated, (at least to my satisfaction), the error of the notion that children must be exposed to other children in order to be properly socialised. I just don’t believe it. In fact, the opposite is true. They need the security and love of parental protection and guidance until their self-concepts are more stabilised and established.

In summary, I believe the home school is the wave of the future. In addition, it provides a third alternative to a humanistic public school and an expensive or non-existent Christian school.3

In 1960 Harold G. McCurdy examined “The childhood pattern of genius” in a study supported by the Smithsonian Institution of Washington, D.C. In summary, McCurdy wrote:

The typical developmental pattern includes as important aspects:

(a) a high degree of attention focused upon the child by parents and other adults, expressed in intensive educational measures and, usually, abundant love;

(b) isolation from other children, especially outside the family; and

(c) a rich efflorescence of fantasy as reaction to the preceeding conditions.

It might be remarked that the mass education of our public school system is, in its way, a vast experiment on tbe effect of reducing all three factors to minimum; accordingly, it should tend to suppress the occurance of genius.4

Too right! Here’s a report from Tauranga that appeared in the Manawatu (NZ) Evening Standard of 16 March 1991: “A playground game involving sinking teeth into an unsuspecting school mate’s bottom has left five students suspended. In the game, tagged barracuda, victims are forced to the ground and restrained while attackers bite a buttock.”  Cute.

Another answer to those critics who argue that homeschooled students are deprived socially is provided by Dr. John Wesley Taylor V. He used the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, one of the best self-concept instruments available for measuring socialisation, to evaluate 224 home schooling participants aged 9 through 18. Over half scored in the top 10% of the scale. 77.7% ranked in the top 25% of the scale. Only 10.3% scored below the norm.

Home schooled children score significantly higher than their conventionally schooled peers in this measurement of socialisation.5

Dr. Raymond Moore, Developmental psychologist and early childhood educational specialist from the Moore Foundation of Camas, Washington, has developed a three point recipe for sound character development:

1) An academic regimen which takes into consideration the individual child’s readiness to learn as effected by the child’s physical, emotional and intellectual maturity levels; his aptitudes, special gifts and abilities, learning style, etc.

2) An element of work in the daily programme which may range from simple routine chores to a regular income-generating cottage industry.

3) Service to others such as active membership in voluntary service organisations and visiting, baking, running errands for shut-ins, the infirm or hospitalised.

Dr. Moore maintains that the time and logistics of public schools and the need to integrate all three points into a unified lifestyle or “family corporation” indicates the homeschool as the ideal setting for sound, all-round character development.6

Some critics of homeschooling paint charicatures of what they say the homeshooling brand of socialisation will produce: introverted whimps and social incompetents. If we ignore for a moment the other factors involved in character development such as family background and support, it must be pointed out that these charicatures are already known in society and that they are products of the public schools. So too in fact are other social blights such as irresponsible hooligans, unmotivated slobs, gang members, vandals, and all the other social misfits who have graduated from the public schools’ socialisation programme to subsequently be sent to our country’s prisons, fill them to overflowing, and are now spilling back into society producing ever increasing crime rates.

If we now return to what are probably the major factors in character development, namely family background and support, and assert that increased hooliganism and crime is a result of disintegrating families, then we also have to assert that the schools are not able to correct this trend. Homeschooling, however, is an ideal situation for correcting this downward trend as families are of necessity drawn together to strive in unison toward the goal of educating and training each other for the whole of life.

Cornell University’s Urie Bronfenbrenner points out the negative socialising effects of the peer group. The knuckling under of children to their agemates in habits, manners, finger signs, obscenities, rivalry and ridicule almost certainly infects all children who spend more of their waking days with their peers than their parents, as is usually the case with conventionally schooled children. They will become dependent upon their age-segregated peer group, and tend to be alienated from adults and others not in their age group. He says that this robs children of 1) self worth, 2) optimism, 3) respect for parents and 4) even trust in their peers.

Furthermore, this does not happen because peers are so attractive, but because the children perceive they are to some degree rejected by their parents.7

Here is just one story illustrating the negative side of school socialisation that appeared in the Manawatu (NZ) Evening Standard of 19 February 1991: “During cross-examination, defence counsel Les Atkins QC played a rap tape made by the girl and her friend the same year as the alleged (sexual) offences. The tape contained obscenities as well as inferences about the girl’s current boyfriend’s sexuality. She said the obscenities on the tape sung by her had no meaning. Everyone at school used such language freely. “

Martin Engle, who then headed the National Early Childhood Demonstration Centre, vowed that parents who insist on early schooling, for all its claimed advantages to their children, are either deceived or deceiving their children; and that in fact, the children feel rejected.8

He is supported by the late John Bowlby, London psychiatrist who headed the World Health Organisation early childhood programme. This rejection, suggests Dr. Bowlby, often amounts to a serious form of child abuse. We are depriving them of the security they need when we institutionalise them before they are ready.  (Dr. Moore adds that the earlier you institutionalise your children, the earlier they will institutionalise you.) Says Dr. Bowlby, “…mothers who care for their children well are providing an irreplaceable service and one that society should hold in highest regard and be thankful for.”9

The negative socialising effects of age-segregating youngsters into classes, putting all boys and girls of the same age into the same class, is especially damaging to the boys. We require boys to enter school at the same age as girls although we know that boys trail girls in mental and emotional maturity by about a year at school’s start. Boys tend to be more likely than girls to fail, become delinquent or acutely hyperactive.

Michigan State University family ecologist Anne Soderman says, “Our failure to apply in the classroom what we have learned through research is evident in the secondary schools – boys outnumber girls 13 to 1 in remedial classes and by as much as 8 to 1 in classes for the emotionally impaired. ” 10

Conclusions

Basically, the socialisation argument against homeschooling is one big myth. What statistics are available indicate that homeschool socialisation is in fact significantly superior to that proffered in public schools (Dr. John Taylor’s use of Piers-Harris scale.) And the results of the schools’ socialisation efforts observable in society today are bemoaned by just about everybody involved.

Notes

(1) Proverbs 13:20

(2) Theresa Rodman. The Teaching Home, Portland, Oregon: Vol. II, No. 4, Aug/Sep 1984.

(3) Abstracted from a personal letter to a professional colleague who had questioned Dr. Dobson’s stance on homeschooling, quoted in The Teaching Home, Portland, Oregon: Vol. I, No. 2, June 1983.

(4) Quoted in Doctoral thesis of Brian D. Ray, President, National Home Education Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, 29 July 1986.

(5) John Wesley Taylor V. “Self Concept in Home Schooling Children”, Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, Michigan,May 1986.

(6) Raymond S. Moore. “The Educated Beautiful”, Kappa Delta Pi RECORD, summer 1987.

(7) Urie Bronfenbrenner. Two Worlds of Childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R., New York, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1970.

(8) Martin Engle. “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, Let Down Your Golden Hair: Some Thoughts on early Childhood Education.” Unpublished manuscript, National Demonstration Center in Early Childhood Education, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C.

9) John Bowlby. Maternal Care and Mental Health, Geneva World Health Organisation, 1952.

10) Ann Soderman. Article in Education Week, 14 March 1984.

From Keystone Magazine
July 1996 , Vol. II No. 4
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

Authority Debate: Balance of Power

Posted on by

Authority Debate: Balance of Power

Posted in Craigs Keystone articles

We were in an independent fellowship for 14 years, all our married life, where all our children grew up,  where all our best friends were, our only spiritual home. When the Lord developed within us through His Word the convictions of Christian education and home schooling, we were stunned that others did not share our enthusiasm for this way of raising a generation of disciples for Christ. We thought their disinclination for bringing the Word of God to bear on tbe political scene regarding public morality was a cultural hangover from the good old days when Christians never had to be involved in such things. But when immorality, humanistic heresies and even the trampling of their own traditions were not spoken against when they happened in the congregation, we knew something was wrong.

One day I was handed a copy of a letter by the elders, written to someone else which said they did not believe in either the PRINCIPLE or the PRACTICE of home schooling and would never want to see their pulpit used to promote such a thing. We had been home schooling for five years. WHY HADN’T THESE ELDERS TOLD ME!! WHY HAD THEY LET ME GO  DOWN A PATH AND TAKE MY FAMILY  DOWN A PATH THEY CONSIDERED HARMFUL? WHAT KIND OF SHEPHERDING, PASTORING, ELDERSHIP IS THAT??!!

We knew we had to go. Why? Because these shepherds not only refused to shepherd, but also let each person go his own way. We either had to find a church that WOULD shepherd us properly or do the job ourselves.

Working through the issues involved in that little choice took us SEVEN years. We found the issue of authority to be a crucial one, right next to fidelity to Christ and His Word. We found some surprising things.

First, there are some things which are inescapable. Therefore these things affect everybody and cannot be ignored. One is the deceitfulness of sin. We found most Christians underestimate the degree to which they are susceptible to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. That last one especially, the pride of life, is what causes us to deny that Jeremiah 10:23 applies to us: “I know, 0 Lord, that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (I Corinthians 10:12). The deceitfulness of sin is inescapable. Therefore we must be constantly on guard AND open to the admonition of others.

Then there is doctrine. The fellowship we left would say that love unites, but doctrine divides. But that in itself is a statement of doctrine. That is what they believe, it is what they teach. One elder told us, “Well this is what we believe, and if you don’t like it, you can leave.” That was a statement of doctrine. When I told them, which was difficult through my uncontrollable sobbing and tears, that we felt we had to leave, only one of the eight elders tried to talk to us about it. That showed the commitment of their love to unity. Everybody has doctrine: the one they profess may be different than the one they live by, but doctrine is inescapable. So the question is, which doctrine is closest to Biblical doctrine.

A third inescapable item is the way in which God has ordained under His own authority other spheres of authority. The family, the church, and the state are three main ones ordained by God, each with its own sphere of influence and each accountable and subservient to God’s authority. You know this is inescapable by the amount of trouble inevitably caused when one authority tries to extend its sphere of influence into that of another or is actually invited by the other to do so, as when the state relieves the family of its social welfare, health care and educational responsibilities.

We must not complain about man-made structures because they too are inescapable. We WILL have one structure or another, always man-made, no matter what we do. Even if we stay home and not even meet with any other believers, that too is a man-made structure, made by ourselves.  (Personally because it is made by myself to suit myself rather than to help and encourage others I would therefore tend to trust it all the less as this kind of system is humanistic to the core, being self-centred rather than Christ-centred. Of course if there is no Christ-centred church within a reasonable distance, then you probably do need to stay at home, rather than come back from a service in such a place complaining about it in front of the family and feeling unclean.) And so, the question is which man-made structure is closest to the Biblical pattern.

So, when the authority of the church begins to eclipse that of the family, you come up with strongly authoritarian church structures, from huge international organisations to local personality cults, where the doctrine is determined by an elite person or group, and more and more of the family’s activities are determined for it by the church. On the other hand, when families believe they can fulfil for themselves the responsibilities of the church, you can get antinomian* structures where doctrine tends to be rather fuzzy at the edges to the point where each family determines its activities for itself with no reference to the church, the Body of Christ of which this family is meant to be a part.

Just because the church structures we have experienced seem restrictive to us does not mean church structures are wrong. That is like saying because my marriage seems restrictive, marriage is wrong. Why do we tend so quickly to blame the institution and not the sinners (ourselves) who are in tbe institution? Could it have something to do with this “do your own thing” generation in which we live, which rebels against whatever doesn’t suit ME? Have we possibly been influenced more by the world and our own deceitful sinfulness than by the Lord’s Word in these situations? Why do we focus more on, “What (probably new thing) does the Lord want ME to do?” rather than “How can I more effectively do what the Lord HAS ALREADY TOLD ME to do in the Scriptures?” I am not saying that we should stay put in a “church” which has compromised, apostacised or grossly overstepped its boundaries, but neither should we despise the churches as a whole simply because what we have experienced has been unsatisfactory.

The perfect church does not exist on earth, but then neither does the perfect Christian exist on earth. That means that being an imperfect member of an imperfect church will give us plenty of opportunities to obey some of the clear commandments the Lord has already given us: to bear with the failings of the weak (Romans 15:1), not neglect to meet together to stir one another up to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24-25), to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), to do good to the brethren (Galatians 6:10), and to love one another so that the outsiders may see (John 13:34-35).

It seems to me that the Scriptures do clearly state that elders are to be appointed in every place (Titus 1:5), that they are to rule over us (I Tim 3:4-5, 5:17, Hebrews 13:7, 17) , that we should submit to them (I Peter 5:5, Hebrews 13:17), that we should call them when ill (James5:14), and that we pay them well (I Tim 5:17-18). Yes, the elders certainly have directives as to how they are to look after us (I Peter 5:l-3, Hebrews 13:17) and must be held accountable to that by way of exhortation (I Tim 5:1).

The Church on earth, the Body of Christ, is made up of ALL SORTS: the weak, the immature, the lazy, the strong, the keen. I am commanded to bear with them all and not to please myself, but to serve and to love all my brethren. Apart from the Bible verses above that indicate that I should be a member of a local congregation under elders, from a practical, logistical point of view, I can best fulfill the commandments to serve the brethren by being committed to a local congregation. Because I do not have a corner on tbe truth, I must concede that I can learn something, probably quite a bit, from every brother and sister in the congregation, if I would only take the time to listen and learn …. to love and serve them as I have already been commanded by the Lord to do.

The organisational church is not meant to usurp the authority of us fathers within our families, but to strengthen and equip and support us in that role. The authority of the church is over corporate areas of worship, discipline, the sacraments, etc. If the pagan Roman Empire could be commended by the Lord in Romans 13 as a minister of God to whom we should submit, how much more can we joyfully submit, in those appropriate areas, to the appropriately constituted church of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory forever, Amen !

 

*Antinomianism (against the law) stresses freedom from the condemnation of the law to such an extent that it can come to mean freedom from the law itself. It also tends to reflect a modern existentialism or “here and now” attitude as if it had nothing to learn from the church’s 2000 years of history, struggle, practise and scholarship.

From Keystone Magazine
May 1996 , Vol. II No. 3
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

Religion

Posted on by

Religion

Posted in Theologically Speaking

There are two things to remember about this term, “Religion”, that will help us home educators train our children in Godly wisdom. First, that everybody has a religion of one kind or another. Second, that there are ultimately only two religions.

Even unbelieving sociologists confirm that all cultures of all times have had a religion of one sort or another. But what exactly is “religion”? My Oxford Dictionary, Bible Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Theology all found the word very hard to handle. However, it is usually defined as the human practice stemming from some sort of belief in the divine.

Non-theistic evolutionists have tried to say that it is some sort of development to meet some sort of need, or something clever con men thought up to exercise power over people and secure an easy income. But these explanations assume, without actually saying so, that mankind does have that “God-shaped vacuum” within. Otherwise the need would never arise and the con man would not be able to con anyone. So even the unbelieving evolutionist does acknowledge, although begrudgingly, that human nature is inescapably religious. After all, that is the way the Creator created us.

There is another understanding of “religion” that is very helpful to us home educators as we endeavour to pass on to our children a concept of why other people we meet do what they do. One definition in my Oxford is, “Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness.” Notice there is no reference to the divine. Self-conscious atheists and agnostics I have met have been fairly articulate about what they believe … .that is, they could explain why they believed as they did with a lot of confidence and clarity. These people are religious because they are devoted to some set of principles, and are conscientious about it, even if those principles can be summarised as “Me”. Ultimately even the common man in the street is as religious as a priest (no disrespect intended) since he will and does operate according to SOME set of beliefs or concepts about the nature of reality and the way things work. Whatever that set of beliefs is, even if they are contradictory (and they probably are), that set of beliefs is that person’s “statement of faith”, his “creed”, his religion, even if it supposedly does not acknowledge the existence of God or any kind of supernatural.

Now although some would have us believe life is terribly complex, it is really fairly simple at the foundations. All the worId’s philosophies, religions, belief systems, creeds or whatever can be divided into two simple groups. One is Biblical Christianity, wherein man trusts in the only true God, the Creator. The other group is everything else, all of which by definition trust in some thing which is created: man or some man-made idea or institution. This is known as the religion of humanism. Even atheistic, secular humanists refer to their belief system as a religion.

The Bible itself says there are only two kinds of people, and you will find that concept all through Scripture, even in John 3:16 (those who perish and those who have eternal life). Knowing there are only two, really makes life easy: you answer all the others in roughly the same way, that is, either focusing upon their misunderstanding of Christ, His finished work, His Divinity, etc.; or focusing upon the fact that they ultimately trust in man or some human agent for salvation. The Muslim, the Hindu and all the rest practice a religion of salvation by human works; the atheist and agnostic are trusting that their own human speculations regarding the non-existence or unknowability of God are correct. In either case, they are ultimately trusting in man or some other created thing. Biblical Christianity is on the opposite end of the scale, as true Christians trust in God the Creator.

Now this idea of religion, that everybody is religious and that there are really only two religions, Biblical Christianity and humanism; this idea of religion is useful to us home educators as it helps us to easily evaluate ideas that are presented to us in books, on TV, on radio talk-back, in lectures, in conversation. It is easy to recognise where other ideas are coming from as there are really only two possibilities: from the Creator God or from some thing which He created. When we can evaluate ideas in this way, no matter how they are wrapped up, we will be less likely to be deceived. Also, we can more easily evaluate OUR OWN thinking as to whether it is Biblical or too tainted with humanism to be compatible with a life of faithful obedience to God.

We must watch our own thinking very carefully since most of us parents have been trained to think like humanists in our public school classrooms. This is why we must strive all the more to re-train our minds to think God’s thoughts after Him, allowing His Word to continually flush out the garbage as we read, study, memorize and meditate on the Scriptures. The objective is to take every thought captive to obey Christ (II Corinthians 10:5). Not only do we parents need to be able to think this way, we must train our children to think this way, and show them how to easily distinguish between right thinking and wrong.

The issue we must face today in our pluralist society in the areas of education, literature, entertainment, medicine, justice and all things else is not whether it is right for us Christians to force our religious values on others. The issue is whose religious values will we accept being forced upon us.

From Keystone Magazine
March 1996 , Vol. II No. 2
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

http//www.hef.org.nz