October 29, 2020

First day of the first global Christian Home Education Conference

Registration here: https://heart-academy1.teachable.com/p/global-christian-homeschool-conference/?affcode=700268_xiwyz63t

Here is what you’ll find in the Monday Vault:

  1. Welcome to the 1st annual Global Christian Homeschool Conference! Plus the swag bag with heaps of freebies!
  2. The ABC’s of Homeschool, Diligent Prep for College
  3. Four Deadly Errors of Teaching Writing (Andrew Peduwa)
  4. But..but..but…what about grammar? (Andrew Peduwa)
  5. However Imperfectly: Lessons Learned from 30 Years of Teaching
  6. Unschooling for Christians (Barbara Smith)
  7. The Adventurous Road from Homeschool to College (Denise Boiko)
  8. Homeschool Resources – So Many!! (Glenn Ballard)
  9. Gameschooling (Jaynel Jones)
  10. Homeschooling with a Charlotte Mason Philosophy (Justina Ford)
  11. Homeschooling a Child that Won’t Sit (Elizabeth Sharpe)

Live Videos now uploaded:

  1. Hothouse Transplants Panel with Christopher Adams, Jessica Allen, Sarah Venable
  2. A Theocentric Christian Education -Interview with Graham & Alison Shortridge from South Africa
  3. Cultivating Language from Preschool to High School? with Andrew Pudewa from the United States
  4. Homeschooling in Different Countries Panel with moms from Austrailia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and South Africa
  5. Redemption and Restoration for the Broken Family? with Juliet English, United Kingdom
  6. Homeschooling as a Single Parent with Jaynel Jones and others

Where are the pre-recorded videos? Once you pay the US$20.00 registration you will have lifetime access to the conference.

You will find the pre-recorded videos when you log into the Teachable vault. In there you will find the description of the sessions and the biography of the speakers. Each day is a different theme and the LIVE interviews will also be uploaded for that day.

Registration here: https://heart-academy1.teachable.com/p/global-christian-homeschool-conference/?affcode=700268_xiwyz63t

New to homeschooling? Get your free ticket to this online event and learn how to homeschool with ease, fun and joy!

By now you’re probably familiar with if not exhausted by the consequences of this global pandemic.

But instead of dwelling on the pain, sacrifice, and uncertainty, let’s dive into how we can use this time to transform our life, our family, the educational system, and find opportunity in the fog.

As the great adage says: “Opportunities are often built during uncertain times”.

That is why I’m excited to share exactly that at the upcoming Homeschooling Online Conference. 50+ homeschooling experts and parents, myself included will go deep into how to homeschool with EASE, FUN and JOY!

GRAB YOUR COPY HERE NOW! https://smpl.ro/al/QwSYgonh5mi2eqi8wSw6o3GX/19088-Barbara-Smith

Here’s a sneak peek of what you’ll discover inside the Homeschooling Playbook:

What the Homeschooling Conference is and who is it for
Daily Homeschooling Conference Schedule broken down into theme days
Day 1: Homeschooling Foundation
Day 2: Homeschooling Methodologies
Day 3: Homeschooling Curriculum
Day 4: Homeschooling Communities
Day 5: Homeschooling Learning Platforms
Day 6: Homeschooling in Different Countries
Day 7: Homeschooling Inspiring Stories
The Top Homeschooling Tips from 51 Homeschooling Experts and Parents
How To Make The Most Of the Homeschooling Online Conference
Plus many many more!
Grab your playbook right now and you’ll automatically get a ticket to the Homeschooling Conference where you will meet those experts live!

GRAB YOUR COPY HERE NOW! https://smpl.ro/al/QwSYgonh5mi2eqi8wSw6o3GX/19088-Barbara-Smith

P.S. Get your 2020 Homeschooling Playbook to discover how to homeschool with ease, fun and joy! GRAB YOUR COPY HERE NOW! https://smpl.ro/al/QwSYgonh5mi2eqi8wSw6o3GX/19088-Barbara-Smith

A Partial Victory In Germany

http://joelthornton.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/a-partial-victory-in-germany/

A Partial Victory In Germany
Published 16 July 2008

We have just received a partial victory in Germany.  The Brause family
home schools their children for religious reasons — they disagree with
much of the anti-Christian curriculum in the sex education, science,
and new age religion areas.  They have stood on their Christian
principles and they have paid dearly for it.

Nearly two years ago the Youth Welfare Office went to court and had the
custody of the two youngest Brause children taken from the parents the
purposes of where the children live.  This means that any time the
Youth Welfare Office decides to they can come to the Brause home and
remove these two children.

The only solution for the Brauses, short of winning a court victory, is
to surrender their principles and place their children in the public
schools.

Until today the Brause parents were scheduled to have their day in court
on July 24.  They have been charged with “intentional child neglect.”
The sole evidence proving this criminal claim is that they home school.
That is right, German officials consider home schooling to be child
neglect because the parents are failing to educate the children in the
location German officials consider proper.  This, in spite the fact that
Germans working abroad for the government are encouraged to home school.

It is an interesting concept to think that a German family, in German,
is neglecting their children when they are doing what the government
encourages their own employees to do.

This is an incredible double standard!

Today the court has indefinitely postponed the case.  The reason, an
attorney representing the Brause parents on behalf of the International
Human Rights Group, in a legal brief filed last week, seems to have
convinced the court that the prosecution has not presented enough facts
to prove their case.

So, the court has postponed the hearing and we see this as a partial
victory for the family.  After all, the children are still at home and
the parents are still home schooling them.

Please continue to pray for this family as they stand strong against
educational tyranny!

Favorable Development in the California Homeschooling Case

From the HSLDA website:

 http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200807110.asp

Favorable Development in the California Homeschooling Case

Thank you for your continued prayers for the California homeschooling case, In re Rachel L. Home School Legal Defense Association has learned that the juvenile court judge terminated jurisdiction over the two youngest L children in a hearing held on July 10, 2008. Mr. L is represented by Gary Kreep, who is the director of the California-based United States Justice Foundation, which has long been a close ally of HSLDA and homeschoolers in California.

Two years ago, the children’s court-appointed lawyers had asked that the two children be ordered to attend a school outside the home. That request became the basis for the court’s February ruling that homeschooling is illegal in California. The appellate court later vacated its own decision and set the case for rehearing. Oral argument on the rehearing was held on June 23, 2008 and a decision could be handed down at any time.

Mr. L’s appellate attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund will be making the appellate court aware of this new development immediately. They will move to dismiss the petition pending in the court of appeal on the ground that the petition is now moot. In other words, the children are no longer under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Therefore, any decision by the appellate court based on the two-year-old petition could not be enforced against the L children.

“This is a significant favorable development toward preserving homeschooling freedom in California,” said Mike Farris, Chairman and Founder of HSLDA.

Crime Against the State: Why Progressives Hate Homeschooling

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/print.aspx?article=41&loc=b&type=cbtp

Crime Against the State: Why Progressives Hate Homeschooling
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. – 02/14/08

 

The homeschooling movement in the United States has reached a level of institutional maturity that few could have predicted only a decade or two ago. A massive infrastructure is in place, from curriculum companies to social groups, catering to the millions of people who engage in homeschooling. The movement remains as unpopular as ever in fashionable circles, to be sure, but by now the standard arguments against homeschooling are so trite and predictable that families who practice it are able to parry them with little effort.

Once in a while, though, we get a glimpse of the real reason homeschooling is so despised.

By now a great many bloggers and homeschool activists have heard about the case of fifteen-year-old Melissa Busekros of Germany and her three-month ordeal with the authorities. Having fallen behind in her math and Latin, Busekros had been kept home by her parents to receive private tutoring. That unthinkable offense violated anti-homeschool statutes in place since the days of Adolf Hitler—who of course demanded state control of education—and Busekros found herself expelled from school.

Oh, and on February 1, 2007, the government placed the girl first in a psychiatric ward and then in a foster home. She had “school phobia,” you see.

Although her parents were permitted to see her, they were not told where she was staying. In March, Busekros wrote an open letter in which she pleaded for her “right to go back to my family, as I wish,” and insisted: “I am not sick as the doctor said and my family is the best place for me to live.” The latter remark is a reference to the psychological evaluation, so vague as to be a parody of psychiatry itself, on which her removal from her family was justified. (The state’s own testing later found the girl to be perfectly normal.)

Now none of this has anything to do with homeschooling, German officials insisted. They were just concerned for the well-being of this young girl.

But Wolfgang Drautz, consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany, gave the game away. First, in defending the importance of school attendance he explained that school “teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct.” Such a claim is risible enough: one of the reasons some of us intend to homeschool our children is precisely that we don’t want them learning “social conduct” from the slobs and vulgarians who roam the halls of the typical public school. It takes time and effort to raise well-mannered and civilized children, and we do not intend to see that good work undone by sending them to the local savage factory.

Still, that misplaced objection to homeschooling is not unusual. But things turned rather sinister when Drautz went on to warn that “the public has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion or motivated by different world views and in integrating minorities into the population as a whole. If we are to achieve integration, not only must the majority of the population prevent the ostracization of religious minorities or minorities with different world views, but minorities must also remain open and engage in dialogue with those who think differently or share different beliefs.”

He neglected to add: or we’ll take their children.

German officials have complained about comparisons of their actions and rationales to those of Hitler. But consider the Führer’s words: “We have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

With which of these sentiments does Herr Drautz disagree?

All of this talk about countering parallel societies and integrating minorities into the population might have been drawn from the rhetoric of the American Progressive Era. In my book The Church Confronts Modernity, I chronicled an overlooked but central aspect of the Progressives’ thought: they sought to construct a new American ethic in which the citizen’s primary loyalties were to the “national community,” rather than to states and localities, and to a new, nondogmatic, nondenominational ethic instead of to any revealed religion. America, the Jesuits’ magazine, described the Progressive attitude this way: “You may hold any faith or religion you please, but then you must not belong to any specific sect or be bound by any dogma.”

For John Dewey and the Progressives, children in the new age needed to be taught procedural rules rather than substantial goods. In other words, they should be taught toleration, open-mindedness, and flexibility, for in this world of change and flux citizens must be readily adaptable to new situations. The last thing children needed, therefore, was unchanging religious dogma taught as truth. As William H. Kilpatrick said, “We must free our children to think for themselves. Anything else is not only to refuse to accept the facts as to the unknown changing future, but is at the same time to deny democracy and its fundamental demand that we respect other people, even our own children.”

Now it is one thing to say that since a great many belief systems coexist together in the United States, we must make an effort to devise some kind of common moral vocabulary by means of which we can speak to each other fruitfully as we tackle divisive issues in the public square. Whether or not such a thing is possible, the mere suggestion is not obviously foolish or contemptible; if a natural law that binds all men really does exist, it is at least plausible that people of diverse backgrounds might be able to recognize common values. But the Progressives were going much further than this.

Sociologist Albion Small spoke explicitly of the need to invent a new religion, a national creed that could unite Americans on essentials and lift them out of the dual parochialisms of geography and religion. “By 1915,” writes historian Eldon Eisenach in The Lost Promise of Progressivism, “Small is really codifying the results of a long-standing theological-ethical enterprise when he concludes that the symbolic centerpiece of this ‘new’ national religion is the now historically recovered ‘Weltanschauung of Jesus’ excavated from barbarism, superstition, church, and dogma.”

According to Eisenach, Progressives held that “all social knowledge deserving a hearing must be cosmopolitan in origin and national in import.” They “invented a conception of citizenship that stipulated that the possession of social knowledge entailed the duty of reflecting on and articulating ideas of national public goodunmediated by party, interest, region, or sectarian religion” (emphasis added). No parallel societies allowed.

Not surprisingly—but again, unfortunately overlooked by scholars of the Progressive Era—the period was marked by numerous efforts to devise a new ethical system and a new foundation on which to ground moral behavior. The ethical culture movement, founded in 1876, sought to do exactly this: to construct a nonreligious ethic that could serve as the foundation for a better and more humane world. That sentiment persisted into the Progressive Era. In 1918, the National Institution for Moral Instructionawarded $5,000 to Oberlin College professor William J. Hutchins for his code of morality, which began with an exhortation “to be physically fit” and concluded by declaring loyalty to humanity to be the highest law. Another such proposal came from Lake Forest College’s professor Henry W. Wright, and still another from Harvard president Charles Eliot. In the Harvard Theological Quarterly Eliot proposed a nondenominational, nondogmatic “religion of the future.” In place of the personal God of old-fashioned Christianity he would substitute a “sleepless, active energy and will” that is recognized “chiefly in the wonderful energies of sound, light, and electricity.” Naturally, the religion of the future would also abandon “the official creeds and dogmas of the past.”

The rationale behind all these systems, in an eerie anticipation of modernbanalities, was that they had the potential to unite rather than to divide. That none of them survives as anything more than an interesting curiosity is perhaps a fair indication of how well they resonated with the population.

Education was a central plank of the Progressives’ plan to bring about the national community they sought. If children were to be emancipated from the stupid prejudices of their parents, educated in the values of progressivism, and lifted out of their “parallel societies,” they would have to be instructed in a government-run school staffed by people who shared the Progressive outlook. Private and/or religious education only compounded the problem that Progressive education aimed to solve. No wonder John Dewey said, with regard to the Catholic school system, “It is essential that this basic issue be seen for what it is—namely, as the encouragement of a powerful reactionary world organization in the most vital realm of democratic life, with the resulting promulgation of principles inimical to democracy.”

This had been a Progressive theme from the beginning. William T. Harris, the most prominent figure in the American educational establishment after the Civil War, and who possessed the mystical reverence for the state so characteristic of Hegelians, warned in an 1871 address to the National Educational Association: “Neither is it safe to leave the education of youth to religious zeal or private benevolence,” since “our State [will] find elements heterogeneous to it continually growing up.” We certainly can’t have that.

In my experience, the average homeschooled student is far more likely than his public-school counterpart to show good manners, to interact well with others, and to be able to hold a serious conversation with an adult. And, significantly, they are better equipped to interact with people unlike themselves (their unusual maturity and knowledge base serve them well in such situations), one of the very reasons they are typically said to need public education. (If a dignitary from a non-Western country came to town for a visit, would you expect a public-school student or a homeschooled student to be more likely to do or say something stupid and embarrassing? Does the question not answer itself?)

Someone who truly cared about the welfare of children would be delighted by homeschooling and the astonishing fruits it has borne even as it continues to receive no mainstream cultural support. But homeschooling is the ultimate repudiation of every grandiose scheme to pull children away from their families and train them in the values of social democracy. That, and not transparent claims about child welfare, is why all the usual suspects detest it, both in Germany and at home.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)