Why We Are Considering Homeschooling
Homeschooling as a concept was completely foreign to me until I went to college. I met a few kids there that had been homeschooled and my general impression was that their parents must have been hippies or religious zealots. Of course, I made these judgments without any data whatsoever. Then, while I was on my first submarine, I had a conversation with one of the senior sonar techs down in the smoke pit in shaft alley. He told me that he and his wife homeschooled their four children and I asked incredulously, “Why?” He proceeded to tell me why, and he seemed very reasonable. I asked, “Aren’t you worried that they won’t get socialized?” He answered, “Sir, I’m more worried about how they get socialized.”
Despite my ignorance, homeschooling is not a new concept. In fact, it – with neighborhood schooling – was the dominant form of American education before the late 19th century. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln all had very little to no “formal” education and somehow managed to do pretty well for themselves and their nation. Somehow, a nation that was not blessed with a state-run public school system managed to have a literacy rate greater than 95%, produced the fastest growing economy the world had ever seen, and provided great contributions to technology, science and art. Public schools were founded and made compulsory at around the turn of the last century for a number of reasons, and educating the public was not at the top of the list.
Yet somehow we have been provided with a general belief that without public schooling children would not learn how to learn, would not be able to function in society, and would have fewer opportunities to succeed. Luckily, many others have forged a path in recent decades to renew a sense of independence from the public school system and celebrate a child’s natural exuberance for knowledge. Today, there are currently around 3 million children – or roughly 4% of school-age children – receiving their education at home in America. All studies I have found on the subject have shown that homeschooled children have scored significantly higher than their publicly schooled counterparts on standardized tests throughout the last decade.
Whatever the history and statistics are, the choice to homeschool our children will obviously be a very personal one. Nonetheless, I am writing this article to help friends and family that may – in their concern for the well-being of our children – have doubts about such a choice to understand why we are considering it. It will also give us a chance to analyze our own reasoning. Other parents struggling with the options available to educate their children may find our reasoning helpful as well.
The Benefits of Educating Our Children At Home
The first point to go in the “pro” column is the qualifications of the teachers. I have a bachelor’s degree in physics with a minor in history, and a MS in physics from a space systems engineering curriculum. I am a trained nuclear engineer, submarine operator and manager. I have additional formal education in national strategy and policy and staff officer operations. I have been a Life Scout, a Toastmaster’s International competent communicator, and an amateur writer, historian, stargazer, Latin student, game designer, movie critic, political commentator and science-fair judge. My wife holds a BS in Biomedical Science and a MA in Medical Illustration. She is a semi-professional author, a freelance graphic designer, and an accomplished artist. In her free time she is an amateur photographer, a world traveler, an avid reader and a top-notch husband nagger. Even if we had only our high school degrees we would still have one huge advantage. If care could be quantified, our care level concerning the development, success and well-being of our children would be orders of magnitude higher than even the most well-meaning school teacher. Show me a more qualified candidate to teach my children.
Second in the “pro” column is the additional time and experiences we will be able to share with our children. As we charge through the early years of parenthood, every day is filled with new discoveries. I have found that one of the greatest joys of life is watching my daughter’s eyes light up when she has an “a-ha!” moment. I find it hard to imagine surrendering those moments to a stranger to enjoy, or worse, ignore until the light is dimmed forever. I have many friends who find it difficult to communicate with their teenagers. We all assume that it is just natural for teenagers to grow alienated from their parents, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may have something to do with the forty hours a week they have spent in their strictly structured, lord of the flies world. I think that by sharing our children’s education, we will develop stronger relationships with them.
Finally, the flexibility of homeschooling is very attractive. As a military family, we will have to move every 2 to 3 years. Having moved to several different schools as a child myself, I can tell you that it is not very much fun. Additionally, I will have long periods of intense work or absence, and other periods of a reduced work load and leave. A flexible school schedule will allow me to more effectively spend available time with my children and allow my wife the options of taking trips home or to see me when I am deployed. Military life aside, the daily flexibility of homeschooling seems to provide a relief to the modern hectic pace of suburban life, allowing more time for and between extracurricular activities.
The Benefits of Not Sending Our Children to Public School
I have been trying to look back on my experience in the public school system and identify what my children might miss if they are homeschooled. Mostly, I recall hours upon hours of boredom, constant power struggles with petty teachers and highly regulated but completely unsupervised bullies, and little to no exposure to new ideas or useful knowledge. I can count the number of good teachers I had on one hand. I still have not completely overcome the learned habit of drifting off into a daydream whenever someone stands up to give a lecture. The most troubling thing is that I was identified as “gifted and talented” so I actually had some classes that were supposed to encourage independent thought as opposed to those poor “average” students hustling through grammar drills day after day. Why would I subject my children to this?
Then, of course, there is that mysterious “socialization.” I refer the interested reader to reference (1). That book and the sources it references present a history of the growth of public schooling in America that most people are not familiar with. Public schools were designed not so much to socialize, but to indoctrinate students into being efficient and obedient employees to the growing industries of the late 19th century. Today, they may not operate with so much intent, but as a system they work to accomplish the same mission. While that reasoning may seem a bit conspiratorial for some, there can be little argument against the observable socialization effects growing in our public schools – rising teen pregnancies, drug use and violence. Homeschoolers suggest that the socialization their children find within their family, among their neighbors and in the organizations they can voluntarily join and leave is far superior to that found in today’s compulsory public schools.
Challenges
Unfortunately, the benefits of homeschooling do not come without sacrifice. The primary price is paid by surrendering 40 hours of “free” babysitting every week. This babysitting would allow significantly more free time for my wife to pursue her career interests and indirectly allow me to waste more of my free time writing blog articles or pursuing other pointless hobbies. We have even considered having a second child at just the right time so that our first is starting school, allowing mom to have plenty of one-on-one time with the new arrival. These benefits are very difficult to give up, but the question is: do they outweigh the benefits of homeschooling?
Another challenge is, of course, pulling off the actual education part. I am not very concerned about the knowledge or skill required so much as the discipline. Neither my wife nor I were what people might call disciplined students. If I could not get myself to do my own homework (even as an adult at times), how can I expect to keep my children at their studies? My hope is that by making education an interactive and learning-oriented activity, my wife and I can overcome our reluctance to study and our children may never develop it.
Money is often an issue for those who try to homeschool. The loss of a second income can cause significant financial distress. Because my wife is a freelancer and works from home, this will not be as much of a problem for us. However, it will limit the time she can spend growing her clientele and starting new projects, which will reduce her significant income potential and possibly cause her to feel less personally fulfilled. But what is the point of income other than to enjoy life and contribute to the success of our children, and what can be more fulfilling than participating in that success?
Other arguments against homeschooling are generally of a higher order. Are state-run public schools beneficial or destructive to society? Does homeschooling hurt public schooling by drawing away resources and students, or does it help it by providing healthy competition? While certainly interesting, the answers to these questions are not much of an input to our decision. We will do what we decide is best for our own children. I believe that if everyone did what they thought best for their own children, rather than what some group of strangers decided was best for all of our children, we would be in a much better educational situation in this nation.
Conclusion
I hope that I have shed some light on why we are considering homeschooling our children. I look forward to hearing from anyone who is interested in further discussion. The nice thing is that as our daughter is just one and a half years old, we have plenty of time to make a final decision.
References
Here are a few of the better resources I found while researching the homeschooling option. The skeptical reader might note that all of these sites are decidedly pro-homeschooling. I was not able to find any anti-homeschooling sites other than those that object to it as a detriment to the public school system or on sociological principles of being able to monitor children to protect them from their parents. I find neither of these points relevant to our decision.
(1) – The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto: http://johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm
(2) – The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/education/bg2122.cfm
(3) – California Homeschool Network: http://californiahomeschool.net/howTo/faq.htm
The answer to most of the arguemtns you’ve got against homeschooling is simply, “you’ll learn.” I’ve rarely met another homeschooling parent for whom the discipline involved, whether in regards to living on one income or the actual education part, came the moments they began homeschooling. I’ve been at it for 6 years and it’s only in the last couple whne I took a more formal approach with my oldest that I began to learn how to organize and be disciplined myself. And yet my kids haven’t suffered for my previous lack of discipline.
I think that once you accept that your child’s education is in your hands you understand that your own is as well. Most of what seemed like obstacles before starts to fade because all it takes to overcome those is a choice and some drive.
Good luck!
I apologize for the typos. I should not be commenting on blog posts at this hour of the night apparently.
Here’s a video of a public school teacher politically indoctrinating students towards her point of view, and humiliating a young girl with a dissenting opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bvqmY1eM-s
I just think how mad I would be if I was that girl’s father.
(The video’s youtube title invokes race which I think is unnecessary and inappropriate.)
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html
To start, I am a pediatrician, and a pediatric gastroenterologist. I am not a behavioral specialist by any stretch of the imagination, but I deal with the interaction of children and adolescents, their parents, and their schools on a daily basis. I have many patients who are home-schooled for both medical and social reasons.
“Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln all had very little to no “formal” education and somehow managed to do pretty well for themselves and their nation.”
I think you know how logically fallacious this sentence is. There were millions more from their generations who bear out the exact opposite conclusion.
“We all assume that it is just natural for teenagers to grow alienated from their parents, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may have something to do with the forty hours a week they have spent in their strictly structured, lord of the flies world. I think that by sharing our children’s education, we will develop stronger relationships with them.”
It’s true, much of the inability of parents to communicate with their teenagers has to do with lack of quality time and conversation with their children. However, I think you’re also ignoring a fundamental part of adolescence, which is the development of independence. When teenagers are at school, that’s their time to develop themselves into a unique entity, separate from their parents. That is a fundamentally important psychosocial skill that is essential to efficient functioning in adulthood. To deprive children of this experience, especially shielding them from the negative consequences of peer interaction (drugs, sex, violence) does them no favors; it only delays their ability to assimilate life’s challenges until later.
School serves many purposes, only one of which is the acquisition of a specific set of knowledge. A home environment can never recapitulate all of them.
I also disagree with your “challenges.” For you two, teaching your children the subject matter will not be difficult. You’re both intelligent and very well-educated (not home-schooled, I might add). In my experience, the primary difficulties are two-fold. First, you will never be able to produce the sort of structure necessary at school. Home will still be home, and separating school time from playtime is often very difficult for children and adolescents. Secondly, you will be depriving them of independent social development. When children don’t have to make decisions about sex or drugs, they don’t learn how to make decisions about sex or drugs. Unless they live at home forever, they will eventually have to meet these challenges, and at times in their lives (e.g. college, young professional life) when mistakes have a more profound impact on their social success.
That said, I believe home-schooling has a place. Children who are infirm. Children with behavioral difficulties. Children who live in rural areas without quality education. Children whose parents have significant moral / religious objections to the public school system.
But to presume that home-schooling your children will result in superior educational or social outcomes is incorrect. Your children will be different in many ways from their peers. They will have some skills their peers don’t have, and lack many they do.
Studies looking at standardized testing scores have not done a good job at controlling for socioeconomic environment (e.g. finding well-matched control subjects), and have been retrospective in nature, so I don’t really buy the research on the topic in its current state.
That said, I recommend against home schooling for most children. What I would prefer to see is improvement of our public schools, and that can only be accomplished when we invest sufficient resources in our educational system, which we do not do currently.
Billy,
In response to my examples of the historical successes of non-formal schooling, you said:
“I think you know how logically fallacious this sentence is. There were millions more from their generations who bear out the exact opposite conclusion.”
I would point out that there are also many millions of failed students in our current system. My point was simply that public shooling was not necessary for the success of our nation nor for the success of many individuals, and I don’t think it is today, either. I don’t think that this is logically fallacious.
“When teenagers are at school, that’s their time to develop themselves into a unique entity, separate from their parents.”
My issue with this is that they are not developing into unique entities. They are merely replacing the traditional development example of their parents and neighbors with that of their public school mentors - their teachers and peers. This might be okay if the teachers were not heavily regulated and indoctrinated into exactly how they are supposed to be developing the children within a one-size-fits-all social policy, but they are. And as for their peers, that is just a case of the blind leading the blind, and if your child falls in with the “wrong” crowd, they are rapidly led in the wrong direction. I have seen this occur many times over among my friends as moving around frequently facilitates such associations.
“Secondly, you will be depriving them of independent social development. When children don’t have to make decisions about sex or drugs, they don’t learn how to make decisions about sex or drugs.”
First, I dispute again that their social development is independent in a public school environment. It is merely controlled by a different authority. Secondly, I don’t think grade school children need to be faced with decisions about sex and drugs. I wasn’t, but many children are in today’s schools. When I did have the opportunity to make decisions about sex in late high school, I made poor decisions. If I had been faced with drugs, I probably would have made poor decisions as well (as I did with alchohol), or at best made good decisions for the wrong reasons (such as fear of reprisal). Why should we expect children to make decisions about sex and drugs? I don’t think the best way to learn about these things is trial and error, as we did, but through the instruction of a trusted and loving adult.
“Your children will be different in many ways from their peers.”
This is definately true.
“They will have some skills their peers don’t have, and lack many they do.”
I’m not on board with this one. What are some examples of the many skills we learned in our public shool environments that we could not have learned elsewhere? I know I had to unlearn many of the behaviors that I developed there.
“What I would prefer to see is improvement of our public schools, and that can only be accomplished when we invest sufficient resources in our educational system, which we do not do currently.”
Unfortunatley, most efforts to improve public schools have had detrimental side effects, as most of centralized government’s actions tend to do. As far as resources go, as a nation, we spend more on education (per student) than all others, except Switzerland and Norway. http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#1
Despite these enormous expenditures to supposedly accomplish the simple task of teaching children to read, write and calculate, the ability of our children to do these things has not improved and, in some cases, has even worsened. I think this is indicative of the possibility that our public schools are not designed to instruct these things.
“That said, I believe home-schooling has a place. Children who are infirm. Children with behavioral difficulties. Children who live in rural areas without quality education. Children whose parents have significant moral / religious objections to the public school system.”
Well, I might fall into that last bullet, minus the religious part. Or perhaps it is the bullet before that, but without the rural part. I would point to the 3 million students currently being schooled at home and the 10 to 20% annual growth in that number to suggest that many other parents might be coming to the conclusion that public schooling is more harmful to their children than beneficial.
I have homeschooled my 4 boys for the last 13 years. My oldest son graduated last May. The decision to homeschool was not an easy one for me to make, as I was raised to believe that the points the above commenter made were spot on. My husband was a Marine when our first 2 children were born, and I was essentially, a “single parent”. I had the privilege of being actively involved in every stage of my boys’ lives. The idea of sending my precious children off to some stranger who would now take over in the joys and sorrows of my boys successes and failures was anathema to me.
The summer before my first son started school, we moved from California to New Mexico. To our great joy, our new church was launching a private school, and I chose to enroll my first son in Kindergarten there. He had 6 classmates, and a prize winning teacher. By the end of that first school year, my son had been caught cheating, he could not read at the same level as his classmates, he had received an F on every math lesson, and the teacher feared that if they passed him on to the first grade, he would fail. The really sad thing was, she never revealed any of these problems to my husband and myself, despite our constant inquiries into how he was doing, until the school year was coming to a close.
After a great deal of soul searching, my husband and I determined that if our children could not get the attention they needed and deserved from a prize winning teacher who only had 7 students in her class, there was no point of continuing to send him to an organized, accredited school. With trepidation, and very limited finances, we decided that homeschooling was the only answer.
Over the summer, I managed to not only get my son caught up to the level that his 6 class mates had achieved,he surpassed them. Spending just a couple hours a day on “school”, he was reading at a second grade level by the time we started the new school year. This was solid proof that my son was NOT mentally deficient, and quite capable of succeeding academically. His problem was that organized learning, that which is taught in the manner of “one size fits all” was insufficient for him. NO organized school, whether public or private, can alter their teaching methods for each student. NO teacher, no matter how dedicated to their job, will EVER love my child as much as me in order to ensure their success.
Today, my first son has completed his homeschooling, and my other 3 sons are excelling in it. They have many friends, and they are well-balanced, respectful, and hopeful about their futures. As far as their ability to be “thrown out into the world” and make balanced decisions where drugs, sex and other moral issues are concerned, it is imperative that the parents expose their homeschooled children to the realities of the world outside of their home. The above poster seems to think that the only way a child can deal with those issues is if he is bombarded with them throughout their growing years. This is a fallacy to the worst extremes. It IS possible to teach your children about the realities that exist while instilling a real and honest knowledge of how to deal with said issues when they arise.
My children are able to relate to people of all ages. They are respectful to others, can carry on intelligent discussions with their peers, as well as those older than them, and each one is comparable to the “pied piper” of our neighborhood. My oldest son is preparing to go to college, and there is no doubt in my mind that he will excel in anything he decides to do.
Your analysis is spot on. As parents, our highest priority and true calling is to ensure the success of our children. If we fail in that calling, nothing else matters. No teacher, no matter how dedicated they are, is going to lose sleep, or have their personal lives interrupted, over the success or failure of your child. There is a place for private and public schools; not every parent can or SHOULD homeschool. However, if a parent is willing and able, the concern they will have for their children assures that they will do EVERYTHING in their power to ensure their child’s success.
Chance,
I think that there can certainly be some benefits to homeschooling and you are right that you have a little time to think about the pro and cons. The one word of caution I would add is to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. Many of the factors you sighted such as test scores, sex, drugs and violence rates have an inherent selection bias when you compare home schooled children and public schools. A more relevant comparison is home schooling vs. public schooling of similar socio-economic backgrounds. Those parents who can afford to home school, given the opportunity cost of time required for that schooling, already come from a background that dramatically shifts the factors sighted earlier. Additionally, parental involvement is a key factor sighted in many of the factors sighted above, but it would be a mistake to think that the only way to be involved is by home schooling. What would be the difference between home-schooled children and publically schooled children who have active parental involvement? Home schooled children naturally have a level of parental involvement that unmatched, but there can still be a great amount of parental involvement in the education of a publically schooled child.
Just as it is a mistake to lump all public schools together it is also a mistake to rely on only on test scores to indicate the level of education received. Emotional intelligence is atleast as important as educational quality in determining the future success and happiness of an individual. I do not contend that a home schooled child can not develop this emotional intelligence but I do worry that can lack the diversity of experience and viewpoints that help to create a well rounded individual. Additionally, I share your concern that students are forced to adopt a teachers views but homeschooling does not eliminate this concern. The homeschooled child is simply forced many time to adopt the viewpoint of their parent, and unlike in public school, since the teacher never changes the viewpoint never changes.
CWF
Chance and Heather,
You’re both missing an important point. It is the social structure of primary and secondary education that they are missing. The academic environment will vary from school to school and homeschooling parent to parent. But a childhood of interacting with a varied group of a child’s peers is irreplaceable. I’m not talking about “being controlled by a different authority”, I’m talking about learning peer social skills. These are essential, and there is no possible way a home schooled child can attain them.
Also, I argue, Chance, that your poor choices were not wasted choices, based on where you are now. We absolutely have to make mistakes when we are young, and the fact you are an intelligent citizen making a valid contribution to society in many ways is a testament to this necessity.
So, home school advocates: HOW DO YOU INTEND TO ACCOUNT FOR LACK OF PEER SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN A HOME SCHOOLED CHILD? That’s the key difference between homeschooling and not, and I’d like to have this answered.
I’d also like to point out the necessity for some real, well-designed research into this area.
Heather, you certainly believe your children are well-adjusted socially, and that’s fantastic; but we need some non-anecdotal evidence before anyone can make legitimate recommendations to people considering this option.
I’ve met well over a hundred home-schooling families, and very, very few of them consider their children to have trouble adjusting socially, while I have the exact opposite impression. Point is, parents are incapable of objective assessment, so we need some population-based, quantitative, objectively gathered data.
Chris,
That’s an excellent point about apple to apples, and Billy hit on it earlier. In fact, most of the studies I’ve looked at have pointed out that they were merely surveys, not scientific sociology (if such a thing exists), because there were many variables that are difficult to isolate. Most homeschooled children live in a two-parent household, at least one of whom is usually college educated. They also come from higher than average income families and many are very church oriented.
However, one of the reasons I became interested in homeschooling at all was because I saw how many of the people that I work with have screwed up kids. These parents seem very “normal”, even exceptional, and are from similar socio-economic backgrounds to mine. They are heavily involved with their kids - at least they are now - and totally baffled as to why their children are so screwed up. Often, their other children are quite normal. Are they just bad parents? Did those kids just get a bad genetic makeover? I think one-size-fits-all public school social training is to blame (at least in part).
Imagine if Heather hadn’t been able to homeschool her eldest son. He would have been labeled a social problem child, learning disabled or just plain dumb. He would have been assigned to the dumb kid classes and brow beat into obedience and comformity. It is likely that he would have been angry and unsatisfied his entire life and never even known why. This is conjecture to be sure, but I think it happens more often than we like to think.
In school, I, too, had a hard time accepting the “sit down and shut up” policy. Instead of wholesale rejection and relegation to the dumb kid classes, I learned to keep my thoughts to myself when I sensed that my beuraucratic masters were getting angry with me. I developed fantasy worlds to which I could retreat. Perhaps, this is what people mean when they say socialization: how to deal with life as a thought-policed, bureaucratically oppressed, system-indoctrinated employee.
We like to think of school as the Athenian model where ideas are exchanged and debated in a free environment. But in reality it is much closer to the church model, where a believer stands up at the pulpit and pounds doctrine into little heads. Another reason I have been looking into homeschooling lately is because I hear my friends’ stories about having children in the California public schools. These are places where children are not allowed to pick teams or even keep score in contests because feelings might be hurt or self-esteem reduced. Moral relativism - in which no moral opinions are considered inherently right or wrong - reigns supreme, while any opposing viewpoints are hypocritically derided and even forbidden. Social and political beliefs are force-fed to children regardless of parental wishes.
I think that homeschooled children, or at least my children if they are homeschooled, have a much greater opportunity for diversity of experience and exposure to new ideas. They can travel around the country and the world, participate in the community through volunteer work and activism, and learn without censorship. To me, the goal of homeschooling would be to engender a love of knowledge, a yearning to seek out truth and for self-analysis, a joy of discovery. This would be in stark contrast to my educational experience in which school was an obstacle to all of these things. School is work, a chore, boredom, repitition of recycled ideas taught by unthinking believers from a bully pulpit. Well… unthinking might be a bit harsh to the good teachers. Luckily, I don’t think there are many to be offended.
Billy,
you have to remember that you had just about the best public school experience possible. Your school district was among the best in the country. You were identified early on as one of the elite gifted and talented students. You lived in a conservative area that had not yet quite accepted many of the changes that public schools have adopted in recent decades. And you remained in the same schools with the same group of people your whole K-12 experience.
However, your question is really the heart of the questions that remain for me. Thanks for summing it up so succintly. Will the additional travel and involvement in the community made possible by homeschooling contribute to their understanding of social interactions? Do activities like scouts, dance, karate, theatre, sports, neighorhood play and homeschooling cooperatives allow enough peer interaction? I don’t know. That is the focus of most of my research now. The growing number of homeschoolers has created widespread support networks and new laws in some states that give students access to sports teams, school libraries and such. The military community in particular has a fast-growing homeschooling community. Many homeschoolers look to church for peer interaction, but we’re not particularly religious, and churchy people tend to get on my nerves.
Ok, the babysitter is here, and I’ll be in trouble if I’m not done right now.
Just a quick note on the socialization issue. My children assimilate with everyone in our community, in fact, at least 95% of their friends ARE public schooled. I am a Christian, but I do not limit their interactions to church groups. They have friends that are Christian, atheist, Jewish, Buddist, and agnostic. They play sports, attend the local ball games; they have even attended the local proms.
I am a Christian who happens to homeschool, not a Christian homeschooler, and I absolutely see the value in exposing homeschooled children to different people and opinions. My goal is not to raise zombies, it is to raise well-rounded RESPONSIBLE men.
I have seen the injury first hand that is caused to a child who struggles in public school. The “socialization” they receive causes great and lasting harm. As I said earlier, not everyone can or SHOULD homeschool, but every parent, regardless of their social or economic background should certainly have that right. The idea that a homeschooled child will suffer as a result assumes that these parents do not have the best interests of their children at heart. It also assumes that some stranger, or the government cares more for our children than the parents do. This is truly a ridiculous idea. While the government grows more willing to take on the responsibilities of our failing children, it is NOT their place. It is the responsibility of PARENTS to do everything in their power to ensure the success of their children, and that success is measured by not just their future financial abilities, but also how they will relate to the rest of society.
Chance-
Just a few more things that I think are worth mentioning.
1. Early Education. Do not uderestimate the power of teaching your child early. Little things like hooked on phonics, or a similar system, make a huge difference on the ability not just for young children to read, but to understand the *how* of reading, so instead of regurgitating vocabulary words, they are able to figure them out themselves and have a reasonable chance of understanding what a word means before even seeing a dictionary! Furthermore, math and reasoning skills can– and should– be taught at a much younger age than kindergarden. I will admit, I am a bit biased on this since my mother has a PhD in early education and has been actively trying to establish public early education in the Sacrmento area for some time now (boo for the people who voted no on Prop. 82.) Couple that with my own formal education starting at 2, resulting in my doing long division in kindergarden and reading at the high school level by the time I was 6, leads me to believe that not only is it possible for kids to get a jump-start on education, but everyone should be doing all they can, even if it just means spending an hour a night with your 3 year-old going over flashcards.
2. Curriculum. Like Heather hinted at, some education styles are not for everyone. I was blessed by a wonderful curriculum in my primary education. I feel that a challenging curriculum that is appropriate to their learning styles is necessary, but is something that public schools are unable to provide. Look at high-rated local private schools and see what they are using to get a start on where to look. Believe it or not, my athiest self was taught with the A Beka curriculum and it was absolutely wonderful. I was taught at a private school that functioned more like a homeschool academy, hence the curriculum and the focus on self-teaching. Using a curriculum that not only teaches children, but teaches them how to learn is imperitive for their success later in life.
3. Socializing. Yes, others have already talked at great length, but I’ll mention it here just because of how important it is. If you do decide to homeschool make sure your children are in a position to have social interaction every day. As much as I abhor the idea of religion, I have to admit that churches provide a great medium for social interaction. Also, many large churches have their own homeschool academies that will give you support and help through your homeschool experiences. I have 4 cousins who were homeschooled and they had a childhood like any other kid, except the parents taught them and they walked across the street to the church for recess.
Persoanlly, I do not like the idea of homeschooling. After interning with my mother for a few summers I realize that I have a gift for teaching high-school age children, but I am terrible at teaching primary age children. There is more to teaching than being intelligent, and I highly recommend looking into private schools for at least the fundamental ages. I am sorry to hear about Heather’s situation, but I am confident that the situation she was in was relatively isolated and they are not all like that.
In any case, get started early. Your children will thank you for it. Like Heather said, it is the responsibility of the parents to provide a solid education for their children, and that educations should start now.
Chance,
I enjoyed you’re article and would love to post it in my forum at itsourfreedom.com with your credit to it if you would be ok with that?
Aside from the social issue home school students face, I am looking at the big picture, being a father of 2 and paying attention how the school’s are teaching now days seem’s to get my blood pressure up. Since the no child left behind act was pushed into law dealing with our rights as parents has been rather difficult and frustrating. I do not have a lot of time or I would dive into some of the issues.
Basically one of the major issues I have noticed is the dumbed down version of some classes. Example is that the new version of the history books the fed’s are pushing out to schools because it was fed approved - well I looked at one of those books and found something very disturbing. A lot of the history has been written in a very dumbed down format and many important parts of history was removed.
When I opened the book I found that George Washington was only mentioned twice that he was the 1st president of the united states, and that he owned slaves.
I was just as frustrated when I got to the chapters that covered world war II.
As a history buff, I was deeply irritated at the matter. So I find my self asking my children what subject they are studying and then finding out what they know and then giving them better information then what they were taught.
Anyways I must be off, have to work in the morning and it’s after midnight.
Thanks!
Tatsit
Tatsit,
Thanks for the participation. I agree with you that much of what is taught it public schools is dumbed down and slanted towards a particular message.
As far as posting the article on your forum: I’d prefer a link to this page with maybe a discussion point from you, a partial quotation of the article or something like that. Of course, I’m not going to sue you or anything if you post the whole thing! I leave it to your best judgment.
Jim,
I agree with you whole-heartedly about the importance of early education. I mentioned earlier about how I was selected for the advanced “red reading group” as a kindergartner. This was my first step towards being selected as one of the “gifted and talented” students destined for the managerial class and potentially for the intellectual or political elite.
I would have to take a look at that prop 82 you mentioned, though. Obviously, I wouldn’t be a fan of compulsory public pre-school. I would see that simply as a way for the state to seperate children from the wayward influence of their parents at an even earlier age.
I also agree that private schools are definately a possibility. I went to a private high school for three years (actually, a partially state-funded military school) and the school curriculum was the same as the state’s. I have the general impression that private schools follow the same educational principles as public schools. They just have more resources and more qualified instructors.
I also have a philosophical problem with private schools. The political and commercial elites have constructed the public school system to identify and seperate the “gifted” managerial class from which they can recruit the brightest to their own ranks, and train the employee class - the masses - to follow orders. But, they have kept private schools around in order to ensure that their own children are not identified as part of the employee class to be brainwashed into obedience.
Wow, that sounds very conspiratorial. I am not suggesting that this was a conscious plan enacted by some evil mastermind, but it is a reality developed by our socialist system.
Prop 82 was less about compulsory pre-school and more about Universal pre-school. It would not mandate children go to school, but it would force schools to provide pre-school education for those who wanted it. Much like Head Start, but not limited to just a few children. My mother spent a few years working for Yolo Country trying to establish Universal Pre-school in West Sacramento, and even though she was willing to provide the schools with funding, they flat out refused to start a pre-school program because they did not want to deal with the hassle. Prop 82 would have forced schools to do that, while requiring higher education standards for pre-school teachers and increased pay for pre-school teachers to fall in line with K-12 teachers.
Can you tell I am huge fan of starting education as soon as children can talk?
And I totally agree with you that public schools are notorious for breaking the influence of their parents, but I, personally, in my opinion, do not find that to be a terrible thing. It certainly can be, as evidenced by the video linked above, but I really think it is very important for children to grow up as individuals. Not necessarily rebel from their parents at age 6, but not just be constrained by the ideals of the parents. I had very protective parents, and even in a public high school I never really broke away from their sphere of influence until I was about 22 years old, and when I finally did it was the most amazing feeling ever. If they had let me experience those own parts of my individuality earlier in life I might have had a more successful time in college and certainly would have boosted my self-confidence immensely.
Jim,
I understand your position completely. However most parents considering homeschooling are fearful of what the government and special interest groups are teaching. You end up with two competing paradigms; one coming from parents and the other from public schools (or government reeducation centers as I like to call them)
Not all are bad, but more are becoming that way every day.
Statistically, children home schooled or private schooled receiver a better education by far and are also targeted by colleges for their superior education.
On the flip side, kids coming out of our gov’t school system are herded and pushed through a broken system more bent on social indoctrination than basic education itself. The end result of that is poorly educated children who statistically rank far below many children throughout the world in educational metrics.
So in conclusion, throwing more money at the problem isn’t going to solve it.
Billy - you are assuming that a government run school is the ONLY place a child can learn “independence”. That simply isn’t true.
What it all boils down to is no one should force anyone else not to educate their kids they way they see fit.
*** disinter, I edited your comment - please refrain from gratuitous swearing or calling people here deragatory names (if you meant poeple here, not sure if you did or not) ***
Here’s an interesting speech given in Venezuela in 2006 by Bill Ayers of recent election politics fame:
“In any event, here are excerpts of Ayers’s 2006 speech before Hugo Chavez and other assembled “comrades”:
President Hugo Chavez, … invited guests, comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica [sic]! Welcome to the World Education Forum. Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana! …
[M]y comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice … has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution [i.e., Chavez's movement] and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane…. [For more information on the Venezuelan socialist Luis Bonilla-Montoya, see here.]
I began teaching when I was 20 yeas old in a small freedom school affiliated with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The year was 1965, and I’d been arrested in a demonstration. Jailed for ten days, I met several activists who were finding ways to link teaching and education with deep and fundamental social change. They were following Dewey and DuBois, King and Helen Keller who wrote: “We can’t have education without revolution. We have tried peace education for 1,900 years and it has failed. Let us try revolution and see what it will do now.”
I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!
… [I’ve] learned that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space—what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom? At bottom, it involves a struggle over the essential questions: what does it mean to be a human being living in a human society?
Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and materialism—turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together, voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.
… Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failing of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.
… [W]e, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation.
Viva Mission Sucre!
Viva Presidente Chavez!
Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana!
Hasta La Victroria Siempre!”
Obviously, if you’ve read any of the things I’ve written on this blog, I have fundamental disagreements with this man on the definitions of liberty, capitalism and a host of other things, not to mention the current condition and history of education in our nation. Why should I surrender my child to this man and others like him to be indoctrinated with his “values, positions and politics?”
I found this blog post and an interesting discussion among mothers on a parents’ website today:
http://blogs.parentcenter.babycenter.com/momformation/2008/12/01/a-bushel-and-a-peck-week-20-homeschool-mom-confessions/#comment-218413
Chance, you threw me for a loop with these two paragraphs:
In the first paragraph, you seem to say that you were struck that private schools use the same curriculum and “follow the same educational principles as public schools.” Yet in the second paragraph, somehow they are differentiated: the public school “train[s] the employee class - the masses - to follow orders” whereas the private school trains the “managerial class” which is spared the “brainwash[ing] into obedience.”
There seems to be some confusion. Will you please elaborate more on these points? Thanks!
And BTW, you have a very nice blog. It is very thoughtful and readable.
Hi, Rick,
Thanks for the feedback. You have definately identified a contradiction in my reasoning. I suppose I would have to admit that private schools fall over a wide range, from the public school format to more “out-of-the-box” methods. I don’t think most people think about the nature/intent of schooling so much as quality measures, so there is a market for schools that are just like public school, but with better teachers.
In fact, public schools themselves are, of course, not all on the same page. In elementary school, I was bussed across town one or two days a week (depending on grade) to the “gifted school” where we had small class sizes, sat at circular tables, did group projects and rolepaying scenarios, chemistry and biology labs and all sorts of crazy awesome things. Unlike the rest of the week at the regular school, we were encouraged to express, debate and experiement as opposed to sit and do as we were told. That was good stuff, and public, but again only available to select students. I think this stark contrast bewteen what school and learning are that I experienced at a young age is what has formed my negative opinion on traditional schooling.
Let’s now address three important items Billy mentioned that seem to have gone unanswered.
1. In Billy’s quote “For you two, teaching your children the subject matter will not be difficult. You’re both intelligent and very well-educated (not home-schooled, I might add)” [Billy, Nov 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am] the clear insinuation is that the Littons are “well-educated” because, or as a direct consequence, of their public schooling and that this fact, in some way, harpoons their argument for home schooling. Billy’s would seem a plausible argument, but not so fast. Chance has already stated that he has educated himself, in spite of his prior public schooling. I say “in spite of” because it is very clear that, by its nature, mass compulsory (by default) warehouse government schooling is anti-intellectual. In its incoherent subject sequence, its intrusion into student privacy, its competitions for no reason, its forced confinement of its students, etc., it quite ignores the active literacies (reading, writing and public speaking) which develop citizens who can think for themselves, know and defend their rights and develop independent livelihoods, and instead promotes ignorance, pathology, dependency, all of which develop “citizens” who are sub-human, machine-like slaves to the state and big business.
[Aside. To the supporters of state schooling: Do you not see the conflict of interest inherent in state schooling? That is, do you not see that the state will not be motivated in the least to teach its future citizens how to be confident, knowledgeable, independent thinkers who could quite easily overthrow the present state establishment? Do you see why it is therefore in the interest of the state to train its "subjects" in "voluntary servitude"?]
Hence, saying “why would you be against state schooling since you are a product of that system and are doing well for yourself” is akin to saying, to Frederick Douglass, for instance, “why would you be against slavery since you were once a slave and look at you, you’re doing pretty well for yourself!”
2. At Billy, Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:31 pm, Billy yelled, “home school advocates: HOW DO YOU INTEND TO ACCOUNT FOR LACK OF PEER SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN A HOME SCHOOLED CHILD? That’s the key difference between homeschooling and not, and I’d like to have this answered.”
This again looks like a devastating critique on home schooling, but (again) not so fast. On the contrary, this actually reveals a great weakness of state schooling: the fact that its students are age-segregated and confined into cells for all of the school day. This is what is really behind Billy’s term “peer social interactions” — interactions with only kids of the same age locked up in one place! If that isn’t preposterous, I don’t know what is. Home school kids are not, in general, sequestered away from the community and put in “age cells” to teach them to “stay in their place”, which is no doubt the object lesson in state schools. Home schoolers interact with people of all ages in the community: they are free and have the time; so it is quite natural. Hence the answer to “how do you intend to account for lack of peer [i.e. lack of sequestering and age-segregating] social interaction in a home schooled child?”, I’d have to answer “why, for Pete’s sake, would we want to limit and harm our children in this way?”
3. Finally, at Billy, Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm, Billy said, “I’d also like to point out the necessity for some real, well-designed research into this area. Heather, you certainly believe your children are well-adjusted socially, and that’s fantastic; but we need some non-anecdotal evidence before anyone can make legitimate recommendations to people considering this option.”
Sounds reasonable, right? Actually, no — it is absurd. To see the absurdity of this claim, one only has to turn the tables on Billy and ask for the “well-designed research” which recommends state schooling!!! Well, since (1) I’ve not seen hide nor hair of this and (2) we’ve seen plenty of abysmal evidence of the consequences of state schooling (low international academic test ranking, lower literacy rate after the introduction of state schools, etc.), by Billy’s own standard, “we need some non-anecdotal evidence before anyone can make legitimate recommendations to people considering” state schooling!
In rereading my last comment, I thought perhaps I could make the argument of #3 a bit more clear. The absurdity does not arise out of desiring to have “well-designed research” to advise or recommend a course of action (for which the utilization of “well-designed research” makes sense), for this is completely reasonable. Instead, the absurdity arises out of comparing two things of the same kind with a standard which is not common to them. In the present case, the standard of allowing “well-designed research” to inform our decision to choose a method of education obtains for homeschooling, but curiously, state schooling is conspicuously exempt from the same standard. That is the absurd part.
If, say, a doctor should avail himself, in his professional capacity, of such an arbitrary way of applying a standard, we should call him a quack.
Chance,
My Wife and I homeschool our two boys. One is 3 and the other is 5. The resources for curriculum are endless. As for social contact with other children. The arguement that they can only get that degree of social contact with others from public school is ridiculous. There are plenty of opportunities for social contact outside of school. Little League, AYSO, Pop Warner, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and many more provide plenty of exposure to other people.
We choose homeschool because of both of our past experiences with public schools. While the No Child Left Behind Act is a recent addition to our education system, it has been in use for many years. When I was in public school(1985-1997) those of us who excelled in class were held behind by those who could not keep up. We were not allowed to work ahead and were stuck at the same pace as the slowest person in class. Where I did most of my learning was from Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and countless trips to the library.
We are fortunate enough to have the opporutnity to homeschool our children. I believe that it is every American’s fundamental right to choose if they want to homeschool their children or not. I wish you the best of luck in your decision. If you have any more questions I am part of C4L Monterey County. Please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Home Schooling is also nice since you got to always see your kids.*’,